Answering the libertarians and their lies

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

RE: Objectivism

Postby Bilbo Hicks » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:09 pm

"I honestly don't know much about libertarianism other than most of it's followers I have met are nuts and need to get out of the house once in a while."<br><br>That says it all m8. Many libertarians are cast as Tim Vcveigh types by the media.<br><br>Ayn Rand? She evidently associated herself with Libertarianism, but for what I've read about her she co-opted the term for her own philosophies of elitist objectivism (i.e. feel free to be self interested). <br><br>I merely posted here to defend libertarianism, since it seems a few posters may not be familiar with some of its better sides, like you seem to be. You are right I didnt read the whole article, my aplogies. <br>Myself I dont think that true freedom can work, there will be bastards like Cheney for instance getting way with far more. I do believe that the country should get back to true a republic representation, instead of the parliamentary system we have nowadays. <br>On the other side I think that a more socialistic society could if the money supply if the money supply changed to social credit. This would stop exploiting working classes and have their money work for them.<br>Presently regardless of socialism or republicanism, the debt based money at interest we have has to eventually implode.<br><br>Just my 2cents. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Bilbo Hicks
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Freedom...

Postby rothbardian » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:19 pm

bvonahsen--<br><br>It's not just "rhetoric" (I would argue). These are the basic building blocks required to properly develop working principles. You have to start at the beginning and asking the question "Who gets to take away my freedom?". I don't believe we can rush past that examination. <br><br>I don't know where you get your definitions from but...your idea that Libertarians believe in "freedom equals no responsibility"...who believes that? None of the scholars and academians of classical Libertarianism. That's for sure. Maybe some scruffy guys hanging around downtown Berkeley.<br><br>Read through some of the Rothbard articles over at lewrockwell.com. You'll be surprised.<br><br>Hillshoist--<br><br>I'm certainly glad for the 'happy ending' to your story but....<br><br>The mistake is assuming that only the "government" could have those resources (helicopters etc.). What resources? Those are <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>our</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> resources they took away from us. They confiscate the fruits of our labors, then want us to think they're 'wonderful' because they give a tiny sliver of it back to us? Makes no sense.<br><br>There isn't a thing in Hillshoist's story that couldn't be covered by insurance arrangements. The services would still be provided...but without the coercive element. Government says-- "We'll send the helicopter if you agree to our coercion." <br><br>And in a freedom context, instead of your money going to taxes, a portion of it can now go to your insurance premium.<br><br>And again, we need to factor in the whole <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>'massively over-priced medical and health care'</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> scam...where the price of everything health and medicine related has been octupled (or whatever). My 2-hour trip to the emergency clinic (a couple of years ago), a few X-rays, a few shots of painkillers...$9000.<br><br>If you get rid of the opportunity for collusion between the health care people and the government, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>by getting rid of the government</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->...NOW start calculating the true cost of these things. It's dramatically lowered.<br><br>I realize this opens another can of worms-- some would say there are too many people who can afford next to nothing. It's a large subject but...most of the poverty of the world is artificially induced by the governments of the world who saddle the various communities with choking taxes and government debt. Just starting with the worldwide debts imposed by the so-called IMF that has a great number of nations ground down into poverty.<br><br>In the U.S. all taxes combined are gobbling about half of our nation's annual wealth production, and two thirds of it or more are pure scam-- worldwide militarization, fake wars, massive internal security orgs that really only prey upon the community (DEA, NSA, CIA). <br><br>Then there is the astonishing reality of the U.S. government's drug-smuggling operations. The massive financial impact of the resulting crime wave, the inner city wars, massive health issues, and the same govt. agents who brought the drugs in, now want a huge budget for the DEA and the ATF to 'fight' the drug problem.<br><br>There's also reason to believe the government (or rogue agents therein) are deliberately foisting viruses and diseases on the community. The perpetration of the HIV virus appears to be the pet project of government psychopaths. Again, massive financial and tragic personal impact.<br><br>And everything the government does is hugely overpriced-- education is a good example. The government overspends by at least two thirds for public education. It's a great big economy-crushing 'gravy train'. In fact, each of the various government operations have long since become 'gravy trains'.<br><br>Even the good and necessary services-- firefighters and law enforcement have jacked up their own pay and benefits to astronomical levels. Here in California, many 'prison guards' make over $200,000/year.<br><br>You have the Federal Reserve that sits their gobbling up our wealth with their counterfeiting of the currency.<br><br>In any case, this discussion on Libertarianism is going just as I predicted-- a love for the 'anecdotal' and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>a huge aversion to examining the fundamental principles of freedom and/or coercion. The case for coercion does not survive, on that level. Freedom CANNOT be refuted on a fundamental level.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br><br>Yathrib--<br><br>There have been cases of libertarian freedom breaking out, although not many. Iceland had a period of about 300 years of community structuring with no coercion. I'll get the dates and the story on that if someone's interested.<br><br>But just because something is unprecedented doesn't mean it's wrong. The degree of freedom achieved by the Founders in establishing the U.S. was also unprecedented. I guess it's a good thing you weren't there telling them-- "Hey, this is just a pipe dream of yours. It's never been done. Show me any other place in the world that has the degree of freedom that you guys are proposing!" See what I'm saying? <br> <p></p><i></i>
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

RE: Webster Tarpley

Postby Bilbo Hicks » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:44 pm

Great post Rothbardian. <br>Is it any wonder that the ruling elites are pushing for a stronger centralized state through the Patriot Act etc..?<br><br>Create or allow a problem to happen, people react, solution is more federal (central) power funded by working people's taxes, been going on for years. Hegelian Dialectic at work.<br><br>Webster Tarpley has some interesting writings on the crash of 29'.. <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.tarpley.net/29crash.htm">www.tarpley.net/29crash.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Bilbo Hicks
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Einstein on the profit motive

Postby yathrib » Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:34 pm

Good stuff here, not just because it was written by the man who happened to be named "Albert Einstein." Anyway, at the root of libertarianism is the whole idea of the profit motive as the savior of society. Einstein takes that one on pretty effectively.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/einstein_socialism.html">www.cooperativeindividual...alism.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>Rothbardian: As others have pointed out, the founding fathers were neither anarchists nor doctrinaire libertarian moonbats. They were practical people. And much of the U.S. system is based upon the British constitution and other such successful enterprises as the Iroquois confederation. Don't know enough about Iceland, but I suspect that there's more to that story as well.<br><br>Bilbo Hicks: You say libertarians are often portrayed as Timothy McVeigh figures. I was thinking Ted Kaszinski (sp?) myself, but that works too... Actually, those two were probably too competent in real world endeavors--however misguided--for me to associate them with libertarians in any way. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
yathrib
 
Posts: 1876
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Augusto Pinochet the Libertarian butcher

Postby johnny nemo » Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:38 pm

As I've said before, Libertarianism is a shortcut to thinking.<br>A dangerous shortcut, if you look at August Pinochet and his Libertarian nightmare in Chile.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm">www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.<br><br><br>The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions.<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong> Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe.<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong> The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.<br><br>Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story.<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong> In 1982, Milton Friedman enthusiastically praised General Pinochet (the Chilean dictator) because he "has supported a fully free-market economy as a matter of principle. Chile is an economic miracle." However, the statistics below show this to be untrue. Chile is a tragic failure of right-wing economics, and its people are still paying the price for it today.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br>I didn't even mention all the people Pinochet's secret police butchered to keep his Libertarian pipedream alive.<br><br>Chile and Somalia are the best arguments against Libertarianism.<br><br>Sweden and the Netherlands (NOTE: and Venezuela today) are what happens when you ignore rightwing Libertarian nutjobs and provide REAL solutions to problems.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq">www.politicalcompass.org/faq</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The assumption that Social Darwinism delivers more social freedom is questionable. The welfare states of, for example, Sweden and The Netherlands, abolished capital punishment decades ago and are at the forefront of progressive legislation for women, gays and ethnic minorities - not to mention anti-censorship. Such established social democracies consistently score highest in the widely respected Freedom House annual survey on civil liberties.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br>Their detailed checklist can be viewed at: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.worldaudit.org/civillibs.htm">www.worldaudit.org/civillibs.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> .<br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Such social developments would presumably be envied by genuine libertarians in socially conservative countries - even if their taxes are lower.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
johnny nemo
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Einstein on the profit motive

Postby bvonahsen » Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:07 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It's not just "rhetoric" (I would argue). These are the basic building blocks required to properly develop working principles. You have to start at the beginning and asking the question "Who gets to take away my freedom?". I don't believe we can rush past that examination.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>And I on the other hand want to change the question. Or better, the assumptions behind your question. <br><br>We don't exist in the kind of universe you talk about here. The world I live in is filled with other people whose motives and desires are not mine. They bump up against me and influence the choices I make. Just I do to them.<br><br>And then there is my history encoded in my dna. the countless lives before mine who determined so much of who I am. Their knowledge, hard won from reality, informs everything I do. Were I set down in the wilderness I might even survive, but only because of those before me who did not. What little knowledge I have of how to survive in the wild, plus my instincts from a billion years of evolution just might make the difference. <br><br>So if you really want to be free, have yourself dropped in a mountain valley with no knowledge, no tools, no clothes and no instincts and see how long you live. I give you 48 hours, tops.<br><br>Truth is... the question "Who gets to take away my freedom?" is the wrong one to ask. The real one to ask is "How do my rights and responsibilities impinge upon the others around me? How can I mediate between my desire to do as I please and those same impulses in everyone else. How can I maximise my freedoms?"<br><br>The libertarian answer is you do it through eternal war and by any means needed. That life is a game of king of the hill and anyone who denies you your inate right to be at the top must be delt with, with extreme predjuice.<br><br>My answer is that one survives in the long run through co-operating with others. By forming alliances where we give up a little to get a little back. By forming a community, a social contract, in which rights and freedoms can thrive.<br><br>And that, of course, is yet another dialectic that just begs another synthesis. <p></p><i></i>
bvonahsen
 

Nemo

Postby yathrib » Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:23 pm

Thanks for that. I still think some of your stuff is way out there, but your research skills can be very inmpressive. When I agree with the results!<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
yathrib
 
Posts: 1876
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Yathrib

Postby johnny nemo » Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:40 pm

You're welcome.<br><br>Please understand that I try to find the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be, and my politics are from the left.<br><br>I'm somewhere in the realm of a Utopian Socialist/Syndicalist Collectivist idealogue, but don't completely trust government, so I vote Dem, as I see them as being more concerned with the plight of working people, historically.<br><br>You'll note that while I defended Christians as social activists in that Mel Gibson thread, I didn't debate you on Christianity being a force for good, historically.<br>The nightmare that the Catholic Church made of Christ's teachings that has done alot more harm than good, and that's just a simple fact.<br><br>Ya see.....I grew up around the Amish and Quakers, so I've seen Christian pacifists who DO NOT embody the evil that demagogues like Pat Robertson and W. do.<br>These people truly "love their neighbors" and do lots of charity, so they don't deserve to lumped in with those crazies.<br><br>Conversely, atheists like Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin killed many people, in the name of no religion and that's a historical fact, as well.<br><br>Historically, and almost overwhelmingly, people suck.<br>Waddayagonnado? <p></p><i></i>
johnny nemo
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

RE:

Postby Bilbo Hicks » Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:06 pm

'So if you really want to be free, have yourself dropped in a mountain valley with no knowledge, no tools, no clothes and no instincts and see how long you live. I give you 48 hours, tops.'<br><br>...Thats a strawman argument. Its a fact that people were more self sufficient back in the day, they seemed to manage well enough. Its all about what you are used to. In a post-industrial society people, me included, are dependent on the system (matrix or whatever) to survive. The system needs people to be dependent on it. That system doesnt let you walk away from it, even if you wanted to be self sufficient, not unless you get lost in Papua New Guinea. Those natives seem to be surviving well enough....<br><br>"Truth is... the question "Who gets to take away my freedom?" is the wrong one to ask. The real one to ask is "How do my rights and responsibilities impinge upon the others around me? How can I mediate between my desire to do as I please and those same impulses in everyone else. How can I maximise my freedoms?"<br><br>The libertarian answer is you do it through eternal war and by any means needed. That life is a game of king of the hill and anyone who denies you your inate right to be at the top must be delt with, with extreme predjuice.<br><br>My answer is that one survives in the long run through co-operating with others. By forming alliances where we give up a little to get a little back. By forming a community, a social contract, in which rights and freedoms can thrive."<br><br>..The libertarian answer is you need eternal war? I dont see the logic in that statement. I also dont see how libertarianism as I have looked into it precludes laws or forming communities. An example is Common Law, which evidently is what the Constitution was created under. That people have sovereign rights (well except negro slaves back in the day), that you shall not impinge on anyone elses liberty (through harm or otherways) and you must meet all co-signed contracts. Pretty simple. Our laws today do not treat us as soveriegn individuals, but as children of the state.<br> <br>I think you are referring to anarchism if you think libertarianism is about doing whatever you want to other people. <br>Many libertarians view government as a protection racket, they dont want to be treated like children or extorted. Besides the question of do whether you have soveriegn (god-given) rights as a federal state citizen, other questions become apparent, like are the police really there to protect you? Or are they merely there to keep affairs in order and maintain the peace. <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Bilbo Hicks
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

RE:

Postby Bilbo Hicks » Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Apologies, I didnt use the quote button properly in the last post... <p></p><i></i>
Bilbo Hicks
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

NOT so much

Postby johnny nemo » Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:54 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Its a fact that people were more self sufficient back in the day, they seemed to manage well enough. Its all about what you are used to.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Except when they starved to death during the Great Depression, unless they ate at government-run, taxpayer-paid-for soup kitchens.<br>I guess there's an upside to the protection "racket".<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>That system doesnt let you walk away from it, even if you wanted to be self sufficient, not unless you get lost in Papua New Guinea. Those natives seem to be surviving well enough....<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Except for the ones who are being driven from their land by greedy "free-market" capitalists, in the name of cheap lumber.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailnational.asp?fileid=20060816.H02&irec=1">www.thejakartapost.com/de...H02&irec=1</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Chinese plan for timber investment in Papua opposed</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br>Tb. Arie Rukmantara,<br>The Jakarta Post, Jakarta<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Environmental and business groups joined hands here Tuesday in opposing a Chinese company's plan to invest in forestry in Papua, saying the project could accelerate the destruction of forests in the resource-rich province.<br><br>The government is conducting a feasibility study on the plan by China Light to establish a timber processing factory in Papua.<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong> Some of the products would reportedly support the construction of facilities for the 2008 Beijing Olympics.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br><br><br>I'm sorry, but we've tried it the Libertarian way and IT DOESN'T WORK.<br>Get over it.<br>Move on. <p></p><i></i>
johnny nemo
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: RE:

Postby bvonahsen » Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:08 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think you are referring to anarchism if you think libertarianism is about doing whatever you want to other people.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>In my opinion anarchism is just libertarianism taken to it's logical end. You can't deny that libertarians have a strong anarchist strain to them.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Many libertarians view government as a protection racket, they dont want to be treated like children or extorted.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Then why do they act like children? I mean, really, this is just childish. Are you really arguing that taxation for things you don't like is extortion?<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Besides the question of do whether you have soveriegn (god-given) rights as a federal state citizen, other questions become apparent, like are the police really there to protect you? Or are they merely there to keep affairs in order and maintain the peace.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>You've never been poor then have you? You don't live in the inner city or you would know what a cruel joke that last statement is. I would love it if the police just kept the peace, that would be an improvement. The police exist to keep the white middle class safe from the brown and the unwashed. Nothing more.<br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
bvonahsen
 

Re: Freedom...

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:39 pm

That helicopter is a charity service not a government one...<br><br>However the free medical treatment that she received did come via taxes. Now why would I want to change that and pay some insurance company that I don't even know is going to cover the costs, or try to scam its way out of paying when I come to ask for payment.<br><br>I am not a huge Micheal Moore fan, but I still remember the episode of The Awful Truth where he managed to hassle an insurance company in to meeting its obligations and paying for a life saving operation that it was trying to get out of using some contractual loophole.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>My 2-hour trip to the emergency clinic (a couple of years ago), a few X-rays, a few shots of painkillers...$9000<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>See I don't get this, my wife was in an induced coma, with tubes everywhere (more than dad had after his stroke), for about 20 hours then spent a week in the hospital. At no point did we have to think about the financial situation because our state supported socialist medical system functioned poerfectly, well pretty close in her case.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I realize this opens another can of worms-- some would say there are too many people who can afford next to nothing. It's a large subject but...most of the poverty of the world is artificially induced by the governments of the world who saddle the various communities with choking taxes and government debt. Just starting with the worldwide debts imposed by the so-called IMF that has a great number of nations ground down into poverty.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>See I think the main reason there is so much poverty in the world is that the money flows to the richest people...<br><br>When foreign interests invest in the collection of resources they are doing it to take out more than they put in. IE To make a profit. That profit has to come from somewhere and it comes from the pockets of those in the places resources are extracted from.<br><br>Organisations (private organisations at that) go into places remove their resources claim they are improving the situation and rarely do.<br><br>They are grabbing the others stuff before the others have developed the technology to grab it themselves.<br><br>They then return a pittance of what they took and actually winge about having to do even that...<br><br>Now the coersion practised in these cases is often with the assistance of military dictatorships and corrupt government officials, but it is the external influence of the so called freedom loving capitalists that usually begins the whole process of fascist assault on peoples freedoms.<br><br>The fundamental principle of freedom is exactly that - freedom. You are responsible for your actions because you choose them and the consequences of them.<br><br>However there is a coersive element to everything. For example my footy club. there is coersion there. You have the freedom to train or not... we are a small bush club and struggled to have a team this season. But your teammates will put pressure on you to train, train hard, play hard and all the things that we need for our team to be successful.<br><br>To work together and achieve what we want we have to change our actions, to subject ourselves to the competing desires of some external organisation (In this case the footy club), and external restrictions on our behaviour. (IE you can't just punch your opposition in the head to stop them getting the ball.)<br><br>Last year this stopped happening. This year no side, and a shitload of work to get it back on the paddock for next year.<br><br>I am all for minimising government and the power of the state. But it is necessary for something because like it or not a nation is a collective. At some point with a collective organisation admin has to take place. Things need to be organised and run so they work. Infrastructure needs to be created. Well it doesn't but no one here seems in a hurry to return to living like the blackfellas did 250 years ago.<br><br>Once a nation gets beyond the size of a tribe peoples loyalties come into play. When things are tribal at least you have to face everyone in your society. Thats where the coersion comes in. Its the same coersion your family place on you often in the hope that you will become a person to be proud of, sometimes in the hope you will do what they want.<br><br>A nation is modelled on a family. And often the nations leadership is modelled on some loud drunk father figure type archetype. But because the numbers of people are so large in a nation it becomes impossible for everyone to know everyone else.<br><br>When this happens the usual social processes of coersion - the dynamic between rights and responsibilties - are harder to apply. So the same concept are transferred to the state, an institution that supposedly reflects the nations wants and needs, but usually ends up riding roughshot over them.<br><br>Without some form of coersion to follow a social norm human life becomes an island like experience.<br><br>However the government in a so called democratic system tries (not very seriously oftentimes) to make itself "of the people". This involves setting up processes that allow the people access to power. Ok so then they institutions and its members might spend the rest of their time working like crazy to stop this access, but at least in theory it is there.<br><br>The process of taxation today in theory gives the payer some form of "ownership" in the prcess and there are a series of rememdies that individual can access (if they know how and are determined) that can be used to maintain some forms of control and freedom for said individual.<br><br>Although there is none of this in a private system there is also no remedy, no comeback. It all comes down to one groups ability to deliver more violence than another group.<br><br>That is what so many anarchists don't understand with the whole "State as organised violence" arguement.<br><br>Have you ever seen disorganised violence? It is just as ugly, sometimes more so. <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9360
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: RE:

Postby Bilbo Hicks » Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:18 pm

It can be well argued that the great depression was caused due to banking cartelism linked with centralized control which in the end helped caused the crash. (see webster tarpleys article I posted). <br><br>The term 'free-market' which these cartelist and big-time capitalists like to use is generally an Orwellian misnomer. Companies like Boeing are subsidized by tax payer money to invest in other countries and outsource. <br><br><br>Libertarianism taken to its logical end is not anarchism IMHO. <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism.">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism.</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> Heck practically any ideology taken to an extreme would probably be not good.<br><br>I fully understand the need for a welfare state in the present state of affairs and I fully support it for the needy. Im just pointing out the philosophical appeal of Libertarianism for me at least. Its a utopian ideal. <br>I was reading somewhere that it was america's liberal/libertarian society which allowed greedy people to abuse it. So yeah it apparently doesnt seem to work, since it allows too much freedom, and I guess people are just to fallible eh? So do we really need a centralised 'big brother' state? A deep question. <br><br>I would like to think that people are generally good, and that america though with its many faults, had much outside influence which altered this 'experiment'. <br><br>BTW, about taxation & money & big state, you may know that the western elites did support the Bolshevik revolution. One essential ingrediant of the socialist state and one of the main points of the communist manifesto is the neccessity of a Central Bank (Fed. Reserve). If you understand how a debt based money supply works, you'll understand many people's problem with the income tax. You may not know, but virtually all income tax goes to servicing the national debt obligations and the interest on the national debt to wealthy bond owners. <br>Its this private control of the Fed. which controls the central state. Thanks to this system a country's government can easily raise money to wage long wars, all coming from the backs of unwitting income earners through inflation (creation of money out of thin air through debt creation..at interest). I would say to the contrary that wars are more easily made with a more socialist system, as they exist in practice. IIRC when the Bank of England was created, England went on one of its most aggressive campaigns of warfare in is history. <br><br>LOL, libertarianism has assholes running large, socialism has the assholes in charge taxing you ;-)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Bilbo Hicks
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: RE:

Postby Bilbo Hicks » Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:35 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>link above was fubared.. <p></p><i></i>
Bilbo Hicks
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Other

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest