Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  The 'cycle' of governemnt
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: The 'cycle' of governemnt  (Read 3823 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LTKoblinsky

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 573
    • View Profile
The 'cycle' of governemnt
« on: July 03, 2011, 07:54:12 PM »

Alright board geniuses, I've got an idea cooking in my head. Care to help me work through it?

I hear the following phrase a lot: "Governments grow. That's what they've always done." and "The founders failed. Limited government doesn't work."

The snag in my though process is this: limited government is a relatively new concept in world history. The enlightenment period provided a drastic break from the conventional, god-ordained, property-of-ruler schools of thought. The US federal system (as I understand my history) was a radically different approach that initially succeeded in many ways.

This makes me think that a government can be purposefully shrunk by design like Molyneux was describing at the beginning of the Somalia video.

Logged

My wife's new site. Covers fashion, motherhood, our journey to NH, and soon activism.

Turd Ferguson

  • Opportunist Extraordinaire
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4085
    • View Profile
    • https://twitter.com/#!/realmikequick
Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2011, 09:19:32 PM »

I believe that the "cycle" of government is exactly that. A cycle.

Starts out small, grows, people get pissed and demand revolution.

They have their revolution.

Things are cool, for a while, possibly.

Then it grows again, mostly, I believe, because there is this annoying thing that humans always do, which is always wanting to make things bigger and better, never leaving well enough alone, even if its perfect the way it is.

If you are fortunate enough to be living in a time of virtually no government, enjoy it while it lasts, because eventually, some genius will come along and say "hey, you know what? We can make it even better if we just give the government authority to protect this great freedom that we all enjoy so much. Its a small price to pay.......... what can go wrong?" and you will get an increasing number of people willing to go along with the idea as time passes. If it doesn't fly first time around, it surely will somewhere down the road as people lose direct connection to the root cause of their freedom and liberty, which they always do. They forget.

Its inevitable.

I like Molyneux, but I think he leaves human nature and the deeply engrained herd mentality out of the equation too often.

Maybe he's just more optimistic than I am concerning the masses.
 
« Last Edit: July 03, 2011, 09:28:48 PM by quickmike »
Logged
Some peoples idea of hell is having to mind their own business.

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2011, 10:35:39 PM »

Molyneux - Talking about shrinking the state -


YOU HAVE TO HAVE MISHEARD.

This is the same man that said that voting for Ron Paul is akin to joining the KKK so you could have fewer lynchings.

As a matter of fact, his WHOLE schtick is "The only way to get rid of the government we must stop teaching violence to children, and it will be a multiple generation task. We will very specifically not see it in our lifetimes."

He has said that hundreds of times. Seriously.  

Also, you should edit your title.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2011, 10:54:03 PM by John Shaw »
Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

Turd Ferguson

  • Opportunist Extraordinaire
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4085
    • View Profile
    • https://twitter.com/#!/realmikequick
Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2011, 11:01:26 PM »

Sorry if I sounded like I was claiming he was for shrinking government.

Thats not what I meant to convey.

All im saying is that even with his system of educating generations to avoid using violence to get what they want, or anyone elses system for that matter, eventually everything will cycle back to big government again, given time.

Only reason I mention this is because I was talking about the cycle of governemnt, not trying to be a bummer about the future.
Logged
Some peoples idea of hell is having to mind their own business.

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2011, 11:39:27 PM »

Sorry if I sounded like I was claiming he was for shrinking government.

I was talking to LT anyhow. No worries.
Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

velojym

  • Mostly Harmless
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1981
  • Existence is Theft!!! *drool*
    • View Profile
Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2011, 11:54:44 PM »

You can pour sand into motor oil, and claim that that the oil failed.
It would be true, after a fashion, but just as intellectually lazy and/or dishonest as
claiming limited government failed once the power hungry corrupted it.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2011, 11:56:18 PM by velojym »
Logged
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.
-Ayn Rand

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2011, 01:52:16 PM »

You can pour sand into motor oil, and claim that that the oil failed.
It would be true, after a fashion, but just as intellectually lazy and/or dishonest as
claiming limited government failed once the power hungry corrupted it.

Interesting analogy, I tend to agree with it.  If the Federal government was full of Ron Pauls we wouldn't have the problems we have today with the state and I bet there would be even less anarchists than the minuscule amount there are today.  Of course I have been an on-the-fence minarchist anarcho-nationalist sympathiser for years, so I (and my opinion) are probably a super rare breed.
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2011, 04:53:06 PM »

The infinitely brilliant Mark Edge used to say the Constitution didn't have teeth. (this was earlier I think Ian has worn the poor guy down to either a anarchist or someone who just doesn't want to argue with Ian)
Anyway I agree. Maybe the second amendment was supposed to be the teeth. Maybe George Washington hoped to look up at a wall of muskets ala Blues Brothers when he started to crack down on the whisky uprising. He didn't, and it was the start of the long roll down hill where politicians broke their own rules and got to keep breathing. Now they have the most powerful forces the earth has ever seen. Any direct defense would be crushed like a mosquito in a flame thrower. However.....
I think Molyneux is right. Two generation of kids living the NAP maybe even one, and we would have a government full of young Ron Paul's without the baggage, government would just sort of die on the vine or be shrinking for lack of funding and people who want to be members. Without the use of force, being a politician is surely a tedious, boring, thankless job.

Fred

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
    • View Profile
Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2011, 07:40:28 PM »

I don't need no gubmint
Logged

LTKoblinsky

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 573
    • View Profile
Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2011, 05:18:54 PM »

1.  I was referencing Molyneux's definition of anarchism in that video only, not his past work.
2.  I wasn't pointing to any specific reason for the failure of the constitution (though I like the 'teeth' argument at first read), just saying that yes, it failed to limit government.
3. I was specifically arguing that the cycle of governments seem to be a new phenomenon. Prior to the Enlightenment revolutions, the basis for governance was  military conquest and power. Maybe history is otherwise, and if so, show me.
Please and thank you.
Logged

My wife's new site. Covers fashion, motherhood, our journey to NH, and soon activism.

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2011, 04:51:35 PM »

You are wrong, you know, limited checked government has been tried before. You know about this thread I assume.
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/dan-carlin's-hardcore-history/75/
Voluntarism as defined as "you are only responsible for what you yourself take on and one respects the right of all others to do so" is new I think.
In my simple little brain the cycle go's something like this.
Tyranny- starvation- self reliance/ free trade for practical reasons- political cronyism/ dependence- tyranny.....

blackie

  • Guest
Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2011, 05:14:34 PM »

The US federal system (as I understand my history) was a radically different approach that initially succeeded in many ways.
Poppycock.


Quote
The American "Revolution" was not a revolution in our sense of the word,
   but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political
   reform. The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of
   development of American society, nor did they aspire to do so. They
   only freed the development of American society from the retarding
   effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change any
   basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its
   natural direction of development. British society, of which American
   society was an off-shoot, had been moving for a long time in the
   direction of representative democracy. And prior to the War of
   Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant
   degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies. The
   political system established by the Constitution was modeled on the
   British system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration,
   to be sure - there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very
   important step. But it was a step along the road the English-speaking
   world was already traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its
   colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British
   descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially
   similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost
   their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our
   way of life today would not have been significantly different. Maybe
   we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had
   a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President.
   No big deal.
Logged

LTKoblinsky

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 573
    • View Profile
Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2011, 06:45:31 PM »

That's not too different from what I said. Thomas Jefferson discussed the evolution of government with society and referenced british thinker Locke extensively. So sure, federalism was more closely matched to American culture than monarchy, but it was still a departure from Hobbesian, divine right, people-be-damned governments of the time. Also, there are were key differences between the systems, as the article admitted. Finally, the two systems being similar today doesn't mean they were then. Hell, the US system has changed quite a bit over the years.
Logged

My wife's new site. Covers fashion, motherhood, our journey to NH, and soon activism.

velojym

  • Mostly Harmless
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1981
  • Existence is Theft!!! *drool*
    • View Profile
Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2011, 07:50:55 PM »

Logged
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.
-Ayn Rand
Pages: [1]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  The 'cycle' of governemnt

// ]]>

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 33 queries.