The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Demon440 on February 28, 2010, 12:11:51 AM
-
What if people really do need to be centrally managed and controlled? What if all human kind is not ready for true liberty? What if I'm wrong about the philosophy of libertarianism or voluntaryism? If I were wrong on a practical level but not a moral one, would I still promote liberty? Would you?
-
That's pretty obvious if you really stand back and take a look at human history. That's why I think educating random people is pointless. Let the smart ones who figure it out on their own band together and escape. This is less than 1% of the population.
-
Where do you go. Please don't say New Hampshire.
-
If freedom is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
-
Right now people are idiots. They need a central authority. It is wrong on the practical and moral level. Stop trying to spread it and just live and let live. Maybe some day they will kind enough to follow the example. Don't get your hopes up because they are idiots.
-
That's pretty obvious if you really stand back and take a look at human history. That's why I think educating random people is pointless. Let the smart ones who figure it out on their own band together and escape. This is less than 1% of the population.
Where do you go. Please don't say New Hampshire.
I say we all band together and homestead one of the sub-Antarctic islands held by New Zealand.
The problem is, most of the habitable ones are nature reserves held in trust by UNESCO. So good luck with that :(
-
That's the beautiful thing about voluntary emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence)-driven societies: if we are wrong we simply fail and no one else gets hurt. We're not holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to part with their beloved Mommy Government, we simply want to opt out with our own lives and properties, and in most cases we're willing to move to another location in order to make it happen. (Contrast that with the socialists, who can't even make a three-hippie commune work right, but want to impose their ideas on vast nations by force!) The only thing we ask of other governments is to stop violating our rights and let us go!
Free market capitalism (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=30732) (in all its anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) and minarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism) variations) is based on the rock-solid scientific theory that personal and economic freedom results in a long-term competitive advantage for a society, in terms of materialistic gain as well as quality of life, for rich and poor alike. We will inevitably start with small self-selected local experiments (seasteading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading), FIP (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=20756), FSP, municipal secession in New Hampshire (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=19215), etc) and those experiments will grow if they are successful. There will be many initial challenges as those enclaves of liberty get established, un-occupied and un-blockaded by the surrounding governments, and bootstrap their economy; but the advantages should become very apparent after several decades.
Social evolution is potentially not much different from any other emergent system, from planetary evolution to chemical, biological, and technological. Intergovernmental competition is what keeps government power in check: barring a world-wide government monopoly (the sum of all my fears!), the places where the government is least intrusive will benefit from an inflow of brains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_drain) and capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_flight), and they will grow, acquire more land, build more seasteads (or someday spacesteads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_habitat)), etc. No matter how socialist a government is, it can't function for long if all its people see greener pastures elsewhere: it must either become as tyrannical as North Korea (which is much more difficult in the 21st century), reform before it collapses, or reform when it has no choice as it discovers it has no more competent people to tax!
-
It may not be stupid in practice if done right: entryist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism) minarchism state-wide supporting more focused private land / municipal secession movements (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=19215) on a local level.
Furthermore, FSP isn't just about achieving change but also about building a community for libertarians to hang out, experiment with various ideas, start businesses / charities, train in militias, establish homeschooling networks, etc, etc, etc. Even if it doesn't achieve any change what-so-ever, FSP can still be successful as a foundation of the libertarian culture for some yet-unseen future endeavor.
Activism, agorism, politics, entrepreneurship, education, militias, community, and culture are all integral to our cause!
-
Where do you go. Please don't say New Hampshire.
The problem with NH is that you cannot possibly LIVE like you're free because of the way the base of government is set up. Even if you successfully control a town government and stop enforcing victimless crime laws at the local level and abate propety taxes, there's still the State cops.
I think in 10 years the ones that have moved will have pretty much given up. Maybe they'll be smart enough to get together to take over the government of a low population western US county. Which is about the only chance of freedom we have in this country. To have Anarchy, we must have Minarchy...
-
Where do you go. Please don't say New Hampshire.
The problem with NH is that you cannot possibly LIVE like you're free because of the way the base of government is set up. Even if you successfully control a town government and stop enforcing victimless crime laws at the local level and abate propety taxes, there's still the State cops.
I think in 10 years the ones that have moved will have pretty much given up. Maybe they'll be smart enough to get together to take over the government of a low population western US county. Which is about the only chance of freedom we have in this country. To have Anarchy, we must have Minarchy...
Are there a lot of State Cops in NH? In CA the only state police anyone sees are the Highway Patrol, and they only pull people over on the freeways.
-
That's why I think educating random people is pointless. Let the smart ones who figure it out on their own band together and escape. This is less than 1% of the population.
Escape to where? You'd have to go somewhere with no people or else you still need to educate people.
-
That's why I think educating random people is pointless. Let the smart ones who figure it out on their own band together and escape. This is less than 1% of the population.
Escape to where? You'd have to go somewhere with no people or else you still need to educate people.
You only have to outvote them.
-
Where do you go. Please don't say New Hampshire.
The problem with NH is that you cannot possibly LIVE like you're free because of the way the base of government is set up. Even if you successfully control a town government and stop enforcing victimless crime laws at the local level and abate propety taxes, there's still the State cops.
I think in 10 years the ones that have moved will have pretty much given up. Maybe they'll be smart enough to get together to take over the government of a low population western US county. Which is about the only chance of freedom we have in this country. To have Anarchy, we must have Minarchy...
Are there a lot of State Cops in NH? In CA the only state police anyone sees are the Highway Patrol, and they only pull people over on the freeways.
State Police usually show up for the big events like murder, and policing state highways because they have legitimate jurisdiction there. Stuff on city and town level are handled by locals, and in some cases Sheriff departments like in LA County share jurisdiction with City, like the LAPD. Staties don't involve themselves in an area with structured law enforcement unless requested. California is an oddball in the traditional state police design, their purpose (according to Wiki) was to provide security for state dignitaries and do some law enforcement in unincorporated areas, and eventually merged with the CHP. Together they still only have 500 officers.
Comparatively, PA has 4500 troopers, and get very involved with small-town situations, again like murder and other stuff that needs more professional forensics support where the locals can't handle the technicalities.
NH only has about 300 troopers, but has some rules about where it patrols - mostly small towns that don't have much of a police force, and they do highway patrol stuff.
Each state agency has its own history and structure, but can always be counted on to be more professional and elite, and their training and tactics are far superior to the normal locals. The size doesn't matter much because they always have special-purpose ad-hoc units that will organize in special situations and will sometimes use Federal Marshals in taskforces if warranted, which can get pretty serious in short order.
Often when there are wide discrepancies in these numbers, there are other agencies that perform the duties and balance out the numbers. Like sheriffs agencies and their deputy sheriffs. In Pennsylvania, sheriffs deputies don't really patrol. You almost never see a sheriffs car, unless they're serving a warrant or escorting prison inmates. In states with less State Troopers, sheriffs have more prevalence. Here, the sheriffs are almost symbolic and the deputies are nearly a joke, mostly working the courthouses like goons. In NH, it says the High Sheriff is the top law enforcement position in the state, and each county has one, so it seems the sheriffs and deputies take the place of traditional state police functions. California seems to follow the same structure with county sheriffs and deputies being regional support, rather than state cops- who are more specialized to certain duties and have state-wide jurisdiction.
-
So are the Staties patrolling the streets like a typical cop might? In CA it's very common to see Sheriffs and many cities contract the County Sheriff for their city police department, but you'd never see a State cop patrolling the city streets. Hell last night I must have counted 8 SDPD cars and 3 Sheriff cars on the same road (I live a couple blocks from the University).
I don't think I'd be very happy if I had to deal with CHP patrolling those streets as well.
-
What if people really do need to be centrally managed and controlled? What if all human kind is not ready for true liberty? What if I'm wrong about the philosophy of libertarianism or voluntaryism? If I were wrong on a practical level but not a moral one, would I still promote liberty? Would you?
Liberty means you can choose to be centrally managed and controlled. However, you cannot force me to be centrally managed or controlled. Liberty is never wrong.
-
Right now people are idiots. They need a central authority. It is wrong on the practical and moral level. Stop trying to spread it and just live and let live. Maybe some day they will kind enough to follow the example. Don't get your hopes up because they are idiots.
Why do people need a central authority?
-
Liberty, both civil and economic, instigates progress. Examples are all over the map and history. Statism stifles progress. Plenty of proof for that too.
We are right.
So was Socrates, so was Galileo.
-
Right now people are idiots. They need a central authority. It is wrong on the practical and moral level. Stop trying to spread it and just live and let live. Maybe some day they will kind enough to follow the example. Don't get your hopes up because they are idiots.
Why do people need a central authority?
I think belief in government is very much like religion.
There are those who believe in God in some form and follow the dictates of their particular doctrine, just like there are those who think government is a mysterious and benevolent force we couldn't live without.
Of course, if we're wrong about god, it'll be a while before we find out, and there is little harm to our lives while we still breathe. Not much for the "misguided" atheist to do about it.
Government makes its presence known in our lives many ways, on a daily basis, which makes it easy to reason that less of it would be beneficial.
-
Thanks for the replies. I personally believe that most people can not only handle freedom, but most will excel in that environment.
-
So are the Staties patrolling the streets like a typical cop might? In CA it's very common to see Sheriffs and many cities contract the County Sheriff for their city police department, but you'd never see a State cop patrolling the city streets. Hell last night I must have counted 8 SDPD cars and 3 Sheriff cars on the same road (I live a couple blocks from the University).
I don't think I'd be very happy if I had to deal with CHP patrolling those streets as well.
In Florida they did. Well, Florida Highway Patrol - state troopers kind of thing. They were quite frequently seen pulling people over in cities and smaller towns.
-
So are the Staties patrolling the streets like a typical cop might? In CA it's very common to see Sheriffs and many cities contract the County Sheriff for their city police department, but you'd never see a State cop patrolling the city streets. Hell last night I must have counted 8 SDPD cars and 3 Sheriff cars on the same road (I live a couple blocks from the University).
I don't think I'd be very happy if I had to deal with CHP patrolling those streets as well.
In some places, yes. On state highways in rural areas, where theres some civilization interspersed. Like a hospital campus here, then up ahead theres a college campus, a diner, and a shopping plaza with a Subway in it. They'll be on the prowl there, if theres no real local cops to speak of. They usually just roll through to show the colors, stop for a piss and a Coke. Then they'll sit for a while in the middle of a parking lot, and roll out after some people have taken notice.
They only patrol where theres no local cops. Some local police departments have closed around here, and the staties take over. Right up the road from me, theres a little town carved out of the woods, and they have cops. But if you live outside the town limits its the staties who'll show up if you call in a domestic -even if you're only ten minutes outside of town- wherever that town line ends, the local cops end. And if they show up, someone's gonna end up wearing bracelets. You can't usually white-wash them and say everythings fine now, they come from way out of their way to answer domestics.
State cops are usually much more professional, but a lot more serious when they get called. A lot of shit they don't care about, its a waste of their time to hassle a couple kids who look like stoners, they know they'll shake a roach out of them. They don't care. State cops make the arrests all cops should make, and ignore the shit all cops should ignore.
-
Where do you go. Please don't say New Hampshire.
New Hampshire is too damn cold for me. I've thought seriously for sometime about taking back Cuba. Transforming it to its former glory - Casinos, tourism, CIGARS! Its warm, balmy and in the Carribean. We'd have to set up a new republic, most of the current citizens speak english. I'd have no taxes levied on anything. The casinos and tourism would have to be state ran and the profits would be used to run the government and reinvested back into tourism. Much logistics would have to be worked out, but I believe it could be done. Thoughts?
-
Where do you go. Please don't say New Hampshire.
New Hampshire is too damn cold for me. I've thought seriously for sometime about taking back Cuba. Transforming it to its former glory - Casinos, tourism, CIGARS! Its warm, balmy and in the Carribean. We'd have to set up a new republic, most of the current citizens speak english. I'd have no taxes levied on anything. The casinos and tourism would have to be state ran and the profits would be used to run the government and reinvested back into tourism. Much logistics would have to be worked out, but I believe it could be done. Thoughts?
Statism is the disease not the cure.
-
Right now people are idiots. They need a central authority. It is wrong on the practical and moral level. Stop trying to spread it and just live and let live. Maybe some day they will kind enough to follow the example. Don't get your hopes up because they are idiots.
Why do people need a central authority?
The central authority has domesticated them. To push liberty on them is like dropping off your de-clawed and neutered cat in the woods.
-
Right now people are idiots. They need a central authority. It is wrong on the practical and moral level. Stop trying to spread it and just live and let live. Maybe some day they will kind enough to follow the example. Don't get your hopes up because they are idiots.
Why do people need a central authority?
The central authority has domesticated them. To push liberty on them is like dropping off your de-clawed and neutered cat in the woods.
of course, that's what the state wants you to think, isn't it?
What is it exactly that you are afraid of? Do markets respond better when regulations and taxes are removed?
-
Right now people are idiots. They need a central authority. It is wrong on the practical and moral level. Stop trying to spread it and just live and let live. Maybe some day they will kind enough to follow the example. Don't get your hopes up because they are idiots.
Why do people need a central authority?
The central authority has domesticated them. To push liberty on them is like dropping off your de-clawed and neutered cat in the woods.
of course, that's what the state wants you to think, isn't it?
What is it exactly that you are afraid of? Do markets respond better when regulations and taxes are removed?
There weren't any regulations in place during the Gilded Age, and factories were hellholes.
Also, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_beef_scandal
-
The industrial-technological system requires centralization.
-
The industrial-technological system requires centralization.
Actually, this is true. Most of us don't live on self-sufficient farms and we're not likely to anytime soon.
-
What if people really do need to be centrally managed and controlled? What if all human kind is not ready for true liberty? What if I'm wrong about the philosophy of libertarianism or voluntaryism? If I were wrong on a practical level but not a moral one, would I still promote liberty? Would you?
Liberty means you can choose to be centrally managed and controlled. However, you cannot force me to be centrally managed or controlled. Liberty is never wrong.
'struth.
I'd run the "Boss-You-Around-And-Kick-You-In-The-Junk" Voluntary Government, inc. Come live on my land, pay me 10% of your income and I will fulfill my part of the bargain (see company name). If you don't like that there's 3 or 4 other governments on my block, including Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong.
-
The industrial-technological system requires centralization.
not exactly. It may induce voluntary agreements, however, it does not require coerced centralization
Actually, this is true. Most of us don't live on self-sufficient farms and we're not likely to anytime soon.
-
What if people really do need to be centrally managed and controlled? What if all human kind is not ready for true liberty? What if I'm wrong about the philosophy of libertarianism or voluntaryism? If I were wrong on a practical level but not a moral one, would I still promote liberty? Would you?
You have a good point. Unfortunately, there isn't really a super free place right now. However, there is a super unfree place. I recommend visiting North Korea and making notes. Maybe write a best selling book about how NK rocks.
-
And after a while the voluntary agreements will turn into force.
That's how feudalism started.
-
And after a while the voluntary agreements will turn into force.
That's how feudalism started.
and what do we have now?
-
And after a while the voluntary agreements will turn into force.
That's how feudalism started.
and what do we have now?
Not feudalism, unless you can show me the law on American books that tell me the differences between a slave, a serf, a villein, a freeman, a priest, a count, a duke, an earl, and a king.
-
And after a while the voluntary agreements will turn into force.
That's how feudalism started.
and what do we have now?
Not feudalism, unless you can show me the law on American books that tell me the differences between a slave, a serf, a villein, a freeman, a priest, a count, a duke, an earl, and a king.
are you implying that we're not slaves now?
-
And after a while the voluntary agreements will turn into force.
That's how feudalism started.
and what do we have now?
Not feudalism, unless you can show me the law on American books that tell me the differences between a slave, a serf, a villein, a freeman, a priest, a count, a duke, an earl, and a king.
are you implying that we're not slaves now?
Yes, unless you can specifically point out the law that says that "such-and-such" is a slave.
Also please point out the local slave auctions. I might need to buy a big buck to keep around the house to fix things, as well as a svelte octoroon to keep for lovin'.
-
I'd have to agree that the vast majority of the world's population are slaves. It is just a kinder and gentler form then the previous versions. In fact, Western society slaves are over all happy and content. Which is why they should be left alone and not bothered with libertarianism.
Which person would you like to be?
A. Happy to go about life consuming things like TVs, fancy cars, sports and McMansions while blissfully unaware or unconcerned the government is holding the chains of captivity that are wrapped around your neck.
B. A pissed off libertarian that knows full well the weight of those chains while also completely aware there ain't shit you can do about it.
I say leave 'em alone. We all can be pissed enough for 'em. No need to ruin their day.
-
I'd have to agree that the vast majority of the world's population are slaves. It is just a kinder and gentler form then the previous versions. In fact, Western society slaves are over all happy and content. Which is why they should be left alone and not bothered with libertarianism.
Which person would you like to be?
A. Happy to go about life consuming things like TVs, fancy cars, sports and McMansions while blissfully unaware or unconcerned the government is holding the chains of captivity that are wrapped around your neck.
B. A pissed off libertarian that knows full well the weight of those chains while also completely aware there ain't shit you can do about it.
I say leave 'em alone. We all can be pissed enough for 'em. No need to ruin their day.
But if they stay complacent, and we stay pissed off, then nothing will ever change.
I also see no conflict between being an enthusiastic consumer and a political advocate at the same time.
-
I'd have to agree that the vast majority of the world's population are slaves. It is just a kinder and gentler form then the previous versions. In fact, Western society slaves are over all happy and content. Which is why they should be left alone and not bothered with libertarianism.
Which person would you like to be?
A. Happy to go about life consuming things like TVs, fancy cars, sports and McMansions while blissfully unaware or unconcerned the government is holding the chains of captivity that are wrapped around your neck.
B. A pissed off libertarian that knows full well the weight of those chains while also completely aware there ain't shit you can do about it.
I say leave 'em alone. We all can be pissed enough for 'em. No need to ruin their day.
But if they stay complacent, and we stay pissed off, then nothing will ever change.
I also see no conflict between being an enthusiastic consumer and a political advocate at the same time.
I was only using consumerism as the current popular example of how “they” have different priorities. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. My point is, if that is what makes them happy maybe that is all okay. I mean we all strive to be happy in life. Libertarians are never going be the good guys when they go around fucking up people’s day by shoving foreign radical ideas at them.
Political advocacy just pisses people off, them and us. It is sort of universal. Libertarians could take the first step and end the cycle of advocacy.
-
I was only using consumerism as the current popular example of how “they” have different priorities. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. My point is, if that is what makes them happy maybe that is all okay. I mean we all strive to be happy in life. Libertarians are never going be the good guys when they go around fucking up people’s day by shoving foreign radical ideas at them.
Political advocacy just pisses people off, them and us. It is sort of universal. Libertarians could take the first step and end the cycle of advocacy.
In other words, if they stop taking their own principles seriously and treat politics as if it were a hobby rather than literally a matter of people being free or not. Which it is, regardless of how many people would be happier without realizing that.
Basically, you're advocating that we shut up about injustice in order to avoid causing people to become uncomfortable. No thanks.
-
Right now people are idiots. They need a central authority. It is wrong on the practical and moral level. Stop trying to spread it and just live and let live. Maybe some day they will kind enough to follow the example. Don't get your hopes up because they are idiots.
Why do people need a central authority?
The central authority has domesticated them. To push liberty on them is like dropping off your de-clawed and neutered cat in the woods.
of course, that's what the state wants you to think, isn't it?
What is it exactly that you are afraid of? Do markets respond better when regulations and taxes are removed?
They do, but there is a transition phase. Look at post Soviet Russia.
-
I was only using consumerism as the current popular example of how “they” have different priorities. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. My point is, if that is what makes them happy maybe that is all okay. I mean we all strive to be happy in life. Libertarians are never going be the good guys when they go around fucking up people’s day by shoving foreign radical ideas at them.
Political advocacy just pisses people off, them and us. It is sort of universal. Libertarians could take the first step and end the cycle of advocacy.
In other words, if they stop taking their own principles seriously and treat politics as if it were a hobby rather than literally a matter of people being free or not. Which it is, regardless of how many people would be happier without realizing that.
Basically, you're advocating that we shut up about injustice in order to avoid causing people to become uncomfortable. No thanks.
Thats cool, the high road ain't for everyone.
-
And after a while the voluntary agreements will turn into force.
That's how feudalism started.
and what do we have now?
Not feudalism, unless you can show me the law on American books that tell me the differences between a slave, a serf, a villein, a freeman, a priest, a count, a duke, an earl, and a king.
are you implying that we're not slaves now?
Yes, unless you can specifically point out the law that says that "such-and-such" is a slave.
Also please point out the local slave auctions. I might need to buy a big buck to keep around the house to fix things, as well as a svelte octoroon to keep for lovin'.
ifi don't pay my taxes what happens to me? I'm clearly a slave.
-
I was only using consumerism as the current popular example of how “they” have different priorities. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. My point is, if that is what makes them happy maybe that is all okay. I mean we all strive to be happy in life. Libertarians are never going be the good guys when they go around fucking up people’s day by shoving foreign radical ideas at them.
Political advocacy just pisses people off, them and us. It is sort of universal. Libertarians could take the first step and end the cycle of advocacy.
In other words, if they stop taking their own principles seriously and treat politics as if it were a hobby rather than literally a matter of people being free or not. Which it is, regardless of how many people would be happier without realizing that.
Basically, you're advocating that we shut up about injustice in order to avoid causing people to become uncomfortable. No thanks.
Thats cool, the high road ain't for everyone.
If you can explain how being apathetic and ineffectual constitutes the "high road," have at it.
-
There weren't any regulations in place during the Gilded Age, and factories were hellholes.
Also, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_beef_scandal
The US Army beef scandal shows that the US Federal government did a poor job of negotiating food for its "employees". You should note that they are and were a monopoly.
Remember that the "helllhole" factories were inundated with people looking for opportunities. They might have felt that the opportunity to work in that factory was better than the alternatives. Nobody was physically forced to work in those "hellholes". They were free to seek better opportunities elsewhere.
Further, "weren't any regulations" is false. Because of government intervention in industries, there were limits to competition that would otherwise have produced more alternatives.
-
If you can explain how being apathetic and ineffectual constitutes the "high road," have at it.
Living your life the best way you see fit as long as it does involve hurting others and hoping your neighbors see how happy you are and decide to follow your fine example. The High Road.
Living your life the best way you see fit and believing it is the absolutely right way so much that you advocate your neighbors to follow your example. The Low Road.
The High Road is really the only one that works. Just as we get pissed when tyranny is advocated to us, they get pissed when freedom and personal responsibility is advocated to them.
-
Which person would you like to be?
A. Happy to go about life consuming things like TVs, fancy cars, sports and McMansions while blissfully unaware or unconcerned the government is holding the chains of captivity that are wrapped around your neck.
B. A pissed off libertarian that knows full well the weight of those chains while also completely aware there ain't shit you can do about it.
I say leave 'em alone. We all can be pissed enough for 'em. No need to ruin their day.
interesting thought. Do you ever talk about the philosophy of liberty to anyone outside of the internet forums? Was this the way you always were or did your attitude change to this over time?
-
I'd have to agree that the vast majority of the world's population are slaves. It is just a kinder and gentler form then the previous versions. In fact, Western society slaves are over all happy and content. Which is why they should be left alone and not bothered with libertarianism.
Which person would you like to be?
A. Happy to go about life consuming things like TVs, fancy cars, sports and McMansions while blissfully unaware or unconcerned the government is holding the chains of captivity that are wrapped around your neck.
B. A pissed off libertarian that knows full well the weight of those chains while also completely aware there ain't shit you can do about it.
I say leave 'em alone. We all can be pissed enough for 'em. No need to ruin their day.
The problem with A is that it's not lasting, it's failing right before our eyes. And it's leaving the Earth scarred beyond human sustainability. I can't live with that thought weighing on my mind. Maybe you can, but I have two nieces and a nephew and I will not stand by in the twilight years of my life to see them or their children suffer. If I have to raze the current system to the ground, then I will. Luxuries can be replaced, human lives cannot.
-
There weren't any regulations in place during the Gilded Age, and factories were hellholes.
Also, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_beef_scandal
The US Army beef scandal shows that the US Federal government did a poor job of negotiating food for its "employees". You should note that they are and were a monopoly.
Remember that the "helllhole" factories were inundated with people looking for opportunities. They might have felt that the opportunity to work in that factory was better than the alternatives. Nobody was physically forced to work in those "hellholes". They were free to seek better opportunities elsewhere.
Further, "weren't any regulations" is false. Because of government intervention in industries, there were limits to competition that would otherwise have produced more alternatives.
So you're telling me the government forced the factories to be shit? I don't buy that for a second.
The companies involved with the embalmed beef scandal weren't forced to stuff poison in tins and sell it to the government. They could have stuffed meat that wasn't poison in tins.
No one forced them to do it.
And, as for the factories, the factories were hellholes and that's what gave rise to the labor movement, which forced the factory owners to stop treating employees like shit.
-
Which person would you like to be?
A. Happy to go about life consuming things like TVs, fancy cars, sports and McMansions while blissfully unaware or unconcerned the government is holding the chains of captivity that are wrapped around your neck.
B. A pissed off libertarian that knows full well the weight of those chains while also completely aware there ain't shit you can do about it.
I say leave 'em alone. We all can be pissed enough for 'em. No need to ruin their day.
interesting thought. Do you ever talk about the philosophy of liberty to anyone outside of the internet forums? Was this the way you always were or did your attitude change to this over time?
Believe it or not just up until recently I was gun ho. Kinda like Ian. Every thing black and white. John Shaw, along with a few others here, showed me another way.Live your life pursuing as much freedom you can handle and let others do what they want. That is what we want from them so it only seems right. Plus, the constant fighting or advocating gets tiring, is mostly pointless and is off putting.
It takes a lot of faith in the inherent goodness of mankind to believe all will right itself on it own. But coming from that kind of place is a lot more healthy than say a socialist outlook that at it's base is going on the assumption man kind sucks so bad it needs to be centrally managed.
-
So you're telling me the government forced the factories to be shit? I don't buy that for a second.
The companies involved with the embalmed beef scandal weren't forced to stuff poison in tins and sell it to the government. They could have stuffed meat that wasn't poison in tins.
No one forced them to do it.
No. I'm saying that they were unethical and the government set themselves up to be taken advantage of this way. That shit won't fly in a free market.
And, as for the factories, the factories were hellholes and that's what gave rise to the labor movement, which forced the factory owners to stop treating employees like shit.
Government gave too much power to some companies, limiting choices. It made the problem worse. It is true that the labor movement helped end the shittiness, but more choices would have evolved in a more free market.
-
If I have to raze the current system to the ground, then I will. Luxuries can be replaced, human lives cannot.
Do you really think the current system could be razed without thousands of lives lost and millions of lives disrupted or displaced? Sounds like you are caught in a catch 22.
-
No. I'm saying that they were unethical and the government set themselves up to be taken advantage of this way. That shit won't fly in a free market.
What makes you so sure there won't be any unethical corporations in a free market? (which, face it, the USA is among the most economically free countries on Earth, we've got it here)
-
No. I'm saying that they were unethical and the government set themselves up to be taken advantage of this way. That shit won't fly in a free market.
What makes you so sure there won't be any unethical corporations in a free market? (which, face it, the USA is among the most economically free countries on Earth, we've got it here)
no sane person would say there wouldn't be. A free market is much more preferable than the unethical monpoly that is the government, though.
-
No. I'm saying that they were unethical and the government set themselves up to be taken advantage of this way. That shit won't fly in a free market.
What makes you so sure there won't be any unethical corporations in a free market? (which, face it, the USA is among the most economically free countries on Earth, we've got it here)
no sane person would say there wouldn't be. A free market is much more preferable than the unethical monpoly that is the government, though.
except a corporation or a group of corporations forming a cartel could easily get the same amount of power a de facto government could have.
and then use guns to make sure you couldn't leave.
-
If I have to raze the current system to the ground, then I will. Luxuries can be replaced, human lives cannot.
Do you really think the current system could be razed without thousands of lives lost and millions of lives disrupted or displaced? Sounds like you are caught in a catch 22.
Not at all. If they die they died at least for a good reason. Not because they were bad people, but because the system itself was the thing prolonging their existence, an existence that would have never been. I'm not trying to be cold to the harm such a disruption would cause, but I am being honest that it will not last forever and there's no good way out however you consider it.
-
http://xahlee.org/p/um/um-s23.html
179. It would be better to dump the whole stinking system and take the consequences.
-
No. I'm saying that they were unethical and the government set themselves up to be taken advantage of this way. That shit won't fly in a free market.
What makes you so sure there won't be any unethical corporations in a free market? (which, face it, the USA is among the most economically free countries on Earth, we've got it here)
as easily as the monopoly we have now? How would that work exactly?
no sane person would say there wouldn't be. A free market is much more preferable than the unethical monpoly that is the government, though.
except a corporation or a group of corporations forming a cartel could easily get the same amount of power a de facto government could have.
and then use guns to make sure you couldn't leave.
-
http://xahlee.org/p/um/um-s23.html
179. It would be better to dump the whole stinking system and take the consequences.
As much as I dislike the Unabomber and his anti-technology stance, there is a bit of truth to his stance in that there's an over-reliance on a single technological paradigm to 'save' the world. I suspect if there was a true free market the current build up of electronics and industrial technology would have never happened, and that other fields such as biotechnology and genetics would have taken its place in the market (for everyone to use). Especially the former as many parts of industrial technology is very poor at utilizing many natural energy sources (hydrochemicals, solar, and etc) compared to their biological analogs.
-
except a corporation or a group of corporations forming a cartel could easily get the same amount of power a de facto government could have.
and then use guns to make sure you couldn't leave.
I don't think it would be "easily" as you seem to think. It would be very hard for groups of corporations to get that kind of power. What government has going for it is the "veil of legitimacy" that makes people accept them in spite of the continued malfeasance. If Google takes up arms against us, most people would morally agree that fighting them makes sense. Cartels don't tend to have the power people expect them to get, except when married to government. If you can point out an exception in real life I would be interested in hearing it.
I do not fear a market monopoly because nobody can point out an example of one ever existing. I fear governments because they are all around us now and causing a proper mess.
-
Liberty, both civil and economic, instigates progress. Examples are all over the map and history. Statism stifles progress. Plenty of proof for that too.
We are right.
So was Socrates, so was Galileo.
Read Plato's Republic and get back to me(hint-Socrates may or may not have been Plato's sock, but, he, in any event, had seemingly no interest in either personal freedom as we know it, or, most definitively not, that odd modern perversity known as "progress").
By the way-list a bit of that "progress" that does not have its roots in a violation of personal freedom(but first, look up the term respondeat superior and let me know how that fits into a libertarian moral position-fair warning, according to both Block and Rothbard, offhand- at least, it does not.)
(And, yes, Blackie, according to the unabomber, and more importantly Zerzan as well I do believe)
Or keep name dropping people who are diametrically opposed to your point of view-I could give a shit, but it might be an interesting challenge for you. If you honor Socrates(or Galileo for that matter-though his faults were less vicious) for drinking hemlock alone, you should also honor Trotsky for putting his head in the path of an ice ax. I actually do honor Trotsky for that....since he favored a less draconian form of government than was extant-the same cannot be said of Socrates, at least from my understanding of The Republic.
Sorry, but to me, freedom does not need an excuse, especially not such a puerile one as "progress". Marx liked "progress" as well, you recall.
-
What if people really do need to be centrally managed and controlled?
It seems merely being entertained is enough to get the job done.
What if all human kind is not ready for true liberty?
It's been a long time since anyone has had that reality. Not sure anyone truly comprehends it.
**
I think any type of government could work, if not for the Dunce Next Door. "The Government" is such an easy target for blame, for anything, but the DND is responsible for electing the trash and then doing nothing while getting fucked over. The DND is the one who goes about their way without a care for where things are headed, either leeching from others or being leeched from. The DND is happiest when shopping or otherwise being pacified.
With a citizenship like that- can you blame the elected officials for doing what they do?
-
There weren't any regulations in place during the Gilded Age
Yes, there were.
and factories were hellholes.
Yet people still flocked to them because they were better than the alternative. I.e., entire families working ten hours a day, six days a week in a factory and having money left over after basic needs was better than entire families working sixteen hours a day, seven days a week at a cottage industry and barely having enough money to keep from starving.
The Marxists liked to dredge up the absolute worst cases and present them as the norm. And its interesting to note that they had to go to the more heavily-regulated areas to find them. For example, to find the windowless shops they had to go to London, which had a WINDOW TAX. To find the lowest possible wages they had to look at industries which had been cartelized by the government under the progressive doctrine of anti-competition. To find the overcrowding they had to look where the US government had made urban expansion impossible by making enormous land-grants to established interests. Et cetera.
They never looked at the industrial revolution in places like Italy, which predated the English and American industrial revolutions by over a hundred years, was ENTIRELY unregulated, and had long before the "gilded age" improved working conditions to levels which, under the auspices of government and even with the advantage of new technologies, English and American industry would not achieve for decades thereafter.
-
What if people really do need to be centrally managed and controlled?
It seems merely being entertained is enough to get the job done.
What if all human kind is not ready for true liberty?
It's been a long time since anyone has had that reality. Not sure anyone truly comprehends it.
**
I think any type of government could work, if not for the Dunce Next Door. "The Government" is such an easy target for blame, for anything, but the DND is responsible for electing the trash and then doing nothing while getting fucked over. The DND is the one who goes about their way without a care for where things are headed, either leeching from others or being leeched from. The DND is happiest when shopping or otherwise being pacified.
With a citizenship like that- can you blame the elected officials for doing what they do?
How can a government ever work? It has no incentive to do so.
-
What if people really do need to be centrally managed and controlled?
It seems merely being entertained is enough to get the job done.
What if all human kind is not ready for true liberty?
It's been a long time since anyone has had that reality. Not sure anyone truly comprehends it.
**
I think any type of government could work, if not for the Dunce Next Door. "The Government" is such an easy target for blame, for anything, but the DND is responsible for electing the trash and then doing nothing while getting fucked over. The DND is the one who goes about their way without a care for where things are headed, either leeching from others or being leeched from. The DND is happiest when shopping or otherwise being pacified.
With a citizenship like that- can you blame the elected officials for doing what they do?
How can a government ever work? It has no incentive to do so.
Only with an intelligent & responsible populace. The end result of which would be a needless and ineffective government, of any type.
-
The idea of a benevolent government controlling and directing the population is preposterous on its face. Where would the members of this benevolent government come from? If the population - made up of humans - is so incapable of making rational decisions, who gets to decide who the leaders are? In the very unlikely chance that someone benevolent and capable actually rose to a position of power, what is the likelihood that they would remain honest and not be consumed by his own power.
The answer is that all humans are equally weak, and should not have undue power over each other. Any body who is given power over others needs to have limited authority and there must be means to squelch that body when it overreaches.
The very fact that humans are fallible and make errors is proof that government should only be turned to as a last resort.
-
What if people really do need to be centrally managed and controlled?
It seems merely being entertained is enough to get the job done.
What if all human kind is not ready for true liberty?
How can a government ever work? It has no incentive to do so.
Wrong. A government doesn't work WELL. It works, but only enough to maintain its position. Read Machiavelli.
-
Another thing in addition to Harry Tuttle's points above is that pro-government people do not only assume that the halls of power will be inhabited by those more benevolent and rational than the rest of us, without regard to the fact that positions of power are naturally sought by the power-hungry. They also, by implication, assume that such power-hungry people are in a superior moral class than everyone else by empowering them to do things which, if done by anyone else, would justly be considered crime.
So to boil it down, we:
(1) Create a territorial monopoly on legalized violence;
(2) Preemptively excuse the use of said legalized violence;
(3) Assume that only the smartest and nicest people will ever control it;
(4) Chalk up all the bad shit that comes out of this system as a "necessary evil".
-
What if people really do need to be centrally managed and controlled?
It seems merely being entertained is enough to get the job done.
What if all human kind is not ready for true liberty?
How can a government ever work? It has no incentive to do so.
Wrong. A government doesn't work WELL. It works, but only enough to maintain its position. Read Machiavelli.
Assuming it gives a fuck about its people. I think it works great, but for its own purposes and not our benefit. If you look at it as its own entity, a "self-supporting" engine that rewards its own active participants at all levels, its highly effective. The problem is, its design of self-support means it has to harvest its fuel (money) from the population. In return, it gives a modicum of necessities that people would find it difficult to do without, so it creates the illusion of purposefulness. Few are legitimate, far more are not.
-
How can a government ever work? It has no incentive to do so.
Wrong. A government doesn't work WELL. It works, but only enough to maintain its position. Read Machiavelli.
Assuming it gives a fuck about its people. I think it works great, but for its own purposes and not our benefit. If you look at it as its own entity, a "self-supporting" engine that rewards its own active participants at all levels, its highly effective. The problem is, its design of self-support means it has to harvest its fuel (money) from the population. In return, it gives a modicum of necessities that people would find it difficult to do without, so it creates the illusion of purposefulness. Few are legitimate, far more are not.
Too true. Government gives greater fuck for the people that work for it than the fuck received by the people who pay to support it. The level of fuck received is an effect of the relation that person has to the government. People higher get more fuck, and people lower down, get fucked.
-
What if people really do need to be centrally managed and controlled?
It seems merely being entertained is enough to get the job done.
What if all human kind is not ready for true liberty?
How can a government ever work? It has no incentive to do so.
Wrong. A government doesn't work WELL. It works, but only enough to maintain its position. Read Machiavelli.
Well yeah, that's what I meant.
-
What if people really do need to be centrally managed and controlled?
It seems merely being entertained is enough to get the job done.
What if all human kind is not ready for true liberty?
It's been a long time since anyone has had that reality. Not sure anyone truly comprehends it.
**
I think any type of government could work, if not for the Dunce Next Door. "The Government" is such an easy target for blame, for anything, but the DND is responsible for electing the trash and then doing nothing while getting fucked over. The DND is the one who goes about their way without a care for where things are headed, either leeching from others or being leeched from. The DND is happiest when shopping or otherwise being pacified.
With a citizenship like that- can you blame the elected officials for doing what they do?
How can a government ever work? It has no incentive to do so.
Only with an intelligent & responsible populace. The end result of which would be a needless and ineffective government, of any type.
And an intelligent and responsible populace wouldn't subject others to a government.
-
What if we're wrong? Big deal. It's easier to add government than to take it away.
-
What if people really do need to be centrally managed and controlled?
It seems merely being entertained is enough to get the job done.
What if all human kind is not ready for true liberty?
It's been a long time since anyone has had that reality. Not sure anyone truly comprehends it.
**
I think any type of government could work, if not for the Dunce Next Door. "The Government" is such an easy target for blame, for anything, but the DND is responsible for electing the trash and then doing nothing while getting fucked over. The DND is the one who goes about their way without a care for where things are headed, either leeching from others or being leeched from. The DND is happiest when shopping or otherwise being pacified.
With a citizenship like that- can you blame the elected officials for doing what they do?
How can a government ever work? It has no incentive to do so.
Only with an intelligent & responsible populace. The end result of which would be a needless and ineffective government, of any type.
And an intelligent and responsible populace wouldn't subject others to a government.
I don't think you and I have a disagreement.
What I'm saying is, a citizenship that is intelligent & responsible would lead to a very small gov., if any. That sort of gov. would be a crew of people who basically file papers and take notes, while the citizens go about making the world go 'round.
Of course that's the biggest pipe dream of all.
But think about it.. all day long people (those who pay attention) sit around and blame the gov. when the real blame lies with Dunce Next Door.
Tuttle & MacFall give too much credit to the people in their assumptions that the people are paying attention and have any expectations of the gov. at all, benevolent or otherwise. From my perspective, the majority of people don't think, don't question, don't understand and don't care. With that being the status of the average citizen the gov. has it made.
It's like being the driver of the short bus loaded up with the slow learners. You can intentionally hit as many potholes as you'd like, swerve and sway the bus till all the kids spill out into one anothers' laps, drive it backwards in circles, go 3mph till your destination has been reached, crash it, run late at every stop, or early.. and all the while the retards just trust the driver and know in their hearts (cause they aren't using their heads) that eventually they'll arrive somewhere that someone else has decided they wanted to go all along. Plus, they get to look out the window all the while and see all the neat and shiny stuff that goes by.
The intelligent folk are the passersby, in their own automobiles, who watch the folly from a crash-safe distance, too frightened or embarrassed to intervene.
-
In your metaphor, how do you opt out of the busing service?
I don't give people too much credit. Clearly this whole f---ed up system is allowed by the general populace. The government encourages and rewards irresponsible behavior the irresponsible behavior begs for and feeds more government intervention.
Liberty is better. When not being treated like servants, humans tend to adapt and get what they want out of life.
But to your original question, I would rather be free, with a chance of working for what I want than to be fat and comfortable dreaming of freedom.
-
In your metaphor, how do you opt out of the busing service?
In that story, the dimwits don't want to opt out. They're having way too much fun.
You & I and probably everyone else here aren't on the bus, we're the drivers trying to make our way through the bus-laden roadways. The sidewalks have a few stragglers that are unsure if they want to drive or ride.. but they pretty much hang together and gravitate towards the bus stops.
-
The intelligent folk are the passersby, in their own automobiles, who watch the folly from a crash-safe distance, too frightened or embarrassed to intervene.
I think you give intelligent people way too much credit.
-
The intelligent folk are the passersby, in their own automobiles, who watch the folly from a crash-safe distance, too frightened or embarrassed to intervene.
I think you give intelligent people way too much credit.
Who else can one rely on?
-
The intelligent folk are the passersby, in their own automobiles, who watch the folly from a crash-safe distance, too frightened or embarrassed to intervene.
I think you give intelligent people way too much credit.
Who else can one rely on?
You can only really rely on yourself and a tight band of friends.
-
The intelligent folk are the passersby, in their own automobiles, who watch the folly from a crash-safe distance, too frightened or embarrassed to intervene.
I think you give intelligent people way too much credit.
Who else can one rely on?
You can only really rely on yourself and a tight band of friends.
fixed
-
Yeah, eventually everyone fucks you over and you die.
-
Yeah, eventually everyone fucks you over and you die.
Not really been my experience with my closest friends.
Dunno about the dying part. I'm sure Libman has made sure he won't die by somehow utilizing the cells of the corpses he keeps in his basement.
-
Liberty, both civil and economic, instigates progress. Examples are all over the map and history. Statism stifles progress. Plenty of proof for that too.
We are right.
So was Socrates, so was Galileo.
Read Plato's Republic and get back to me(hint-Socrates may or may not have been Plato's sock, but, he, in any event, had seemingly no interest in either personal freedom as we know it, or, most definitively not, that odd modern perversity known as "progress").
By the way-list a bit of that "progress" that does not have its roots in a violation of personal freedom(but first, look up the term respondeat superior and let me know how that fits into a libertarian moral position-fair warning, according to both Block and Rothbard, offhand- at least, it does not.)
(And, yes, Blackie, according to the unabomber, and more importantly Zerzan as well I do believe)
Or keep name dropping people who are diametrically opposed to your point of view-I could give a shit, but it might be an interesting challenge for you. If you honor Socrates(or Galileo for that matter-though his faults were less vicious) for drinking hemlock alone, you should also honor Trotsky for putting his head in the path of an ice ax. I actually do honor Trotsky for that....since he favored a less draconian form of government than was extant-the same cannot be said of Socrates, at least from my understanding of The Republic.
Sorry, but to me, freedom does not need an excuse, especially not such a puerile one as "progress". Marx liked "progress" as well, you recall.
Cute, thanks for the history lesson. My reference was a joke , I meant that they were right but those in power beat them anyway.
-
Liberty, both civil and economic, instigates progress. Examples are all over the map and history. Statism stifles progress. Plenty of proof for that too.
We are right.
So was Socrates, so was Galileo.
Read Plato's Republic and get back to me(hint-Socrates may or may not have been Plato's sock, but, he, in any event, had seemingly no interest in either personal freedom as we know it, or, most definitively not, that odd modern perversity known as "progress").
By the way-list a bit of that "progress" that does not have its roots in a violation of personal freedom(but first, look up the term respondeat superior and let me know how that fits into a libertarian moral position-fair warning, according to both Block and Rothbard, offhand- at least, it does not.)
(And, yes, Blackie, according to the unabomber, and more importantly Zerzan as well I do believe)
Or keep name dropping people who are diametrically opposed to your point of view-I could give a shit, but it might be an interesting challenge for you. If you honor Socrates(or Galileo for that matter-though his faults were less vicious) for drinking hemlock alone, you should also honor Trotsky for putting his head in the path of an ice ax. I actually do honor Trotsky for that....since he favored a less draconian form of government than was extant-the same cannot be said of Socrates, at least from my understanding of The Republic.
Sorry, but to me, freedom does not need an excuse, especially not such a puerile one as "progress". Marx liked "progress" as well, you recall.
u r rong crapitalism is ded