Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

76

General / Re: Minarchists are fucking crazy.

« on: July 13, 2011, 05:49:08 PM »

ugh, thousands of organizations have monopolies on violence within the boundaries of their organization.  I think the issue is whether participation in those organizations is voluntary.

77

General / Re: Minarchists are fucking crazy.

« on: July 09, 2011, 06:31:17 PM »

How's this one for you. Governments are a fact of life. Whether voluntary, coercive, or just plain evil, they will always exist. People like joining groups. The coercive force monopoly is necessary and good as it allows neighbors to say to each other, 'if I feel wronged, I'm not just going to go blowing shit up, I'm going to let this rational, objective arbiter decide what compensation is just and then enforce that sentence.' This facilitates relations between complete strangers and helps groups stay together. In reality, though, the system is greatly flawed and I'm not even sure the ideal is attainable.


'If men were angels, no government would be necessary.'

How's this for you.  Monopoly governments may very well be a fact of life, but remember that to an anarchist, a monopoly government is just a very efficient form of crime.  Gubments have convinced people their crimes are a necessary evil so people don't oppose their crimes.  And yes, I will concede that there will always be some crime.  That's a poor reason for failing to consistently oppose crime if we want minimal crime.  You WANT them to be a rational, objective arbiter who metes out justice with discretion but the very fact that you've insisted on it being a monopoly (by buying into the minarchist fallacy) removes the accountability that would actually encourage such traits.  As a minarchist, your thinking is no more rational than a Christian who believes in Heaven simply because he's really afraid of death (note, I'm not arguing against other reasons or evidence others might have for that belief).  A powerful desire for something is not evidence for its existence-- in this case that something being a rational, objective arbiter.  And there is no rational reason for expecting a violently imposed monopoly to be rational and objective.

This is what absolutely makes my head want to implode trying to discuss this subject with minarchist objectivists.  Pay attention the next time you're talking to one (or if you are one, try to listen to yourself and catch yourself when you do it).  They keep arguing for minarchy based on NEED!  The moment that word comes up in a socialist's argument for welfare programs, they break out in hives, but they make a special exception to using that basis to defend such a completely irrational concept as a monopoly form of government.

lotsa good stuff in there, but a coupla fallacies I want to point out.
1. I don't believe any government has ever been or maybe (probably?) will ever simply be a rational, objective arbiter. I was pointing out that, in principle, that's the ideal form of government.
2. You assume I'm voting for a one-size-fits-all forced system. I believe any organization that sets rules for a group is a government. Voluntary association is actually ideal in my mind. For example, if you work for Company and Jim fucks with you, you don't necessarily go beat the shit out of Jim. You tell your boss.  I have personally seen people fired, have their pay garnished, or even have security (police or private) called on them.
Hell, minarchy doesn't even require one single government.  A good example of a minarchist system without a central head would be Xeer in Somalia. I'm no expert on it, but it seems pretty cool from what I've read of it.

78

General / Re: Minarchists are fucking crazy.

« on: July 09, 2011, 11:40:05 AM »

How's this one for you. Governments are a fact of life. Whether voluntary, coercive, or just plain evil, they will always exist. People like joining groups. The coercive force monopoly is necessary and good as it allows neighbors to say to each other, 'if I feel wronged, I'm not just going to go blowing shit up, I'm going to let this rational, objective arbiter decide what compensation is just and then enforce that sentence.' This facilitates relations between complete strangers and helps groups stay together. In reality, though, the system is greatly flawed and I'm not even sure the ideal is attainable.


'If men were angels, no government would be necessary.'

79

General / Re: Porcfest 2011 photos by Dooms Day Device

« on: July 08, 2011, 09:52:32 PM »

I missed this year, but there's no way I'm not going next year! No way I'm going to miss George's famous bacon weaves.

80

General / Re: Economics is a science, not an opinion.

« on: July 08, 2011, 02:09:46 PM »

Economics is not presently a "hard" science because it does not make quantitative predictions.
Karl Popper rocks.
I blame the lazy-ass economists who didn't learn enough math in College. If you don't learn eigenvectors and Fourier transforms, you have not the tools.

Econometrics allows quantitative analysis of trends, but trends can change when dealing with human populations and the enormous number of variables involved. Currently, it is nigh impossible to account for every single variable beforehand.

81

The Show / Re: Jefferson Memorial

« on: July 07, 2011, 09:32:17 PM »

BTW, the Jefferson memorial is amazing. I love some of the quotes on the walls. I love the ambience and the steps overlooking the Potomac. It's ironic, though, that FDR actually laid the cornerstone for the project.

82

General / Re: Should it live or die?

« on: July 07, 2011, 09:11:47 PM »

Everyone seems to be assuming this is a normal spider.

The dog even growls at it, which he's never done with a bug before........ever.

It's obviously a fucking DEMON.

83

The Show / Re: Jeffersom Memorial

« on: July 06, 2011, 07:11:05 PM »

That molestation joke is low even for these forums, blackie. Also, didn't some hippies get shot at those protests?

84

General / Re: Interesting (but not surprising) Oklahoma legal development

« on: July 06, 2011, 06:54:51 PM »

Glad I left that place, though Tulsa's not bad in the spring.

85

General / Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt

« 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.

86

The Show / Re: Jeffersom Memorial

« on: July 06, 2011, 12:36:51 PM »

Also, I've got a short video of my 8 month old son dancing on my lap. Does that count as a 'demonstation'? Pics later when not on my Blackberry.

87

The Show / Jefferson Memorial

« on: July 06, 2011, 12:34:32 PM »

So I went to the memorial on 4 July... Didn't see any dancing. Did go through a few checkpoints that day. None of the cops were intimidating, authoritarian, or even dicks. Only one of the 9 (5 museum, 4 monument) even stopped me for my multitool. Many of the officers were friendly, joking around and smiling, and/or professional. I even had my camera out for one or two of them. I understand Meg and others had some difficulty. I wonder why there is such a difference in our experiences. Time of day, group, demeanor? Maybe its just that I'm a sheeple?

88

General / Re: The 'cycle' of governemnt

« 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.

89

General / 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.

90

General / Re: MEGA DRAMA IN KEENE - SELF IMMOLATION AT KEENE COURTHOUSE

« on: July 03, 2011, 07:44:32 PM »

Simple ordinance: If you're found guilty, you pay court costs. Also, the poor sap who got let go before because he was on his way to church or some BS is now facing an almost 100% ticket guarantee, making the state more onerous to more people. To me, it's a bit like agent provocateur (sp?) in the other direction.  Then again, no pain, no gain, right? 
I think Shaw is right on about provoking the state (like I just said ^). The problem is that the eventual path here is revolution, probably violent which is bad for a majority of the population a majority of the time.