My critique is not about the blame game. Rather it about the premise that anyone can blame a system for the actions of Individual’s.
Let me lay out a hypothetical.
I can go to someone’s house and rob them and murder them, and blame Capitalism for making the gold, currency, and food worth something, however that doesn’t mean that I would be valid. All it would mean is that I was delusional, irrational, and not willing to accept the responsibilities for my own action’s.
With this in mind, you can not blame concepts or idea’s for the folly of Individual humans. The only concept that can be made to blame is that Individual’s lack of rational and ethical principles. Blaming entire concepts and theories of thought is a scapegoat, and purely antithemic to Free-Market’s and of my take of Austrian School.
Despite me possibly flooding this thread, I will answer.
None, Individual’s as a whole will live where they can, and how they can. It’s only natural that given a set of circumstances and a situation, there will alway’s be those that can survive. It’s up to Individuals, not systems. I will say that there is a set of circumstances and situations that certain variables will allow for those said Individual’s to live in prosperity and have a more comfortable life though.
These instances are not based on the system, but rather the Individual’s action’s within the system they have agreed to establish. Capitalism, as in Free-Market like system’s, throughout history have shown to give a greater chance of prosperity for the Individual’s involved. The down side is that those that can not seem to understand how to take advantage of this situation tend to enforce statist action’s to quite literally steal this prosperity from those that understand it. This is the nature of the state, and only can be circumvented through education of the principles of Free-Market’s. This is the greatest challenge.
That is the truth of the matter. It’s simply irrational to abdicate the personal responsibility to the system on the basis of justificational morality.
I really wish more people would read Nietzsche for the very reason that his argument against morality on personal responsibility applies to the very core idea of Liberty. Except too many people read diluted version’s of his work that interpret advocation of irrational hubris, which is counter to the rest of his message.
Demoracy hasn’t killed anybody, it’s all in the social contract. We are the government, thus it’s impossible for us to kill ourselves, unless you’re talking about suicide.
I don’t get why people say that democracy (at least by itself) is the best form of government when in fact it is one of the worst. If i recall correctly, Aristotle put it on the bad side of a popular form of government, the positive side being a republic.
“Most important to Aristotle in preserving a constitution is education: if all the citizens are aware of law, history, and the constitution they will endeavour to maintain a good government.”
The good version of demokratia was called the politeia, for which Cicero used the Latin term ‘res publica’, the common thing, i.e. state, power, regime. Plato had a very similar typology of states in the Republic (Cicero’s translation of the above term). Modern democracy is still a ‘res publica’, with terrible results. Plato and Aristotle are wrong on most things.
Because the term has a blurred meaning to them. They use the term democracy essentially to mean “free society” or “society run by the people rather than kings”. Often the term is even understood as an economic system, democracy being the opposite of communism. Due to the fallacy of collective terms they may even think that in a democracy “the people” are in charge themselves, thus it could not oppress anyone.
“Because the term has a blurred meaning to them. They use the term democracy essentially to mean “free society” or “society run by the people rather than kings”. Often the term is even understood as an economic system, democracy being the opposite of communism. Due to the fallacy of collective terms they may even think that in a democracy “the people” are in charge themselves, thus it could not oppress anyone.”
I agree with this, people tend to ascribe everything good to “democracy”.
I have noticed that in modern usage there has been a twisting of the word Democracy to mean more of something closer to the idea of stateless Socialism, which we all should know is irrational and completely impossible. However the so called anarcho-communist, or Liberal Democrat’s as they call themselves these day’s actually believe they can use the state to establish a non-voluntary system, and then have it absolved of it’s task once the stateless society was established.
I distinctively remember a couple of Hegel fan’s writing about that. I also seem to recall how well that worked out for this little known nation state called the U.S.S.R..
I can’t descibe the frustration I have, when I encounter people that honestly believe in these ideas. It’s even more embarissing to know that there are Linguistic Professor’s at MIT that is a proponents of this same idea. The poor ignorant sap’s that have never had an original thought in their life soak this stuff up, while spending their parent’s money to buy his book’s. I guess the inate contradiction of his private property right’s in light of his message never actually clued any of these young brilliant minds in on his intention’s. I guess they never looked at when he get’s the majority of his paychecks from either.
