i see the state as a kind of Jo Fritzl.
Not exactly; just like the socialist states of Eastern Europe were, according to their ideology, forcibly trying to create a “new man” ready for selfless, altruistic service in communist la-la-land, so are Chomskyites trying to forcibly alter human nature to “make it ready” for a new age of, well, Chomskyism. The idea is: first you break down the “bad” part in humans via a strong state, then you abolish the state.
And yes, that’s quite a “bold” idea, in the Obamaesque sense of the word.
I see a way that recognizes that an individual can flex him or her self into and out of any social group is a recognition of freedom. A “socialist anarchist” right off the bat is tying the individual to the group, thus, why “socialist” in the name “socialist anarchist”.
Most people around here tend to be anarcho-individualists. Socialist anarchists tend to be anarcho-collectivists. I’m not quite sure what exactly they’re up to and how they define the role of the individual, but judging from what I’ve heard so far, their tolerance towards “greedy”, “selfish” behavior tends to end rather quickly.
That explains it.
um, no. Laws are the guidelines by a society to help them decipher when an individual has laid suffrage upon another individual. Rules don’t need government to be around and applied. We have rules in our house and the government didn’t have to make them. Morals are what are good, but not all that is moral has to be law. What is law is what society deciphers to be acts that take away another individuals freedom. What is moral doesn’t always have to do with another individual. So what is moral is personal. What is law is social. What is immoral might be personal and social. What is criminal is definitely personal and social. As an individual I don’t want criminals doing damage to society, so, laws are needed to outline what is a criminal. Rules and government are not the same. Might be quite a bit in what I said, but it does take some active thinking to spark what we already know. I don’t need to tell you these things. You already know.
I don’t know who’s saying “Greed is good”, but I would find that to be immoral and possibly criminal. For the latter to be decided I would need to know the actual acts declared greedy.
I see it more simply as I know my neighbor wants a clay pot and I’ve been eyeing up the corn she grew. Now I know she wants a clay pot to store her corn in, and I make clay pots. So I trade her a clay pot for some of her corn. She still has enough corn. I have some corn. We’re both happy. That’s the simple barter idea. As to regulating this, if her and I still want this trade to take place but we have to pay taxes on the trade, fill out some paper work, and get a government official to oversee the trade meaning we now need a government official who’s expenses have to be paid to oversee this transaction so now I have to make a pot to give not just to her but to the government official, also, she has to give the government corn and this pays off his expenses but somebody needs to transport the government official to the site and since the government official doesn’t do anything all day but oversee corn and clay pot bartering somebody has to cook and clean and build the official’s house for him, and it’s pretty much run away from here on out…
Why not rid the greedy bloat in the middle, the government official? And let her and I trade without all the extra costs to maintain the government that produces nothing of its own?
How is the education “free”? How is the healthcare “free”? - somebody pays for them. Including me and I barely make it by to put food on the table and the government just keeps increasing my taxes and the dollar increasingly becomes less valuable, thereby, the price of everything keeps going up. So when does this all start becoming free? Maybe if we picked out own apples that would be free, still requires labour, but free for the energy in those apples would probably replenish my labour and then some. I would actually be generating enough energy out of those apples I don’t need them all if I had enough. Maybe I could trade somebody for a nice clay pot? Also, since it seems you know when harmful products are around and harmful business practices, then why do we need a government telling us something we already know?
Thats it exactly. Weve seen that the democratic process has done a lot of good for people over the past two centuries. People have progressed quite far.
We believe in the self. We just happen to think you have cant put self-interest above the greater good, of both progress and morality.
We basically think we have an obligation to care for “Gods creation,” or however you want to define this cosmic plane.
I bet Herr Hoppe would disagree. [:D]
First parent somewhere to second parent, “Yeah if only we could get a group of people to come and discipline our sons and daughters for us.”
Second parent says, “Oh wait it’s called government social services.”
First parent, “Can I get them to watch my son and daughter?”
Second parent, “Yeah and it’s free.”
First parent, “It’s free?”
Second parent, “Yeap.”
First parent calls governmental social services to watch his children.
A few days later.
These other kids throw rocks through first parent’s window. First parent calls government social services thinking the parents of those kids need help in watching their children.
First parent, “Hello, yes could you look into watching these neighborhood kids here? They are throwing rocks in my window.”
Government social services, “Oh, those are my kids. We would watch them, but we are too busy watching yours right now.”
First it was family wasn’t setting good enough example so they make a government. Now it’s government isn’t making a good enough example so we need a world government. Next they’ll be saying we need aliens to watch over the world government and those aliens will make a good example… and on up taking no responsibility for their own actions.
progress has come despite the state.
prove it
i think you are obliged to buy me a beer. if you agree great. if you dont, what then?
why not have a little state for you and others that want to have a state, and you dont need to involve those of us who are anarchists and believe in our personal sovereignty, ok? fair?
“As an individual I don’t want criminals doing damage to society, so, laws are needed to outline what is a criminal.” Ok, so the rules are there. So what, whos going to enforce them? No matter who enforces them… THAT is the government.
Why not rid the greedy bloat in the middle, the government official? And let her and I trade without all the extra costs to maintain the government that produces nothing of its own?" From your standpoint I would get rid of the government official. But someone has to set some rules in place to say that your has to be what you advertise it as, and to make sure her corn isnt poisoning you and all the other people shes selling it to.
Have you ever bought a product that fell apart on you. What would you have done if you couldnt take the defective product back? Im arguing that someone has to be there to tell the business that they have to sell a product that works as advertised.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Why is it the introduction of democracy not competitive international trade that has been the driving force behind the progress of the past 2 centuries? Unless you are thinking of a different kind of “progress”, in which case you should elaborate.
And who gets to determine exactly what is in “the greater good”? Whatever the State says is in the greater good, right comrade? Those roads in godknowswhere, ND deserve to be paid for by some working stiff in PA via taxation, why? Because the IRS says so? Because Barack Obama says so? Because you say so? Because some Social Democrat scholar says so? Who has the moral authority to make that call? Beats me! If you’re a realigous man I suppose you could make an argument for The Pope…remember the Borgias? Yeah, no one has that moral authority.
Right. So we have a moral obligation to care for the Phillipino Salamander? Something else? It doesn’t matter. The question remains: Why? Because you have a preference for this? Isn’t that a bit selfish?
So when do I try to "break down the ‘bad’ part in myself?
I see a way that recognizes that an individual can flex him or her self into and out of any social group is a recognition of freedom. A “socialist anarchist” right off the bat is tying the individual to the group, thus, why “socialist” in the name “socialist anarchist”.
Greedy and selfish are immoral by the usual definitions of the words. I would need to know the acts considered greedy and selfish to know if they are unlawful.
Yes and no. If a private enforcement agency enforces them–if there is a private law society–technically there is a government. However, there is no State. We are opposed to the State. However, given that governments have been States forever, the two concepts are often wrapped together and we call ourselves anti-government. So I suppose you score a technical point there. Albert Jay Nock wrote extensively on this in his Our Enemy, The State. The book is available for free online and I believe you could profit much more from skimming it then from arguing with me or (no offense) anyone else on here. Go straight to Nock and the other Sensuis of Austro-Libertarianism.
Why not a private law? Why does government have to be maintained via territorial monopoly? Why can’t fraud be looked out for via a private law society? Why not private courts?
First of all, this is a Republic, not a democracy. Secondly, who said this Republic has actually acted as a Republic for the past two centuries?
Ok. And by law care for “Gods creation” is good. I’m seeing alot of preconceptions on your part. Greater good is a libertarian concept by the rule of law. So when has the corruption of government and its’ corporate ties actually worked within the law?
If I dont want to buy you a beer I can walk away. Its on you to try and force me to pay for your beer wherein I can call in the authorities and settle it in a civilized manner.
See but then you will say “but what if i dont want to pay for your healthcare? Then you will use the government to step in and make me.” The majority has decided that they agree that education is a good thing. So they need a system to provide for that. Becuase you use roads, and use the clean air water that the majority provides, some part of your funds will also have to go towards education.
You have the right to opt out of the system. You have to go somewhere else. And I dont mean to say that like “if you dont like it you can just get out.” Im saying that you wake up and shower in the clean water weve provided. You brush your teeth with safe toothpastes. You eat clean food. You use the subsidized electricity. You drive on the roads or pay the busses weve provided. Your job has to meet standards weve set so that people arent getting sick or losing limbs all the time.
If you dont want those services become an ethnologist and move in with the indigenous peoples.
Even Adam Smith, the great capitalist himself understood that progressive taxation is only fair.
You STEAL in order to fund your demagogic handouts and are willing to KILL dissidents. Please stop pretending you and your system are based on altruism. They are not. And you’re fooling no one here.
Smith was a conservative and a nationalist (i.e. collectivist), not a libertarian. He partially advocated free markets but was wrong about a lot of things. Invoking him in this forum will probably get you nowhere.
If everyone voted that you should die, would you accept that? This shows ignorance of libertarian natural law theory.
You are basically saying “if you dont like it you can just get out.” This is the same social-contract nonsense that statist always refer to, as is not a good argument. It presupposes that the government is legitimate. We use things provided by the government because the government has a monopoly on them. There is no other choice. We understand that without government, there would not be government-funded roads, water, regulations, etc. We know that as it is exceedingly obvious. But the market can provide these things better and more efficiently, and more importantly - voluntarily without force. The government does not allow it, but it is circular to say that the state is legitimate because we can leave if we dont like it.
Adam smith is not god, nor is he infallible, so what is your point?
The majority has decided that people who wear pink socks should be hung from a tree until dead. So they need a system to provide for that. Lynch mobs: Democracy in action.
Jeez you don’t see that argument very often round here do you?
No, that is not government necessarily. I would check Irish history for an excellent example of this, incidentally it is why the British had such a hard time conquering Ireland. The British couldn’t go to any one single place and just corrupt and take over. The British had to conquer each and every individual and the British are still having a heck of time doing that. As the Irish so did many other cultures around the world have ways to handle criminals. Anywhere from taboos to private police and private courts. It’s really has been done before and still is ongoing. These “private courts” are usually understood as the wise men in the community that everybody trusts for their, well, wisdom in providing a good judgement of an event. They then decide upon the issues when necessary. Meanwhile these wise men might have a garden, hunt, make a good clay pot, etc…
Well, if it isn’t what they advertise it is, then who would really trade with them again? He would be stuck with only clay pots and she would be stuck with only corn. And if the corn poisons him, then that is criminal. I didn’t say we could make a perfect world, thus the need for wise people to help us mature.
I would let everybody know and that place wouldn’t get business again. Yet now a days with government intervention when Ford makes a terrible product and everybody has been demanding an electric car, the government props up Ford and we’re stuck with a bad business to shop at. Now when a car company that is doing good business by supplying electric cars, they took all the electric cars back that they sold enforced by the government and law (cause if the people that already bought the electric cars that they loved didn’t turn them back in they would go to prison). I can’t remember what car maker it was. Maybe you saw it. It was made into a video. It was GM or Ford, one of those I think. Governments and corporations have been working together for a very long time. This is not anything new. They monopolize the market and exclude via Congressional regulations at times any viable competition. This has been an on-going struggle for freedom for centuries. Jack London, I was surprised by this, the guy that wrote “Call of the Wild” actually wrote another book around 1900 that warned the U.S. of fascism. I have yet to read this book, but was quite surprised to find his perspective in politics was also made explicit in his writings.
Dont take me out context. I explained what I meant quite well. To use these services you have to chip in. Its quite simple.
I just fail to see why the free market would want to provide roads to Beloit, OH. And without paved roads, they cant aqquire whats needed for quality education. Without the education the infrastructure breaks down. People get sick, things begin to fall apart and everyone decides theyve had enough. They then resort to agrarianism and civilization gets set back 1000 years
And sorry, I dont believe killing is ever justified. Even when its necessary. (Like a Hitler, Stalin, etc; its necessary to kill them, but its still not justified.) If you want to live like an animal thats your choice. Go live off the land. If you dont want to pitch in for modern amenities, then you should make the ethical choice not to use them.