Fair enough, but I notice a distiction you seem to make between "scams" perpetrated by the government and those perpetrated by the "free market". I'm not quite sure I see the distinction.
Fair enough, but I notice a distiction you seem to make between "scams" perpetrated by the government and those perpetrated by the "free market". I'm not quite sure I see the distinction.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Perhaps you should be more specific then? There are a million forms of taxation. However, I don't see any where that the income tax was not allowed in the Constitution, it simply would have had to have been uniform throughout the states. The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to allow for progressive and non-uniform taxation. Hence its verbage:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
And as I already told you (although I really don't know why I waste my time with you), the black-and-white comments refer to the fact that any time you are presented with an idea you don't agree with, you immediately interpret it as being the exact opposite of the views that you happen to hold.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
If you believe that, then you're not a libertarian, so please don't pretend that you are. You are an anarchist. At best, a minarchist. Government is not a scam, it exists to protect the basic and equal rights of individuals. And don't call me a statist because I believe that. Even Ayn Rand would have agreed with that statement. Or are you saying that she was a statist?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Really? And didn't you post in this thread that you think all labor unions would be gone without government protection?
If I'm reading garbage, it's YOUR garbage. I'm just throwing it back at you 'cause it stinks.
Out-of-touch? What the fsck do you know about labor unions and workers? You're a self-employed DJ who lives in a city that doesn't have a single factory and where even the police and schoolteachers can't afford to live...
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Either that or you are just plain wrong, I really could care less about most of your posts to waste my time doing the opposite, childish games are not my thing, kidding, extreme sarcasm maybe even poking fun at, but not worth my time and effort. Sorry.
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
O RLY? Seems to me more like 'government' exists to impose on society what others seem 'appropriate.' Without a doubt you want me to subscribe to your police agency, your vision on how roads should be built, how electricity/water/gas is to be delivered to my home, how much I should pay for 'national defense' etc.
And yes, I am a libertarian. In fact, the Libertarian Manifesto itself was written by the anarho-capitalist economist Murray Rothbard.
Ayn Rand held the absurd notion that a 'voluntary government' could exist. So yes, I believe Ayn Rand was a statist. I also believe that Ayn Rand detracted from the libertarian movement by making it look like libertarianism was about selfishness.
However, I do agree with Ayn Rand to the extent that I do not believe in random and anonymous charity (i.e. I do not believe in just giving away money to a 'charitable' foundation). But helping out friends, co-workers, family members etc. is great and society would not be able to function if this type of charity didn't take place. My rule of thumb is that you should at least know the people you are donating to so you can micromanage the situation.
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
There isn't much of a distinction, except that government agents are the worst perpetrators of all. We know who these hucksters are.
Scams in the free market are relatively small and are relegated to isolated incidents (we see this in the empirical evidence that by far the vast majority of all energy in the free market is directed towards non-scam type activities). Anyone who feels scammed in the free market ought to commit those actions they feel are necessary to right that wrong within the voluntary institutions the free market itself could provide. In other words, my brand of justice is that which the free market provides.
And I suppose that those who feel that actions committed against them in the name if justice are actually unjust must return the favor? Sounds like those with the best gangs win. Have lots of kids and help the family so the family group succeeds and the biggest family wins. Sounds like the history of the human race, one endless bout of tribal warfare.
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
No, actually, that is 'government.' The only difference is that you get a small portion of control of the gang and I get a small portion of control of the gang. And the wealthy man down the street who has a number of politicians in his pocket gets a large portion of control of the gang.
No, more like: Have lots of kids so the gang(goverment) can perpetuate it's retirement ponzi scheme even longer.
Actually, the 14th Amendment guarantees Equal Protection under the law. The Commerce clause (which was in Article I section 8 of the original Constitution) is what the Federal government uses as justification for its intrusion into the afairs of the many states.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
Moonbeam brings up a good point. People will always have differring opinions on what justice is. And many people will think that libertarian justice is injustice. What are you going to do with these people? Force libertarianism on them also?
It just sounds to me like a war between those devoting their resources to collectivized enforcement and the extraction of payola for supposed injustices, wrongs, and slights. Note too, the unsubstantiated but purported claim that most of the energy in free markets goes to non scam activities. But even if this is true, how useful can the data be since the market as now constituted is regulated by government, which, shall we not presume, accounts, via its enforcement, for this fact?
I think, that like all dreamers, dissipate bases his beliefs on an admixture of truths about the flaws of what is and a lot of unexamined assumptions about what could be, ie, that what people call justice is justice and not the that their own ox got gored.
It strikes me that the struggle to systematize human relations under the rubric of a functional 'ism', the struggle to form a more perfect union of men, the effort to secure the blessings on truth justice and liberty to ourselves and our posterity, is in fact a balancing act of pragmatism. The nature of ones vision is going to depend on the development of ones consciousness.
I make the assumption that the wisdom one has about mankind and how best to manage human life is dependent on the degree to which one knows oneself. I believe that all knowledge derives from the degree to which one is conscious of who one was programmed to be from childhood and how much of that programming one has eliminated via active psychological self-work. I believe also that the number of people who are free from their past is vanishingly rare and that, therefore, real understanding and wisdom is also vanishingly rare.
Given that, it strikes me that much of what we see in this thread between Steeplerot and Vic revolve around that same question as to the nature of man, and particularly here, whether man is good or evil.
The difficulty the two have in communication is based, I think, of focus on two aspects of a single truth. Man is both infinitely perfectible and infinitely corruptible and this leads to two different kinds of citizens. I think perfected men do not need government because they have no base self that can be corrupted and that people filled with ego are vacuums of need that can never be filled even by devouring the world.
For most of us then, there is the option of movement up or down. Do we feed or deny our ego, take the high or the low road. Do we create a system in which man is free to act in good conscience or regulate to insure he does. Do we have confidence that man will move up requiring less regulations or down, in which our fear of the corruption of others drives us to want to regulate more. If we move up, what is to stop the corruption of others, and if we move down what is to stop the corruption of others from corrupting the regulations and the enforcement of the law.
And since we are all 'good people with the best of intentions' do we hate the corruption of others or do we hate the corruption of other's institutions. Do we hate man or do we hate government.
All of this, however, is a projection of our self hate. The more you realize the depth to which you have been made to feel worthless as a child, the more you will see that it is your buried feelings that bring you fear, that your fear of the world, of others, of corruption, of force, etc, are all fears that have already happened. You have all been through worse that a concentration camp run by tremendous dictators and your fear of government, well founded as it is, is a psychotic reaction to that where it is generated by that fear. The problem of course is that we create what we fear and fearing control we seek to control others, but of course with the thought that our control is good.
Anyway, I think the notion of government is a pragmatic thing, a way to introduce a third party into dispute, a party, because of independence, can possibly have some unbiased perspective. We fumble along, it seems to me, trying to balance the forces in our nature that pull us up and down and need the judgment of our neighbors to help us along in those areas were our personal egos are involved.
The individual should be free to act to the fullness of consciousness and the group will inevitably make demands as a matter of exchange for protections and shelter. The conscious individual is never restricted because he always acts for the group.
To be free, then, is not dependent of the forms you live under, but the evolution of your mind.
I make the assumption that the wisdom one has about mankind and how best to manage human life is dependent on the degree to which one knows oneself. I believe that all knowledge derives from the degree to which one is conscious of who one was programmed to be from childhood and how much of that programming one has eliminated via active psychological self-work. I believe also that the number of people who are free from their past is vanishingly rare and that, therefore, real understanding and wisdom is also vanishingly rare.
Given that, it strikes me that much of what we see in this thread between Steeplerot and Vic revolve around that same question as to the nature of man, and particularly here, whether man is good or evil.
The difficulty the two have in communication is based, I think, of focus on two aspects of a single truth. Man is both infinitely perfectible and infinitely corruptible and this leads to two different kinds of citizens. I think perfected men do not need government because they have no base self that can be corrupted and that people filled with ego are vacuums of need that can never be filled even by devouring the world.
For most of us then, there is the option of movement up or down. Do we feed or deny our ego, take the high or the low road. Do we create a system in which man is free to act in good conscience or regulate to insure he does. Do we have confidence that man will move up requiring less regulations or down, in which our fear of the corruption of others drives us to want to regulate more. If we move up, what is to stop the corruption of others, and if we move down what is to stop the corruption of others from corrupting the regulations and the enforcement of the law.
And since we are all 'good people with the best of intentions' do we hate the corruption of others or do we hate the corruption of other's institutions. Do we hate man or do we hate government.
All of this, however, is a projection of our self hate. The more you realize the depth to which you have been made to feel worthless as a child, the more you will see that it is your buried feelings that bring you fear, that your fear of the world, of others, of corruption, of force, etc, are all fears that have already happened. You have all been through worse that a concentration camp run by tremendous dictators and your fear of government, well founded as it is, is a psychotic reaction to that where it is generated by that fear. The problem of course is that we create what we fear and fearing control we seek to control others, but of course with the thought that our control is good.
Anyway, I think the notion of government is a pragmatic thing, a way to introduce a third party into dispute, a party, because of independence, can possibly have some unbiased perspective. We fumble along, it seems to me, trying to balance the forces in our nature that pull us up and down and need the judgment of our neighbors to help us along in those areas were our personal egos are involved.
The individual should be free to act to the fullness of consciousness and the group will inevitably make demands as a matter of exchange for protections and shelter. The conscious individual is never restricted because he always acts for the group.
To be free, then, is not dependent of the forms you live under, but the evolution of your mind.
soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,788
- 6,041
- 136
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Saying that a nation could exist entirely without government is like saying that a business could be run entirely without management.
If you require an example of what anarchy looks like, look to the mafia dons of Sicily or the warlords of Africa. That's the true face of anarchy. People require basic security in order to have the confidence to do business and invest. If the people cannot organize sufficiently to provide it for themselves, then individuals will purchase their "protection" from warlords and crime bosses.
As to Ayn Rand's issue about selfishness, that is simply the insult from people who never read her books and/or are too stupid or prejudiced to understand the basic philosophical concept that some call karma. Behaving selfishly requires an understanding that "what comes around, goes around." And as I noted earlier in this thread, I disagree with her idea that Altas should shrug.
As to charities, I believe in them, that they are the best way to help the poor and struggling, and give how and when I can. However, I always investigate the charity first (for obvious reasons).
If you want to consider yourself a Libertarian, whatever. But if your position is that there should be no government whatsoever, you're gonna get some strange looks and a lot of argument at LP party meetings (should you decide to go to one). So, at the very least, don't tell idiots like rot that you're a "real" Libertarian, because you're not. You're an anarchist. Real Libertarians are classical liberals (with the occasional paleoconservative, although given the LP positions of pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and anti-drug war, for example, it is a lie of the worst sort that libertarians are republicans in disguise).
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Exellent post, that is what it comes down to pretty much, a basic outlook of fellow humanity and its accomplishments based on self-reflection, I point out that we are flawed, but we have done well in a lot of ways and should work for better, while Vic thinks we are hopeless thus wants to self-destruct all we have worked for.
I can dig it.
Reminds me of the tagline someone had/has that says "those who have no hope in the government doing anything right should be the last people to run it."
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Totalitarianism is totalitarianism. Kindly don't apologize for it by believing in the little imaginary differences they create in what is, in reality, simply a quest for power between competing gangs of thugs. They have the same agenda but with different recruiting tactics and propaganda.
Like I posted earlier, symbols and labels appear to be the uppermost limit of your intelligence.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
I am the one labeling everything. :laugh:
yet you are the one painting a broad brush on two black and white forms of government becasue you are too ignorant to educate yourself. Sure.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter