How would you ensure your vision comes about? Doesn't individual liberty also imply the liberty to corrupt the government towards your own interests?
A limited government isn't worth the time corrupting. In a free society people must offer value or no one is going to trade with them. It's not a coincidence that the top 19 out of 20 universities in the USA are private. There are underlying reasons why highly socialistic societies like East Germany and North Korea, Communist China and the USSR all failed miserably to meet any of their stated 'socialistic' goals. The same is happening in our highly socialistic welfare ghettos. Or our Government schools. Or with our rent-captured medical markets. Or our drug wars. Or our wars on terror. Anyway, what would I do? Through peaceful parenting, I'd teach children to think rationally. Then I'd legally limit government and tell those children they'd have to apply the same rules they were taught as children: don't steal, don't hit, use your words - as adults. With laws that protect private property and contract together with free market money, they'd have to work with one another to provide the goods and services they themselves create. And you know? If you stop and think about it, this is exactly what most people WANT to do. They want to provide goods and services and consume goods and services. So let them. It's the crooks who run to government to pass regulations to sew up markets or, worse, create crony agencies where they ARE the market regulators themselves. Talk about perverse.
end the coercive illegal often perceived as legal since 1976 radio/computer/telephone teemworking, that invades and uses and harms all human topic to matter, that empire should end.
And what would that government look like exactly? You want a government strong enough to enforce law, but not worth corrupting. How does that work exactly? If a government is strong enough to enforce law and protect property rights, it is certainly worth corrupting. Property rights have value, that is something those and so called “conservatives” keep ignoring. It is just one of the many inconvenient facts so called conservatives like to ignore because it is consistent with their beliefs. Top universities, as measured by what? Those “top universities” have huge endowments and are severalfold more expensive than their publicly funded counterparts, and only accept a small sliver of those who apply each year. Being born wealthy doesn’t make them better Michael. It just makes them rich. Good goals, but in order to teach rational thought, it old be a good thing to first learn how to think rationally. Your many demagogic tirades are not in any way close to rational thought. And you don’t think kids today are not taught to not steal, don’t hit, and use words as adults? Where is you supporting evidence for that assertion? As usual Michael, you don’t have any evidence. We do have a free market economy, because government doesn’t dictate price (utilities and monopolies exempted because those markets are by their very nature not free). In fact, government anti-trust laws exist to keep markets free. And again Michael, please do explain in detail what you mean by limited government. But you can’t. Because when you get into the details your ideology begins to crumble. It’s much easier to pretend than it is to face reality, and that is what folks who share your ideological beliefs do.
That's a particularly bad example. Housing conditions for the poor were probably worse during the "golden age" of America's heyday (say the first half of the twentieth century). Bad treatment of the poor is a symptom of mindless capitalism, not of declining civilization.
This thread reminds me of an article I read on "TheSleuthJournal" site. Many have been saying all is doom, I hope they are wrong. Even if all perhaps does become doom I want to do something non-doom related.
I've been to East Germany and spoken with East German friends. While they were happy there were no more restrictions on travel and trade since the wall fell, they missed the old communist system. It worked well for them. And socialist principles in general work well in Europe. I'm with you on having a sound money system and peaceful parenting, I just think that won't be enough. Simply having laws that limit government will not at all limit government or corruption. Everyone has their own interests, and they don't think that protecting those interests is a bad thing. Laws have to be continually updated to counteract people who try to get around old laws. Or if new situations arise that previous laws didn't address. Limiting government is limiting the power of the people. The government, as imperfect as it is, is a check on extra-governmental power. The government can be oppressive, but so can a corporation. There used to be company towns and company script, company housing and private security and they literally gunned people down who protested their hegemony.
Small and local. Believe it or not Joe, but in free societies force is the LAST option. Unlike our society where people run to the State at the mere thought that maybe sometime in the far off future there might be a problem. As an example look at "Net Neutrality". Most companies bend over backwards to maintain customer satisfaction. Ebay sells crap from all over the world without *GASP* a world Government and *GASP* people seem to love doing business with them. You're babbling. I'll tell you what Joe, you go off and learn the difference between a deductively valid sound argument and an inductively strong cogent argument and then come back. While you're at it, look into the problem of induction. When I talk about teaching children rational thought, I'm referring to classical argument theory, e.g.: conditionals like if P then Q when structured as modus ponens, modus tollens, fallacy of the antecedent, affirming the consequent, etc....Something that should be taught beginning in grade 7. I said adults will have to apply the lessons they learned as kids. 1. Don't steal, therefore no income tax (protection of private property) 2. Don't hit, therefore no strangling someone for selling a cigarette, taxi ride, herb, sex, medical advice, hair cut, etc.... (use of contract AND protection of private property) 3. Use words, therefore no using the State as a FORCE against innocent people - thus people are required to follow the law and use sound money, etc... if they want to be a part of society. Anyone can legally protect their own body from aggression. You can kill someone in self defence, UNLESS that someone is a Agent of the State. Then your role as "Citizen" of said geopolitical location / property of the State is to submit to their violence - or be harmed, possibly even killed. Where is my evidence that ADULTS like to hit and steal? Go try and sell a cigarette or a hair cut to an adult without a licence Joe. When a couple agents of the State come to stop you, all you have to do is resist those people. Resist them from taking your property. Resist them from harming your person. See how long you last before you're strangled to death. Luckily for the State it's Citizens are already intimidated or brainwashed into accepted their role as tax chattel. No we don't. Are you f*cking kidding me?!!? The government has its hands all over ALL markets. Everything from who can cut hair to who can sell medical advice. What? You don't think restricting the number of doctors, hospitals and fMRI has a major effect on the price of medicine?! Not to mention we use FIAT currency. Not to mention the State sells T-bonds on in said fiat currency and distorts ALL markets by manipulating interest rates on said fiat currency. You've drank so much of the koolaid you can't see your own nose in front of your face. This is complete bullshit and is not based on empirical evidence. In a free market with free competition it is nearly impossible to have monopoly and has only occurred once in the USA and that was in aluminium. And guess what Joe? The price goes DOWN when a company has a monopoly and goes UP after the monopoly is busted up. The fact is it requires massive continued investment and prohibiting low prices to keep competition out of a market. Bad for the competition but great for the consumer.
Given the 100 years of technological advancement and massive increases in productivity I'd argue the cesspool government housing pits are much worse now. A 1910 census showed 80% of Africans living in a Chicago district could read and write. The 2010 literacy rate was less than 50% for the same neighbourhood.
I have no problem with private people forming private unions and going on strike. That is perfectly moral and acceptable behaviour. It is, of course, not legal to shoot someone for protesting. Government should be the LAST resort. The very last resort. This then requires people to come up with non-violent means of dealing with one another. By resorting to the initiation of violence against innocent people (aka: the government) we will never ever develop the culture or the ideas or technology to deal with our problems non-violently. As an example, many people suggest Romans were at the state where they could have developed an industrial society but because slavery was so cheap, they simply didn't. Why develop new technology when slavery was a (then) perfectly normal means of getting work done. The same is true of the USA. In the 1700s people simply thought society would collapse, starve, etc... without slaves. They'd say "You use the roads" (which were built by slaves) if you argued against slavery. There was no pragmatic argument - ONLY a moral argument. Government only delineates itself from other groups of humans by a single legal exception - it can initiate violence against innocent people. Yet, with this one tiny exception is has grown to be the largest most violent institution humanity has ever seen. It just bailed out the richest 0.1% everyone keeps crapping on about. It's now engaged in never ending wars - most of which we completely make up reason for. Think of the millions of human children poisoned to death in Vietnam. And for what? For what? To stop 'Communism'. Give me a f*cking break. Humans used to believe in Gods and were manipulated for having this superstitious belief by cons who used it against them. The same is true when these con men made up meme's liek The One God and/or the Divine Emperor. It's all a lie. All that's changed is we're not living in Christendom but in a State. We're not Christians but Citizens. We've replace the Pope with a POTUS and Bishops with Senators. People may have stopped worshipped the One God, now they worship whatever State they happen to be born a Citizen of. And just like 5000 years ago, they're being conned. Lastly, I have no problem with a LIMITED State. A tiny role. Small. In this way humans will develop non-violent means of deals with problems like food poisoning, medical malpractice, bad hair cuts and crappy MP3 players. But, so long as humans have access to the State - they'll always opt for the quick fix, which is to say violence. Thus, we have to remove that choice from them. And this is a good thing, think of all the new technological advancement and jobs we'll create not having a government to rely on. Most people want to provide value and produce goods and services - let them do so with laws that protect property and contract and in a money they choose.
All institutions must be willing to use force against people or they risk vanishing. They might not know whether the people they use force against are innocent or not. It might not matter. You might as well be in favor of limited everything. Why make a distinction between different kinds of organizations? The thing you seem to be against is concentrated power, and as I said, it's naive to think you can just wish it away, it's a factor as old as humanity itself.
well no not in the real world or the world i want to create it. in the world you'd create for the rich it would be essentially. we already see how money effects justice, the world you wish to create would only amplify such things.
you failed economics in high school didn't you. macro economics 101 clearly shows the prices are generally higher in a monopoly than in a true free market because their is no downward price pressure. micheal nothing you say is based on empirical evidence. the more i read your posts the more and more you come across as an idiot. almost all your examples work against your stated beliefs.
Defining the word by merely repeating word itself isn't' a definition Michael. You still haven't explained what is too much government in any meaningful sense. One would think after al these years of preaching your ideology, you could at least give some granularity to your rhetoric. Free society such as? Who says our society isn't free, besides you? Is there a freer society? You believe that if we just let the Kochs do what they will; all will be well and the good natured Koch brothers would never use force. They might steal oil as they have done, but no they would never use force. Theft isn’t force? It’s those nasty regulations which force the Kochs to steal oil. Seriously, Michael, you are extraordinarily disconnected. Unfortunately for you and those who share your beliefs, I am not. I will once again repeat myself for your edification. Get your cross and libertarian holy water ready, “If a government is strong enough to enforce law and protect property rights, it is certainly worth corrupting. Property rights have value, that is something those and so called “conservatives” keep ignoring. It is just one of the many inconvenient facts so called conservatives like to ignore because it is consistent with their beliefs.” Inconvenient truths are not babble. Well you certainly haven’t demonstrated logical thinking in the many years in which you have posted on Sciforums. If I or other members could see some semblance of a well-structured argument on your part, you wouldn’t be the pariah. You can’t even outline your belief system in any meaningful terms. You cannot define what you mean by small government. You want the government to enforce property rights without using force. And you don’t have a consistent definition of force. You arbitrarily invent word meanings to suit your ideological beliefs and your ideology is heavily dependent on magical beliefs. So basically you want government services, but you don’t want to pay for them. You want the government to protect your property rights but you don’t want to pay for that service. As you have been told numerous times over the years, taxation isn’t theft. It’s paying for the goods and services government produces. Government doesn’t strangle people for selling a cigarette. You are lying again. Gardner was strangled while resisting arrest. The cops involved were incompetent. Tell me how removing regulation is going to cure incompetence? People make mistakes and unfortunately, in your world of magical thinking, you believe if we just get rid of regulation everyone will suddenly become competent and never make mistakes. That’s magical thinking Michael. I’ve been pulled over by cops over the years for anything from a light out to speeding and I have never had a single violent experience with policemen. All of my encounters with policemen have been amicable and none of them have been violent. I even contested one speeding ticket and won in court. My role as a member of this society is to not initiate violence. It works pretty well. One doesn’t need to be submissive. But one does need to not become violent if one wants to avoid violence. As previously noted, those were one off events and resulted because the victim resisted arrest and the cops were overzealous and incompetent. And it’s very difficult to see how that supports your across the board universal deregulation beliefs. Are they brainwashed or are you brainwashed, ninety nine percent of the people are brainwashed but you are not? Ok. I don’t suppose you have any evidence of this mass brainwashing? Do you have any successful libertarian state you can point to in the tens of thousands of years of human existence to back up your assertions? You don't accept the science of economics because it doesn't validate your ideological beliefs. Evidence and reason should trump belief, unfortunately that just isn't the case with you and those like you. “Hands all over ALL markets”, didn’t you just say you wanted government to enforce property rights? How do you expect them to do that if they don’t set up some rules of the road? You keep contradicting yourself Michael and that is why you never make any sense. And the fact remains; we do have a free market economy. With few exceptions (e.g. the previously referenced monopolies) government doesn’t set pricing. Product and services are worth whatever buyers and sellers are willing to pay at any given time. That is a very unfortunate fact for you. That’s why you keep ignoring it. Oh, and you have evidence to support that assertion? No you don’t Michael, you never have proofs. You just mindlessly repeat your ideological beliefs while espousing your demagogic rhetoric, ignore evidence, redefine and misuse words, while calling everyone else names. How does that fit in with your notions of logic Michael? If you knew anything about logical argument Michael, you would know that isn’t logical argument. But hey, it is what you do because you cannot support your ideological beliefs with logical argument. Oh, then perhaps you should open a history book and read up on robber barons and how antitrust laws came to be. And now you are going to argue the economy of the robber baron era wasn’t a free market economy. Well, the economy of the robber baron era was much less regulated than it is today. It was as about as unregulated as possible and still able to enforce your property rights.
So that is your defense of monopolism. So you think we should have more monopolies. How do you reconcile that with your free market beliefs? Monopolies are the antithesis of free markets. If monopolies make prices go down as you assert, then why don’t we have more monopolies? Why are people opposed to monopolies? And again Michael, where is your evidence. There is an old idiom which goes like this, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. So where is your proof, where is the evidence which supports your claims? You have none Michael. The truth is, well regulated monopolies can be more efficient and deliver product and services at lower prices (e.g. utilities). However, unregulated economies can and do have tohe exact opposite effect. They drive prices higher and become inefficient, because they have little incentive to do otherwise. They have no competition. So it is more than a little funny to watch libertarians such as yourself try to reconcile their beliefs in free market capitalism while defending monopolism which is the antithesis of free market capitalism but is the ultimate outcome of unrestrained unregulated free markets. That’s history Michael.
So the poor are worse off now because they have smaller TVs and slower Internet? Technological advancements only make your argument worse. Try a different neighbourhood, say in Alabama, and try to make the argument that black people were better off in 1910 than in 2010.
It's a little ironic that Michael is always ranting about governmental use of force. And in the blink of an eye be rants that "govment" didn't throw the "banksters" in jail for causing the Great Recession, never mind the fact they violated no laws.
