GENIUS FORUMS

Oops, sorry. I forgot to post the pièce de résistance"

Nick wrote:

In my view socialism occurs when government employs a system of taxation and redistribution.

Well, thanks for a good laugh Leyla, I truly mean that. But you forgot a key part of my request, which is not only to read the words I typed, but to actually attempt to understand the idea they are meant to express. This is probably a fairly futile request on my part because you're still only trying to argue your point, which I've made clear means nothing to the ideas I have in fact expressed, and is of absolutely no interest to me.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:A libertarian system can be ‘free’ in the sense that most of the regulations in each state are imposed at the state level by local governments, which should reflect the consensus of what the people believe.

However, the real economic and moral danger because I do not separate the two is when you give too much power to the federal government to make sweeping regulations across the states, which do not reflect what the state governments want.

State vs. federal government is probably an issue pretty much unique to the U.S., and not of that much theoretical concern.

However... states rights, it seems to me, took a beating because of the Civil War. The big issue was whether new states (in the West) would be allowed to decide for themselves if they would allow slavery. Slavery at the time being pretty much abolished in the North, but still common in the South; the Southern states wanted new states to be able to decide for themselves, while the North wanted new states to be free.

Because of this history, it seems that states rights issues are associated with being a redneck and a bigot. However, there's no particular reason in general why the federal government should be expected to be more moral or enlightened than the individual state governments (although it may have worked out that way in that particular instance). The slavery issue was used to strengthen the federal government at the expense of the states.

Even today this is a tricky issue to discuss without getting side-tracked, as the racial issues are still very sensitive. Usually states rights come up in the context of some particular issue, and people seem to argue for or against states rights based on the outcome for that issue, rather than on any real underlying principle.

DHodges wrote:There seems to be an unstated(?) idea that the government, or "society," has a right to do things that individuals do not. I disagree with that idea. The government is an instrument for collective action. It only legitimately has the rights that are specifically ceded to it by the people. Anything beyond that is abuse and tyranny.

What about law enforcement? There are things that a group of people can accomplish that individuals cannot, so in some sense that group must be invested with the authority to perform those things. You could not have a privatized police force, for example, if there were no mechanism to collect the revenue to pay them. What would stop organized crime from blossoming even more than it does? The government has the right - in fact, the duty - to administer justice. Individuals do not. You would have it differently? If the goverment has the authority to decide an person is guilty of something, then punish with imprisonment and/or death, then you want that right as well? You could hold someone captive because the government can. Or else, the goverment cannot because you cannot. Explain.

DHodges, I suspect that with your guns and individualistic views, you would like to have been at the frontier of the Old West. I also suspect you might feel a little out of place, actuaries not being in fierce demand...

edit---I found spelling errors as usual...

brokenhead wrote:What about law enforcement? There are things that a group of people can accomplish that individuals cannot, so in some sense that group must be invested with the authority to perform those things. You could not have a privatized police force, for example, if there were no mechanism to collect the revenue to pay them. What would stop organized crime from blossoming even more than it does? The government has the right - in fact, the duty - to administer justice. Individuals do not. You would have it differently? If the goverment has the authority to decide an person is guilty of something, then punish with imprisonment and/or death, then you want that right as well? You could hold someone captive because the government can. Or else, the goverment cannot because you cannot. Explain.

Where do you think government gets its authority from, if not from the consent of the governed?

The Social Contract

DHodges, I suspect that with your guns and individualistic views, you would like to have been at the frontier of the Old West. I also suspect you might feel a little out of place, actuaries not being in fierce demand...

I'm actually pretty much a city boy, but I'm trying to break out of that. I can tell a horse from a cow, like, nine times out of ten, I bet.

Actuaries of the Wild West might make a pretty kickass comic book, though.

DHodges wrote:Where do you think government gets its authority from, if not from the consent of the governed?

I understand that. But by contract, government does, in fact, have rights that the governed do not. You are saying you disagree with that contract, because you don't think the government should have any extra rights.

Do not mistake my meaning here. I am all for what you do, namely, question the motives and actions of the government. I do as well. We have to, it is out duty, because we are the other half of the contract. Just like when nations ink a treaty, the operative approach subsequently is "trust and verify." You have a right, every right, to envision a society with minimal government where in theory it would possess no more rights than the private individual. I am saying that I do not believe such a state is imminent. Mankind is not ready for it. Not only is everyone not enlightened, but because mental abilities lie along your cherished Gaussian curve like everything else, I believe in theory that a society as you envision it may very well be permanently beyond our reach. I could be wrong, maybe it's only a matter of time - if a geat deal of time. Either way, no one is disputing your right to envision it.

What government at its best does is to empower, in some sense, the individual. In a free society - such as a Libertarian one which you seem to endorse - individuals have the freedom to aggregate into larger concerns that share goals and methodologies and maybe even pholosophies. In our present society, we often refer to these aggregates as companies. Government is ostensibly the means we have evolved to act as a check on the activities of companies and other private organizations with regard to individuals and the rest of society as a whole. It is in fact our only recourse, which is why we grant it the authority that we do.

With rights come responsibilities. Do you agree? If we as individuals had every right we grant to the government by contract, then we would individually bear the same responsibilities. A case in point would be the aggressive, dangerous, intoxicated driver. If we had the same authority to arrest an erratic motorist that we have allowed the state police, then would we not be obligated to physically stop such a driver when we saw one? Would we not have to intervene at a convenience store hold up being committed by a person whom we allowed the right to bear a concealed handgun?

It seems to me that we have empowered, by contract, an aggregate - a subset of society - to carry out three distinct operations: to make laws that benefit the greater number of citizens, to enforce those laws, and to deal with the consequences of the actions of individuals who do not abide by them.

I agree that in the US, at least, the government seems at times to have evolved into something top-heavy and inefficient and not responsive to the interests of the individual, but rather to the concerns of special interest groups with the resources to organize and influence. At this stage, I even agree that a swing towards a more Libertarian style of goverment is desirable, if only at a state level. Any state would do, so that the rest of us could see what works and what doesn't.

I have worked in more than one government office. I have never seen so many people stand around talking in my life. The days would drag by so slowly. I eventually found my niche where I put on my walkman (it was a while ago!) and gave myself work to do so the day wouldn't creep by. Until one day a co-worker taps me on the shoulder and says, "You be makin' the rest of us look bad." I wanted to scream.

DHodges wrote:Actuaries of the Wild West might make a pretty kickass comic book, though.

LOL!!

I'm reluctant to buy into the debate having done it over and over again on a number of other websites over the years but would just like to reccomend to anyone who hasn't read Hayeks 'Road to Surfdom' , Robert Nozicks work(which D Hodges has already linked) and most things Von Mises wrote, as important pieces in this complicated puzzle.

And Hilary has one of the most elaborate and wide reaching 'Nanny state' proposals ever

I wish. But actually, that's a long way from the truth. Hillary is actually one of the most conservative of the Democratic candidates. She is centrist and moderate, and she would not do anywhere near as much to usher in a welfare state as more progressive candidates such as John Edwards and (better yet) Dennis Kucinich (who sadly dropped out).

The idea that Hillary is some kind of uber-socialist is a cultural meme created by Republicans, and it's really quite amusing to progressives due to the fact that we know what Hillary really stands for. You guys on the right couldn't hope for a better Democrat than Hillary. Anyone else (except maybe Obama) would be much worse news for you.

What government at its best does is to empower, in some sense, the individual.

I agree completely. However, it's important to note here that most people have a very conditional, culturally-derived definition of "empowerment" in mind when they say this. They are willing to have government "empower" people only in ways they personally find acceptable (such as to find jobs, etc). Nobody wants to empower some lazy slob to sit on his fat ass all day dribbling Dorito crumbs into the Nintendo without ever going to work, even if that's truly, genuinely, and sincerely what he wants to do with his life.

Well, actually, I do, because I take the idea that "what government at its best does is to empower, in some sense, the individual" quite seriously, and I do so without imposing personal or cultural restrictions on the meaning of "empowerment." I want to empower people to do precisely whatever the devil they want to do with their lives, provided they are law-abiding citizens. But thus far, almost nobody wants to become this much of a libertarian. Oh well, I'll keep watching the pot to see if it eventually boils. ;)

Unidian,

Well, actually, I do, because I take the idea that "what government at its best does is to empower, in some sense, the individual" quite seriously, and I do so without imposing personal or cultural restrictions on the meaning of "empowerment." I want to empower people to do precisely whatever the devil they want to do with their lives, provided they are law-abiding citizens. But thus far, almost nobody wants to become this much of a libertarian. Oh well, I'll keep watching the pot to see if it eventually boils. ;)

Yes, but a libertarian also values economic progress, which can only happen if taxes on big business and the middle-class are very low. For example: Kucinich wants to give free college education to all, but one must consider the economic consequences of such an action: what would happen if millions of young people were constantly given $40, 000 each over four years at the expense of big business and the middle-class. Basically, The irony of the whole thing is that the high taxes on business would probably result in companies that everyone wants to work for like Google, Intel, and Microsoft, moving to places such as Japan were the taxes are low, and so business conditions are more ideal for growth, investment and capital.

Unidian, you have to ask the question: how many innovative technological companies have been born out of a country like France? And btw, wine and cheese companies don't count!

Ryan,

It's obvious Unidian only cares about himself. If he doesn't get to live on the dole then progression of humanity be damned. Same goes for his spiritual life, he only cares about Truth so long as it doesn't take away from him enjoying the emotional side of life. Especially when it comes to confronting unconsiousness and it's direct ties to the feminine. He's a hypocrite, coward, and a fraud. No better than all the evil men he loves to compare the real souls of Truth on this board to.

It's obvious Unidian only cares about himself.

Yes, that's quite clear. It must have been the part where I advocate for everyone but myself that gave it away. I have an income, you know.

If he doesn't get to live on the dole then progression of humanity be damned.

No dear, I consider having that opportunity available (to ALL) part of the progression of humanity. Big difference there, but feel free to carry on. You will anyway.

Same goes for his spiritual life, he only cares about Truth so long as it doesn't take away from him enjoying the emotional side of life.

Wow, that's a big surprise to me, since emotions give me almost nothing but trouble. My personal life isn't that great, frankly. I don't have as many enjoyable emotions as I do unpleasant ones, but go ahead and keep asserting stuff like this anyway. Statistics predict that eventually something will hit the mark. And by all means, don't forget to belittle me for admitting to an imperfect personal life. You wouldn't want to miss a golden opportunity to lord your own superiority over me yet again.

Especially when it comes to confronting unconsiousness and it's direct ties to the feminine.

I'll try harder. Hmm, how about the following as an example of that sort of thing?

He's a hypocrite, coward, and a fraud.

Whoopsie, it' seems I've upset poor Nick, although undoubtedly he will deny it for the sake of appearing equinanimously enlightened. Would this sort of tantrum-throwing behavior be an example of "unconsciousness and it's direct ties to the feminine?"

No better than all the evil men he loves to compare the real souls of Truth on this board to.

+1 for the lovely but all too brief love song to David. I may not be better than "all the evil men" you're referring to, but I bet I'm laughing harder than they are. Good enough for me!

Nick Treklis wrote:Well, thanks for a good laugh Leyla, I truly mean that. But you forgot a key part of my request, which is not only to read the words I typed, but to actually attempt to understand the idea they are meant to express. This is probably a fairly futile request on my part because you're still only trying to argue your point, which I've made clear means nothing to the ideas I have in fact expressed, and is of absolutely no interest to me.

You don't have a brain, let alone a point. You're just a whinging, egotistical little bitch.

Ryan, on the other hand, is finally showing some evidence of consistent and clear thinking.

Leyla, I'd love to see that evidence.

Shahrazad,

Well, I didn't mean to imply that I thought his thinking "right." I have a friend visiting from overseas and mean to take this discussion back up with Ryan as soon as possible, in that regard.

Ryan, you wrote:

Tax is based on the assumption that some services can be better provided by the government, [snip]

No, it isn’t, at all. You’re flapping about in the superficial shallows. Tax is essentially and practically based on the assumption that there is no such thing as ownership rights over natural resources. (If your statement above were true, government would necessarily be performing a sterling job in all cases, indeed!) Therefore, the realisation in any socio-economic system of a class/es existing at and/or below “the poverty line” has implicitly and manifestly assumed and enforced such “rights” and class distinctions are consequently and arbitrarily established by that means. Your assumptions about your standard of living, Ryan, is based on some deluded socialisation of the notion “survival of the fittest” into a religio-political tenet, when, in actual fact, you have “survival of the coddled” where the coddled are not the fittest but the unwitting benefactors of the delusional belief that there is such a thing as private ownership of natural resources; that there is some measure of divine masculinity (or however you want to phrase the idea) to such subservience to the State---nay, to Woman, herself. You get people arguing, for instance, that their idea of “personal and fair exchange” for services rendered exists outside of the notion of social realities without even noticing the basic contradiction let alone class inter-relationships and interdependence.

Of course, if you expand your thinking a little along these lines, you will see that privatisation as a force unto itself has as much to do with scientific and human progress as it does to a failure in these areas.

More later.

Dan Rowden wrote:You would know, since it's about all you ever do. There's no argument, really, in the OP, just a ridiculous hypothetical not worth addressing. Perhaps Bill could state how he imagines it could possibly come to pass that everyone will suddenly up and start throwing themselves QSR-like into philosophy. Perhaps Bill could suggest why it would not be possible, should there in fact be some form of social movement in this direction that society cannot adapt itself economically to accommodate it. Perhaps Bill could explain why he thinks if society changed in this manner, work would not be a viable thing for many people including QSR. i.e. I don't think he really gets the point of being against employment in the context of the social status quo.

[edit: cleaned up a couple of typos]

he changed QRS to QSR

You resurrected a one-year-old thread just to say that?

Shahrazad wrote:You resurrected a one-year-old thread just to say that?

You replied to a one-month-old newcomer just to say that?

Yeah, because I want him to stop doing it. Sometimes embarrassing people works.