REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Limits of State Power

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Monday, May 25, 2009 08:03
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 26979
PAGE 1 of 8

Friday, May 8, 2009 8:06 AM

SERGEANTX


moved from the "end of free content" thread...

One of things libertarians fret about a lot is the idea the proper role of government. We believe that government should be a tool of last resort when solving our problems. So we want to limit government to a small set of necessary services. Thus the notion of constitutionally limited government.

I don't recall socialism or socialists ever setting out any concept of clear limits on government power. Obviously, that makes libertarians very nervous. The one thing that socialists are clear about is that government should be used to redistribute wealth. From one point of view, if the state lays claim to the fruits of our labor, other "rights" become a moot point.

So, what I'd like to do here is invite the socialists (or those who lean in that direction) among us to explain what they see as proper limits on government power. Are there any? What would you consider off-limits for the state, and more importantly, why?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 8:22 AM

CHRISISALL


Government should either help a citizen on his life travels, or simply stay out of the way. Sadly, it tends to do neither. Then tries to look like it is.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 8:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think I look at this a little differently: building in effective feedback loops to make sure that no single entity- government, industry, religion, or anthing else- gains ascendancy. Because power concentrates unless actively redistributed.

First of all, I would reform how our specific government itself is constituted. On the observation that concentrated decision-making tends to have a power advantage over distributed decision-making I would eliminate the Executive Branch and the office of the President. In terms of how the various government agencies would be directed, I would have them report to a self-elected board. Each board would have to report to Congress to argue its effectiveness and for its budget.

Election advertising should be provided freely to each candidate, and if anyone can think of any other measures to eliminate the role of money in elections, please propose them!

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 9:00 AM

SERGEANTX


Apologies for the hardass-itude, but that doesn't answer my questions. Are there limits?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 9:04 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I think in the proposed system where NO ONE gets to aggregate power, power is implied to rest mostly in the people. And the limits are whatever the people want. That's how I read it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 9:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes. There should be limits on government (and corporate) interference in your civil rights: privacy, free speech, freedom of (and from) religion, freedom of association, freedom from prosecution, right to vote, equal protection under the law etc.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 9:05 AM

SERGEANTX


So, rue, it's fair to characterize your answer as no limits - pure majority rules?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 9:08 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes. There should be limits on government (and corporate) interference in your civil rights: privacy, free speech, freedom of (and from) religion, freedom of association, freedom from prosecution, right to vote, equal protection under the law etc.


So, the Bill of Rights, minus the ninth and tenth amendments?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 9:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Not sure what the ninth does but at a gloss it sounds OK. But I would prolly revise the tenth. One of the things I find strange is that the Bill of Rights does not automatically apply all citizens under all circumstances. Some are re-enumerated in State Constitutions. Some apply to everyone, some are limited to Federal jurisdictions or to entities which receive Federal grants, or excluded where private institutions are involved. I've seen peeps bounced from Federal to State court and back again, trying to find the right jurisdiction.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 9:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I would also revise the second to remove the reference to a "well-regulated" militia and clarify that this is a right to "bear arms". I don't find it a particularly important right, but I think confusion should be eliminated.

Also, I would eliminate the death penalty, which seems to me to be a stellar example of a violation of the very first right, which is the right to life.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 9:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I would eliminate the whole copyright and patent thing. The peeps who made the most money offa discoveries weren't the peeps who made the actual discoveries. So naturally the DMCA goes into the crapper.


----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 9:52 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not sure what the ninth does.


Ahhh, well to limited government fans, the ninth is the most important (and sadly, the most neglected). It was added as a shout out for freedom in general and specifically to assuage concerns of some that a list of protected rights would dilute the purpose of the constitution. In their view, since the constitution was written as an exclusive list of the things government was allowed to do, a list of protected rights was redundant. If the constitution didn't say government could pass laws to limit speech, then it couldn't do it - no "freedom of speech" stipulation was necessary.

They were concerned first, that listing some rights to be protected would imply that others were not. Seconded, they worried that the idea of freedom embodied in the constitution would become identified with the Bill of Rights instead - and that the more important aspect of limited government would be neglected. I'm not sure they were right on the first point, but they were dead-on with the second. It's pretty much exactly what's happened.

Here's a pretty good write-up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Cons
titution

Anyway, it sounds like you're saying you would have a list of specific freedoms to protect, but that you don't subscribe to the founderss idea of limiting government power as a goal. Sound right?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 9:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think so, except that ... I also agree with the Ninth being a good "catchall" for things that haven't been thought of yet, or cases which have yet to be adjudicated. For example, the whole concept of internet freedom would never have come up before, nor would the capacity of snooping on millions of citizens en masse ever have been envisioned. But I think, more importantly, I would make those rights apply to everyone in all circumstances. So, for example, a business could not snoop into your private life nor prevent you from forming a worker's association, for example- just as you as a citizen do not have the right to snoop in your neighbor.

Also, I think there is a difference between limiting "government" power and limiting FEDERAL government power. That was part of the slavery debate. Do States have a right to limit your Bill of Rights freedoms? Do cities? Do corporations?
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 10:00 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
no limits - pure majority rules?

Government should not be representative at all, especially now. I can vote for or against initiatives, I don't need someone to pretend to 'represent' me.
And government power should be limited to zero monetary punishments (except in reparations cases)- they can be too hard on common folk while meaning nothing at all to money peeps.
The state should have no right to kill peeps.
The state should have no right to wage war without a direct mandate from its citizens.

Basically, I'd set all manner of limitations on government power.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 10:02 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Anyway, it sounds like you're saying you would have a list of specific freedoms to protect
I'd prefer a list of what's NOT protected, and go from there.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 10:05 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I don't recall socialism or socialists ever setting out any concept of clear limits on government power.
And you will never see it.

The reason our libertarian founders framed our constitution so specifically was to confound future efforts by oligarchs and ideologues to twist or bend the rights of humanity for reasons not serving the human condition. The bill of rights was really a list that says nothing more than: "These rights should be implied in the foundational document, but we know future generations will attempt to pervert the intent of that document, so this list makes it plain as plain can be. All we can do now is pray we did enough." And yet even with so much care taken by those men 220 years ago, ideologues are able to twist words. Example: text in Amendment #2 reads "shall not be infringed" yet somehow the meaning those words has evolved over time.

Socialists and Fascists share one trait in common: Each seeks to control your liberty. Fascists want to seize control of and limit personal freedoms. Socialists make grabs at your economic freedoms. But never lose sight of the solid fact that the intent of both is the same: to control of the citizenary through "legalized" aggression. Fascists on the right would like nothing more than to criminilize everything that doesn't fit a perfect moral code, the ultimate goal of which is to promote a society where people must walk a narrow line of obedience. Socialists seek control in a radically different way: by robbing the initative of the citizenary to pursue achievement and then slowly place them into economic positions where they must stand in a line for a handout. The summary---

Fascist goal: When the people are reduced to zealots, they are controlled
Socialist goal: When the people are reduced to beggars, they are controlled.

We libertarians are left in the center defending ourselves on 2 fronts.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 10:07 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
no limits - pure majority rules?

Government should not be representative at all, especially now. I can vote for or against initiatives, I don't need someone to pretend to 'represent' me.


Might wanna think that one through a bit more. Unless you wanna spend the rest of your days just voting.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 10:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, I think we should start out with: what rights does a population need in order to effectively represent themselves in government, business, information flow, ethics, and armed forces?

What other types of power have been centralized in the past? How can we prevent power from being concentrated? It's not just GOVERNMENT power I'm concerned about... and if that is all that anyone focuses on I think they got blinders on.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 10:17 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:

Fascist goal: When the people are reduced to zealots, they are controlled
Socialist goal: When the people are reduced to beggars, they are controled.

As a Libertarian of sorts myself, I'd put it like this:
Fascist goal: When the people are reduced to fearful cogs, they are controlled.
Socialist goal: When the people are reduced to lowly equals, they are controlled.

But either way, it boils down to control. Reality lies somewhere in between & outside of those models.
Excess within control. Liberty without elitist-mandated exceptions. Justice without prejudice. Fairness for one and for all through the elimination of 'legalese.'





The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 10:18 AM

SERGEANTX


Signym,

Before we move on, I'm still not sure I have a clear picture of your idea limits other than the Bill of Rights and "some other stuff". With the limited government approach, it's pretty easy to say what government can't do - ie anything not in the constitution.

But with your approach it's not clear to me how we know. It seems, in that case, that we'd need something like the Bill of Rights that essentially listed all protected rights. Is there a way to at least characterize the things that would be off-limits to government?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 10:19 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:


Might wanna think that one through a bit more. Unless you wanna spend the rest of your days just voting.

Okay, so a representative that handles mundane things, like where to put a stop sign & stuff.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 10:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think you're overly focusing on government aspects of power. But I'll answer your question on my next break.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 10:44 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you're overly focusing on government aspects of power. But I'll answer your question on my next break.


Thanks, I see you started along those lines with your last post.

I'm not sure how to address your view that government power and economic power are equivalent. In our society we give government the exclusive right to use force to achieve their ends - ie, they've got the guns. Fox may be able to cancel our favorite TV show, but they can't put us in jail for bitching about it.

We've discussed before the inequities encoded in corporate law, and I think we both agree that those can be addressed by simply removing the legal perks they currently enjoy. But I'm pretty sure you see a general role for the government in making sure financial success isn't the determining factor in the level of freedom and personal power a person can exercise.

I was thinking about this in the other thread: You agreed with me, that government shouldn't be able to determine where we live, what we do for a living, whom we marry, or how many kids we can have. But I think you'd also say that those things shouldn't be determined by how much money we have, that kids shouldn't have to go without because their parents are poor, that poor people shouldn't be excluded from nice schools and nice neighborhoods due to lack of money, that we shouldn't be denied a career of our choice due to lack of money.

Well, how do those work for everyone at the same time? What if everyone (or, more realistically, way more than is practical) want's to live in a beach house in Souther Cal? If money isn't at issue, surely every parent will want their children to go to the very best schools, the very best doctors, and have the best daycare. Obviously, everyone can't have everything. The question is, if wealth isn't the determining factor, and government isn't making these selections, who makes the call?

(gone for a bit as well)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 11:28 AM

FREMDFIRMA


My concept ?

Zero.

Unless and until specifically requested, specifically funded, and specifically authorized by a mandatory vote that MUST be unanimous, it has NO power, and in the former case, only the power to do that ONE SINGLE THING.

Think of it as the difference between a circular saw in your hand, that you turned on, used to cut one piece of wood, and then turned off and put away - versus that same circular saw running wild and amuck in your house, destroying everything in sight.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 11:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Fox may be able to cancel our favorite TV show, but they can't put us in jail for bitching about it.
They DO hire goon squads yanno. And they can break you- financially- and kill you by witholding medical care. The peeps in Africa are a great example of how you can be broken economically.


----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 11:42 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:
What would you consider off-limits for the state, and more importantly, why?


Interference with any activity one does with one's body, so long as that activity does not interfere with the rights of others to do likewise. This includes things like drug use of any sort, prostitution, euthanasia, and abortion, as well as speech, etc., and prohibits things like the death penalty.

Neither should individual people, non-governmental groups, or governmental groups (when one is outside its jurisdiction) be able to interfere with a person's right to their body, and the state should have the power to protect against that.

Why? Because the right to control our own bodies is, essentially, the right to control our selves, and to not be able to control one's self is a chilling thought. I'm not sure I can explain that in any greater detail.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 12:13 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Damn. I just hate it when a thread takes off and I need to do a lot of catching up ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 12:26 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
They DO hire goon squads yanno. And they can break you- financially- and kill you by witholding medical care. The peeps in Africa are a great example of how you can be broken economically.


Goons squads happen, but they are already illegal, and the exception rather than the rule. You know my position on readily available health care (unfortunately, it's also illegal)
The peeps in Africa are hardly under the jurisdiction our our domestic policy - though I grant you our foreign policy has fucked them royal.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 12:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


If you and your family are starving you may as well be a slave.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 1:17 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you and your family are starving you may as well be a slave.


Nope.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 1:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Have you ever seriously thought what it means to see your child starve or die for lack of medical care? The peeps who take starvation wages for dangerous jobs don't do so because they have their "civil rights". I said it b4, and this points it out: you are such an unconscious elitist it never even occurs to you to that others might really be suffering.

I don't mean to be insulting Sarge, but you sound like I did when I was a teenager... a pretty comfortable teenager BTW. I had food, a place to stay, lots of spare time. Abstract ideas like "freedom" had a very high sheen then.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 1:44 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I said it b4, and this points it out: you are such an unconscious elitist it never even occurs to you to that others might really be suffering.


Yeah. You say that with some frequency. I try to ignore personal attacks and press on, but it's not always easy. My gut response is "fuck you, you don't know me", but that doesn't exactly salvage anything from the discussion. I don't feel the need to justify my opinions with personal testimony. If the ideas are sound, my personal story doesn't matter.




SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 1:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, the ideas AREN'T sound. One can be compelled to do all kinds of shitty things thru starvation even more easily than being compelled at the point of a gun. Because you can only hold a gun on a person for so long. But if you've got them and their family by the stomach, they'll keep on doing what you want even if you turn your back.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 2:49 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, the ideas AREN'T sound.


Which ones? I don't think slavery is better than facing starvation. In any case, I don't think those are ever the only two options. I'll beg, borrow or steal before I'll give up my freedom for bread.

Frankly, I find the flippant used of the term slave - as in "wage slave", for example - to be incredibly naive (and pretty damned insensitive to hundreds of thousands of Americans who lived and died as someone else's property). Have you ever thought about what it would be like to be a real slave? That means someone OWNS you, they own your body and treat is as they wish. You are their property. That's a living death as far as I'm concerned, and I'd never choose it voluntary. Even if the alternative was starving.




SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 2:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Do you understand that slavery is an economic system ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 3:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
That means someone OWNS you, they own your body and treat is as they wish. You are their property. That's a living death as far as I'm concerned
Have you ever looked at England during the Industrial Revolution?



Or at


Or



Read about the women who work 15 hours a day, sleep in shifts, then are raped by their supverisors and tossed out if they become pregnant? Does that look any better than slavery?
Quote:
and I'd never choose it voluntary. Even if the alternative was starving.
Brave, untested, words. I think if you or your family truly faced a crisis... which you have never done, apparently... you'd prolly change your mind. Too bad you can't even imagine yourself in the shoes of the average peon. But right now you care more for your ideological purity than you do for people. In another thread, long ago, you wondered why libertarianism nevr got anywhere. I think you just found your answer.



----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 3:32 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Brave, untested, heartless words. You care more for your ideological purity than you do for people.


Back to that again, huh?

Listen, if you're tired, call it a night. Resorting to personal attacks isn't much fun for anyone. Is it?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 3:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Do you understand that slavery is an economic system ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 3:34 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Do you understand that slavery is an economic system ?


Sure, what's your point?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 3:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


It's a business, not a government.

If you had to chose between an anti-slavery government and a pro-slavery 'free-enterprise' business, which would you choose ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 3:42 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Sarge, I'm not attacking you. Well, maybe a little. But the point is that you keep proposing unrealistic options. Economic hardship is as compelling as a gun. Whether you or your child dies by starvation or untreated pneumonia or gunfire is... well, irrelevant. There are more kinds of force than weaponry. YOU say that you would rather die or become an outlaw.... but yanno what? Most people don't want to live that way. And the old, the infirm, the young... CAN'T live that way. That option is only for a young, healthy, slightly sociopathic males who don't mind robbing people who just as destitute as they are (because the rich will always be protected). If that's your "solution" to economic injustice... leave me out of it.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 3:46 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's a business, not a government.


A business existing existing with the consent of the government.

Quote:
If you had to chose between an anti-slavery government and a pro-slavery business, which would you choose ?


Obviously, the anti-slavery government. But a pro-slavery business would imply a pro-slavery government. Again, I'm not sure I see your point.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 3:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"A business existing existing with the consent of the government."

I dunno. Back in Iceland a few hundred years ago - the supposed bastion of libertarianism - people were owned. They were slaves. It's where the word 'thrall' came from.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 3:54 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge, I'm not attacking you. Well, maybe a little. But the point is that you keep proposing unrealistic options. Economic hardship is as compelling as a gun.

This is the point you keep making with which I categorically disagree. Despite my reluctance to share personal details as part of an argument, it seems important to you so I'll say this much. I've faced both economic hardship as well as being at the mercy of someone with a gun. Thankfully, much more of the economic hardship, some of which was pretty extreme. I say "thankfully" because there's just no comparison. Being poor, even desperately so, is just not the same thing as being on the barrel end of a gun.


Quote:
If that's your "solution" to economic injustice... leave me out of it.


Tell you what. I'll gladly leave you out of mine, if you leave me out of yours, deal?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 3:55 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"A business existing existing with the consent of the government."

I dunno. Back in Iceland a few hundred years ago - the supposed bastion of libertarianism - people were owned. They were slaves. It's where the word 'thrall' came from.


Uh..heh.. despite my typo, I think you got my point. But I'm still not getting yours. Slavery is not part of the libertarian credo.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 4:06 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Why not ?

***************************************************************

OOPS. It's late, I gotta go.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 4:06 PM

SERGEANTX


So, is there any chance of getting back to the topic? I just don't think you're going to have any luck convincing me that "working for the man" is the same thing as slavery. As long as I can throw down my tools and walk without getting lashed, it's not even close.


Anyway, I was particularly interested in the socialist explanation of what, to me, seems a contradiction. If we're not willing to let the government tell us where we can live, what career we can pursue, etc.... yet we don't want wealth to be the deciding factor, how do such dilemmas get resolved?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 4:07 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Why not ?


Perhaps you missed the part that mentioned "freedom"?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 4:10 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


LIbertarianism - seems to me to be about small - or best - no - government, and letting the marketplace decide. Neither one precludes slavery.

Anyway, I have to go. I'm late.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 4:18 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
LIbertarianism - seems to me to be about small - or best - no - government, and letting the marketplace decide. Neither one precludes slavery.


Maybe you should do some more reading. From the libertarian point of view, the protection of individual freedom is the sole justifiable purpose of government. Limited government and a free market are concepts derived from this central tenet.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts
White Woman Gets Murdered, Race Baiters Most Affected
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:40 - 20 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL