Limits of State Power by SergeantX

Keep the Shiny side up

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.

After all the discussions of libertarianism that have occurred on this board, and all the times you have participated, I find it astounding that you have grasped so little of the idea. Do you not ever listen at all? Are you unwilling to do even the slightest research into any idea that doesn't fit your world-view?

Or maybe you just like to argue.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 5:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, is there any chance of getting back to the topic?

No. When Rue and SignyM go into tag-team insult mode, you might as well forget it. Too bad. Sorry I missed what could have been an intersting discussion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 6:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
without getting lashed
or starved? You seem to think that good jobs just fall offa trees or something.

I think nothing of the sort. You've created that one on your own.

Quote:
No, what REALLY bothers you is the fact that government represents some sort of "authority". BFD. Has anyone ever mentioned that you might have ODD?

Wow... you really don't understand me in the slightest. How's about you stow Dr. Phil diagnoses, mkay? Is it really necessary to ascribe evil motivations or mental illness to someone just because they disagree with you?

Quote:
ETA: What I'm getting out of your comments, Sarge, is not that you're really against pain, danger, or death.

Perhaps you should read closer. I said nothing of the sort.

Quote:
After all, you say you'd rather starve to death, or court death being an "outlaw".

well, I didn't say I'd want starve to "death", but I would choose to face the possibility of starving, or to break the law, rather than voluntarily become a slave, or commit my children to the same, yes. That doesn't seem to me an outrageous conviction.

Honestly Signym, you seem to have reached the point where you think it's necessary to demonize me to make your point, and that's getting old.

Is there any chance you'll address the issues I mentioned earlier? I'm honestly curious how socialism resolves the dilemma. To me, it seems like a contradiction.

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 6:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

To recap.... Your beef is with government power because government has guns. I said that capitalism can also be coercive through threat of pain and death by other means (altho capitalists have been known to break kneecaps too). You seem to think that government coercion is somehow different from capitalist coercion for reasons that I can't quite fathom, and that one path represents authoritarianism while the other represents freedom. Can you explain that, Sarge? 'Cause I'm not trying to demonize you, I'm just trying to figure out why you willingly accept coercion from one direction (and call it freedom) but not from another.

----------------------
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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 6:20 AM

Why is it when we get into this discussion about Corporate power that no one ever remembers the role of the government, and it's fucking military forces, in putting down and suppressing the natural check and balance of labor unions and/or collectives of people willing to demand their fair share ?

Time and time again, I've said it - if the government had not aided and abetted these bastards by destroying and outlawing the natural check and balance to them, that kind of situation simply does not happen.

Now, I'll give that people as a whole are mentally, socially and emotionally different now than in the latter half of the 19th and early 20th centuries - meeker, more tolerant of abuses, especially those that don't affect them directly, and far less willing, hell, less ABLE, to use violence even when it may become necessary, and incompetent at it when they do, which is imho the result of social engineering to bring about that exact result.

So it's not like we can turn the clock back, changes like that don't happen overnight, but the up and coming generations are again, imho, far less inclined to take that shit than we are, bloody hell, I've spent a lifetime helping that along - but again, when a corporation can depend on the entire weight of government to protect it, and your only options are playing a rigged game they own lock stock and barrel, or facing the combined might of the corporation, the legal system, the government, and the military - you cannot lay sole blame at the feet of the corporations.

Just thought that needed a mention - again.

-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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 6:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX
Is there any chance you'll address the issues I mentioned earlier?
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To recap.... Your beef is ....

*sigh*

Suppose I'll take that as a "no". I'd hoped you'd be more interested in explaining your position.

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 6:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, dear. We've heard that before.

And one of the things I keep pounding on is to break up concentrations (and collusions) of power WHEREVER they occur: government and money, money and media, media and religion etc. You can't just raze it all to the ground and expect it to stay that way... equality is an unstable state. There has to be an active and ongoing effort to KEEP things fair. The "natural forces" of negotiation and resistance doesn't hack it.... if it did, humans wouldn't keep re-building tall pyramids of authority over and over and over again.

----------------------
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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 6:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, I was hoping you'd explain yours. Because I see coercion and power gathering in many centers... not just the government. You seem to think that is the ONLY authority that counts. Frankly, I think you're giving the government far more authority than it actually has.

----------------------
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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 6:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I was hoping you'd explain yours.

I'd be glad to. In another thread perhaps. But the equivalence of economic power and physical coercion is merely a distraction from the topic at hand.

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 6:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay. I'll have to get off the family PC for quite a while, but I have this one question to leave for both you and Frem:

Sarge, you're very wary of government power because government has the gun-power. Frem, you've stated quite often that big business has turned our government's guns against us. So let me ask you both a simple question: If business is inducing and/or coercing government gun-power to their advantage .... who has the most power? Who is running who?

How can you say that gun-power is the determining factor, when you seem to be saying that there is greater power behind it?

(I think we've just defined the de facto limits of state power)
----------------------
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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 7:03 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
No. When Rue and SignyM go into tag-team insult mode, you might as well forget it. Too bad. Sorry I missed what could have been an intersting discussion.

I’m actually a little pleased to see that I’m not the only one SigRue does this to.

And it’s interesting, given how Signym demands immediate answers to her “extrapolated” questions, and yet she won’t answer questions that are straight forward.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 7:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay. I'll have to get off the family PC for quite a while, but I have this one question to leave for both you and Frem:

Why would I bother? You've been dodging my question for most of this thread. And I'm not asking as a ploy, I'm honestly interested in how it's supposed to work. See, my biggest concern with socialism isn't that it redistributes wealth, it's that it requires so damned much state control to work. What am I missing?

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 7:07 AM

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 7:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Looks like I have the family PC for a while longer.

Sarge, I don't worry as much about state control as I worry about who's controlling the state. I think I've already answered your question at least partly: I think we should have certain rights which make us able to represent ourselves forcefully and in an intelligent manner in the economic, moral, governmental and intellectual spheres of our lives.

I would go so far as to say that not only should we have the right to free speech, we SHOULD have to right to speak freely to a large number of people. Either the government provides the backbone and service for free internet and media communication, or require that the telecoms and media giants provide free access on a percentage of their forums so that we ALL get to speak out, and not just be propagandized by endless cops and robbers shows and commercials.

Not only should we have the right to vote, but that a viable candidacy must be separated from the need for lots and lots of money... since that is the corrupting factor of democracy.

We should not only have the freedom from government intrusion into our private lives, but also from corporate intrusion into our private lives.

We should have the freedom to shape our economic future, rather than choose from limited options.

I could go on about what I think our "rights" should be, but it involves way more than the government because, quite frankly, I don't see government as the biggest problem right now, since it is very clear that there is a another power behind the government, and THAT is the power that I'm focusing 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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 7:31 AM

Quote:
... 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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 7:46 AM

Quote:
How can you say that gun-power is the determining factor, when you seem to be saying that there is greater power behind it?

Cause there is, and oddly enough, it's the easiest one to sandbag.

Perceived Legitimacy.

Of course, when you shred that, THEN they bring out the guns, but it is the most applicable factor of "de-facto" State Power, is whether or not the people of that state, corp, or what have you, will actually take it's orders.

The very essence of what Anarchism *IS*, happens to be such a threat to that factor that the idea of folks ever asking the one single question at it's core gives the powers that be the screamin willies.

And that question is...
"And I should listen to you, exactly, why?"

-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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 12:28 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I said that capitalism can also be coercive through threat of pain and death by other means (altho capitalists have been known to break kneecaps too).

Any system of economics, if backed up by the government in power, can be coercive. The Soviet Union, for example, combined communist governmental and economic systems in a manner that I don't think anyone would deny was quite coercive. Stalin starved to death millions of his own citizens, while food was available, for political purposes. No capitalism was involved. Kim Jung Il does the same thing today.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Any system of economics, if backed up by the government in power, IS coercive.

Fixed that for ya, Geez.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Any system of economics, if backed up by the government in power, can be coercive. The Soviet Union, for example, combined communist governmental and economic systems in a manner that I don't think anyone would deny was quite coercive. Stalin starved to death millions of his own citizens, while food was available, for political purposes. No capitalism was involved. Kim Jung Il does the same thing today

Yup. Economic power is dependent on government power. Without a willing, powerful government to their bidding, big money is essentially neutered. In the face of a government they can't manipulate, they can try hiring goon squads, but without government collusion those can't get very far. (besides, there's always the anti-goon squads - go Frem!

)

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 12:57 PM

there's always the anti-goon squads - go Frem!

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 1:03 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Now, I'll give that people as a whole are mentally, socially and emotionally different now than in the latter half of the 19th and early 20th centuries - meeker, more tolerant of abuses, especially those that don't affect them directly, and far less willing, hell, less ABLE, to use violence even when it may become necessary, and incompetent at it when they do, which is imho the result of social engineering to bring about that exact result.

Not totally disagreeing with ya on this one, Frem, but there's at the very least a matter of degrees. I don't think it's so much that we're collectively meeker and more tolerant of abuses, but rather that the abuses are of a much lesser degree. If your boss calls you lazy, you can pop off to him, you can quit, you can do whatever - but he most likely isn't going to give you the lash, and you aren't likely to have to work a 16-hour shift in bare feet with zero safety equipment.

And the REASON you don't have to put up with barbaric conditions like existed in the late-19th/early-20th centuries? Those very same unions that government and capitalists are quick to crush.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 1:11 PM

Just a nod to Frem here- the right of a child to be considered a human being with his or her own will & needs & self respect- a basic right, that when removed, creates most all other of society's (& world's) maladies.
From a young age we are taught that might makes right, that fairness is in the eyes of your master, and that resistance is futile.

The serious Chrisisall

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 1:37 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yup. Economic power is dependent on government power. Without a willing, powerful government to their bidding, big money is essentially neutered.

It doesn't have to be big money. It can be any social/economic system. SignyM, for example, wants a big government which will force redistribution of wealth and power to meet her welfare-state criteria.

You and I, i suspect, don't trust that any government, no matter how created, can be garanteed to keep on the straight and narrow. Given SignyM's distrust of American government, I'm surprised she'd want to give them the power she's seemingly willing to concede.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
SignyM, for example, wants a big government which will force redistribution of wealth and power to meet her welfare-state criteria.

Hey Geez, why don't you put words in her mouth- that'll fix her!

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 2:54 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hey Geez, why don't you put words in her mouth- that'll fix her!

Don't need to, as she says it pretty clearly herself.

"I would go so far as to say that not only should we have the right to free speech, we SHOULD have to right to speak freely to a large number of people. Either the government provides the backbone and service for free internet and media communication, or require that the telecoms and media giants provide free access on a percentage of their forums so that we ALL get to speak out, and not just be propagandized by endless cops and robbers shows and commercials."

But if you want to be fair and balanced, Chris, maybe you could snark on SignyM for putting words in Sarge's mouth as well.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

"I would go so far as to say that not only should we have the right to free speech, we SHOULD have to right to speak freely to a large number of people. Either the government provides the backbone and service for free internet and media communication, or require that the telecoms and media giants provide free access on a percentage of their forums so that we ALL get to speak out, and not just be propagandized by endless cops and robbers shows and commercials."

How does this foster the idea of a "welfare state?"

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I.... don't trust that any government, no matter how created, can be guaranteed to keep on the straight and narrow.

So, you must be an violent anarchist, bent on destroying the government you hate so much... right?

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 3:33 PM

Quote:
there's always the anti-goon squads - go Frem!

The punisher? yer kiddin me, right ?

Morelike The Shadow, or even closer, this guy.

"I am the Whistler and I know many things, for I walk by night. I know many strange tales hidden in the hearts of men and women who have stepped into the shadows. Yes, I know the nameless terrors of which they dare not speak."

It's downright eerie just how prophetic that quote has become for me, over the years, and even more ironic since I happen to be walking midnight watches these days.

Course, I tend to whistle anime themes mostly, which has resulted in a bit of hilarity when someone recognizes them, given the stuff I watch.

Bein busted for whistling the theme to Azumanga Daioh is NOT good for scary villain cred, I tellya.

Yeah, go ahead and laugh, but when you deal with some seriously ugly stuff on a day to day basis, it's nice to see something OTHER than that, just to stay sane.

-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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 3:39 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

How does this foster the idea of a "welfare state?"

One of the many examples of the "Government should force someone to do something, or force them to give up something they've created or earned, for the benefit of the masses" line that SignyM tends to take.

Aren't you in the least bit troubled by the concept that government should force any media outlet to give pretty much unlimited airtime to anyone who asks? I don't think there are that many channels available.

Also consider - Haken, and many other folks who run fan or single-issue chat sites, provide pretty much what SignyM wants already - a place where pretty much anyone can say pretty much anything they want(not to mention a ready-made audience). As witness, this thread. Anybody with enough sense to get a library card can have internet access for free in just about any town in the US. Why do we need a government mandate to provde what's already available, if you got any ambition to find it?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 4:12 PM

YINYANG

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

(My thoughts are messy and not fully formed, but I thought I'd try to answer this question.)

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
... 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?

Well, I'm not into pure socialism, so maybe I'm not the person you want to hear from, but my view is that wealth should not be a deciding factor for basic things - decent food, water, shelter, health care, schooling (either through public schools or more unorthodox methods) - but that, beyond those things, wealth can be a deciding factor (though I'm not a fan of corporatism or our consumer culture as is, so it would be nice if those changed, too). One way to do this could to subsidize farms so that everyone could get food for free, whatever was in season. Community gardening is something that could help, too. Providing housing in exchange for work might be a solution, though obviously that wouldn't be an option for everyone. But, then, if you weren't able to work, that would probably be covered by free health care. We need to crack down on big polluters, especially people who think it's okay to dump stuff in poor and/or minority neighborhoods, because it eventually gets back to the water - which none of us really owns due to the water cycle, and which none of us should be able to own because it is such a precious and essential resource.

Or, we could go with something like Bytemite's suggestion from another thread: anarcho-socialism. There wouldn't be a government, so thus no dilemma!

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Or, we could go with something like Bytemite's suggestion from another thread: anarcho-socialism. There wouldn't be a government, so thus no dilemma!

I've always been curious how that is supposed to work as well. I think I'll google it.

Anyway, thanks for taking my question seriously. The issue I'm struggling with in this thread is, in essence, how things get "divvied up" in a socialist society. I always thought that government was the presumed mechanism. But now I'm not so sure that's the intent (of those who propose socialism). So I'm curious how such decisions are made.

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 5:14 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
From the libertarian point of view, the protection of individual freedom is the sole justifiable purpose of government.

How rigidly do you hold to this, can I ask?

Heads should roll

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
How rigidly do you hold to this, can I ask?

Well, "within reason" I like to think. I'm not 100% opposed to laws of convenience* when consensus is very high and the burden (in terms of limiting freedom) is very low. But those types of laws should be the exception, rather than the rule. And the protection of rights should remain paramount.

* Laws and regulations which make a shared commons possible - traffic regulations, pollution laws, etc...

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

Saturday, May 9, 2009 11:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I've always been curious how that is supposed to work as well. I think I'll google it.

Anyway, thanks for taking my question seriously. The issue I'm struggling with in this thread is, in essence, how things get "divvied up" in a socialist society. I always thought that government was the presumed mechanism. But now I'm not so sure that's the intent (of those who propose socialism). So I'm curious how such decisions are made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia

-F

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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 12:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
One of the many examples of the "Government should force someone to do something, or force them to give up something they've created or earned, for the benefit of the masses" line that SignyM tends to take.

Government should force the powerful to give up that power. And I see you feel SO SORRY about that!

Quote:
Aren't you in the least bit troubled by the concept that government should force any media outlet to give pretty much unlimited airtime to anyone who asks? I don't think there are that many channels available.

This is exactly what Haken has done. It seems to work pretty well. Doesn't that trouble you?

--------------

Quote:
Yup. Economic power is dependent on government power.- Sarge

Any system of economics, if backed up by the government in power can be coercive.-Geezer

You have both missed the point entirely. Large entities of concentrated wealth with or without government power, by themselves are coercive and I've given you many examples already.

But you have such an idee fixe about government that you can't even see what's in front of your noses. You give capitalism what Frem calls perceived legitimacy, and that is what allows capitalism to run the government. In another thread the question was asked: What is the most important right? My answer was The right to think freely. NOTHING IS AS IMPORTANT AS AN IDEA. If an entire population believes that it is right to sacrifice babies to Moloch they will willingly give them up. And that is exactly what we have, and what you believe in: A system which chews people up - children, moms and dads, grandparents, the disabled- and spits them out, a system which YOU believe is so important that you are willing to accept poverty, curable illness, starvation, humiliation, horror, overlords, and death as sacrifices to its logic. You are so wedded to this system that you cannot even imagine life without it, nor can you see that it is system which can be changed because it is nothing but a construct, as artificial and belief-driven as Moloch ever was.

----------------------
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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 12:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

dbl

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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:46 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
A system which chews people up - children, moms and dads, grandparents, the disabled- and spits them out, a system which YOU believe is so important that you are willing to accept poverty, curable illness, starvation, humiliation, horror, overlords, and death as sacrifices to its logic. You are so wedded to this system that you cannot even imagine life without it, nor can you see that it is system which can be changed because it is nothing but a construct, as artificial and belief-driven as Moloch ever was.

Good post, Signy, and good point. Reminds me a bit of Morpheus...

Quote:

"Of course, no one can be told what The Matrix is..."

But now you've got me thinking. I don't know WHAT we would have without our current system, or something quite related to it, but maybe we SHOULD think about that - not "what works best about our system?" but rather "what system would work best FOR US?"

This discussion might have just gotten a whole lot more interesting.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 4:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
One of the many examples of the "Government should force someone to do something, or force them to give up something they've created or earned, for the benefit of the masses" line that SignyM tends to take.

Aren't you in the least bit troubled by the concept that government should force any media outlet to give pretty much unlimited airtime to anyone who asks? I don't think there are that many channels available.

You're either hopelessly dense, or you just like to argue- I think it's the latter.

That still doesn't answer the 'welfare' part, but to be ridiculous, yes, EVERYONE should get their daily 15 minutes on the air- that's what she's saying.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 6:03 AM

RUE

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

Geezer
"When Rue and SignyM go into tag-team insult mode, you might as well forget it. Too bad. Sorry I missed what could have been an intersting discussion."

I dare you to find me ANY PERSONAL CRITISICM OR OBSERVATION I MADE to this point - AT ALL. ANYTHING AT ALL THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS NON-TOPICAL. ALL I DID WAS ASK TOPICAL, IMPERSONAL QUESTIONS.

PISS OFF - ASSHOLE

You are a lying sack of right-wing shit. There. NOW you have your deserved insult.

***************************************************************
"I’m actually a little pleased to see that I’m not the only one SigRue does this to."

Oh, and Finn -

As the 'me too' tag-team lying sack of shit you are, here's one for you, too.

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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 6:13 AM

RUE

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

"Economic power is dependent on government power."

You cannot have a capitalist system - that system you like so much - without government power.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 7:27 AM

OK, Signym, I'll skip the question of the thread and dig in to your "economic power is coercive" proposition. But since we're doing that, and since you clearly have no intention of answering my questions, I'll take it as a concession that your position (that under socialism neither wealth nor government would decide the issues in question) was essentially contradictory and a fantasy.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You have both missed the point entirely. Large entities of concentrated wealth with or without government power, by themselves are coercive and I've given you many examples already.

Easy now, don't hurt yourself! So, where are these examples exactly?

Were you thinking this one?

Quote:
They DO hire goon squads yanno.

It's the best one you posted (because it actually does involve coercion), but it's mostly a fantasy. Goon squads happened, and do happen, but they are by far the exception to the rule. No, when a corporation wants to break you they don't send goons squads, then send lawyers. And do the lawyers attack you with "economic power" (by throwing bags of money at you?), no, they serve you up papers that point out the various laws* you have broken, and threaten that if you don't do as they wish the government will take your stuff and put you in jail.

* it's worth noting that these are laws they likely wrote themselves, laws that sounded nice and neat when proposed, all about the public good, but carefully crafted to allow them to be twisted and used to persecute you. This is the real reason I argue so stringently against them.

Or this one?

Quote:
And they can break you- financially- and kill you by witholding medical care.

This brings up a couple of good points. First off, you ever wonder how we got to the point that your health care, and implicitly your very health, came under the control of your employer? Ask anyone who's self-employed how much health insurance really costs. It's not pretty.

We've driven health care price inflation to the point where the only way it is affordable is by joining a large group plan. And with a few watered down exceptions, the only way that can happen is through signing on to be an "employee".

The other point this alludes to is your stalwart conviction that "not helping" is the same thing as "harming", that failing to provide aid, is the same thing as a malicious attack. But they're very different, and it's pretty obvious when you think about it.

The thing is, there are precious few good reasons for harming someone. It's pretty much only considered acceptable in self-defense. But there can be a great many good reasons to "not help" someone. You might not be able to help them. Helping them may mean neglecting other responsibilities (seeing to the well-being of your family, for example). Maybe they've irresponsibly put themselves in a position to need your help repeatedly and your tired of playing along. So that's why we make "harming" people illegal and, while we might consider "not helping" in many cases immoral, leave it up the decisions of freely thinking individuals.

Quote:
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.

This is substantially no different than the "withholding medical care" argument, but it does characterize a class of arguments you use repeatedly, so I'd like to address it. I'm wondering, how exactly do you "starve" someone? The whole notion seems to imply a captive victim. Either that, or it assumes a situation dependent on some rare emergency. How often is there only one source of food? Or for that matter income? Basing public policy on such rare circumstances is useless and deceptive.

Quote:
You are so wedded to this system that you cannot even imagine life without it, nor can you see that it is system which can be changed because it is nothing but a construct

Yes, yes. You've peered into my psyche once again and discovered my personal failings. You should really set up a practice.

I can imagine quite a lot (which tends to get me into trouble, actualy

). The anarcho-socialist thing, and the Catalonia example Frem linked to are very intriguing. They pretty much do away with modern notions of private property and capitalism, and I think I could be very happy in such a society. Of course it depends on the same kind of radical change in the population's mindset that ordinary anarchism relies on. And frankly, if the non-aggression principle ever does reach critical mass, the system we choose won't make much difference.

Anyway, yeah, it's a construct. Their power largely resides in our unquestioning acceptance of them as our "overlords", in the notion that working for the man is the only way to make a living and the only way to get health care; in our acceptance of institutional indoctrination as the only way to educate our children; in our willingness to accept that our corporate masters are too big to fail, and that we must sacrifice our very futures because it's "good for the company".

And yes, the corporations have actively campaigned to produce this construct. They manipulate our institutions, our entertainment, our religions, and finally our government to their ends. But anyone who's tried to break out of this construct becomes painfully aware that it's the last of these that actually carries weight. You can stop watching TV, quit going to church, stop believing what "they" say and get off the consumer treadmill. But if you go against government mandate, if you want to educate your children in a way that doesn't suit the state, if you don't want to pay taxes for services you aren't using, if you buy medicine from the wrong vendor, if you fail to maintain insurance, or you do business without following prohibitively expensive regulations, well, then you go to jail.

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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 7:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Economic power is dependent on government power."

You cannot have a capitalist system - that system you like so much - without government power.

Exactly

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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 7:49 AM

“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”
—George Washington, 1797

Might I also direct you to a piece written by Harry Browne in 1993.
The 7 Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrinciplesOfGovernment.htm

And one of his end questions is a little similar, but gentler, than mine.

My version: When you consider giving the Gov power to do something, remember that in the end of it all, that is in fact the power of life and death, because in extremis that ends with an agent of the Gov standing over the dead body of someone who would not obey, with a smoking gun in their hand.

So every law, every regulation, restriction, every little stinking nitpick has at the end, THAT force behind it, and as such you MUST consider first before you wish these things...

"Am I willing to kill someone over this ?"

So how about it ?

Parking ticket ? Garage three inches too wide for the building code ? Unsightly yard ?

You willing to kill someone over this bullshit, folks ?

Cause whether or not the weapon doing the killing is in your hand or not, every time you support a decision of Government, that is in the end what you're doing - agreeing that the decision is worth killing someone over.

Once you face THAT reality, fully grasp in detail the very essence and nature of the thing, I don't see how a humane, reasonable, thinking human being COULD support a Government, much less this one, or any one, on the planet today.

-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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 8:05 AM

Also, worth a mention...

I know it's upsetting to folk when sacred cows are gettin cheeseburgered by the truckload, but let's us try to keep our cool, all of us, shall we ?

It's just TOO DAMN EASY to blow up an otherwise useful discussion by letting ones emotional responses dictate how they respond, and we should if at all possible abstain from that, cause this discussion is actually productive and I'd really really hate to see it go the way of so many others.

I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that the kind of "socialism" Siggy is working from as a concept, and the "libertarianism" that Sarge is working from as a concept, might damn well BE the same thing wrapped up in different words and viewed from the opposite ends.
(you know the joke about three blind men and an elephant, right ?)

And both of those concepts sound a lot like what happened in Catalonia, which is why I felt the need to mention it.

But lemme ALSO mention just how fast every single government on the entire planet saw that as a threat and a danger far over and above even the dangers presented by each other (come on, when the Communists AND Fascists are allied against you, you know yer pissin off everyone!) and felt the desperate, burning desire to stamp that brushfire out before it started catching...

The reason I mention that, is because in such a system that is the first challenge you WILL face, the "powers that be" everywhere else on the face of this earth will catch the screaming willies and spare no effort at all to destroy you utterly before the idea catches on.

Because if it does, that's IT for them, and you can bet your sweet bippy they damn well know it - that's why even in most Science Fiction, that development happens only once folk are out of effective logistical and military reach of the "powers that be" - and one reason most governments do NOT favor the idea of self-sufficient space colonisation, because certain intel/psych studies even way back when showed that this particular development was all but inevitable even if 70% of the colonists were plants or ringers.

That particular study hangs over their head like an albatross every time the idea of space exploration is mentioned, never forget it, cause they certainly won't.

You re-create such a scenario HERE, where you're in ranges of their military might, you'd best have some plan for dealing with that other than martyrdom - or you'll have an awful hard time convincing anyone else wise enough to think it through to throw in with you.

Just sayin, is all.

-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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 2:26 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I'm not 100% opposed to laws of convenience* when consensus is very high and the burden (in terms of limiting freedom) is very low. But those types of laws should be the exception, rather than the rule. And the protection of rights should remain paramount.

* Laws and regulations which make a shared commons possible - traffic regulations, pollution laws, etc...

Hmm, well some of those laws and regulations for the common good I guess would be about preserving individual rights anyway, like the right to breathe clean air, etc.

But can I take it from your response that to some extent this question is a balancing act, where 'individual freedoms' is in your view the biggest and most important weight? That you won't necessarily begrudge a small amount of government intrusion into citizens' lives if the good to society outweighs it?

What do you say for example about some scandinavian governments choosing to place a large tax on alcohol to deter problem drinking in their societies, in part due to their country's long winters and short daylight hours?

Heads should roll

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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
What do you say for example about some scandinavian governments choosing to place a large tax on alcohol to deter problem drinking in their societies, in part due to their country's long winters and short daylight hours?

Heh... we recently finished up a thread on just that topic:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=38112

To summarized I think using the tax code to manipulate behavior is a horrible idea. So, I'd be very much against the example you mentioned.

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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 2:57 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Ahh, missed that thread - looks like something I should catch up on.

But let me ask another example, away from tax then. How about government making it mandatory to wear seat belts? A justifiable law for the good of society if it saves hundreds of lives a year?

Heads should roll

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

Sunday, May 10, 2009 5:36 PM