Limits of State Power by SergeantX

Imma take these two in reverse order, since they dovetail so nicely.

First, Siggy...

Quote:
Many sticky questions remained unanswered. Who mined (or recycled) the iron and coal to make the parts to fix the railroad engines to run the railroad ? Who mined and refined the minerals to manufacture the chips to run the computer that listed areas where work needed to be done ? Who gathered the resources to create the nutrition/ food lab to research new and better food supplies ?

I can address that one, at least insofar as our little meritocracy goes.

Yanno, I actually hold no authority whatsoever, right ?
Not the purse strings, not by force, knowledge (outside of my specialties I can be a downright blockhead), rules, or any other method of coercion - and I severely, SEVERELY stomp on anything resembling personality cultism or hero mythology in any form, not that it stops a couple of folk, bleh...

But, despite the fact that in practice it's a friggin cat-herd, when something needs doing, and everyone looks at someone else, and most of em are lookin at the same person, it's prettymuch a given that unless whatever concept or idea they espouse is especially stupid - they will voluntarily take that persons directions or advice.

It's a hard concept to describe, but despite it being a coordinated effort, there's no real coercion required - everyone knows we need to get this thing or that thing done, and whoever happens to be in their judgement the most likely to cause that to happen efficiently gets the nod, so long as they are willing and able, which occasionally results in the one getting the nod stating "I have no idea" and either finding someone else, or someone else research cramming while giving directions.

Once you remove the NECESSITY of work, you will quickly find that folks as a rule prefer to have something meaningful to DO - and feeling involved in the process as a direct beneficiary of the end result, will go about it quite cheerfully and diligently.

Quote:
Basically, it comes down to a lack of large-scale organization that you need to get complicated things done.

For a large scale project, it runs just about the same, one guy winds up with the nod to coordinate it, and then each sectional pack throws the nod to someone within who winds up as team leader for the duration, and so on and so forth.

Swarm theory meritocracy is the closest way to describe it.
I HAVE seen a capsule description of that in film once, quite masterfully, in fact - Edgar Friendly and his little pack of folks.

And then Rue...

Quote:
Unless of course you are a font of ideas that you can sell very well. In which case, you 'abuse' your power by persuading others to go along. And if your ideas test out over over time as being generally good ideas, you'll probably get a better listening-to over time.

Exactly, which splices right in with the above.

Of course, that can lead to a bit of hilarity when everyone looks at you and you're only answer is "I have no idea" (this is a running joke, for us) followed by a moment of ok-what-the-hell-do-we-do-now ? before someone else steps up or starts cramming on it to get the process started.

-F

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
we can't really afford for those stupid voices to get a whole lot of traction, without regressing as a society every time the American people as a whole, get complacent, and content to not know shit about whats going on.

Couple of points in response. First off, who decides which are the stupid voices? You? Me? An educated elite? The Majority? Would any of these be reliably right? Enough to justify forcing their opinions on everyone else?

Second, if complacency is your concern, that's exactly what these 'caretaker' laws breed. I've seen the change in the few years I've been alive. The more we round off all the corners and install baby bumpers on all the sharp edges of society, the more people demand that they should be able to stumble through life, exercising little or no judgment of their own - and suffer no ill consequences as a result. The more we bailout failing businesses, the more risk those business take on. It's all good, the government will take care of everything.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 11:21 AM

Byte ?

Re: Utah.

Give us a couple of years - because of what happened in Texas with the FLDS and our involvement with that, and the aftermath of trying to help hold them together while purging the bad elements, we've wound up with massive "cred" within the mormon community on both sides of the line - and we intend to spend it wisely.

One thing I'll say about mormons, minus certain really bad elements we're currently assisting with the purging of, they really do love their kids, and if that means having to temporarily stay their hand from smiting evil in order to better protect them, I think that given time we can convince them, especially given a still-painful example of how hurtful going overboard with the smiting can be to them.

-F

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 11:38 AM

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

Quote:
But we don't need it to tell us the right way to live. We don't need it to tell us what church to go to or what books to read. We don't need it to maintain our health, to feed us, to cloth us, to make sure we brush our teeth before bed or tuck us in at night.

Well, to some extent I agree with you. I'm arguing though that there IS a case for limited government intervention in our lives, I've even drawn a line to say where it is permissible. Basically I'm arguing that there's a difference between government intervention to get people to wear seat belts and government intervention to get people to stop smoking - because one is a personal lifestyle choice and the other is primarily just thoughtlessness. The level of intrusiveness is not comparable, and as far as I'm concerned when government can intervene in an effective way that save lives, and it doesn't affect citizen's life choices, it's a no brainer.

Quote:
the most important was "the right to think freely"

A seat belt law doesn't infringe that as much as you think - it only kicks in when you have neglected to think at all. It's in this area of human mental deficiency, where we are weak or lazy minded to our own detriment, that I think a steadying (and otherwise largely invisible) hand of government can be justified.

Quote:
I'm saying such laws are unnecessary because they don't relate to the reasons we need government in the first place. We need government (settle down, Frem - merely stating the prevailing theory) so that we can have civilized social interaction. We need it to settle disputes, to apprehend bullies and violent predators. We need it maintain a commons where we can interact with some sense of order and trust.

Why limit it to that, if there is another potential role for it where it can intervene effectively to make lives and society better, at no significant cost to individual freedoms? I'll try to think of some other cases besides the seat belt example where intervention is justified, but so far with just this single case I think i've made an argument for government having such a role in theory.

Let me double check though, since it's so important to my argument; does a seat belt law feel like a serious infringement on your rights to you? Or maybe just your ideological purity on the role of government? I suppose it pre-empts your freedom to think for yourself, but is that demeaning?

Quote:
I don't think it's wise for society to force conformity when it's not required. For one thing, it puts all our eggs in one basket and commits us to one solution. And, sometimes the majority is just plain wrong (hard to believe, I know). Why not hedge our bets and let the free thinkers try out alternatives?

Fair point, but some things, like a seatbelt law, carry no real risk.

Heads should roll

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:06 PM

Quote:
but some things, like a seatbelt law, carry no real risk.

I beg to differ.

Allow me to retort,

Firstoff, there's the fact that they ARE used as bullshit "fishing expeditions" like this particularly over-the-top incident in TN...
http://libertarianvegan.today.com/2009/04/04/tennessee-cancels-illegal
-checkpoint-included-dhs-and-military-police/

And really, how is this much different than a street gang shakedown ?
https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php/2007/02/27/p27
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/related.asp?S=3

And finally, should you think it's not harrassment, there's the typical BEHAVIOR of our local street gang protection racket, despite their official "legitimacy", which was handily caught on tape by one Brent Darrow (and more than once, mind you!)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1522.asp

Yes, it does carry a risk, and a large one, anything that can be used as a blanket excuse for dragnet style fishing expeditions while impeding folks right to go about their business unmolested without direct suspicion of a crime is inexcusable.

Ergo, the statement that such laws carry no risk is demonstrably false in practice.

-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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:54 PM

well,

I never suggested that any voices be totally cut out of the equation...

I should point out again, that there is a national identity that we all share, an indoctrination that those of us who are happy to be Americans all mostly agree upon, and that's the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We don't neccesarily interpret it the same way.

Would it be safe to assume that you have no problem having the Constitution and Bill of Rights taught to all children in the U.S.? or do you feel that it should be the decison of the parents and the schools they enroll their children in, whether or not to teach anytihng about the Constitution.

If you are in agreement that these things should be taught, then I think there are many other fundamental things, that I think most people, even educated people's of different philosophies about America, can agree our children should be learning collectively.

If you don't think this is neccesary or right, then how do you protect those ideals when it comes time for people to vote? How do you ensure that it won't be eroded by sheer ignorance and apathy?

Anyway,

ideally, the educated elite would make these decisions, which ideally, would be the populace at large.----so educated elite/majority.

The getting there is what i'm trying to figure out, and the point of my post was that as a nation, there needs to be a sense of responsibility instilled in the American puplic to stay educated, and appraised of issues.

....

you may have a point that society has rounded all the edges so that people don't have to be pragmatic minded, or thoughtful, or alert in their every day lives----

I don't propose that we resharpen those same edges though---that's just a solution that will continue to mire everybody in daily survival rather than deeper more philosophical, and complicated matters that everybody should have an opportunity, the time, and even the responsibility to navigate.

I think the deeper cause of our dumbing down, is that there is no cultural drive for people to be "more informed." We have simply used money as the only measure of success in this country for too long, and that has made people slothful in too many ways.(not in the daily grind and the struggle to get ahead- but in critical thinking)

If we have granted relative safety(without the loss of liberty), which has granted us more liesure time, longer life,less reliance on the reptilion brain's survival mechanisms, to everyone, then we all have a responsibility to make sure that we counter the new complacency that has been ushered in with something more, cerebral.

......

Edit to adress your comment about bailing out failing businesses---

Bank bailout Does seem like absolute bullshit to me too(though I don't know enough about the complexities to say that firmly)

...if we needed the banks not to fail so that they could give loans to small businesses, why didn't we just let the banks fail, and then have the treasury make the loans to small businesses...

it would have been far more concentrated in the very area it was meant to be used----and at least then we could have been sure the money was going into stimulating the economy, rather than into junk stocks or whatever.

Auto industry is another deal. Company's were run absolutlely poorly, but they seem to be industries with too many peripheral industries attatched to them to just give up on them...plus they are our factories, plus this has been used as an opportunity to try to union bust----

this may have been more appropriate

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:00 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As (probably) the only person to have belonged to a co-op -

If the bylaws are written correctly, it'd be VERY hard to 'abuse' power in a coop. The co-op that I belonged to ran under direct democracy.

Since every member is a voting member, it would be very difficult for anyone to have the time and resources to actually coerce enough people to coerce the vote to abuse their power in the co-op.

And this is fine, as long as everyone in the co-op is in it voluntarily, and can opt out at any time. Trying to force everybody into such a situation would be quite a violation of individual rights and choice.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

How can you "force" people into a specific co-op?

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:39 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How can you "force" people into a specific co-op?

Or into any co-op at all. To me that seems to be where the "Business and government run by self-elected boards" falls down. Not everybody wants to be involved in such a cooperative/communal enterprise.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 7:18 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Not everyone wants to be involved in democracy, and yet... here we are.

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not everyone wants to be involved in democracy, and yet... here we are.

Not everyone wants to be under the thumb of authoritarian government, whether it be democracy, theocracy, republic, or dictatorship. I suppose it's easy to get the impression that libertarians don't like democracy, and that's probably our fault mostly. But in actually, democracy is probably what we'd use for our ideal society. Democracy has many advantageous. It allows valuable feedback from the citizenry and, more than anything else, it's stable. Citizens in a democracy have at least some hope of changing their government without bloodshed.

But the one thing democracy doesn't do is guarantee a righteous outcome. Might doesn't make right and majority rule is about as likely to produce injustice as theocracy or dictatorship -perhaps more so. That's why we don't have direct democracy and why our democratic input is limited to choosing representatives.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:13 AM

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

Quote:
Ergo, the statement that such laws carry no risk is demonstrably false in practice.

We were talking about the danger of societal conformity and the risk of stifling free thought, but sure I think I get your point - any piece of law to govern society can be used as a justification/pretext by some in authority to abuse their power and be intrusive into citizen's lives? But it's just one traffic law of many as far as I'm concerned - an idiot traffic cop wanting to abuse his power can find other pretexts/justifications. Though of course you could be arguing for getting rid of all traffic law?

As for checkpoints generally, at the moment I'm thinking of them as being a necessary evil in a place, to the extent that laws there are being flouted. Their main purpose should be deterrence - basically making people think. Once people have assumed the correct habits such as putting a seat belt on and teaching their kids the same, they are no longer needed. And a bit like speed cameras with no film in them - not as sinisterly intrusive as some citizens might feel.

Heads should roll

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
As for checkpoints generally, at the moment I'm thinking of them as being a necessary evil in a place, to the extent that laws there are being flouted. Their main purpose should be deterrence - basically making people think. Once people have assumed the correct habits such as putting a seat belt on and teaching their kids the same, they are no longer needed. And a bit like speed cameras with no film in them - not as sinisterly intrusive as some citizens might feel.

The viewpoint you're presenting here is, in my opinion, antithetical to everything I love about my country. Evil is never necessary. I don't want, and won't obey, a government that attempts to make people think, or insists they follow correct habits. The government you seem to want treats people as ignorant children who must be coddled and controlled "for their own good". I could never support that.

Out of curiosity, did you see Serenity?

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge- I get a strong anti-democratic whiff from a lot of peeps who call themselves Libertarians. Why do you suppose that is?

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:22 AM

well shit sarg,

while I fully do admire B. Franklin's quote about liberty versus "presumed safety",

we all also have a right to life.

If you want to take libertarianism to an extreme, then the state shouldn't be regulating who gets to drive, and who gets to fly a plane, and who gets to shoot a gun etc.

Do you suggest that walking outside the house should be more akin to a warzone of extreme darwinism?

Should we not regulate drunk driving? What about road construction safety? Should it simply be the drivers fault if he was driving along a dark road and then all of a sudden crashed into an open, gaping chasm?

Do you want daily life to be a game of Survivor? Do you think that would be good for society as a whole? How much could we get done in such an environment? What would the costs be to us all?

What about safety's that prevent predatory lending, variable interest rates etc.... we are all ignorant before we are wise... is it okay that so many young kids were targetted and hooked on credit cards that they will be trying to pay off for the rest of their lives?

or is this another case of state versus federal regulation?---I'm assuming no because we're talking about seatbelts too...

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge- I get a strong anti-democratic whiff from a lot of peeps who call themselves Libertarians. Why do you suppose that is?

Because so often the positions we're arguing against define democracy as unlimited majority rule. Unlimited government power, regardless of the form it takes, is tyranny (or at least strongly tends toward such). Also, unfortunately, most people touting democracy don't seem to understand the "constitutionally limited" aspect of our government. They tend to think that if the majority wills it, that's how it ought to be.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:11 AM

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

Quote:
The government you seem to want treats people as ignorant children who must be coddled and controlled "for their own good".

You see, the thing about a seat belt law is that it doesn't control - it just provokes and reminds lazy minds (ie. human ones). One can quite easily defy it if one chooses to. But generally if anyone wants to ignore the law on this I say good luck to them - I don't think they should be hunted down or made example of or anything. It's that freedom to think for yourself and make foolish choices you were talking about - after all it isn't a government slap on the wrist that you have to worry about if you decide to be 'a free thinker' in this case and not wear a seat belt.

Quote:
I don't want, and won't obey, a government that attempts to make people think, or insists they follow correct habits.

I thought of another example of legitimate state intervention. Let's say you are driving late at night on a long journey, and you see a government funded sign reading: 'Tired? Take a break.'

You suddenly realise, 'Gosh, I AM tired.' Then you have freedom of choice, you can say if you want, 'No! I won't let government control my life!' and drive on - in which case good luck to you. Have your rights been seriously violated because of this momentary intrusion into your thoughts from the government? I would say not. As for most other people, well there's a chance it could save their lives. Benign, benevolent, effective intervention from the government I would say; even moreso than the seatbelt example.

Heads should roll

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
while I fully do admire B. Franklin's quote about liberty versus "presumed safety"

Apparently, not so much.

Quote:
Do you suggest that walking outside the house should be more akin to a warzone of extreme darwinism?

Not in the slightest. Libertarianism doesn't demand that we be allowed to cavort about recklessly putting other people in jeopardy. In fact, it's the government's purpose to curtail those who do.

But what we're talking about here are laws that aren't about protecting others, but protecting me from my own decisions - essentially overriding my own judgment with someone else's.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

As long as your personal recklessness doesn't impact others... you're not part of the heathcare system, you don't drive up auto insurance, and your family is not depending on your income or your stability... But, to tell you the truth, in the practical day-to-day world I've seen very few cases where personal recklessness (eg drug use, risky hobbies/ extreme sports etc.) doesn't affect somebody at some point- parents, partner, and/or child. If nothing else there are personal entanglements that keep anyone's actions from being completely self-contained. And if someone's child or partner starts leaning on "the system" because of your personal habits its not longer a personal or private matter. So.... ????

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You see, the thing about a seat belt law is that it doesn't control - it just provokes and reminds lazy minds (ie. human ones). One can quite easily defy it if one chooses to.

LOL... in that sense you're "free" to defy the law and commit murder as well. The nature of government control is punitive.

Quote:
I thought of another example of legitimate state intervention. Let's say you are driving late at night on a long journey, and you see a government funded sign reading: 'Tired? Take a break.

This is interesting, because it seems that you don't see a difference between a suggestion and a law. Signs promoting seat belt usage don't bother me in the slightest. I'm in favor of them in fact.

Do you honestly not see a difference?

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:30 AM

I'm not exactly sure why, without citing any specific thing I've said, you would suggest that I don't take Franklin's words to heart.

And if we just take my example of predatory lending, I would suggest to you that liberty can be curtailed by legal business just as effectively as it can by government.

The kid stuck with the insane interest rate is at liberty to either tread water, or ruin his credit, which can affect even his ability to rent.

.....

Me personally, i'm not sure about seat-belt laws. As you say, you should not be allowed to be reckless in society...so does that mean that it should be illegal for you to drive your kids to school, unstrapped(them). Is that a decision for the parent to make? What about Christian science versus medicine? Parent or state? What constitutes abuse, versus freedom?

edit to ad, that I thought about posting something along the lines of what sygm said about the cost to everybody around a person who dies because he chose not to wear a seatbelt.

I'm not a hundred percent confident in that reasoning, because everything could be curtailed, using that as an excuse. People should have a right to take risks. Still, a day-to-day risk that as has been suggested, is more about negligence than intentional thrill seaking, and can have an enoromous expense, is in a grey area for me.

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
... you don't drive up auto insurance, and your family is not depending on your income or your stability...

Just to be clear, when I say that the government should stop people who put others in danger, I'm not talking about secondary and tertiary nonsense like insurance rates or 'personal entanglements'. I don't expect the government to guarantee me low insurance rates, a thriving economy or nice weather. And I certainly don't want them involved in my personal relationships.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I'm not exactly sure why, without citing any specific thing I've said, you would suggest that I don't take Franklin's words to heart.

Well, I was kidding mostly, thus the wink.

It's largely a matter of intepretation, depends on how "essential" you consider the liberty lost and how "temporary" the safety gained.

Quote:
The kid stuck with the insane interest rate is at liberty to either tread water, or ruin his credit, which can affect even his ability to rent.

If they're misled, or dealt with deceptively, these situations should qualify as fraud and be prosecuted as such.

Quote:
so does that mean that it should be illegal for you to drive your kids to school, unstrapped(them).

Parental rights are another matter entirely. I'd rather stay focused on the core issue for now, if you don't mind. (ie, that will quickly snowball into another thread. Start one if you're interested, I'll probably participate.)

Quote:
I'm not a hundred percent confident in that reasoning, because everything could be curtailed, using that as an excuse.

Ayup.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Just to be clear, when I say that the government should stop people who put others in danger, I'm not talking about secondary and tertiary nonsense like insurance rates or 'personal entanglements'

But I am. I sometimes watch TV shows like Impact which documents horrific accidents and the heroic rescues, complex surgeries, and painful rehabilitations which follow. About half of those accidents are from young white male extreme sport enthusiasts: people who jumped off a bridge and didn't open their chute in time, or tumbled down a rocky mountain-face during and extreme-skiing contest, or crashed their motorcycle while jumping five cars amd I can't help thinking.... Why the frak am I paying for THEM??? It kinda burns my ass. And I've known drug-addicted parents who neglected their children to the point where the state had to step in and take care of them, and I'm thinking.... This is not a victimless crime.

If you don't want to be scolded by society, don't expect to be coddled by it either.

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But I am. I sometimes watch TV shows like Impact which documents horrific accidents and the heroic rescues, complex surgeries, and painful rehabilitations which follow.

First of all, don't watch those shows. Please.

Quote:
About half of those accidents are from young white male extreme sport enthusiasts: people who jumped off a bridge and didn't open their chute in time, or tumbled down a rocky mountain-face during and extreme-skiing contest, or crashed their motorcycle while jumping five cars amd I can't help thinking.... Why the frak am I paying for THEM???

Depends on what you mean by "paying for them". If you're saying your tax money shouldn't be used to take care of (or bail them out as the case may be), I totally agree. If your idea of "paying for it" is insurance rates going up, I totally disagree. Insurance rates aren't yours to keep at a certain level. If you don't like the price, quit paying. Or go to another company that doesn't insure crazy risk takers.

Speaking of extreme sports, isn't interesting how the more we try to remove risk from life with government mandate, the more people seek it out for fun?

Quote:
If you don't want to be scolded by society, don't expect to be coddled by it either.

Sounds good to me.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:21 AM

sorry I missed the wink...I thought hte little green dude was the sickly looking one

as to prosecuting credit card companies

but it's not fraud...

question...in a libertarian society is a company free to make up its own lending rules?

If so, there is no legal recourse at all

just a kid who's future is greatly impactd by a single mistake, and very obtuse jargon about strings attatched

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The credit card companies are free to change their interest rates, due dates, penalties and fees, and credit limits without notice. And then, they had the bankruptcy laws changed so that you could NEVER get out from under!

Contract???? What contract? One side is free to do whatever they want, and the other side has to bend over a take it? That's not a contract.

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:14 AM

well yes,

but Sarg would say that's an example of government intrusion in favor of the credit card companies...

my understanding is that there's like an asterisk that says these companies can change all those details at a whim, in the contract that is signed though...

and who is government to tell them they can't do that in a market regulated system.

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge, maybe you can tell me this... you seem so worried about democracy, the power of the majority to limit a minority's freedoms.

True enugh, but what about the power of the minority to limit the majority's freedoms?

And what about the power of "the contract" to limit personal freedoms? For example, if you are free to jump off a cliff or drug yourself into oblivion... are you free to sell yourself into slavery?

Seems to me that the problem is the same in all circumstances.

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge, maybe you can tell me this... you seem so worried about democracy, the power of the majority to limit a minority's freedoms.

True enugh, but what about the power of the minority to limit the majority's freedoms?

Same thing. No group, however large or small, should have unlimited rights to use violence to have their way.

Quote:
are you free to sell yourself into slavery?

Heh.. sure, in the strictest sense you can sign whatever contract you want. But your "owner" would be something of a dupe, since there's no way a court would uphold such a contract.

Thing is Signym, I actually agree with your notion that no one, government or private entity, should be allowed to violate our rights. Where we disagree is in your inability to distinguish forced actions from voluntary actions. You have this notion of "economic coercion" that completely ignores that distinction.

When you, as a business owner, fire someone, you're not forcing them to be unemployed. You're just not paying them anymore. If a restaurant refuses to serve you, they're not forcing you to starve. They're just not giving you food.

On the other hand, laws are all about force. If I choose to not to wear a seatbelt and a cop sees me, he'll pull me over. If I refuse to stop, he'll chase me, probably enlisting help and force me to stop. If I don't pay the fine, they'll put out a warrant for my arrest. If I don't do as they tell me when I'm arrested, they'll beat me up. If I manage to break free and run, they'll shoot me.

The only way a business can actually force you to do something is if they hire thugs, and that's already blatantly illegal. The problem is, they can outsource their violence to a service who will do it for a fee. That service is called "government". That's what needs to stop.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:51 AM

RUE

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

"... there's no way a court would uphold such a contract."

A state entity, to be sure, with the power of law and enforcement (guns and force) behind it.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:53 AM

not following, rue. What are you getting at?

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It's obvious. Force can be used to uphold rights.

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:06 AM

Quote:
Though of course you could be arguing for getting rid of all traffic law?

Actually, I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea.

Case in point, this thread - which you might find informative in other ways as well.

Anarchist Traffic Control?
http://fireflyfan.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=36987

I'd settle for ending traffic law enforcement as a source of Revenue, however, since that is the primary vehicle for corruption of the process.

Quote:
Contract???? What contract? One side is free to do whatever they want, and the other side has to bend over a take it? That's not a contract.

I've touched on that a time or two, it being one form of what one could in a sideways sorta way call "Government" that even Anarchists are partial to.

Contract Enforcement.

The CEA would be in function similar to the Bonding Authority from Drakes' Hammerverse, basically holding both parties to the signed Contract up to and including using outright military force to do so if needs be.

The example I posited before, say, the bank changes the payment date on your loan without notifying you - the CEA brings you the marble counter from their front office as a penalty fee, but you're still responsible for paying the loan, at the original payment dates and schedule.

Just imagine how the dynamic of such "agreements" would change if you could have force initiated against the bank or corporation which violated it against you, instead of having to depend on a court they control, interpreting rules they paid politicians to write in their favor ?

Believe me, the idea of the CEA inflicing $181,000.00 in punitive damage to Citybank is far more pleasant than the $275,000.00 in legal fees it would cost me to ENFORCE the provision they broke* against them.

-Frem

*(They breached a provision that constituted breach of the whole, and invalidated the entire mortgage agreement, and did so intentionally and with malice aforethough, because they KNEW they could make it more expensive to fight them.)

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:12 AM

Also worth reposting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law

Yes, it sounds contradictory, but it ain't.

-F

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's obvious. Force can be used to uphold rights.

Hmmm..OK

Is that what you're getting out of my posts? That I think all use of force by the government is wrong?

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Pretty much.

Also, that the only "force" that counts is weaponry or imprisonment. But somehow, keeping people in a starvation situation is not.

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:14 PM

How do you "keep" a person in a starvation situation without using force?

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:23 PM

RUE

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

Make sure they have no other resources.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:25 PM

uh... and how do you do that (without using force?)

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:58 PM

BYTEMITE

Well, in a capitalistic system, you start with a population that hasn't been treated fairly in the past. Say, blacks. Then rhetorically, let's say that they just naturally congregate together as opposed to being forced, which they might, because they all share the perspective as having been abused.

Because they've been oppressed in the past, they have little education to start with, and therefore little representation power in the government you've established.

So then you can make sure, through economic means, that they only have very shitty schools and very shitty job opportunities near the places they live, and no money to draw upon to move anywhere better. Presto, you've created a slum. And some of those people in that slum, since they're ALL competing for limited resources, they're gonna go hungry.

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:58 PM

you use force of the law...plain and simple

the law can be as simple as being there to protect the property rights of those who own land, or howabout water.

Say you were in California and you spent everything you had to get there back in the early 1900's, and suppose the only work there was to do was exploitive.

Now there arn't laws in a libertarian society about forcing you not to unionize, but there aren't any laws saying that a company can't fire you because it all of a sudden doesn't like how you're spending your off hours.

What about pay docking? Don't like it, don't work there, ain't nobody holding a gun to your head.

What about blacklisting?

you sure as hell don't have to work for a certain person, but he just happens to demand that everybody that works for him submit to a strip search everyday before leaving work.

Say you're in a little town out in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. Say you have some medical issue. Say the Pharmasist doesn't like black folks. He doesn't have to help you, and it's not like HE"s responsible for making you sick.

Want to try to force him to give you the medicine?

Go ahead, beat him up and take it, or steal it. Who is the law going to protect?

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

By simply not having any alternatives. If the only jobs available are for starvation wages, what are your options? Start a business? Who will buy from you? Trek off into the wilderness and try to scratch a living from the land?

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:05 PM

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

Quote:
LOL... in that sense you're "free" to defy the law and commit murder as well. The nature of government control is punitive.

Exactly. You break the law by commiting murder and you face serious consequences. You break the law by wearing a seatbelt, first of all you will probably not get caught, and if you do it's a slap on the wrist - which is nothing compared to the serious potential consequences of crashing without a seat belt. When you've already got this threat hanging over you, the threat of government punishment carries negligible weight. This is my argument: negligible weight implies negligible government control (I actually think the psychology is a little more complex than this, but for now I just want you to see my argument).

What the law actually does effectively on this occasion is remind you of the seriousness of the REAL threat. And in this respect it is just like a government warning sign.

Quote:
Signs promoting seat belt usage don't bother me in the slightest. I'm in favor of them in fact.

So am I, if they're equally effective as the actual law.

Heads should roll

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

you use force of the law...plain and simple

Exactly.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
By simply not having any alternatives. If the only jobs available are for starvation wages, what are your options? Start a business? Who will buy from you? Trek off into the wilderness and try to scratch a living from the land?

So, how do I, as the hypothetical person "keeping" them in this condition, ensure that they stay there?

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:37 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"There"? You mean, physically in that place?

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"There"? You mean, physically in that place?

Yeah. Or in that condition. I'm trying to figure out what is being done, what action is being taken to "force" these people to stay put.

See, the reason I'm asking, is that I suspect this is the same thing you've done before, where you're trying to say that "not helping" someone is the same as harming them. That not feeding someone is the same as forcing them to starve. That not paying someone well is the same as forcing them to live in poverty. That not providing medical care is the same as hitting them with clubs.

I know there are ways to harm someone without using direct physical force. Slander, blackmail, harassment, etc - but those things require some action, some deliberate attempt to harm. They're also already illegal. But I sense you're wanting to make a crime out of "not helping", and that, to me, seems like a really bad precedent.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:04 PM