Maybe this is just the humble thing every author says, but I blog for myself. I don't expect anyone to read it unless I am in some place where I can open up my web page and read it to someone because it was relevant to the topic of conversation. I get emails from people and rare comments and each time it surprises me that anyone read it. I do not write consistently, and I am sure I can predict less than anyone what the next topic might be that I will rant on about. I do not write about my day or what I am doing, just whatever pissed me off at that moment that required a break to sit down and write.
I used to write in a journal, and didn't share it. I don't do anything to promote my blog, but just knowing that it is out there and might be read by someone gives me a sense of humility, I guess. It is also a good central location for writing.
If I actually thought there was more than 1 person following my blog, like some sort of "mass"... not sure how it would influence what I write, but I would hope that it would only encourage double spell checking and write for often... and maybe more often it would give me a reason to more thoroughly research subjects then just cite whatever inspired the write.
Then while it may be very cynical, it sounds like not only is any trickle down going to be very slow as society as a whole entirely progresses, but in general it sounds like whatever is going on isn't going to make any difference to the poor in the short run. This may sound terrible, but why not just leave people to do whatever they are going to do, cause that is what is going to happen anyway. Anyone that takes the energy in trying to herd the cats is one less person working for what they need, draining society, or herding wolves which to then puts you at their rules for challenging their alpha.:) I won't get any cheesier than that.
I don't like Hobbes. I think he made some truthful observations about the way people tend to act, but I think what he found was the worst in people, not quality that makes great people great that is really rare.
I have been loving your rants, but you have given me a lot that has me very interested in looking up. Rather than arguing a negative, what do you feel was the greatest contribution to the housing bubble? What do you think made it possible (particularly the size) than what was done by anyone in particular.
As for budget being taken hostage and voters not taking any time to understand initiatives, I completely agree. Prop 8 war the only initiative that most any voter had any idea about, and maybe this just says how cynical I am, but I bet a mass majority of people don't consciously think about the initiatives further than what it says on the ballot when they fill it out, then plus the influence of the media or groups, such as the Governor coming out against prop 5 which I personally, felt like should have been the most important issue. Id really looked like a lot of people really put a lot of time working out the details, but before and after I couldn't find anybody that knew anything about it, just that it was something about prisons and that the governor came out against it. I sadly think that was the knowledge that most voters went on.
I had never been so politically active as I was during that whole thing, and the way it was treated, and the various influences that I saw strongly pushed me towards investigating more deeply into conservatism. I strongly feel after watching that whole thing that the more people involved in any issue, the bigger the mess, and the voice of the people that things are actually important to gets smaller and smaller. I once believed that government was a great and powerful thing where the voice of the people would be heard to bring peace, progress, and happiness to all the places in the world. Now I am more on the side of the idea that people are pretty good at working out their problems if you just leave them alone. There are many thing that government can do to make things easier on people, but the things need to be simple to understand. I realise I am repeating myself, but you've helped me take some time to remember where and why I have been coming from on a number of things.
"The Republic is really the form of National Government that has stood the test of time, of which the United States is NOT."
So, again, can you provide real examples or is it just wishful thinking?
"Of course, the EU and US are as different as any country is from another."
Much more than that. USA is a country; EU is not.
What makes something a country? What I said was that the United States is not a National Government, it is a Federal Government. If you think that is just a matter of semantics, then that is your opinion, and that gives a pretty clear vision of either your ideology or your education, but please recognize that your idea of a state as a mere formality of national affairs is fundamentally different from that of the Founders intentions as well as the law as it is still written today. And not to praise them as some kind of perfect all knowing beings, but you might be keen on familiarizing yourself with some of the things that they SAID and that they DISCUSSED about each issue and item addressed in the constitution. There are records of discussions and letters that outline what, at least, at the time that they wrote it. No, the constitution is vague in some places, but you can get transcripts from the discussion arguing over how and why it should be phrased in a certain way to give the best possible clarity. They may not have all agreed on exactly what it did mean, but it is easy to see what they all agreed it was NOT. I would highly recommend reading The Jefferson Letters, The Federalist Papers, and John Taylor's New Views of the Constitution. To put it simply, One of the powers of the federal government expressly granted by the states in the constitution is to make treaties and declare treaties. This can all be done without having to get the permission of the state first. On the otherhand, in the EU, the EU has common defense, but does not have the power to declare war or make treaties. The Federal Government can can make loans against the United States in the form of Treasury Notes, and could print money if it so desired (which it does not. The last United States Notes were taken out of circulation in 1971). The European Union was founded in 1993, where as the Federal Government we "have today" was founded in 1788. Give the EU 200 years, and I am sure that will get wildly out of control and you will hear France threatening to succeed from the Union like Texas is today. The American Civil War didn't begin until 1861 where for the first time it was challenged whether or not a state had the right to succeed.So what? That is just totally settled? Come on, at very least you need to acknowledge the existential argument there.
As for the Enlightenment Age, I am talking about the Enlightenment itself, not saying it was the greatest time in all history, just that we need to remember what it was and why it worked. Of course I am happy as anyone that we eradicated small pox, but I would argue that were it not for enlightenment thinking, something like a small pox vaccination certainly wasn't going to be devised in the dark ages. You really going to say that the poor lower class were better off in the dark ages? Maybe if you were a puritan, but those kids just gtfo anyhow. (Yes, I realize they came to what is now the United States and had a big influence on law, but I'd really prefer to forget that. I KNOW!)
I LOVE project Gutenberg and visit it often if I am just looking for some light reading.
I agree with you a lot, and feeling a bit silly now; we come from very different parts of the country, so I think that as much as we probably agree in practice rather than just theory, we appear to be wanting to pull our state governments in opposite directions. I am in California, recently rated one of the countries least free states according to a recent slashdot article. The state is "out of money" and I am seeing real impacts of decisions made by government. I work in an area with great public schools that receive NO money from the state (city property taxes pay for the schools) and also some great private schools. But where I live where they get most all their money from the state, I see it spent terribly, and are some of the worst schools (LA is far worse). There are very good private schools in the area though. It feels like government keeps stepping in and saying it is going to do something, then does a completely half ass job, unless it is a new government building, then of course it has ALL the amenities. Sales tax is 9.25% and a pack of cigarettes is $8-$10. Not saying there isn't worse by any stretch, but the county hospitals are terrible. I can not believe some of the stories I have heard out of there regarding the treatment of patients. I know it isn't really fair because runs an emergency room, but the free clinics (no emergency service) by comparison are FAR better.
Total side note but figured worth mentioning, on the radio this morning (sirius 144) the host was complaining that his state was looking outlaw smoking in bars. He was upset because he felt that whatever a bartender wants to do with his own property is his right, and the free market would decide if patrons want to come and give him business. In California, there has been no smoking in buildings open to the public for a long time, and the argument wasn't that they needed to protect customers from themselves so much as a class of people (many single mothers) that typically take restaurant jobs and that it was unfair for people who are otherwise unqualified for other jobs that would pay as well having to pick between working and being healthy. The host COMPLETELY ignored that aspect of the issue. I am a casual / social smoker, but I like the ban. I like being able to be away from smoke (and the stink for that matter of stale smoke) and I think they were right to be looking out for the best interests of restaurant and bar employees. There are a few smoking bars, but they are all family owned, because the ban is meant to protect employees, and they have none, the ban does not apply. I also enjoy the little caravan of moving outside to grab a smoke. Really not a problem. At the same time I think this was a minimalist approach to solving a problem bottom up. No new taxes or state departments, a very large group of people were helped, and it was a very evenly applied rule that equally affected all restaurants and bars giving nobody a significant advantage over a competitor. The law really only did what it was meant to do.
By contrast, not knowing if they are going to regulate today, deregulate tomorrow in trying to find the right balance regarding energy policy has been a NIGHTMARE. Every little thing seems to keep having far reaching unintended consequences; there is no reasonable way to measure what would happen if they suddenly decided they were not going to manipulate it. I see regulation often being very much like a river dam. You can change the way water moves, but you can't stop it from moving. Dams can be useful for many things, but you can't use it to make a river not exist, because no matter how big the dam, it will fill. Dams can and have caused severe environmental damage, but at the same time, realizing a mistake was made, tearing down that dam is going to cause all kinds of problems, but at the same time, a dam isn't something you can just slowly dismantle to reduce or slow the affects, you get people out of the way, and then
I think when I bug Asus corporate, I will add that to my list of questions for them; do you think as a system builder and system tech that it would be in the best interest of my customers to encourage them to look to System76 for their machines if they want a company that supports and believes in Linux? Thank you. Awesome site.
Not going to play the "I know the names of logical fallacies" game, so just going to move past that. My argument / opinion did not rest on Ron Paul said so for anything. I mentioned that Ron Paul has some unique, valuable, and thoughtful insight on what it is like to deal with private and public insurance companies as both a physician and hospital administrator. His opinions are easy to find with regard to a reference, and I had also hoped you might already be familiar with, which aparentl; to some extent you are.
As for limits on media ownership? I think it is a joke to say that media ownership or control is limited AT ALL, and as much as I revere Creative Commons, it is a minor fringe that has less impact on the central control over media than medical marijuana has created a competitive black market for industrial hemp. You must approve of big media to get elected to public office with very little exception because ar Barak Obama put it, you are whatever the media says you are.
I know there have been nightmares with private social security, but I would not say that is an area I feel well informed with regard to specific events in history. I would appreciate any source material you would feel is worthy of reading to get a better grasp on the subject.
as for occupational safety, which book? And not with the intent of discrediting your opinion, I am of the opinion that government first only protected the interest of the industrialist, and not the wellfare of the workers, immigrant or otherwise, that eventually led to the labor movement which further, imo, was workers wanting special treatment like their employers were getting, to over-simplify.
As for unions in todays world, I think it is just one more hand in the cookie jar. I hate unions, but aside from Wal-marts public statements regarding their distaste for unions that I completely agree and side with, most of my hate for unions all comes from personal experience experience, not historical reference. I am in a union against my will, but they treat me well. If I had my choice about it, I would not be in the union, and in any future case where I have a choice, avoiding union membership is a top priority if when I look for more or different work. I do not necessarily have a problem with other people joining unions, but I feel luck and privileged to be in a position such that I feel I can decide the terms and conditions of employment that are going to satisfy me, and I can do so without compromising the care of my family. Maybe only our location. I have respect those that do not value in that because I know that only puts me in a better position for competitively non-union employment. I know I work at my employers will and that I have a responsibility to continue to show them value. If I could do it better, they would work for me.
The worst conditions (not to be confused with worst opportunities) that have ever existed for any people in a country is at the industrial age. Doesn't mater where or when. It was and it IS awful. The only thing I would say that makes it worst is the tempting offers of abusive foreign investors... but that is a whole other issue. If you could show me an example of a third world nation smoothly happily and comfortably elevating themselves to the status of a first world nation, it would be greatly appreciated.
What leader?
Yes, evidently I did miss your example. That sounds really terrible. Sounds like something that should never be forgotten.
Keeping you data away from government funded research? I am missing some connection here. If it is related in the way I think it is related, my idea is to have an organisation similar to the SEC, but for working conditions. A department of labor statistics (which mind you, already exists) could be expanded to provide for those looking for work the same kind of protection the SEC provides to investors.
I switched party affiliation away from Libertarian recently, mostly because they can't seem to get organised for anything. If your local L
Right there with you. Someone showed me another one they got for $150, and I just couldn't help but show a little support for a company that can show that Linux is more than just for professionals. That ad campaign, particularly the text under the video really ridicules Linux users.
For anyone that might like to assist Asus in finding the error of their ways their US headquarters telephone number is 510-739-3777.
This sucks, you're right. I been meaning to buy one in the very near future. I like being supportive patronize companies that Linux a fair shot in the commodity market. Guess I can put that purchase on hold.
Yeah, in addition to the site looking terrible, there were so many M$isms missing. The commercial was simple and well done without crap flying all over the place trying to throw features at you. It also wasn't NEARLY multicultural enough. I don't know about Asus so much for television commercials, but no talking OR text in an entire commercial series covering features or use case? I don't believe it. Unless they actually took a lesson from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=36099539665548298, but I doubt it.
I called their US Headquarters to get some answers, just in case:)
For the record, not a big fan of Smith. Very boring read (The Wealth of Nations), never really been able to get though it at all. As far as The Invisible Hand, I have mostly heard Ron Paul make reference to it, and attribute it to Smith. So as far an a form of government as opposed to an economic theory, my understanding is very incomplete. From the period, I LOVED, could not put down, The Theory of Money and credit when I read it, but am presently in the middle of Human Action which I am finding even more enjoyable. I think Jonathan Gullible by Ken Schoolland is really what Atlas Shrugged should have been (or at least what I am sure everyone else wished it had been), and as much as I enjoy Ayn Rand's storytelling, I think anyone can see that with regard to the idea of moral egoism, Max Stirner predates Rand by over 100 years. Maybe I need to put Wealth of Nations back on my list, cause that sounds interesting.
So government in this case competed normally against the market as a common business? Now that is cheating and skipping ahead. It sounds as if government didn't even give a monopoly to itself in which case government played a normal healthy role in a free market. Mesis / Austrian School of economics, nor myself in support or interpretation of such would disallow the government from competing freely, so long as the money was collected freely in the market in the form of bonds and such (voluntary) rather than through taxation (compulsory). I think that is totally awesome that your government does not such in that respect. As for the Auberdeen Train station, sounds much more like limited market (also judging from maps) than a monopoly.
I am very pro community. I just like the freedom to pick my own community, and let others do the same. As for the Microsoft thing, I think that they have done some legally questionable things that would have required government assistance. I believe Cisco has continued to out innovate its competitors, but I do not believe Microsoft has done the same. I do not believe in natural monopolies, but is there a chance that Microsoft was in the right place at the right time with respect to a revolutionary technology and saw an incredible opportunity with regard to the home consumer? I guess that is quite possible. Would they and could they have pulled any dirty trick in the book to ensure once they were on top to ensure that they would stay there clearly in violation of the law, but without necessarily paying off politicians in the United States? Irrefutable! Have they paid off politicians with very large sums of money to have their way in countries where bribery is not illegal? Undeniably. So that starts to get into the grey area between economic theory of monopolies and anti-trust law. IBM was the Microsoft of the 70' and more, Sun Microsystems had their time each pulling the same kind of tricks and they did not last. Microsoft has more or less played itself out. They will likely continue to be successful just like IBM and Sun Microsystems:)
As far as the role of the government, and its special services, I spent a significant amount of time collecting my thoughts on the matter earlier. Would be interested in your thoughts on the matter as you appear to be passionate about the issue.
I don't need protection from myself. I do need protection from the rest of you.
Good thing we got the Second Amendment, and that the indoctrination clause still applies to the entire bill of right and not just bits and pieces for the moment.
In my case, it's based on experience and observed behavior, not any hypothetical situations but ones that actually happened.
Do you have no real life hero? If not, I am very sorry. I do not think I would have lived as long as I have so far were it not for the (albeit few) people I looked up to most often in real life, but also in part in history textbooks. If I am wrong, and you do have a hero, I would expect that the individual in question is an example of someone that stood up for someone that believed in themselves, stood apart from the crowd, and was successful by their own merit; not a person that got by being meek and after a life of servitude and failures received a big government bailout for their loyalty. But maybe I assume too much.
Rational does not imply nice.
Nope, can't disagree with you there. But I'll take a rational and mean individual than an irrational and mean individual. You are typically safe even from a dog that is protecting its own interests, of course until you attempt to violate those interests. It is the rabid ones with no self interest you gotta watch out for.
We can't, especially since all the potential leaders are just as vile as everyone else. However, moving the power center further away from myself lets me hide in the crowd, and including bureaucratic inefficiencies makes the inevitable oppression happen slower, so I can dodge it easier.
Basically, a government is unlikely to bother picking on me personally, while my neighbor is not. That's because a government sees me as a statistic, while my neighbour sees me as a punching bag or a personal slave, depending on his particular breed of evil (thug or CEO).
You got me there. That is a good way to play it safe. It is a little too reactionary for my philosophical taste, but I would be a fool not to recognize that I live my life that way very much.
And once they kill everyone but me, what else do I have left to live for?
But I will say that your comment if very revealing. You do understand that hiding is your best option, just as Anne Frank. She did not cower in that office space like an animal waiting for the inevitable slaughter, she cowered like a human being knowing what she needed to do, and taking the best chances for survival. Of course she was still caught and died from Rickettsiae in a concentration camp some short time later, but I am sure her logic was sound. (That wasn't meant to be a Godwin, just an example of a struggle. Maybe Hamlet would have been better, to which you could have rebutted with Don Quixote, but I'll just let you imagine that debate on your own.)
Maybe it never really worked, but I think it was the system of government intended, drafted, and ratified by the founders of the United States Constitution, at VERY least Thomas Jefferson. And while I love to criticize James Madison for convince people that the language was "clear enough to understand" which obviously wasn't, I do believe he did believe in the same vision of government as Jefferson. But of course as with any generation, once the last founding father left the presidency, new people with new ideas introduced a new vision for the role of government as can be seen in Marbury v. Madison. On a personal level, I think the Supreme Court should have the right of congressional review. It keeps with the checks and balances of the government as opposed to relying on Congress to ensure that it does not contradict itself, but it is reasonably clear that judicial review wasn't meant to be interpreted as congressional review, but at the same time, how are courts to function if the law actually contradicts itself? Hypothetically through origionalism and a review of the intent of the authors. So when does interpreting policy become writing policy? Hopefully that will be a continuous debate.
As far as "no system sucks less", there really are no example of direct democracy that have ever worked, because under direct democracy, who makes things happen? It is indistinguishable from pure anarchy. The Republic is really the form of National Government that has stood the test of time, of which the United States is NOT. In a respect, and as I think it was necessitated, the United States is a Super-Republic aka a Federal Government much like the European Union. Of course, the EU and US are as different as any country is from another. For the sake of simplicity ignoring the 12th and 17th amendments with regard to the US, People democratically elect national / state representatives that in turn elect representatives to the federal government to represent their interests as members of the federation. But people don't have any direct influence on policy any more than a mob of pesant versus a King. Our "democracy" gives us the right to elect different representatives and run for public office.
Democracy also isn't an economic theory. Kaynes theory of economics has dominated for over 100 years that theorized that minimal interventionism could be good for an economy in the long run. In general, democratic economic interventionism has failed. An example of great human progress where democratic will was not imposed (or was unable to stop it) was the Enlightenment Age, as mentioned before, today the Internet (no matter how hard Congress works to censor / destroy it), Linux (as a whole, not this stupid narrow home desktop x86 workstation under $1000 purchased in the last year prebuild garbage), and the survival of the species in general.
The free market isn't the way things should work, it is the way things DO work, and government isn't much of any special exception. Of course, like any salesman, they love to try to tell you otherwise.
Child labor: "Austrian school economist Murray Rothbard also defended child labor, stating that British and American children of the pre- and post-Industrial Revolution lived and suffered in infinitely worse conditions where jobs were not available for them and went "voluntarily and gladly" to work in factories."
Oligopolies: This is not free market even in a loose sense. This is a form of extreme government interventionism.
Wage Slavery: I would agree this is a good criticism of capitalism in a brutally class structured society. Taking control over peoples personal lives and making special favors for certain groups of people such that certain people will stay rich and others stay poor causes wage slavery, particularly with harsh laws that require people to live in certain areas and such. But if after that you tell people "follow this huge set of rules, but then after that, you are free to do whatever you want" is just a slap in the face. While there are many issues surrounding industrialization, I think that in the United States today, we are all wage slaves in one way or another. Money (in the form of Federal Reserve Notes) is required to live in many ways, however I think you would have to agree far too strongly with Thomas Hobbes that people will always choose total oppression over total freedom (state of nature, as he put it). I believe that if you don't like where you live, move. I am not saying that is somehow easy, but it is what people do when they don't like where they are and take personal responsibility for their circumstances.
Media Ownership: This is a problem with government, and the current state of things is exactly what Jefferson and Madison feared. The Rule of Law CAUSED the problem we have today and is probably one of the best arguments as to why government needs to stay the hell out of economics. Hollywood, if required to operate in the Free Market would have no chance at being the atrocity that it is today if it didn't have just enough power to buy the DoJ by way of Congress at the expense of the tax payer.
Health Care in the U.S.: longer lifespan, very low infant mortality rate, high rate of treatment of disease, lowest rates of TB, HIV and other STI, Malaria, and many other illness, highest survivor rates for cancer. One statistic I was sad not to see in there was time to treatment, but I know that the US has the shortest wait times across the board to get help with anything from broken arm to cancer treatment. It can be expensive, but you can not be denied treatment for inability to pay, in addition to the many free clinics. In the US, you may go broke, but you will get treated, and you will very likely live. If, say, you are poor and have no money and get stuck with a $500,000 medical bill (as has happened to more than one friend of mine) you can declare bankruptcy where more or less they take your assets short of what you need to live. The debt is forgiven and it goes on your credit report for 10 years that you declared bankruptcy and are certain to be denied credit in the future. OH NO!!! I can't buy that new car I don't have the money for! Quick, get me a politician! WTF?!? REALLY? They saved your life! People in the United States LIVE and they GET TREATMENT. Yeah, bankruptcy is bad and not something you want to PLAN on doing, but compare it to... death? This is also worst case scenario. There are many charities, and I know most any church will take up a collection for community members with catastrophic illness even if you are not a member of the church. How do other countries save MONEY on health care? They ration treatment to the most likely survivors and those who are the best investment, and they let others die. In Europe, Canada, and other places with single payer systems, people over 65 years of age are ineligible preventative care, and those over 55 are ineligible for transplants because "it isn't the best use of limited resources". You can't even get organ transplants if you are willing to pay for it yourself,
This just makes me wonder if that ever crossed the mind of any of my friends that went to Iraq, to ensure that lwsimon-724555 paid his property taxes. Was that really what some of them died for?
So people that didn't give up parts of their income to the state prior to the 16th amendment you would consider a criminal? Just working out the details.
I completely agree with your points, and your final point is the very best. If people think (and of course it often happens) that a logical average of two positions is the most reasonable, it will encourage more radical positions to move the average to where they really wanted it in the first place. But I still don't think that a blanket statement in any debate that "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" is anything that can be regarded as a principle. How can something be a principle when it always changes based on who is in the room. Hmm... I think those people are called politicians.
I think it is just as reasonable to say "The truth lies somewhere else".
and I am sure that is exactly what the judge will tell you when they lock you up.
How can something be so important that it necessitates force to get people to pay for them? Does it always require force to get people to pay for big things to get built? Is that the only way big things get built? If people are unwilling to pay for them, why are we building them? If enough people want then, why don't they pay for it?
Employers don't get a portion of your pay check in return for letting you have a job, they get what you DO. You do something useful, so they pay you. The government feels it is entitled to get a part of your paycheck because you worked a job in their country, but should not the fact that you produced useful labor be enough? Income Taxes, in particular, punish success and thus discourage it. This is why is was outlawed in the constitution. Further, the 16th amendment never went through the proper ratification process, so which law do you follow? Apparently, like most people including myself, the one with the gun pointed at your head, which was exactly my point.
At least in the United States, if others pollute on YOUR property, you can sue them. On the other hand, if someone pollutes on public property, it is always "someone else.s problem"
Why do we need a national defense if nobody wants it. If other people are more willing to contribute than others, that is how it is supposed to work. This is still true of national defense. Unless you are putting a price on someone else's child's life, why doesn't a draft work? Allowing people to choose to join the military makes a better military. Drafts have shown to have detrimental effects on an economy due to reduced moral. I can't remember the guy who proved this to congress after Vietnam, and no, I am not going to hunt it down, but I will use it anyway.
Rather than arguing that there is no such thing as a monopoly in a free market, why don't you just give me an example of one, and that I will look up and cite government interference as a direct cause.
As for the last quote you took, you disagree that at an impass on policy or principle that further investigations should be made? You think a mathematical average of fundamentally different approaches to problems saves time and energy? I do not agree because that is very silly. It was meant to be a common obvious logical fallacy of moderatism, not because Ayn Rand said anything along the topic at all. I didn't even know she covered the topic at all. If she did, I would be interested in reading it.
While I haven't read it in its entirety, I think The Histories give many great reasons as to why democracy sucks hard. Also, to say "National Scale" presupposes nationalism which conflicts with anarchist principles, so I don't see much argument there. Also, many capitalist and socialist nations have fallen. Further, I find purpose in understanding such systems for rational guidance in my own decision making, not necessarily for the preservation of the state, let alone the greatest leviathan imaginable. But in whatever we might consider a "national level" apart from nationalism for the purpose of its own preservation, I think a very limited government whose purpose is to effectively "preserve the anarchy" has historically shown to most greatly benefit the greatest number of people, propel human progress, reduce suffering, and improve quality of life for all people. I really think that is what we should have all learned from the Age of Enlightenment.
If I might channel John Locke, I think that the State of Nature is inescapable. We work together to overcome it, and work together to overcome it, but there is a certain constant to it in that we have a certain capacity and desire to adapt. People will adapt in any situation, no matter what it is to find a balance between stability, struggle, progress, and content. I think that between teamwork or businesses and government is the idea (conscious or otherwise) that government is above nature.
Your post is only true if you pretend subjective opinions are objective truths
I strongly believe in an objective truth, but I agree with Soros that part of what makes up my perception is the perception of others, and as I act, it has an impact on people which in turn has an impact on me. Communism is forced contribution in so far that you are unnaturally restricted from 1) participating as you please, and maybe most importantly 2) there are laws against returning to the State of Nature. One example of this in the United States; for crops that are rationed since the New Deal where for the sake of the welfare of farmers, there are restrictions on how much of certain crops can be grown in total. A Supreme Court case (I have sadly forgotten the name of) put this to the full test. A farmer, not interested in the politics of the state, decided he would be better off "returning to a state of nature". He had a subsistence farm in which he grew food only for the purpose of feeding his family. However, wheat was rationed at the time. He argued that because he was only growing it for himself and his family the federal government had no authority to regulate him. The court descended arguing that because he was growing his own food he was NOT buying food that might have been purchased from a person that had moved the grain across state lines, thus the Federal government had the right to regulate his crops under the interstate commerce clause. He believed things worked one way, but he was forced to adapt differently. I just think that while capitalism can have brutal controls, the nature of the "forced contribution" is more natural, and less circumstantial. It is easy to have a strong respect for property rights without knowing a lot about the property, where as the rules in communism, to my understanding, require significant foresight.
Maybe more simply is that my interpretation of the truth will always be more real (and motivating) to me than what someone else can tell me that it is. My understanding is natural, and while others opinions may be meant as contributions, it is forceful when I no longer have the right to disagree. All learning has latency, but I measure it as a difference of unnecessary latency.
Only if you define away "selfless" to meaninglessness.
Actions are driven by reason based on perceptions that are only your own. To act rationally is to act on your OWN reason and sense of good. To attempt to eliminate yourself from the equation of your perceptions and what is meaningful to YOU does make truly selfish acts at least irrational, effectively meaningless because you have already allowed yourself to loose sight of the benefit.
a parent, a teacher, a soldier, a nun, a disaster recovery volunteer
These are worthy jobs that need doing. People that pick these jobs because they are in demand, or because it is what they want to do. Personally, I would much rather know a member of such an occupation that wanted to be such, selfishly, than one that felt a moral obligation to do so. Sadly, but sometimes by a close margin, to rationally discover why one desires for themselves to do something is much better than one that accepts the rationality of others IN PLACE OF their own. In this sense, it would not be meaningless so much as irrational. You can't have rational justification after the fact. Of course, if you believe that the right thing to do is one thing, but you allow yourself to be compromised and give into soc
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe this is just the humble thing every author says, but I blog for myself. I don't expect anyone to read it unless I am in some place where I can open up my web page and read it to someone because it was relevant to the topic of conversation. I get emails from people and rare comments and each time it surprises me that anyone read it. I do not write consistently, and I am sure I can predict less than anyone what the next topic might be that I will rant on about. I do not write about my day or what I am doing, just whatever pissed me off at that moment that required a break to sit down and write.
I used to write in a journal, and didn't share it. I don't do anything to promote my blog, but just knowing that it is out there and might be read by someone gives me a sense of humility, I guess. It is also a good central location for writing.
If I actually thought there was more than 1 person following my blog, like some sort of "mass"... not sure how it would influence what I write, but I would hope that it would only encourage double spell checking and write for often... and maybe more often it would give me a reason to more thoroughly research subjects then just cite whatever inspired the write.
Then while it may be very cynical, it sounds like not only is any trickle down going to be very slow as society as a whole entirely progresses, but in general it sounds like whatever is going on isn't going to make any difference to the poor in the short run. This may sound terrible, but why not just leave people to do whatever they are going to do, cause that is what is going to happen anyway. Anyone that takes the energy in trying to herd the cats is one less person working for what they need, draining society, or herding wolves which to then puts you at their rules for challenging their alpha. :) I won't get any cheesier than that.
I don't like Hobbes. I think he made some truthful observations about the way people tend to act, but I think what he found was the worst in people, not quality that makes great people great that is really rare.
I have been loving your rants, but you have given me a lot that has me very interested in looking up. Rather than arguing a negative, what do you feel was the greatest contribution to the housing bubble? What do you think made it possible (particularly the size) than what was done by anyone in particular.
As for budget being taken hostage and voters not taking any time to understand initiatives, I completely agree. Prop 8 war the only initiative that most any voter had any idea about, and maybe this just says how cynical I am, but I bet a mass majority of people don't consciously think about the initiatives further than what it says on the ballot when they fill it out, then plus the influence of the media or groups, such as the Governor coming out against prop 5 which I personally, felt like should have been the most important issue. Id really looked like a lot of people really put a lot of time working out the details, but before and after I couldn't find anybody that knew anything about it, just that it was something about prisons and that the governor came out against it. I sadly think that was the knowledge that most voters went on.
I had never been so politically active as I was during that whole thing, and the way it was treated, and the various influences that I saw strongly pushed me towards investigating more deeply into conservatism. I strongly feel after watching that whole thing that the more people involved in any issue, the bigger the mess, and the voice of the people that things are actually important to gets smaller and smaller. I once believed that government was a great and powerful thing where the voice of the people would be heard to bring peace, progress, and happiness to all the places in the world. Now I am more on the side of the idea that people are pretty good at working out their problems if you just leave them alone. There are many thing that government can do to make things easier on people, but the things need to be simple to understand. I realise I am repeating myself, but you've helped me take some time to remember where and why I have been coming from on a number of things.
"The Republic is really the form of National Government that has stood the test of time, of which the United States is NOT."
So, again, can you provide real examples or is it just wishful thinking?
"Of course, the EU and US are as different as any country is from another."
Much more than that. USA is a country; EU is not.
What makes something a country? What I said was that the United States is not a National Government, it is a Federal Government. If you think that is just a matter of semantics, then that is your opinion, and that gives a pretty clear vision of either your ideology or your education, but please recognize that your idea of a state as a mere formality of national affairs is fundamentally different from that of the Founders intentions as well as the law as it is still written today. And not to praise them as some kind of perfect all knowing beings, but you might be keen on familiarizing yourself with some of the things that they SAID and that they DISCUSSED about each issue and item addressed in the constitution. There are records of discussions and letters that outline what, at least, at the time that they wrote it. No, the constitution is vague in some places, but you can get transcripts from the discussion arguing over how and why it should be phrased in a certain way to give the best possible clarity. They may not have all agreed on exactly what it did mean, but it is easy to see what they all agreed it was NOT. I would highly recommend reading The Jefferson Letters, The Federalist Papers, and John Taylor's New Views of the Constitution. To put it simply, One of the powers of the federal government expressly granted by the states in the constitution is to make treaties and declare treaties. This can all be done without having to get the permission of the state first. On the otherhand, in the EU, the EU has common defense, but does not have the power to declare war or make treaties. The Federal Government can can make loans against the United States in the form of Treasury Notes, and could print money if it so desired (which it does not. The last United States Notes were taken out of circulation in 1971). The European Union was founded in 1993, where as the Federal Government we "have today" was founded in 1788. Give the EU 200 years, and I am sure that will get wildly out of control and you will hear France threatening to succeed from the Union like Texas is today. The American Civil War didn't begin until 1861 where for the first time it was challenged whether or not a state had the right to succeed.So what? That is just totally settled? Come on, at very least you need to acknowledge the existential argument there.
As for the Enlightenment Age, I am talking about the Enlightenment itself, not saying it was the greatest time in all history, just that we need to remember what it was and why it worked. Of course I am happy as anyone that we eradicated small pox, but I would argue that were it not for enlightenment thinking, something like a small pox vaccination certainly wasn't going to be devised in the dark ages. You really going to say that the poor lower class were better off in the dark ages? Maybe if you were a puritan, but those kids just gtfo anyhow. (Yes, I realize they came to what is now the United States and had a big influence on law, but I'd really prefer to forget that. I KNOW!)
I LOVE project Gutenberg and visit it often if I am just looking for some light reading.
I agree with you a lot, and feeling a bit silly now; we come from very different parts of the country, so I think that as much as we probably agree in practice rather than just theory, we appear to be wanting to pull our state governments in opposite directions. I am in California, recently rated one of the countries least free states according to a recent slashdot article. The state is "out of money" and I am seeing real impacts of decisions made by government. I work in an area with great public schools that receive NO money from the state (city property taxes pay for the schools) and also some great private schools. But where I live where they get most all their money from the state, I see it spent terribly, and are some of the worst schools (LA is far worse). There are very good private schools in the area though. It feels like government keeps stepping in and saying it is going to do something, then does a completely half ass job, unless it is a new government building, then of course it has ALL the amenities. Sales tax is 9.25% and a pack of cigarettes is $8-$10. Not saying there isn't worse by any stretch, but the county hospitals are terrible. I can not believe some of the stories I have heard out of there regarding the treatment of patients. I know it isn't really fair because runs an emergency room, but the free clinics (no emergency service) by comparison are FAR better.
Total side note but figured worth mentioning, on the radio this morning (sirius 144) the host was complaining that his state was looking outlaw smoking in bars. He was upset because he felt that whatever a bartender wants to do with his own property is his right, and the free market would decide if patrons want to come and give him business. In California, there has been no smoking in buildings open to the public for a long time, and the argument wasn't that they needed to protect customers from themselves so much as a class of people (many single mothers) that typically take restaurant jobs and that it was unfair for people who are otherwise unqualified for other jobs that would pay as well having to pick between working and being healthy. The host COMPLETELY ignored that aspect of the issue. I am a casual / social smoker, but I like the ban. I like being able to be away from smoke (and the stink for that matter of stale smoke) and I think they were right to be looking out for the best interests of restaurant and bar employees. There are a few smoking bars, but they are all family owned, because the ban is meant to protect employees, and they have none, the ban does not apply. I also enjoy the little caravan of moving outside to grab a smoke. Really not a problem. At the same time I think this was a minimalist approach to solving a problem bottom up. No new taxes or state departments, a very large group of people were helped, and it was a very evenly applied rule that equally affected all restaurants and bars giving nobody a significant advantage over a competitor. The law really only did what it was meant to do.
By contrast, not knowing if they are going to regulate today, deregulate tomorrow in trying to find the right balance regarding energy policy has been a NIGHTMARE. Every little thing seems to keep having far reaching unintended consequences; there is no reasonable way to measure what would happen if they suddenly decided they were not going to manipulate it. I see regulation often being very much like a river dam. You can change the way water moves, but you can't stop it from moving. Dams can be useful for many things, but you can't use it to make a river not exist, because no matter how big the dam, it will fill. Dams can and have caused severe environmental damage, but at the same time, realizing a mistake was made, tearing down that dam is going to cause all kinds of problems, but at the same time, a dam isn't something you can just slowly dismantle to reduce or slow the affects, you get people out of the way, and then
I think when I bug Asus corporate, I will add that to my list of questions for them; do you think as a system builder and system tech that it would be in the best interest of my customers to encourage them to look to System76 for their machines if they want a company that supports and believes in Linux? Thank you. Awesome site.
Not going to play the "I know the names of logical fallacies" game, so just going to move past that. My argument / opinion did not rest on Ron Paul said so for anything. I mentioned that Ron Paul has some unique, valuable, and thoughtful insight on what it is like to deal with private and public insurance companies as both a physician and hospital administrator. His opinions are easy to find with regard to a reference, and I had also hoped you might already be familiar with, which aparentl; to some extent you are.
As for limits on media ownership? I think it is a joke to say that media ownership or control is limited AT ALL, and as much as I revere Creative Commons, it is a minor fringe that has less impact on the central control over media than medical marijuana has created a competitive black market for industrial hemp. You must approve of big media to get elected to public office with very little exception because ar Barak Obama put it, you are whatever the media says you are.
I know there have been nightmares with private social security, but I would not say that is an area I feel well informed with regard to specific events in history. I would appreciate any source material you would feel is worthy of reading to get a better grasp on the subject.
as for occupational safety, which book? And not with the intent of discrediting your opinion, I am of the opinion that government first only protected the interest of the industrialist, and not the wellfare of the workers, immigrant or otherwise, that eventually led to the labor movement which further, imo, was workers wanting special treatment like their employers were getting, to over-simplify.
As for unions in todays world, I think it is just one more hand in the cookie jar. I hate unions, but aside from Wal-marts public statements regarding their distaste for unions that I completely agree and side with, most of my hate for unions all comes from personal experience experience, not historical reference. I am in a union against my will, but they treat me well. If I had my choice about it, I would not be in the union, and in any future case where I have a choice, avoiding union membership is a top priority if when I look for more or different work. I do not necessarily have a problem with other people joining unions, but I feel luck and privileged to be in a position such that I feel I can decide the terms and conditions of employment that are going to satisfy me, and I can do so without compromising the care of my family. Maybe only our location. I have respect those that do not value in that because I know that only puts me in a better position for competitively non-union employment. I know I work at my employers will and that I have a responsibility to continue to show them value. If I could do it better, they would work for me.
The worst conditions (not to be confused with worst opportunities) that have ever existed for any people in a country is at the industrial age. Doesn't mater where or when. It was and it IS awful. The only thing I would say that makes it worst is the tempting offers of abusive foreign investors... but that is a whole other issue. If you could show me an example of a third world nation smoothly happily and comfortably elevating themselves to the status of a first world nation, it would be greatly appreciated.
What leader?
Yes, evidently I did miss your example. That sounds really terrible. Sounds like something that should never be forgotten.
Keeping you data away from government funded research? I am missing some connection here. If it is related in the way I think it is related, my idea is to have an organisation similar to the SEC, but for working conditions. A department of labor statistics (which mind you, already exists) could be expanded to provide for those looking for work the same kind of protection the SEC provides to investors.
I switched party affiliation away from Libertarian recently, mostly because they can't seem to get organised for anything. If your local L
Suggesting that you declare bankruptcy every time you go to the hospital is preposterous.
I don't think I even remotely suggested that.
Sadly, follow tghe link in this post. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1247645&cid=28123079
Do you think maybe someone hacked the page?
Right there with you. Someone showed me another one they got for $150, and I just couldn't help but show a little support for a company that can show that Linux is more than just for professionals. That ad campaign, particularly the text under the video really ridicules Linux users.
For anyone that might like to assist Asus in finding the error of their ways their US headquarters telephone number is 510-739-3777.
This sucks, you're right. I been meaning to buy one in the very near future. I like being supportive patronize companies that Linux a fair shot in the commodity market. Guess I can put that purchase on hold.
Yeah, in addition to the site looking terrible, there were so many M$isms missing. The commercial was simple and well done without crap flying all over the place trying to throw features at you. It also wasn't NEARLY multicultural enough. I don't know about Asus so much for television commercials, but no talking OR text in an entire commercial series covering features or use case? I don't believe it. Unless they actually took a lesson from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=36099539665548298, but I doubt it.
:)
I called their US Headquarters to get some answers, just in case
For the record, not a big fan of Smith. Very boring read (The Wealth of Nations), never really been able to get though it at all. As far as The Invisible Hand, I have mostly heard Ron Paul make reference to it, and attribute it to Smith. So as far an a form of government as opposed to an economic theory, my understanding is very incomplete. From the period, I LOVED, could not put down, The Theory of Money and credit when I read it, but am presently in the middle of Human Action which I am finding even more enjoyable. I think Jonathan Gullible by Ken Schoolland is really what Atlas Shrugged should have been (or at least what I am sure everyone else wished it had been), and as much as I enjoy Ayn Rand's storytelling, I think anyone can see that with regard to the idea of moral egoism, Max Stirner predates Rand by over 100 years. Maybe I need to put Wealth of Nations back on my list, cause that sounds interesting.
So government in this case competed normally against the market as a common business? Now that is cheating and skipping ahead. It sounds as if government didn't even give a monopoly to itself in which case government played a normal healthy role in a free market. Mesis / Austrian School of economics, nor myself in support or interpretation of such would disallow the government from competing freely, so long as the money was collected freely in the market in the form of bonds and such (voluntary) rather than through taxation (compulsory). I think that is totally awesome that your government does not such in that respect. As for the Auberdeen Train station, sounds much more like limited market (also judging from maps) than a monopoly.
I am very pro community. I just like the freedom to pick my own community, and let others do the same. As for the Microsoft thing, I think that they have done some legally questionable things that would have required government assistance. I believe Cisco has continued to out innovate its competitors, but I do not believe Microsoft has done the same. I do not believe in natural monopolies, but is there a chance that Microsoft was in the right place at the right time with respect to a revolutionary technology and saw an incredible opportunity with regard to the home consumer? I guess that is quite possible. Would they and could they have pulled any dirty trick in the book to ensure once they were on top to ensure that they would stay there clearly in violation of the law, but without necessarily paying off politicians in the United States? Irrefutable! Have they paid off politicians with very large sums of money to have their way in countries where bribery is not illegal? Undeniably. So that starts to get into the grey area between economic theory of monopolies and anti-trust law. IBM was the Microsoft of the 70' and more, Sun Microsystems had their time each pulling the same kind of tricks and they did not last. Microsoft has more or less played itself out. They will likely continue to be successful just like IBM and Sun Microsystems :)
As far as the role of the government, and its special services, I spent a significant amount of time collecting my thoughts on the matter earlier. Would be interested in your thoughts on the matter as you appear to be passionate about the issue.
I don't need protection from myself. I do need protection from the rest of you.
Good thing we got the Second Amendment, and that the indoctrination clause still applies to the entire bill of right and not just bits and pieces for the moment.
In my case, it's based on experience and observed behavior, not any hypothetical situations but ones that actually happened.
Do you have no real life hero? If not, I am very sorry. I do not think I would have lived as long as I have so far were it not for the (albeit few) people I looked up to most often in real life, but also in part in history textbooks. If I am wrong, and you do have a hero, I would expect that the individual in question is an example of someone that stood up for someone that believed in themselves, stood apart from the crowd, and was successful by their own merit; not a person that got by being meek and after a life of servitude and failures received a big government bailout for their loyalty. But maybe I assume too much.
Rational does not imply nice.
Nope, can't disagree with you there. But I'll take a rational and mean individual than an irrational and mean individual. You are typically safe even from a dog that is protecting its own interests, of course until you attempt to violate those interests. It is the rabid ones with no self interest you gotta watch out for.
We can't, especially since all the potential leaders are just as vile as everyone else. However, moving the power center further away from myself lets me hide in the crowd, and including bureaucratic inefficiencies makes the inevitable oppression happen slower, so I can dodge it easier.
Basically, a government is unlikely to bother picking on me personally, while my neighbor is not. That's because a government sees me as a statistic, while my neighbour sees me as a punching bag or a personal slave, depending on his particular breed of evil (thug or CEO).
You got me there. That is a good way to play it safe. It is a little too reactionary for my philosophical taste, but I would be a fool not to recognize that I live my life that way very much.
And once they kill everyone but me, what else do I have left to live for?
But I will say that your comment if very revealing. You do understand that hiding is your best option, just as Anne Frank. She did not cower in that office space like an animal waiting for the inevitable slaughter, she cowered like a human being knowing what she needed to do, and taking the best chances for survival. Of course she was still caught and died from Rickettsiae in a concentration camp some short time later, but I am sure her logic was sound. (That wasn't meant to be a Godwin, just an example of a struggle. Maybe Hamlet would have been better, to which you could have rebutted with Don Quixote, but I'll just let you imagine that debate on your own.)
Maybe it never really worked, but I think it was the system of government intended, drafted, and ratified by the founders of the United States Constitution, at VERY least Thomas Jefferson. And while I love to criticize James Madison for convince people that the language was "clear enough to understand" which obviously wasn't, I do believe he did believe in the same vision of government as Jefferson. But of course as with any generation, once the last founding father left the presidency, new people with new ideas introduced a new vision for the role of government as can be seen in Marbury v. Madison. On a personal level, I think the Supreme Court should have the right of congressional review. It keeps with the checks and balances of the government as opposed to relying on Congress to ensure that it does not contradict itself, but it is reasonably clear that judicial review wasn't meant to be interpreted as congressional review, but at the same time, how are courts to function if the law actually contradicts itself? Hypothetically through origionalism and a review of the intent of the authors. So when does interpreting policy become writing policy? Hopefully that will be a continuous debate.
As far as "no system sucks less", there really are no example of direct democracy that have ever worked, because under direct democracy, who makes things happen? It is indistinguishable from pure anarchy. The Republic is really the form of National Government that has stood the test of time, of which the United States is NOT. In a respect, and as I think it was necessitated, the United States is a Super-Republic aka a Federal Government much like the European Union. Of course, the EU and US are as different as any country is from another. For the sake of simplicity ignoring the 12th and 17th amendments with regard to the US, People democratically elect national / state representatives that in turn elect representatives to the federal government to represent their interests as members of the federation. But people don't have any direct influence on policy any more than a mob of pesant versus a King. Our "democracy" gives us the right to elect different representatives and run for public office.
Democracy also isn't an economic theory. Kaynes theory of economics has dominated for over 100 years that theorized that minimal interventionism could be good for an economy in the long run. In general, democratic economic interventionism has failed. An example of great human progress where democratic will was not imposed (or was unable to stop it) was the Enlightenment Age, as mentioned before, today the Internet (no matter how hard Congress works to censor / destroy it), Linux (as a whole, not this stupid narrow home desktop x86 workstation under $1000 purchased in the last year prebuild garbage), and the survival of the species in general.
The free market isn't the way things should work, it is the way things DO work, and government isn't much of any special exception. Of course, like any salesman, they love to try to tell you otherwise.
Child labor: "Austrian school economist Murray Rothbard also defended child labor, stating that British and American children of the pre- and post-Industrial Revolution lived and suffered in infinitely worse conditions where jobs were not available for them and went "voluntarily and gladly" to work in factories."
Oligopolies: This is not free market even in a loose sense. This is a form of extreme government interventionism.
Wage Slavery: I would agree this is a good criticism of capitalism in a brutally class structured society. Taking control over peoples personal lives and making special favors for certain groups of people such that certain people will stay rich and others stay poor causes wage slavery, particularly with harsh laws that require people to live in certain areas and such. But if after that you tell people "follow this huge set of rules, but then after that, you are free to do whatever you want" is just a slap in the face. While there are many issues surrounding industrialization, I think that in the United States today, we are all wage slaves in one way or another. Money (in the form of Federal Reserve Notes) is required to live in many ways, however I think you would have to agree far too strongly with Thomas Hobbes that people will always choose total oppression over total freedom (state of nature, as he put it). I believe that if you don't like where you live, move. I am not saying that is somehow easy, but it is what people do when they don't like where they are and take personal responsibility for their circumstances.
Media Ownership: This is a problem with government, and the current state of things is exactly what Jefferson and Madison feared. The Rule of Law CAUSED the problem we have today and is probably one of the best arguments as to why government needs to stay the hell out of economics. Hollywood, if required to operate in the Free Market would have no chance at being the atrocity that it is today if it didn't have just enough power to buy the DoJ by way of Congress at the expense of the tax payer.
Health Care in the U.S.: longer lifespan, very low infant mortality rate, high rate of treatment of disease, lowest rates of TB, HIV and other STI, Malaria, and many other illness, highest survivor rates for cancer. One statistic I was sad not to see in there was time to treatment, but I know that the US has the shortest wait times across the board to get help with anything from broken arm to cancer treatment. It can be expensive, but you can not be denied treatment for inability to pay, in addition to the many free clinics. In the US, you may go broke, but you will get treated, and you will very likely live. If, say, you are poor and have no money and get stuck with a $500,000 medical bill (as has happened to more than one friend of mine) you can declare bankruptcy where more or less they take your assets short of what you need to live. The debt is forgiven and it goes on your credit report for 10 years that you declared bankruptcy and are certain to be denied credit in the future. OH NO!!! I can't buy that new car I don't have the money for! Quick, get me a politician! WTF?!? REALLY? They saved your life! People in the United States LIVE and they GET TREATMENT. Yeah, bankruptcy is bad and not something you want to PLAN on doing, but compare it to... death? This is also worst case scenario. There are many charities, and I know most any church will take up a collection for community members with catastrophic illness even if you are not a member of the church. How do other countries save MONEY on health care? They ration treatment to the most likely survivors and those who are the best investment, and they let others die. In Europe, Canada, and other places with single payer systems, people over 65 years of age are ineligible preventative care, and those over 55 are ineligible for transplants because "it isn't the best use of limited resources". You can't even get organ transplants if you are willing to pay for it yourself,
This just makes me wonder if that ever crossed the mind of any of my friends that went to Iraq, to ensure that lwsimon-724555 paid his property taxes. Was that really what some of them died for?
Honestly GodKingAmit, that hurts a little.
So people that didn't give up parts of their income to the state prior to the 16th amendment you would consider a criminal? Just working out the details.
I completely agree with your points, and your final point is the very best. If people think (and of course it often happens) that a logical average of two positions is the most reasonable, it will encourage more radical positions to move the average to where they really wanted it in the first place. But I still don't think that a blanket statement in any debate that "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" is anything that can be regarded as a principle. How can something be a principle when it always changes based on who is in the room. Hmm... I think those people are called politicians.
I think it is just as reasonable to say "The truth lies somewhere else".
and I am sure that is exactly what the judge will tell you when they lock you up.
How can something be so important that it necessitates force to get people to pay for them? Does it always require force to get people to pay for big things to get built? Is that the only way big things get built? If people are unwilling to pay for them, why are we building them? If enough people want then, why don't they pay for it?
Employers don't get a portion of your pay check in return for letting you have a job, they get what you DO. You do something useful, so they pay you. The government feels it is entitled to get a part of your paycheck because you worked a job in their country, but should not the fact that you produced useful labor be enough? Income Taxes, in particular, punish success and thus discourage it. This is why is was outlawed in the constitution. Further, the 16th amendment never went through the proper ratification process, so which law do you follow? Apparently, like most people including myself, the one with the gun pointed at your head, which was exactly my point.
At least in the United States, if others pollute on YOUR property, you can sue them. On the other hand, if someone pollutes on public property, it is always "someone else.s problem"
Why do we need a national defense if nobody wants it. If other people are more willing to contribute than others, that is how it is supposed to work. This is still true of national defense. Unless you are putting a price on someone else's child's life, why doesn't a draft work? Allowing people to choose to join the military makes a better military. Drafts have shown to have detrimental effects on an economy due to reduced moral. I can't remember the guy who proved this to congress after Vietnam, and no, I am not going to hunt it down, but I will use it anyway.
Rather than arguing that there is no such thing as a monopoly in a free market, why don't you just give me an example of one, and that I will look up and cite government interference as a direct cause.
As for the last quote you took, you disagree that at an impass on policy or principle that further investigations should be made? You think a mathematical average of fundamentally different approaches to problems saves time and energy? I do not agree because that is very silly. It was meant to be a common obvious logical fallacy of moderatism, not because Ayn Rand said anything along the topic at all. I didn't even know she covered the topic at all. If she did, I would be interested in reading it.
While I haven't read it in its entirety, I think The Histories give many great reasons as to why democracy sucks hard. Also, to say "National Scale" presupposes nationalism which conflicts with anarchist principles, so I don't see much argument there. Also, many capitalist and socialist nations have fallen. Further, I find purpose in understanding such systems for rational guidance in my own decision making, not necessarily for the preservation of the state, let alone the greatest leviathan imaginable. But in whatever we might consider a "national level" apart from nationalism for the purpose of its own preservation, I think a very limited government whose purpose is to effectively "preserve the anarchy" has historically shown to most greatly benefit the greatest number of people, propel human progress, reduce suffering, and improve quality of life for all people. I really think that is what we should have all learned from the Age of Enlightenment.
Your post is only true if you pretend subjective opinions are objective truths
I strongly believe in an objective truth, but I agree with Soros that part of what makes up my perception is the perception of others, and as I act, it has an impact on people which in turn has an impact on me. Communism is forced contribution in so far that you are unnaturally restricted from 1) participating as you please, and maybe most importantly 2) there are laws against returning to the State of Nature. One example of this in the United States; for crops that are rationed since the New Deal where for the sake of the welfare of farmers, there are restrictions on how much of certain crops can be grown in total. A Supreme Court case (I have sadly forgotten the name of) put this to the full test. A farmer, not interested in the politics of the state, decided he would be better off "returning to a state of nature". He had a subsistence farm in which he grew food only for the purpose of feeding his family. However, wheat was rationed at the time. He argued that because he was only growing it for himself and his family the federal government had no authority to regulate him. The court descended arguing that because he was growing his own food he was NOT buying food that might have been purchased from a person that had moved the grain across state lines, thus the Federal government had the right to regulate his crops under the interstate commerce clause. He believed things worked one way, but he was forced to adapt differently. I just think that while capitalism can have brutal controls, the nature of the "forced contribution" is more natural, and less circumstantial. It is easy to have a strong respect for property rights without knowing a lot about the property, where as the rules in communism, to my understanding, require significant foresight.
Maybe more simply is that my interpretation of the truth will always be more real (and motivating) to me than what someone else can tell me that it is. My understanding is natural, and while others opinions may be meant as contributions, it is forceful when I no longer have the right to disagree. All learning has latency, but I measure it as a difference of unnecessary latency.
Only if you define away "selfless" to meaninglessness.
Actions are driven by reason based on perceptions that are only your own. To act rationally is to act on your OWN reason and sense of good. To attempt to eliminate yourself from the equation of your perceptions and what is meaningful to YOU does make truly selfish acts at least irrational, effectively meaningless because you have already allowed yourself to loose sight of the benefit.
a parent, a teacher, a soldier, a nun, a disaster recovery volunteer
These are worthy jobs that need doing. People that pick these jobs because they are in demand, or because it is what they want to do. Personally, I would much rather know a member of such an occupation that wanted to be such, selfishly, than one that felt a moral obligation to do so. Sadly, but sometimes by a close margin, to rationally discover why one desires for themselves to do something is much better than one that accepts the rationality of others IN PLACE OF their own. In this sense, it would not be meaningless so much as irrational. You can't have rational justification after the fact. Of course, if you believe that the right thing to do is one thing, but you allow yourself to be compromised and give into soc