Did you know the USA has a larger percentage of its population in prison than any other democracy (and most other authorotarian states) in the world?
It's only logical. The more laws, the more criminals. The more people in prison for victimless crimes, the more expensive and powerful the government, and the more benefit to those in power.
Complexity is always welcome in government. The more complex the law, the bigger the benefit to those in power. At the very least, millions of tax dollars will be spent on administering such redundancy.
There is no way I would justify any initiation of force, including fraud. The Enron execs are criminals, and should be made to pay restitution to their victimes.
as to the feds, they are not that corrupt
Billions of tax dollars go unaccounted every year. In fact, I believe they just lost $8 billion in Iraq -- the money was sent over for "rebuilding efforts" and magically disappeared. How is this not corrupt?
Law is defined by government. Government adds thousands of new laws every year, becuase it benefits those in power (just as any expansion of government does). There is the simple reason why law is arbitrarily complex.
The very fact that ethics is taught in school -- college, no less -- says a lot about the state of society. It's almost as if people have come to believe that ethical behavior changes depending on the circumstance. For example, anyone would agree that it's wrong to hold a gun to your neighbor's head and commit robbery. But if a "majority" gets together and delegates that initiation of force to government, somehow it becomes moral and just.
The truth is that ethics is a not a "subject", it's a simple contract that defines (or should define) all interaction between human beings. You will not initiate force against me, and in return, I will not initiate force against you. It's really that simple.
Of course, government teaches us that sometimes it's "necessary" to initiate force as a means to an end. And that "necessity" seems to grow larger every year. Is it any wonder that people are confused on the subject of ethical behavior?
There's a lot more corruption in government than business. The US federal government's accounting practices make Enron executives look like model citizens.
Oh, I want to be part of society. And I am. I am quite capable of engaging in moral, productive interaction with others. And I do. Yet I still oppose the initiation of force as a means to an end (i.e. government). Were you trying to imply that government and society are the same thing?
What I don't want is to grant ownership over my life and body to anyone but myself. Were you trying to imply that an individual cannot possibly interact morally or productively with others without the "aid" of government?
Government is not morality. Government is pure force. Human beings are quite capable of making moral and rational decisions without being ruled by other human beings.
And that's exactly why the punishment should focus on restitution for the victims, making the aggressor pay for the crime instead of the taxpayers. If all they do is send him off to jail, everyone loses.
By "people", of course, you are referring to those who wish to initiate force as a means to an end. I would humbly request that you define the group in real terms instead of implying that all individuals ("the people") fall into this group. Believe it or not, there are people who actually don't want or expect anything from government, and demand to take 100% responsibility for their own lives. (I know because I'm one of them.)
Are you trying to imply that government didn't benefit from any of those power grabs? Even when a government program fails outright (ex. drug prohibition), the powerful elite still win due to increased power and revenue. Look at government (public) education: they constantly demand more revenue to "save" their failing schools, yet every time they get the increase, the bulk of the money goes straight to administration.
civil rights
This isn't an expansion of government. Government cannot pass laws to "create" civil rights. Rights are derived from the reality of human nature, not government. As much as they want you to believe that government is the source of freedom, the opposite is true. We are born free, and from there we can only lose freedom. Government cannot "create" rights, any more than the mafia can create rights. They can only destroy them.
The reason for "federalizing" laws which already exist is simply to expand the powers and general scope of the federal government. Look at the incredible (exponential?) growth of the US federal government over the past century. History shows that the powerful elite are uninterested in repealing laws or reducing the scope of government. They are here to add new laws and secure more revenue, and further entangle themselves in the market (aka the cookie jar). There's a reason why governments expand over their lifetimes -- because it benefits those in power.
going to be nearly impossible to legislate the internet
Sure, but that won't stop them from spending billions trying, and exploiting the "problem" for yet even more power and revenue. When you're spending other people's money, you've got nothing to lose, and everything to gain. It's a zero-risk investment. No matter the outcome -- even if a handful of the powerful elite are "fired" -- they've already cashed in on administration (both directly and indirectly).
Please stop saying "American public" unless you are actually willing to enumerate it. A majority, no matter how strong, is by no means representative of an entire society.
Bullshit. Are you willing to prove that each and every individual explicity gave their willing consent to have their money plundered for this EXACT reason? Even if a poll was held to determine the exact number of individuals willing to support the building of this bomb, all you would have is proof that a MAJORITY gave their consent, and everyone else was simply forced to go along with it.
So no, "the American people" did no such thing (give their consent). I know I sure as hell didn't. It amazes me the lengths people go to "prove" that government (power) isn't the root of the problem, that somehow "the American people" are the root of the problem. No, I will NOT be held responsible for this.
To expand on #2, an instance of voluntary trade can be defined as having a positive net sum. When party A trades voluntarily with party B, both parties do so ONLY because they gain from the trade. (+1 and +1 equals positive net sum.) Hence, new wealth is created.
On the contrary, an instance of involuntary trade (forceful association) can never have a positive net sum. When party A interacts by force with party B, party A gains (+1) but only at party B's expense (-1). So the net sum is zero, not positive, and no new wealth is created.
Pure Capitalism, much like Communism, can not work
I've heard this over and over but I have yet to see an actual proof as to why an entirely voluntary society (pure capitalism) "can not work". However, it is quite trivial to prove that pure communism cannot work (i.e. a purely communist government will eventually collapse under its own weight):
1. Government is force (involuntary association).
2. Interaction through force cannot create new wealth through mutual benefit as voluntary association does; it can only transfer existing wealth from one party to another. (Wealth may be defined in terms of material ownership or labor potential.)
3. Without a means to create wealth, the powerful elite has only a limited amount of time in which to plunder the existing wealth. After that, their government must either (a) collapse, or (b) back off enough to allow the market to create more wealth.
If you want to get technical, pure capitalism doesn't involve government at all. The concepts are mutually exclusive, because capitalism requires voluntary association, while government requires involuntary association (force). The purest form of capitalism would be a society with absolutely no government (no possible "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) -- a society based entirely on voluntary association. Of course, this society does not exist, never has, and won't in our lifetimes. (Although I would be the first to argue that a 100% voluntary society is the logical "utopia" that we should be working towards.)
The core principle of capitalism, voluntary trade for mutual benefit, is contrary to the goals of the lobbyist (to initiate force a means to an end). So no, bribing politicians to initiate force on one's behalf is not an example of capitalism -- in fact it is exactly the opposite.
Interestingly enough, government can be defined in terms of monopoly: Government is the organization which holds the exclusive "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. (Any other individual or group which initiates force without the blessing of government is criminal.)
Doubling the amount doubles the administration costs. That's all the reason government needs to spend more tax money. The program could fail outright, and our leaders still profit!
Slashdot Mirror
It's only logical. The more laws, the more criminals. The more people in prison for victimless crimes, the more expensive and powerful the government, and the more benefit to those in power.
Would this be sarcasm?
Does it matter? Either the federal government "loses" tax revenue, or it does't. The process is either accounted for, or it isn't.
Complexity is always welcome in government. The more complex the law, the bigger the benefit to those in power. At the very least, millions of tax dollars will be spent on administering such redundancy.
as to the feds, they are not that corrupt
Billions of tax dollars go unaccounted every year. In fact, I believe they just lost $8 billion in Iraq -- the money was sent over for "rebuilding efforts" and magically disappeared. How is this not corrupt?
If we don't continue making new laws then how do we continue expanding the scope of government? Sincerely, Your Political Leaders
Law is defined by government. Government adds thousands of new laws every year, becuase it benefits those in power (just as any expansion of government does). There is the simple reason why law is arbitrarily complex.
The very fact that ethics is taught in school -- college, no less -- says a lot about the state of society. It's almost as if people have come to believe that ethical behavior changes depending on the circumstance. For example, anyone would agree that it's wrong to hold a gun to your neighbor's head and commit robbery. But if a "majority" gets together and delegates that initiation of force to government, somehow it becomes moral and just.
The truth is that ethics is a not a "subject", it's a simple contract that defines (or should define) all interaction between human beings. You will not initiate force against me, and in return, I will not initiate force against you. It's really that simple.
Of course, government teaches us that sometimes it's "necessary" to initiate force as a means to an end. And that "necessity" seems to grow larger every year. Is it any wonder that people are confused on the subject of ethical behavior?
There's a lot more corruption in government than business. The US federal government's accounting practices make Enron executives look like model citizens.
Oh, I want to be part of society. And I am. I am quite capable of engaging in moral, productive interaction with others. And I do. Yet I still oppose the initiation of force as a means to an end (i.e. government). Were you trying to imply that government and society are the same thing?
What I don't want is to grant ownership over my life and body to anyone but myself. Were you trying to imply that an individual cannot possibly interact morally or productively with others without the "aid" of government?
Government is not morality. Government is pure force. Human beings are quite capable of making moral and rational decisions without being ruled by other human beings.
And that's exactly why the punishment should focus on restitution for the victims, making the aggressor pay for the crime instead of the taxpayers. If all they do is send him off to jail, everyone loses.
By "people", of course, you are referring to those who wish to initiate force as a means to an end. I would humbly request that you define the group in real terms instead of implying that all individuals ("the people") fall into this group. Believe it or not, there are people who actually don't want or expect anything from government, and demand to take 100% responsibility for their own lives. (I know because I'm one of them.)
civil rights
This isn't an expansion of government. Government cannot pass laws to "create" civil rights. Rights are derived from the reality of human nature, not government. As much as they want you to believe that government is the source of freedom, the opposite is true. We are born free, and from there we can only lose freedom. Government cannot "create" rights, any more than the mafia can create rights. They can only destroy them.
The reason for "federalizing" laws which already exist is simply to expand the powers and general scope of the federal government. Look at the incredible (exponential?) growth of the US federal government over the past century. History shows that the powerful elite are uninterested in repealing laws or reducing the scope of government. They are here to add new laws and secure more revenue, and further entangle themselves in the market (aka the cookie jar). There's a reason why governments expand over their lifetimes -- because it benefits those in power.
Sure, but that won't stop them from spending billions trying, and exploiting the "problem" for yet even more power and revenue. When you're spending other people's money, you've got nothing to lose, and everything to gain. It's a zero-risk investment. No matter the outcome -- even if a handful of the powerful elite are "fired" -- they've already cashed in on administration (both directly and indirectly).
Please stop saying "American public" unless you are actually willing to enumerate it. A majority, no matter how strong, is by no means representative of an entire society.
Bullshit. Are you willing to prove that each and every individual explicity gave their willing consent to have their money plundered for this EXACT reason? Even if a poll was held to determine the exact number of individuals willing to support the building of this bomb, all you would have is proof that a MAJORITY gave their consent, and everyone else was simply forced to go along with it.
So no, "the American people" did no such thing (give their consent). I know I sure as hell didn't. It amazes me the lengths people go to "prove" that government (power) isn't the root of the problem, that somehow "the American people" are the root of the problem. No, I will NOT be held responsible for this.
To expand on #2, an instance of voluntary trade can be defined as having a positive net sum. When party A trades voluntarily with party B, both parties do so ONLY because they gain from the trade. (+1 and +1 equals positive net sum.) Hence, new wealth is created.
On the contrary, an instance of involuntary trade (forceful association) can never have a positive net sum. When party A interacts by force with party B, party A gains (+1) but only at party B's expense (-1). So the net sum is zero, not positive, and no new wealth is created.
I've heard this over and over but I have yet to see an actual proof as to why an entirely voluntary society (pure capitalism) "can not work". However, it is quite trivial to prove that pure communism cannot work (i.e. a purely communist government will eventually collapse under its own weight):
1. Government is force (involuntary association).
2. Interaction through force cannot create new wealth through mutual benefit as voluntary association does; it can only transfer existing wealth from one party to another. (Wealth may be defined in terms of material ownership or labor potential.)
3. Without a means to create wealth, the powerful elite has only a limited amount of time in which to plunder the existing wealth. After that, their government must either (a) collapse, or (b) back off enough to allow the market to create more wealth.
If you want to get technical, pure capitalism doesn't involve government at all. The concepts are mutually exclusive, because capitalism requires voluntary association, while government requires involuntary association (force). The purest form of capitalism would be a society with absolutely no government (no possible "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) -- a society based entirely on voluntary association. Of course, this society does not exist, never has, and won't in our lifetimes. (Although I would be the first to argue that a 100% voluntary society is the logical "utopia" that we should be working towards.)
The core principle of capitalism, voluntary trade for mutual benefit, is contrary to the goals of the lobbyist (to initiate force a means to an end). So no, bribing politicians to initiate force on one's behalf is not an example of capitalism -- in fact it is exactly the opposite.
Interestingly enough, government can be defined in terms of monopoly: Government is the organization which holds the exclusive "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. (Any other individual or group which initiates force without the blessing of government is criminal.)
Sure there is. If government wasn't spending tax money, they'd never cash in on the administration costs.
Doubling the amount doubles the administration costs. That's all the reason government needs to spend more tax money. The program could fail outright, and our leaders still profit!
As if it couldn't possibly have been developed through voluntary association, rather than by force?