So do I, and that's exactly why I do not believe in robbing Peter to give to Paul. The fact that government is "giving" to Paul (and -- cough -- taking a cut for themselves) does not, by any rational means, make the act of robbing Peter moral and just.
And please spare me the lies about the people "choosing" to submit themselves to force. A person cannot voluntarily submit to force, any more than a person can force another person to volunteer.
Government is power: the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. The mode of interaction between government and citizen is pure force.
Force is the source of everything evil that has ever happened in the history of human civilization. Every single war, every theft, murder, rape -- it's all derived from one individual or group assuming the "right" to initiate force over another. Can you not see this, or are you so blinded by the "good" government does that you choose to ignore the evil?
Trade is voluntary. This requires freedom. The mode of interaction between traders is voluntary association.
If you can't see the difference between the two modes of human interaction -- force and voluntary association -- then government has been more successful at brainwashing than I thought.
I read at least one article a day about a person using a gun to PREVENT crime, not to initiate it. The vast majority of these cases go unreported in the mainstream media, while gun crime is reported daily. (Guess whose side the media is on.) Now, where exactly are those statistics you mentioned?
What's wrong with the local governments by the people, for the people, deciding how to spend their dollars in a democratic and free way?
What's wrong with a group of 10, getting together, and voting to plunder and destroy the posessions of 2 for the benefit of 8?
You may not see government as pure force, especially when it gives you what you want, but the truth is that anything you get from government comes only at the expense of other people. That expense is freedom, and I value it more than any social program.
There are many ways to do roads voluntarily. Most people assume that some kind of centralization is necessary to tie it all together. That's fine, but it doesn't necessarily mean the state needs to own and operate the roads. Here's one idea: Private land owners whose land is in demand to build roads could lease the land to road suppliers. Road suppliers would belong to a regional road association, which would collect yearly membership fees for anyone who wanted to travel on the association's roads. Membership would be divided into personal and commercial plans. The association would take care of enforcing traffic safety and preventing unauthorized access. Or, private land owners could build and own the roads themselves (according to spec of course) and become road suppliers themselves, receiving a direct cut of the road association's profit. This could be a small cut, for local roads, or a bigger cut, for highways, depending on the value of the road. Compensation could also come from selling advertising, billboards and such.
At the core of all this is the simple theory that anything that can be accomplished through force (government) can be accomplished more efficiently through voluntary will (free trade). It's hard to imagine for us, since we know nothing but big government. Most people can't imagine that society could exist without a central power controlling it through force, but that's no suprise. (That's exactly what we've been taught all our lives, living under big government.) But it can happen, and it will happen. Maybe not in our lifetimes, maybe not for another 1000 years, but someday, government will be obsolete.
When a town votes and decides to turn certain services like Internet access over to a public utility, that's called "democracy".
In real terms, it's called coercion. Don't try to sugar-coat it, implying that I chose such a coercive solution for myself. The fact is that in a democracy, the majority (which is typically less than 75%) imposes its will on the minority BY FORCE.
You may be in favor of a coercive solution on some issues, or against it on others, but let's call a spade a spade. Democracy is rule by force, like any other form of goverment. It doesn't necessarily represent the people; in fact it cannot possibly represent everyone at the same time. Don't pretend that it can, or even that it's fair. With democracy (or ANY form of government), you only get what you want at the expense of others.
That's why I'm a libertarian. I get what I want through voluntary cooperation with others, not by exploiting the force of government.
I don't like it either. My point was that big government is what paves the way for corruption. As a rule of thumb, the more expensive and more complex the government, the more corruption.
American democracy has a long tradition of protecting the minority from the majority.
Sure, that's why American democracy has resulted in the near-exponential growth of American government, and ultimately, the most expensive, most powerful, most dangerous government in the world. But don't worry -- most of that excess power goes to protecting the minority against the majority!
why does a human rights bill need the financial backing of a big company to get passed?
|
Simple. Because government operates in self-interest, exactly the opposite of what it claims. Government is, after all, nothing but a collection of human beings, each who operate in self-interst by human nature. So let's cut to the chase: what's in it for government?
The notion that all the companies whose existence is indebted to NOAA would lobby for something like this just makes my head hurt.
But why do they lobby? Why does anyone attempt to bribe government? Because it works.
With that said, government is the root of the problem. You can't really blame the lobbyists for playing by the rules, when the rules are corrupt and designed to be exploited in the first place. Everyone wants a piece of the big government pie, but remember why the pie exists in the first place: because government made it so. Government holds the keys, not the lobbyists.
"Government" may be "non-profit" according to the law, but the people who run government are quite obviously there for personal gain. If this wasn't the case, special-interest (pork barrel) politics would be unheard of.
If there is no profit, then how do government employees make a living? (If 100% of revenue goes straight back into the business, then how can the business sustain itself?)
I'm just trying to make you realize that government is a business, whether you endorse what they do or not. The primary difference is that while private business earns its profit through voluntary trade (the non-criminal ones at least), government takes its profit by force.
The government makes money off the 911 service. The service is run like a business, just like any government program. They have a budget, they have employees who get paid, they have managers who get paid more, and they have executives who get paid even more.
Is it ethical for government to accept money in return for this service? Why or why not? Would it be ethical for a private company to accept money in exchange for a similar, competing service? Why or why not?
If you think government isn't in business for profit, you'd better think again. There is a reason why governments have a tendency to expand their powers, not limit or reduce their powers, over their lifetimes: because government operates in self-interest, just like any private organization, just like any human being. Government, after all, is nothing but a collection of human beings.
I do agree that a patent should not be granted on this, but then, I am in favor of abolishing patents completely.
"It's a sign that we're all a little nervous in the post-9/11 world."
Translation: Oppressive police state tactics allow us to provide more efficient service. Our #1 priority is getting the job done. If we have to sacrifice a few innocents for the benefit of efficient law enforcement, then so be it.
Corollary: As enforcers of the law, we are more concerned with conformity than actual justice. When it comes to law enforcement, conformity is efficiency. Due process and individual rights only get in the way, and should be minimized at every opportunity.
Considering that the US government is the wealthiest, most powerful, most complex governmennt in the world, I'd hardly make the claim that it's restricted in power. That was nothing but an impossible dream, and the proof is in the pudding: the near-exponential growth of the US government over the past century.
Power is absolute, by definition. The notion that a government's power can be somehow retained or restricted is nothing but a front-end for the masses. History proves that government can and will break any of its own rules when necessary. Due process for everyone, except when it gets in the way of government. Freedom of association for everyone, but only with government's approval. The right to defend yourself against force, but only with government's approval. The list goes on and on.
When nobody votes, it means that all the candidates are equally good.
Is this a joke? This is not what low voter turnout means in politics. What it means in politics (although the statists will never admit it) is that the people are (a) uninterested in politics, (b) opposed to the poltical process, or (c) consider the voting process hopeless or worthless.
Guess what? Every one of those reasons is a valid reason not to vote. There is no moral directive which states that you must be interested in deciding who holds the unique "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. What if you don't believe this "right" should be held by anybody in the first place?
So he believes in working within a system he doesn't believe should exist?
I don't think you understand what government is. Government is FORCE. This man doesn't have a choice. He MUST comply. If he tries to defend himself and his property, invoking force in defense of force, just what do you think will happen? Will government back down and forget about the whole thing? No matter how morally justified his actions to defend himself -- he WILL eventually face deadly force.
If you refuse to pay your taxes, and they come to your door with guns and handcuffs, and you then refuse to be taken into custody, just what do you think will happen?
If someone were to rob me at gunpoint, and I choose to comply and give them my money rather than have my brains scrambled by a bullet, does that mean I'm "sleeping with the devil"?
Bingo. The fact that most people on here refuse to realize or admit that he's dealing with deadly force -- and WILL face deadly force if he refuses to comply and tries to defend himself and his property -- proves how effective the state propaganda campaign is. People are STILL clinging to their trust in the state, even though in reality he has exactly TWO CHOICES: comply, or be murdered. (If you don't think your government would murder this person, just what exactly do you think would happen if he invoked force in defense of force?)
When they come to arrest you, you won't get shot unless you do something stupid, like threaten them with a weapon.
And when the armed robber breaks into your home in the middle of the night, don't worry -- you won't get shot unless you do something stupid like try to defend your rightfully-owned property.
In other words, your comment is utterly invalid. Anything and everything government does, and ever will do, is backed by deadly force. Of course they won't invoke deadly force on first glace -- imagine what a PR mistake that would be. The simple threat of deadly force is usually good enough to maintain the rule of government, just as it's usually good enough for the mob.
You can thank big government for that. If it weren't for our ridiculously complex, ambiguous, and highly exploitable legal system, people would have a much better chance of sucessfully representing themselves. (Think about that. What should one think of a system of law which can't even be understood by the individuals subject to its rule?)
Slashdot Mirror
So do I, and that's exactly why I do not believe in robbing Peter to give to Paul. The fact that government is "giving" to Paul (and -- cough -- taking a cut for themselves) does not, by any rational means, make the act of robbing Peter moral and just.
And please spare me the lies about the people "choosing" to submit themselves to force. A person cannot voluntarily submit to force, any more than a person can force another person to volunteer.
Right, and the fact that the powerful elite makes a fortune on the administration and investment of such programs is surely proof of that.
Sarcasm aside, I do agree that government is the absolute root of the problem. (That was your point, correct?)
You don't get it, do you?
Government is power: the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. The mode of interaction between government and citizen is pure force.
Force is the source of everything evil that has ever happened in the history of human civilization. Every single war, every theft, murder, rape -- it's all derived from one individual or group assuming the "right" to initiate force over another. Can you not see this, or are you so blinded by the "good" government does that you choose to ignore the evil?
Trade is voluntary. This requires freedom. The mode of interaction between traders is voluntary association.
If you can't see the difference between the two modes of human interaction -- force and voluntary association -- then government has been more successful at brainwashing than I thought.
Rational Review
Perhaps you're watching too much TV?
What's wrong with a group of 10, getting together, and voting to plunder and destroy the posessions of 2 for the benefit of 8?
You may not see government as pure force, especially when it gives you what you want, but the truth is that anything you get from government comes only at the expense of other people. That expense is freedom, and I value it more than any social program.
There are many ways to do roads voluntarily. Most people assume that some kind of centralization is necessary to tie it all together. That's fine, but it doesn't necessarily mean the state needs to own and operate the roads. Here's one idea: Private land owners whose land is in demand to build roads could lease the land to road suppliers. Road suppliers would belong to a regional road association, which would collect yearly membership fees for anyone who wanted to travel on the association's roads. Membership would be divided into personal and commercial plans. The association would take care of enforcing traffic safety and preventing unauthorized access. Or, private land owners could build and own the roads themselves (according to spec of course) and become road suppliers themselves, receiving a direct cut of the road association's profit. This could be a small cut, for local roads, or a bigger cut, for highways, depending on the value of the road. Compensation could also come from selling advertising, billboards and such.
At the core of all this is the simple theory that anything that can be accomplished through force (government) can be accomplished more efficiently through voluntary will (free trade). It's hard to imagine for us, since we know nothing but big government. Most people can't imagine that society could exist without a central power controlling it through force, but that's no suprise. (That's exactly what we've been taught all our lives, living under big government.) But it can happen, and it will happen. Maybe not in our lifetimes, maybe not for another 1000 years, but someday, government will be obsolete.
In real terms, it's called coercion. Don't try to sugar-coat it, implying that I chose such a coercive solution for myself. The fact is that in a democracy, the majority (which is typically less than 75%) imposes its will on the minority BY FORCE.
You may be in favor of a coercive solution on some issues, or against it on others, but let's call a spade a spade. Democracy is rule by force, like any other form of goverment. It doesn't necessarily represent the people; in fact it cannot possibly represent everyone at the same time. Don't pretend that it can, or even that it's fair. With democracy (or ANY form of government), you only get what you want at the expense of others.
That's why I'm a libertarian. I get what I want through voluntary cooperation with others, not by exploiting the force of government.
I don't like it either. My point was that big government is what paves the way for corruption. As a rule of thumb, the more expensive and more complex the government, the more corruption.
Sure, that's why American democracy has resulted in the near-exponential growth of American government, and ultimately, the most expensive, most powerful, most dangerous government in the world. But don't worry -- most of that excess power goes to protecting the minority against the majority!
Simple. Because government operates in self-interest, exactly the opposite of what it claims. Government is, after all, nothing but a collection of human beings, each who operate in self-interst by human nature. So let's cut to the chase: what's in it for government?
Welcome to big government. Remember who holds the keys.
But why do they lobby? Why does anyone attempt to bribe government? Because it works.
With that said, government is the root of the problem. You can't really blame the lobbyists for playing by the rules, when the rules are corrupt and designed to be exploited in the first place. Everyone wants a piece of the big government pie, but remember why the pie exists in the first place: because government made it so. Government holds the keys, not the lobbyists.
Welcome to big government. Please, if there are any other responsibilities you would like us to undertake, don't hesitate to ask.
"Government" may be "non-profit" according to the law, but the people who run government are quite obviously there for personal gain. If this wasn't the case, special-interest (pork barrel) politics would be unheard of.
If there is no profit, then how do government employees make a living? (If 100% of revenue goes straight back into the business, then how can the business sustain itself?)
I'm just trying to make you realize that government is a business, whether you endorse what they do or not. The primary difference is that while private business earns its profit through voluntary trade (the non-criminal ones at least), government takes its profit by force.
The government makes money off the 911 service. The service is run like a business, just like any government program. They have a budget, they have employees who get paid, they have managers who get paid more, and they have executives who get paid even more.
Is it ethical for government to accept money in return for this service? Why or why not? Would it be ethical for a private company to accept money in exchange for a similar, competing service? Why or why not?
If you think government isn't in business for profit, you'd better think again. There is a reason why governments have a tendency to expand their powers, not limit or reduce their powers, over their lifetimes: because government operates in self-interest, just like any private organization, just like any human being. Government, after all, is nothing but a collection of human beings.
I do agree that a patent should not be granted on this, but then, I am in favor of abolishing patents completely.
"It's a sign that we're all a little nervous in the post-9/11 world."
Translation: Oppressive police state tactics allow us to provide more efficient service. Our #1 priority is getting the job done. If we have to sacrifice a few innocents for the benefit of efficient law enforcement, then so be it.
Corollary: As enforcers of the law, we are more concerned with conformity than actual justice. When it comes to law enforcement, conformity is efficiency. Due process and individual rights only get in the way, and should be minimized at every opportunity.
Considering that the US government is the wealthiest, most powerful, most complex governmennt in the world, I'd hardly make the claim that it's restricted in power. That was nothing but an impossible dream, and the proof is in the pudding: the near-exponential growth of the US government over the past century.
Power is absolute, by definition. The notion that a government's power can be somehow retained or restricted is nothing but a front-end for the masses. History proves that government can and will break any of its own rules when necessary. Due process for everyone, except when it gets in the way of government. Freedom of association for everyone, but only with government's approval. The right to defend yourself against force, but only with government's approval. The list goes on and on.
Silent PC Review is probably one of the most un-biased review sites out there. They have no problem calling a spade a spade.
Is this a joke? This is not what low voter turnout means in politics. What it means in politics (although the statists will never admit it) is that the people are (a) uninterested in politics, (b) opposed to the poltical process, or (c) consider the voting process hopeless or worthless.
Guess what? Every one of those reasons is a valid reason not to vote. There is no moral directive which states that you must be interested in deciding who holds the unique "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. What if you don't believe this "right" should be held by anybody in the first place?
I don't think you understand what government is. Government is FORCE. This man doesn't have a choice. He MUST comply. If he tries to defend himself and his property, invoking force in defense of force, just what do you think will happen? Will government back down and forget about the whole thing? No matter how morally justified his actions to defend himself -- he WILL eventually face deadly force.
If you refuse to pay your taxes, and they come to your door with guns and handcuffs, and you then refuse to be taken into custody, just what do you think will happen?
Bingo. The fact that most people on here refuse to realize or admit that he's dealing with deadly force -- and WILL face deadly force if he refuses to comply and tries to defend himself and his property -- proves how effective the state propaganda campaign is. People are STILL clinging to their trust in the state, even though in reality he has exactly TWO CHOICES: comply, or be murdered. (If you don't think your government would murder this person, just what exactly do you think would happen if he invoked force in defense of force?)
And when the armed robber breaks into your home in the middle of the night, don't worry -- you won't get shot unless you do something stupid like try to defend your rightfully-owned property.
In other words, your comment is utterly invalid. Anything and everything government does, and ever will do, is backed by deadly force. Of course they won't invoke deadly force on first glace -- imagine what a PR mistake that would be. The simple threat of deadly force is usually good enough to maintain the rule of government, just as it's usually good enough for the mob.
Because then the UN and the governments representing it wouldn't benefit from an expansion of power.
Power corrupts. There is no exception to this rule.
You can thank big government for that. If it weren't for our ridiculously complex, ambiguous, and highly exploitable legal system, people would have a much better chance of sucessfully representing themselves. (Think about that. What should one think of a system of law which can't even be understood by the individuals subject to its rule?)