I can certainly appreciate moderate libertarians and agree that this country would probably be better off even if it were just scaled down. And if the system you propose actually reduced the number of laws, that would also be a Good Thing.
However, I still must maintain that having a system of government where people make laws over you and steal your money and give it to others is inherently unjust. As well as contrary to moral principle and natural law. That, and history has shown that there has never been a system of government where the Government apparatus hasn't expanded considerably over time.
It also seems to me that the doctrine of gradualism is ultimately flawed and will never produce any real change. Saying that we don't know it won't work isn't much of an excuse for me. There are moral principles involved here, and capitulating on some of your principles is a recipe for complacency. I also believe all of the government services you address could be done just as well if not better privately. These issues are all being addressed by the folks at mises.org and elsewhere. I'm not exactly sure how it would all work in the free market, but I have to believe that people are innovative enough to come up with better solutions than what we have now.
So no one can tax you for anything ever? No one can hold you accountable for not feeding your children (hypothetically)?
Taxes are nothing more than legalized theft. I doubt very many parents are irresponsible enough to let their children go hungry (if they can help it). And if they are, a bunch of laws probably aren't gonna do much to stop them anyway.
I've never quite heard of a system of government like the one you are proposing. Although it sounds like it would be better than what we have now, I have a few concerns about how it would work. What's to stop criminals (politicians) from getting elected and making the same types abusive laws they do now? Sure the laws would be temporary but couldn't they just come up with new, different ones when the old ones run out? Don't we already have a system now where laws are repealed and new ones created all the time? If there is an unjust law passed, I think the problem is that people have enough power for it to be passed in the first place. If they didn't have this power, we wouldn't have to suffer even one minute under unjust laws.
So let's vote in some libertarians to strike all the useless laws and 99% of the tax code, and put some lawyers out of business while we're at it.
Ah, voting. If only it ever actually solved anything or made a difference. The problem is not who is in power. It is that power exists in the first place. The US was founded on small government principles and look what happened to it. The protections our founders gave us in the constitution are conveniently ignored whenever possible. Voting in different people isn't going to save us. Nobody has a right to make laws over me or steal my property, even if it is done under the guise of democracy.
...help connect 50 percent of the world's population to the Internet by 2015.'
Sweet, just imagine the viruses and spam we'll get when 50 percent of the world is connected. And all the new crappy myspace pages that will be created.
Thanks for the tip, I might consider getting one. I hate buying the first revision of any hardware though. The GP says that scaling doesn't work too well with panoramic or crowd scenes. I value my HD the most for nature type shows, where minute detail is the most eminent. So scaling might not work too well for me. But then again, I usually get that content from cable rather than DVDs. So maybe it would be a non issue.
Roughly one-third of the Salvadoran mechanics have passed the exam that qualifies them for the Federal Aviation Administration's license
So why should I believe the FAA's standards are adequate, or that they are even competent in this testing?
Kind of scary, eh?
It's not that scary if you already have no confidence whatsoever in our government's ability to provide safety. Or to do anything right at all for that matter.
Don't worry, it's all for the public good right? We need barney to babysit our kids for us while both their parents work to support lifestyles they can't afford.
I'm not sure why someone modded this funny. This is only a small part of the fraud that is the US Federal Government. The way they justify new taxes on us and increase their power at home is by creating foreign conflict. Basically it is nothing but a bunch of fearmongering. We see this pattern time and time again, and it has been happening since way before the Spanish American War in 1898. It continues to happen today with Iraq and "the terrorists".
The system of checks and double-checks is predicated on the assumption that you can find trustworthy people, and in an honest society, most of the watchers will be trustworthy. If the majority of the watchers are trustworthy, then the checks and balances will mostly stop the dishonest people. But this is true only if that population is made up of mostly trustworthy peo
So, if we had such an honest society, why would we even need people to watch and rule over us in the first place? In this scenario, most people would be able to govern themselves properly and resolve any disputes they have in a peaceful manner.
If most of the people are dishonest, then you will end up with many dishonest watchers, and most elections will be dishonest. However, I maintain that this is a correct outcome, since this, in its own ironic way, reflects the wishes of the dishonest majority.
If the majority happens to be so dishonest, then it seems pretty immoral to force the honest minorty to support whoever is elected. I know I sure wouldn't want to live under these circumstances myself, as it would simply be yet another form of tyranny.
So, there exists the possibility of election fraud. How is this different than what we already have? In fact the skeptic in me (which takes up most of me) wonders if we have ever even had a legitamate election here in the US.
Where I am in Ohio we just had news break of a huge voting scam where people were shaving the chads off of the cards for the candidates they wanted to win and leaving the others.
One of the problems I have with democracy is that it's naturally subject to this kind of manipulation. Are there any possible solutions to remedy this? I don't think more oversight will work, because who will watch those that are doing the watching? Any suggestions are welcome, but until I hear of a practical way to stop voting fraud I will treat any election results we have with a huge grain of salt.
The question is what kind of phoenix will ascend from its ashes? The usual fire bird has tanks, guns, and conducts elections at pistol-point.
People will eventually have to realize that any form of government is unacceptable to stop this from happening. They will have to learn that they themselves will have to take up arms to defend their liberty. I actually don't yet own a firearm myself, which is something I have been thinking of correcting.
The irony is that liberals may have set the stage for a conservative dictatorship.
Like you said in your post, it doesn't matter whether it's conservatives or liberals. The liberals would be just be doing other things to enslave us were they in power.
So I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.
Apparently you don't. I'm not "trying to unmask some big lie" because I think from all the corruption constantly going around it should be fairly obvious. Voting means nothing to me because the only form of government I can accept is no government.
Maybe it's the other way around; maybe voting means nothing because 50% of the public is too stupid to take up their part of the process. Maybe it's these kinds of people who let things get bad because their too gutless to take 5 minutes out of their busy day and let their elected officals know what they're thinking.
Everyone who cries that they're screwed (by the government) and that there is no way to change things are right... as long as you keep sitting on your stoop and crying "poor me" you're not going to change anything.
The truth is that it doesn't matter who is in power, because they will eventually make laws that are against moral principle and natural law. To me it is immoral that I am forced to support a comfortable life for these politicians whose main job is to lie, cheat and steal. This has been the nature of politics ever since the institution of government was created, and nobody's vote is going to change how this business works.
I also voted for Badnarik in the general election as well. Although having more Ron Pauls in charge would be exponentially better than what we have now, it's still way too much government for me. The only way voting would mean anything to me is if we could vote to have no government at all. As long as there is someone in charge making laws over us it violates our natural rights and makes us slaves, as beautifully said by Lysander Spooner.
Voting means nothing, and I think 50% of Americans don't vote probably because they realize this. Either way the government will end up extorting/stealing my money.
Let us hope to our respective dieties that the Democrats gain control of at least 1 house of Congress in 2007. Perhaps, in a long shot, they might put an end to these blatantly unconstitutional programs. Then again, I don't trust them to do that too much.
It definitely won't matter if the Democrats are in charge. They are simply tyrants of a slightly different stripe.
Perhaps it is time for Americans of all stripes (liberals, conservatives, socialists, libertarians, anarchists, etc.) to invoke the rebellion clause of the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps it is past time for the tree of liberty to be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Sadly, the right of rebellion hasn't existed since the Civil War. Since then, keeping the Union together has been more important than freedom.
If you're not ready to be shipped to Gitmo, at the very least ask your state representative(s) to call for a constitutional convention
It's a nice thought, but the constitution is clearly not well equipped to protect our freedom. It has pretty much been dead since its inception. Can you tell I've completely lost faith in democracy and government?
Eh ? It's hard to see how unregulated capitalism would ever end up anywhere else *except* "cartels and monopolies". The only variable is how long it takes, which should be inversely proportional to the cost of market entry (the more expensive it is to enter the market, the sonner "cartels and monopolies" will be controlling it).
It never would because in unregulated capitalism, as soon as someone gained enough market share to set whatever price they want, someone will be there that's willing to provide the services for cheaper and still make a good profit. This is a basic fact of supply and demand.
The "free market" works well for some things and badly for others. One of the things it works badly for is infrastructure/essential service type utilities, mainly because the costs - for both sellers to enter the market and buyers to move between competitors - is so high.
I just don't believe this to be the case. As Murray Rothbard said, "The very term "public utility" is an absurd one. Every good is useful
"to the public," and almost every good may be considered "necessary." Any designation of a few industries as "public utilities" is
completely arbitrary and unjustified."
There's actually an excellent article on this by Thomas DiLorenzo. I tried searching for the pdf online and couldn't find it, but if you're actually interested reply to this and I'll send it to you.
Have you _ever_ seen any examples of "unrestrained capitalism" ?
No, I haven't. I don't believe there has ever been any instances of this that have existed. Which I guess is exactly my point. Anyone who claims that such and such a bad thing will happen with unrestrained capitalism basically has nothing to go on, so they are really just fearmongering.
Not necessarily. From what I've read, one form of socialism is where control may be indirectly exercised on behalf of the people by the State, which is basically what we have now. From Wikipedia:
Socialism is a political philosophy advocating an economic system in which the means of production are owned and controlled collectively. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils or community councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people through the State. A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[1][2]
i believe that a well-regulated capitalist society, with a proper social safety net, works "best". If thats what you mean by "socialism", then yeh, sure, but I think that your concept of "socialism" is lacking.
And, no, I dont think that Smith is wrong. It is obvious and immoral what happens when capitalism is allowed to be practiced unrestrained. Eventually, like in the card game War, almost all the cards are held by one person.
No, capitalism needs to be regulated to be an effective means to distribute scarce resources.
I appreciate your views but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there's a reason that the freer economies of the world are generally more prosperous than the centrally controlled ones. Our well regulated capitalist societies of today have the serious side effects of war, huge debt, poverty, and abuse. I haven't seen any examples of unrestrained capitalism which have had the effects you describe. If you can cite any to back up your assertions I would love to see.
Slashdot Mirror
I can certainly appreciate moderate libertarians and agree that this country would probably be better off even if it were just scaled down. And if the system you propose actually reduced the number of laws, that would also be a Good Thing.
However, I still must maintain that having a system of government where people make laws over you and steal your money and give it to others is inherently unjust. As well as contrary to moral principle and natural law. That, and history has shown that there has never been a system of government where the Government apparatus hasn't expanded considerably over time.
It also seems to me that the doctrine of gradualism is ultimately flawed and will never produce any real change. Saying that we don't know it won't work isn't much of an excuse for me. There are moral principles involved here, and capitulating on some of your principles is a recipe for complacency. I also believe all of the government services you address could be done just as well if not better privately. These issues are all being addressed by the folks at mises.org and elsewhere. I'm not exactly sure how it would all work in the free market, but I have to believe that people are innovative enough to come up with better solutions than what we have now.
So no one can tax you for anything ever? No one can hold you accountable for not feeding your children (hypothetically)?
Taxes are nothing more than legalized theft. I doubt very many parents are irresponsible enough to let their children go hungry (if they can help it). And if they are, a bunch of laws probably aren't gonna do much to stop them anyway.
I've never quite heard of a system of government like the one you are proposing. Although it sounds like it would be better than what we have now, I have a few concerns about how it would work. What's to stop criminals (politicians) from getting elected and making the same types abusive laws they do now? Sure the laws would be temporary but couldn't they just come up with new, different ones when the old ones run out? Don't we already have a system now where laws are repealed and new ones created all the time? If there is an unjust law passed, I think the problem is that people have enough power for it to be passed in the first place. If they didn't have this power, we wouldn't have to suffer even one minute under unjust laws.
So let's vote in some libertarians to strike all the useless laws and 99% of the tax code, and put some lawyers out of business while we're at it.
Ah, voting. If only it ever actually solved anything or made a difference. The problem is not who is in power. It is that power exists in the first place. The US was founded on small government principles and look what happened to it. The protections our founders gave us in the constitution are conveniently ignored whenever possible. Voting in different people isn't going to save us. Nobody has a right to make laws over me or steal my property, even if it is done under the guise of democracy.
Sweet, just imagine the viruses and spam we'll get when 50 percent of the world is connected. And all the new crappy myspace pages that will be created.
Thanks for the tip, I might consider getting one. I hate buying the first revision of any hardware though. The GP says that scaling doesn't work too well with panoramic or crowd scenes. I value my HD the most for nature type shows, where minute detail is the most eminent. So scaling might not work too well for me. But then again, I usually get that content from cable rather than DVDs. So maybe it would be a non issue.
I have a cheapo 30" Samsung HDTV. I use it to watch a lot of both DVD and HD content and it's pretty damn easy to tell the difference.
So why should I believe the FAA's standards are adequate, or that they are even competent in this testing?
Kind of scary, eh?
It's not that scary if you already have no confidence whatsoever in our government's ability to provide safety. Or to do anything right at all for that matter.
Don't worry, it's all for the public good right? We need barney to babysit our kids for us while both their parents work to support lifestyles they can't afford.
I'm not sure why someone modded this funny. This is only a small part of the fraud that is the US Federal Government. The way they justify new taxes on us and increase their power at home is by creating foreign conflict. Basically it is nothing but a bunch of fearmongering. We see this pattern time and time again, and it has been happening since way before the Spanish American War in 1898. It continues to happen today with Iraq and "the terrorists".
So, if we had such an honest society, why would we even need people to watch and rule over us in the first place? In this scenario, most people would be able to govern themselves properly and resolve any disputes they have in a peaceful manner.
If most of the people are dishonest, then you will end up with many dishonest watchers, and most elections will be dishonest. However, I maintain that this is a correct outcome, since this, in its own ironic way, reflects the wishes of the dishonest majority.
If the majority happens to be so dishonest, then it seems pretty immoral to force the honest minorty to support whoever is elected. I know I sure wouldn't want to live under these circumstances myself, as it would simply be yet another form of tyranny.
Where I am in Ohio we just had news break of a huge voting scam where people were shaving the chads off of the cards for the candidates they wanted to win and leaving the others.
One of the problems I have with democracy is that it's naturally subject to this kind of manipulation. Are there any possible solutions to remedy this? I don't think more oversight will work, because who will watch those that are doing the watching? Any suggestions are welcome, but until I hear of a practical way to stop voting fraud I will treat any election results we have with a huge grain of salt.
People will eventually have to realize that any form of government is unacceptable to stop this from happening. They will have to learn that they themselves will have to take up arms to defend their liberty. I actually don't yet own a firearm myself, which is something I have been thinking of correcting.
The irony is that liberals may have set the stage for a conservative dictatorship.
Like you said in your post, it doesn't matter whether it's conservatives or liberals. The liberals would be just be doing other things to enslave us were they in power.
Apparently you don't. I'm not "trying to unmask some big lie" because I think from all the corruption constantly going around it should be fairly obvious. Voting means nothing to me because the only form of government I can accept is no government.
Everyone who cries that they're screwed (by the government) and that there is no way to change things are right... as long as you keep sitting on your stoop and crying "poor me" you're not going to change anything.
The truth is that it doesn't matter who is in power, because they will eventually make laws that are against moral principle and natural law. To me it is immoral that I am forced to support a comfortable life for these politicians whose main job is to lie, cheat and steal. This has been the nature of politics ever since the institution of government was created, and nobody's vote is going to change how this business works.
I also voted for Badnarik in the general election as well. Although having more Ron Pauls in charge would be exponentially better than what we have now, it's still way too much government for me. The only way voting would mean anything to me is if we could vote to have no government at all. As long as there is someone in charge making laws over us it violates our natural rights and makes us slaves, as beautifully said by Lysander Spooner.
Voting means nothing, and I think 50% of Americans don't vote probably because they realize this. Either way the government will end up extorting/stealing my money.
Nobody. But at least we can be sure that the government will eventually collapse under its own weight.
It definitely won't matter if the Democrats are in charge. They are simply tyrants of a slightly different stripe.
Perhaps it is time for Americans of all stripes (liberals, conservatives, socialists, libertarians, anarchists, etc.) to invoke the rebellion clause of the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps it is past time for the tree of liberty to be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Sadly, the right of rebellion hasn't existed since the Civil War. Since then, keeping the Union together has been more important than freedom.
If you're not ready to be shipped to Gitmo, at the very least ask your state representative(s) to call for a constitutional convention
It's a nice thought, but the constitution is clearly not well equipped to protect our freedom. It has pretty much been dead since its inception. Can you tell I've completely lost faith in democracy and government?
It never would because in unregulated capitalism, as soon as someone gained enough market share to set whatever price they want, someone will be there that's willing to provide the services for cheaper and still make a good profit. This is a basic fact of supply and demand.
The "free market" works well for some things and badly for others. One of the things it works badly for is infrastructure/essential service type utilities, mainly because the costs - for both sellers to enter the market and buyers to move between competitors - is so high.
I just don't believe this to be the case. As Murray Rothbard said, "The very term "public utility" is an absurd one. Every good is useful "to the public," and almost every good may be considered "necessary." Any designation of a few industries as "public utilities" is completely arbitrary and unjustified."
There's actually an excellent article on this by Thomas DiLorenzo. I tried searching for the pdf online and couldn't find it, but if you're actually interested reply to this and I'll send it to you.
No, I haven't. I don't believe there has ever been any instances of this that have existed. Which I guess is exactly my point. Anyone who claims that such and such a bad thing will happen with unrestrained capitalism basically has nothing to go on, so they are really just fearmongering.
Socialism is a political philosophy advocating an economic system in which the means of production are owned and controlled collectively. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils or community councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people through the State. A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[1][2]
I appreciate your views but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there's a reason that the freer economies of the world are generally more prosperous than the centrally controlled ones. Our well regulated capitalist societies of today have the serious side effects of war, huge debt, poverty, and abuse. I haven't seen any examples of unrestrained capitalism which have had the effects you describe. If you can cite any to back up your assertions I would love to see.
No, not really. Are you?
If an economy is not meant to place resources in the hands of a few, why do you advocate a system (socialism) that does exactly this?
This nothing but pure FUD which has no basis in reality whatsoever.