Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds like debtors prison from the Victorian era. Too archaic to be taken seriously.
All I'm saying is that if I want to be a slave, nobody has the right to stop me. It's the same principle as allowing people to smoke or drink even though it only does harm to them. I would hope that friends, family, or anyone else out there would do their best to convince someone not to sell themselves into slavery, but they ultimately don't have the right to stop a voluntary agreement.
Quote:
Sure, this should be the way things work, but they don't.
I think it doesn't happen now because the government already has their hand in it, and people don't feel any need to further punish companies by boycotting them. I think it would easily happen if we ruled out force as a solution...sure, there would be some people who still buy from a racist company, but more people would be giving them bad publicity and refusing to do business with them (other companies included).
I'd even say that it's their right to be racist, as long as they aren't going out and hurting people they don't like. I don't support it, but they can choose to sell to whoever they want and to not sell to whoever they want. It's their product, and if they don't want the money offered because of the person offering it, that's their problem. If they don't hire a good worker because of their skin color, it's their loss.
I don't think this Nation is 'spiraling down the drain.' That's emotionally exaggerating the current circumstances using FUD (fear, uncertainty & dread) to bolster your particular idiosyncratic ideology. High drama & hyperbole, how unusual?
I think folks ARE seriously considering ways to solve the existing problems or issues & have found your particular idiosyncratic ideology to be severely lacking in solution providing. Additionally, some folks have revealed the mental masturbation strategies to be tiresome & impotent in addressing problems in real life & reality.
Apparently, for your particular idiosyncratic ideology to have a 'fair shake,' everyone in the Country must be forced into it.
How do you not see it? The national debt, immigration, healthcare, ect. Nothing has been done to fix any of it. Only incremental changes that prop up existing failed structures.
Furthermore, laws that even the playing field force compliance. I don't want to force anybody into anything. I want people left alone. I agree that can be a pie in the sky point of view at times, but aren't they all. A utopian society will never exist. There will always be crime, poverty, you name it. The real issue is how to handle the problems in society. I would also agree libertarian ideology needs to be more pragmatic.
Mental masterbation? This a forum. If we can't discuss things here where can we discuss them? Are you to tell me that there is nothing you wouldn't change?
You would repeal the 13th Amendment? To preserve the right to sell oneself into slavery? I don't see that happening in the United States of America. In 'Libertopia'? Perhaps, but who'd wanna live there?
I don't advocate having a government in the first place, so the constitution wouldn't matter. The whole idea is showing people that initiating force is always wrong, even for politicians and police, and coming up with solutions with that in mind. There will obviously be conflicts and problems, but I don't accept "we give one group of people rights that the rest of us don't have (logically impossible, btw), they make the rules, and if we disobey they lock us in a cage or kill us if we resist..and they fund everything by taking our money by force" as an acceptable solution.
Quote:
I'm referring to his backsliding when called out to explain his 'consistently incoherent rationale'.
I didn't follow it too closely, but if he kept changing his rationale or was unclear about what he meant, I don't think that's good. I figure he had to try to spin things to appeal to the masses, as all politicians do, instead of clearly saying what he believes.
Quote:
I'm not objecting to the poor analogy - I agree some things are challenging to put into words & analogies are often used to clarify a point, or to suggest a different way of looking at something.
I don't think your analogy can be used to support your assertions because it doesn't make sense.
If the wheels are bent, fix them. Fine, I get that. Although Libertarian wheels often seem to be made of glass. Fixing them requires them to be made of something more substantial than glass. It would be very impractical to make wheels out of glass & then expect them to stand up to the rigors of the real world.
I think institutionalized violence is detrimental to society, and trying to solve problems without addressing that won't make our society anymore peaceful. I think a key issue is that politics CREATES conflict by making everyone choose one way of doing things when people should just choose how to do it for themselves. Then one group wins and gets to enforce their idea on everyone else. Just live your own life and work together as equals to combat anyone who is trying to do harm. I don't think it's necessary to pick a few of us to be "authority" over everyone else.
I don't advocate having a government in the first place, so the constitution wouldn't matter. The whole idea is showing people that initiating force is always wrong, even for politicians and police, and coming up with solutions with that in mind. There will obviously be conflicts and problems, but I don't accept "we give one group of people rights that the rest of us don't have (logically impossible, btw), they make the rules, and if we disobey they lock us in a cage or kill us if we resist..and they fund everything by taking our money by force" as an acceptable solution.
I didn't follow it too closely, but if he kept changing his rationale or was unclear about what he meant, I don't think that's good. I figure he had to try to spin things to appeal to the masses, as all politicians do, instead of clearly saying what he believes.
I think institutionalized violence is detrimental to society, and trying to solve problems without addressing that won't make our society anymore peaceful. I think a key issue is that politics CREATES conflict by making everyone choose one way of doing things when people should just choose how to do it for themselves. Then one group wins and gets to enforce their idea on everyone else. Just live your own life and work together as equals to combat anyone who is trying to do harm. I don't think it's necessary to pick a few of us to be "authority" over everyone else.
It sounds to me as if your core assertion is that government (any & all by the sound of it) can be equated to 'institutionalized violence.' IMHO, this is a false equivalence:
Quote:
False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] It would be the antonym of the mathematical concept of material equivalence.
Stating the obvious, you have the right to make this claim (if this is the crux of the matter) although I don't see how this line of reasoning leads to effective, or indeed, any problem solving. Personally, I feel a more analytical approach works better if the objective or goal is problem solving. For example, Robert Dahl has described ways government use influence:
Quote:
• Rational Persuasion, the nicest form of influence, means telling the truth & explaining why someone should do something, like your doctor convincing you to stop smoking.
• Manipulative persuasion, a notch lower, means lying or misleading to get someone to do something.
• Inducement still lower, means offering rewards or punishments to get someone to do something, i.e. like bribery.
• Power threatens severe punishment, such as jail or loss of job.
• Coercion is power with no way out; you have to do it.
• Physical force – is backing up coercion with use or threat of bodily harm.
"Thus, we can tell which governments are best; the ones that use influence at the higher end of the scale. The worst use the unpleasant forms of influence at the lower end."
-Robert A. Dahl
I think the United States of America is a particularly grand experiment in democracy. We are a relatively young Country & we continue to be a work in progress. Granted this is a more nuanced thoughtview however I think it's a more substantial starting place if the objective or goal is working toward progress:
Quote:
In his book, Democracy and Its Critics (1989), Dahl clarifies his view about democracy. No modern country meets the ideal of democracy, which is as a theoretical utopia. To reach the ideal requires meeting five criteria [1]:
1. Effective participation
Citizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other.
2. Voting equality at the decisive stage
Each citizen must be assured his or her judgments will be counted as equal in weights to the judgments of others.
3. Enlightened understanding
Citizens must enjoy ample and equal opportunities for discovering and affirming what choice would best serve their interests.
4. Control of the agenda
Demos or people must have the opportunity to decide what political matters actually are and what should be brought up for deliberation.
5. Inclusiveness
Equality must extend to all citizens within the state. Everyone has legitimate stake within the political process.
Instead, he calls politically advanced countries "polyarchies". Polyarchies have elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage, rights to run for office, freedom of expression, alternative information and associational autonomy. Those institutions are a major advance in that they create multiple centers of political power.[2]
It sounds to me as if your core assertion is that government (any & all by the sound of it) can be equated to 'institutionalized violence.' IMHO, this is a false equivalence:
Stating the obvious, you have the right to make this claim (if this is the crux of the matter) although I don't see how this line of reasoning leads to effective, or indeed, any problem solving. Personally, I feel a more analytical approach works better if the objective or goal is problem solving. For example, Robert Dahl has described ways government use influence:
I think the United States of America is a particularly grand experiment in democracy. We are a relatively young Country & we continue to be a work in progress. Granted this is a more nuanced thoughtview however I think it's a more substantial starting place if the objective or goal is working toward progress:
It's even simpler than that. Every single government, unless it's completely voluntary (meaning it isn't really government anymore), is based on threats of violence. It doesn't matter what form of government it is. If you disobey a law - any law - you will be forcefully taken and locked in a cage AT BEST, or you'll be killed.
Even something as small as a parking ticket leads to violence unless they just let it go, which they can't allow because then everyone would just ignore them. They might start asking nicely, but if you continue to ignore them they'll eventually get violent.
I think Walter Williams described it well. He said something along the lines of "they'll send a nice letter, then a couple more increasingly angry letters, and eventually they'll try to take my house...and I'll say 'you're not taking my house, this is MY house'...and they'll send armed government agents to remove me. Ill be armed to defend my property and if I resist, they'll kill me."
It's even simpler than that. Every single government, unless it's completely voluntary (meaning it isn't really government anymore), is based on threats of violence. It doesn't matter what form of government it is. If you disobey a law - any law - you will be forcefully taken and locked in a cage AT BEST, or you'll be killed.
Even something as small as a parking ticket leads to violence unless they just let it go, which they can't allow because then everyone would just ignore them. They might start asking nicely, but if you continue to ignore them they'll eventually get violent.
I think Walter Williams described it well. He said something along the lines of "they'll send a nice letter, then a couple more increasingly angry letters, and eventually they'll try to take my house...and I'll say 'you're not taking my house, this is MY house'...and they'll send armed government agents to remove me. Ill be armed to defend my property and if I resist, they'll kill me."
I think Mr. Williams wrote an interesting letter to President Kennedy:
Quote:
On May 29, 1963, Private Walter E. Williams of the U.S. Army’s 30th Infantry Division wrote a letter to President John F. Kennedy denouncing the pervasive racism of the American government and military. “Should Negroes be relieved of their service obligation or continue defending and dying for empty promises of freedom and equality,” Williams demanded of the president. "Or should we demand human rights as our Founding Fathers did at the risk of being called extremists....I contend that we relieve ourselves of oppression in a manner that is in keeping with the great heritage of our nation.”
He received a reply from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Alfred B. Fitt, a response which he termed "the most reasonable response that I received from any official."[7]
This nation is spiraling down the drain lead by Conservatives and Progressives, and you are telling me nobody is seriously discussing a more libertarian ideology? No, you just disagree with ideology as whole. Furthermore, to give libertarian or classical liberal ideology a fair shake it would put into question your way of thinking. That can't be allowed to happen.
My whole point of this thread was to generate a discussion on tyranny and anarchy or tyranny and liberty. We have to have a structured society based on law. I want to get as close to anarchy as possible, and still maintain the basic function of government. Roads, bridges, courts, ect. Nobody wants the Wild West here. However, that is how progressives would like to have you think.
The laws of property rights and voluntarism should be enough. Plus the usage of precedents in mediation/judging.
I also don't see how the smaller the government is, the better things are, but no government suddenly move the asymptote to very bad instead of "perfectly" good. What if without the government involvement in road transportation, flying or driving amphibious vehicles would become very cheap and safe?
I also think it is a bit illogical to think of the homo sapiens involved in a power structure with ability to take your money to be different (and better) than many competing groups of individuals of same specie who cannot force you in taking your money to benefit from their services.
That article was interesting, and I agree with most of what he said. I agree that we shouldn't be so attached to our principles that we stop questioning them. I'm always open to being proven wrong. I also believe in the importance of rational and consistent thought, and it drives me crazy to try and hold contradicting beliefs in my head. That's how I came to my current views in the first place.
The most difficult part of this is that voluntaryism/anarcho-capitalism/whatever is logically consistent, but we can't possibly explain what people will decide to do in the absence of government because we won't be in charge. We can't predict the future (as you see in old movies/books where their vision of the future was much different than what actually came about). Technology can change things, and we don't know what solutions people would come up with in the absence of a state. When people wanted to end slavery, others asked "who will pick the cotton?" and they couldn't answer that.
Pragmatic solutions are important, I agree, but advocating government solutions would be saying "there is no possible way that this problem could be handled peacefully, so we need to resort to violence." If that's true, fine, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel when almost nobody on earth has even considered these ideas yet. I think of parents who say that the only way to keep your kid in line is to smack them or yell at them, and then they dismiss anyone who suggests non-aggressive strategies. Parenting and government are connected in many ways, and I think the way we're raised can influence our views on how society needs to be. That's a topic for another time though..
Ever hear of the National SOCIALIST Party? Yeah there are different flavors of SOCIALISTS, but socialists nonetheless.
Ever hear of Orange soda? IT HAS NO ORANGES IN IT!!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
