Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
I don't really see what the distinction or difference is. As I said, without government private groups and organizations would become the de facto government.
|
What exactly is a private organization anyway? Only something which is voluntarily can be called private. Anything which has the power of coercion, is a government. That is all government truly is, coercion.
I do not believe that libertarianism, even if it was to suddenly exist tomorrow, could ever be maintained. At least not as libertarians like to imagine.
The truth is, there is never going to be a time when the average person is going to tolerate prostitution and drug-dealing anywhere near their home. Especially not in plain view of their children.
No one wants their children in a school with those types of people. And if actually given the choice, people would segregate themselves into like-minded groups. And they would build walls to keep out the "others".
Only government coercion could ever sustain any level of diversity. Things like anti-discrimination laws, and affirmative-action, are about integration of diverse populations. Bringing them together in compulsory public-schools from an early age, and then pushing us together in neighborhoods, and in workplaces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
I don't disagree really, but don't believe large groups of diverse people should be integrated in the first place.
|
I agree with you, but let us pretend that the government had never forcefully assimilated/integrated the people in this country, would this country even exist? I mean, the Mormons badly wanted to create their own country, and were only prevented from doing so because the government was ready to march in the Army.
Let us not even discuss the Civil War, and the hundred years of Jim-Crow laws. And then the black nationalist movements of the 1960's. Integration is necessary for a nation to exist. All countries try to forcefully integrate their populations, and then brainwash them in public schools. Why do you think that "Nation-building", is always about building schools? Nations cannot exist without an education system to manufacture "citizens".
There is strength in numbers. If the United States suddenly fell apart, it would become weak to foreign governments. Why do you think Europe is so badly trying to create a United States of Europe? It cannot compete with America, unless it can integrate the entire continent as a supernational entity, that can rival the size, economy, and resources of the United States.
The government must always do what it is in its national interests at all times, or risk destruction. The government isn't doing these things for the benefit of the people. It must do these things for its own survival. The education system is nothing more than a tool of the state. Integration is nothing more than a tool of the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
That is my argument. It's like communism, "if we just had pure libertarianism (communism) it would be a utopian". My argument against it is people are imperfect. The real problem is government is too big and too intertwined with business and is trying to force the whole world together to profit off of.
|
Keep in mind, capitalism exists as a tool of the state. There has never been free-market capitalism. All capitalism, from the very beginning, was just a form of corporatism/protectionism/mercantalism. Because capitalism exists as an arm of government, it is about making government more powerful, and in modern times, it is about American world hegemony.
From the very beginning, the United States had incredibly high tariffs, and subsidized our industry. The Civil War was fought over economics. Lincoln pushed through the National Banking Act, the Pacific Railway Act, and the Morrill tariff. Which was about protecting northern industry, creating the precursor to the Federal Reserve, and heavily subsidizing the expansion of the railroads from coast-to-coast(transcontinental railroad).
This isn't merely some vast-conspiracy, it is the byproduct of the economic systems created by fiat currencies/banking, which allows the United States, and our vast financial industry, to dominate the entire world.
And what other choice do we have? If we didn't do it, someone else would. Do we want to be the conquerors, or the conquered?
As much as I hate our government. Keep in mind, America has no allies, we have no friends. Other countries only tolerate us to the extent that they either have no other choice, or because they find it temporarily beneficial. And in the same way that America would turn on France of Germany in a heartbeat if our national interests demanded it. We would turn our backs on, or even go to war with any country if we felt in any way threatened.
Every other country on Earth would love to destroy the United States, except to the extent that they depend on America for their own security.
The moment Russia or China could break this country up, they would gladly turn this place into Syria, or Somalia.
And it wouldn't even be that difficult. A large swath of this country would already love to march an Army into Washington D.C. and burn the place to the ground.
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.
