Are Robespierre’s views of an individualistic society realistic?

[Dman]

Are Robespierre’s views of an individualistic society realistic? Are his views valid, or idealistic?

If yes, they are valid, what can/must be done to instigate change?

If no, he's dreaming and/or full of it, why?

If indifferent, are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

[booyalab]

Are Robespierre’s views of an individualistic society realistic? Are his views valid, or idealistic?


yes..he told me so himself.

[songbird36]

Could you summarise your understanding of his views in about 5 bullet points?

He seems to ramble on in various threads and it's hard to distill anything very concrete out of that.

[mgb]

No. They are Utopic and unrealistic.

[booyalab]

Could you summarise your understanding of his views in about 5 bullet points?

He seems to ramble on in various threads and it's hard to distill anything very concrete out of that.

well he IS an extrovert, perceiver (re: rambling), and iNtuitive (re: concrete)

[Lee]

I like Robespierre's ideas, although I think they have bugger all chance of ever working (supposing they could ever happen). Like all higly idealistic ideologies it fundamentally denies human nature, or rather is selctive with which sides of human nature it chooses to adhere to.

[songbird36]

well he IS an extrovert, perceiver (re: rambling), and iNtuitive (re: concrete)

true. I'm lazy regarding reading of long posts so I prefer them shorter and to the point

[coffeezombie]

Won't work. Most people are either selfish assholes, idiots or both.

[booyalab]

true. I'm lazy regarding reading of long posts so I prefer them shorter and to the point

me too...but you can't usually expect that from an ENTP :P

[SheepDog]

It's a common criticism of Libertarian suggestions to say that they're so idealistic as to be impractical. I don't think that saying it makes it so. I do think it's worthwhile to question the assumptions that lead one to agree or disagree with the likelihood that such suggestions could be feasable. I bet if people honestly thought about it, they might come across at least one assumption that they have taken as "truth", but isn't necessarily so.

It strikes me that Libertarians spend a lot of time thinking about these kinds of assumptions. It also strikes me that many (most) people are so shocked by the differences in underlying assumptions that they really don't think about it much at all. They may argue or get defensive, but that's not really the point, to me anyway. If people have different assumptions about things like basic human nature, then they naturally draw different conclusions. Arguing about different conclusions seems to be missing the point in this case.

[Boneca]

I don't think there are 5 bullet points, songbird. As far as I have understood it, there is only one.

1. All forms of governments are bad, and the root of all evil in the world.

[songbird36]

me too...but you can't usually expect that from an ENTP :P

Yeah but being concise and economical with language is a learned skill.

It's one I've have to develop in legal practice - I used to ramble on until the cows came home.

I wish people would make more of an effort to be concise as long posts just put me off now.

[Geoff]

Yeah but being concise and economical with language is a learned skill.

It's one I've have to develop in legal practice - I used to ramble on until the cows came home.

I wish people would make more of an effort to be concise as long posts just put me off now.

'Mooo' 'Moooooooo'

Yes it is a bit frustrating for people when they right some long epic and noone bothers reading it :)

Oh and govts are the root of all evil? Hmm. What would he have instead, that would be interesting as a concept, if not something to experience in reality.

-Geoff

[indie]

It's not his ideas that bother me, but his lack of open-mindedness about anything that might contradict his "set in concrete" opinions. As an INTP, I am fully capable of saying "okay, there, you have a point," but I disagree with it on this, this, and this level. Our loveable pal Robespierre won't budge, continually asserting that he is correct and that we are all a bunch of nimrods. Therefore, I voted that his ideas are interesting, but fundamentally flawed.

[SheepDog]

Are we discussing the ideas or the person?

[coffeezombie]

Idealists are amusing. Even I like to play at being an idealist sometimes, but people should be better able to separate the real world from the fantasy world. That involves being able to attempt to understand the minds of other humans around you and not just to look at the world from, say, Robespierre-colored glasses.

[songbird36]

Well big Government is generally not a good thing IMO. Governments tend to appropriate power and control to themselves that is not really justified either by the needs of the electorate, or by the democratic mandate they have which in some cases is shaky, because of the vagaries of the electoral system and low voter turnout.

The Patriot Act in the US is an absolutely classic example of this, as is the wide and sweeping powers of Police and Customs officials in the US which are widely abused.

Government should intervene only as is strictly necessary to promote:

* a strong economy (revenue control and taxation)
* social justice (although this is a problematic concept in itself and I would tend to use "preservation of individual rights and liberties" instead)
* national security

[Claverhouse]

No chance. The worst government can never be as bad as many individuals; and you can be sure that these individuals, unrestrained, would take everything they can from everyone they rightly consider weaker than they. And in the worse ways possible.

God slept during the weak reign of the usurper Stephen.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[coffeezombie]

I think you forget that most Americans *want* the Patriot Act, Songbird. Of course, I'm not one of them. George Bush's presidency is not a failure of the democratic process. It just shows you how wack most Americans are compared to the rest of the world.

[Lee]

SheepDog, you are right to bring up the differences in peoples assumptions, many discussions on this forum are plagued by people arguing what are almost different topics, this is because of the underlying assumptions about the subject are not shared.

Clearly my view of human nature and Robespierre's differ, this means that what is highly unlikely to me might be perfectly reasonable to him, do we enter into a discussion arguing the specific points of human nature and under what circumstances I think Robespierre's anarcho-capitalism could work... if you really want to... but like many INTPs I scarcely feel the need to write my thoughts down, I am quite satisfied simply knowing them.

[booyalab]

It just shows you how wack most Americans are compared to the rest of the world.
:rofl: apparently you haven't been anywhere else.

(edit: dont go calling me an ignorant imperialist yank, I'm not saying we're BETTER...I'm just saying the grass isn't ACTUALLY greener on the other side)

[songbird36]

The Patriot Act is a sweeping piece of legislation that allows the Police and FBI to "bust in" to peoples' private residences on the slightest suspicion of terrorist links or subversion.

Do Americans really want a sledgehammer to kill a butterfly?

[booyalab]

The Patriot Act is a sweeping piece of legislation that allows the Police and FBI to "bust in" to peoples' private residences on the slightest suspicion of terrorist links or subversion.

Do Americans really want a sledgehammer to kill a butterfly?

show me where this has happened. somebody! anybody! (wow, I really sounded like zedo there...lol...dammit)

[songbird36]

There have been cases in the news about it - people "busted" and then have turned out to be totally innocent. I suppose I could dredge some stuff off the net if I had to.

[CosmicDust]

No chance. The worst government can never be as bad as many individuals; and you can be sure that these individuals, unrestrained, would take everything they can from everyone they rightly consider weaker than they. And in the worse ways possible.

Actually, it's that very quality in human nature that's responsible for the rise and maintenance of the worst governments, is it not? Tyrants would exist because they can. Government at its worst is the tyrants doing what they do best; government in a much better state is a sort of compromise between the tyrants and those they exploit, if only because the exploited will stick up for themselves to some degree if pushed enough, e.g., by voting with their feet.

And that's just taking a cynical view, not considering the desire for structure or whatever it is that would make the plebeians actually want a power structure that they're at or near the bottom of.

You'd probably have to exterminate the desire for power from our gene pool to make anarchy work.

[indie]

Are we discussing the ideas or the person?

Good point . . . and that statement should variably lead up to a discussion about structure of boundaries (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=95589&postcount=39). Where, exactly, is a person separated from his or her ideas? Are the ideas the person or is the person the person? Are there no "exacts"? Or is everything "exact" . . .

[JADIP]

[coffeezombie]

:rofl: apparently you haven't been anywhere else.

(edit: dont go calling me an ignorant imperialist yank, I'm not saying we're BETTER...I'm just saying the grass isn't ACTUALLY greener on the other side)

Well, if you're one of those people who enjoy living in a country controlled by the South, then I imagine you don't think it's that bad of a place. Seriously, a Democrat cannot get elected president unless he is a southerner, and even then he has to be someone pretty charismatic.

I imagine after many years of Republican-controlled presidencies and congresses that some serious independence movements are going to start up. That will be an interesting day when that finally happens.

[booyalab]

There have been cases in the news about it - people "busted" and then have turned out to be totally innocent. I suppose I could dredge some stuff off the net if I had to.

Actually that happens all the time. Now that I think about your term "busted" with a more neutral connotation than you intend.

[CosmicDust]

Well, if you're one of those people who enjoy living in a country controlled by the South, then I imagine you don't think it's that bad of a place. Seriously, a Democrat cannot get elected president unless he is a southerner, and even then he has to be someone pretty charismatic.

I imagine after many years of Republican-controlled presidencies and congresses that some serious independence movements are going to start up. That will be an interesting day when that finally happens.
A Civil War upside down...hm. (Last time it was the South that seceded due to overdominance of the North and West. This time they're talking abou the opposite.)

Either that, or a new party will have to form. Historically, political parties have died or changed name...hasn't happened in a while. We might be due for that.

[booyalab]

Well, if you're one of those people who enjoy living in a country controlled by the South, then I imagine you don't think it's that bad of a place. Seriously, a Democrat cannot get elected president unless he is a southerner, and even then he has to be someone pretty charismatic.

I imagine after many years of Republican-controlled presidencies and congresses that some serious independence movements are going to start up. That will be an interesting day when that finally happens.

That isn't the country's fault, that's the DFL's fault..for being so out of touch. Assuming, of course, that you didn't make a gross oversimplification. If you think, on that basis alone, every other country in the world is better, I'm going to have to say you're wack.

[Dman]

Are we discussing the ideas or the person?

From booyalab’s posting in the “archaic labels” thread (quoting Edward Lotterman) -

"What we need to talk about are the specific goods and services that government provides and how they are provided. We need to talk about the specific ways that governments regulate resource allocation and ways that they do not. We need to talk about the specific composition of social safety nets or provisions of transfer payments. Talk about what works and what doesn't, and about the effects and side effects of different policies. Don't waste time on archaic labels."


Robespierre’s contention is that no aspect of government “works” and that all of government’s “side effects” are negative, if I’m not mistaken.

Edit - just to be clear, he does not propose less government, he proposes NO government

[songbird36]

Do we want Governments to legislate for security forces to be able to finger people on the slightest pretext?

Do we *need* this for national security? What about rights and liberties and privacy?

[Geoff]

Maybe Americans do need security forces like that. After all, such a big melting pot. And they have wound up large tracts of the globe of recent years.

-Geoff

[booyalab]

Do we want Governments to legislate for security forces to be able to finger people on the slightest pretext?

Do we *need* this for national security? What about rights and liberties and privacy?

If the democratic party could come up with a better ideas than what the republican party has come up with for national security, rather than just complaining, I think they'd have some credibility and things would improve. I think they haven't come up with better ideas because of how implausible it is to have impeccable security yet be able to do anything you want anytime you want.

[coffeezombie]

That isn't the country's fault, that's the DFL's fault..for being so out of touch. Assuming, of course, that you didn't make a gross oversimplification. If you think, on that basis alone, every other country in the world is better, I'm going to have to say you're wack.

Out of touch? There is a significant portion of liberal Americans even now who feel unrepresented by the centrist Democratic Party, myself included. As these people are concentrated in both the Pacific Northwest and the New York/New England area, I imagine that these areas will be where the independence movements are concentrated. I don't see it happening as much in the Great Lakes area, though. I imagine people like me and some of your fellow Minnesotans will just continue to whine like we always do or just move to Texas and Atlanta like so many of us already have.

[booyalab]

OF COURSE liberals cant feel represented by the centrist Democratic party. That's why you're on the left and they're in the "middle"

[coffeezombie]

If the democratic party could come up with a better ideas than what the republican party has come up with for national security, rather than just complaining, I think they'd have some credibility and things would improve. I think they haven't come up with better ideas because of how implausible it is to have impeccable security yet be able to do anything you want anytime you want.

Well, invading Iraq is not necessary for national security. That's the main issue that Democrats have. That was a way to get cheap oil and another foothold in the Middle East so Republicans can keep driving their gas guzzling SUVs.

[Dman]

The Patriot Act is a sweeping piece of legislation that allows the Police and FBI to "bust in" to peoples' private residences on the slightest suspicion of terrorist links or subversion.

Do Americans really want a sledgehammer to kill a butterfly?



show me where this has happened. somebody! anybody! (wow, I really sounded like zedo there...lol...dammit)

Google “patriot act mayfield spain bombing Oregon”

Example:

“When the FBI finally swooped down on the Mayfields' home in a quiet suburb of Portland, Oregon, they burst in the door, trashed the place, and trundled him off in handcuffs without a word. He was jailed for weeks without charges. Ashcroft's goons told the media he was being held as a "material witness" to the Madrid bombings. By mid-April, the Spanish authorities were saying there was no trace of Mayfield's presence in their country, and also disagreed with the FBI's contention that the prints found on a detonator bag matched Mayfield's at all.

The government finally let Mayfield go, but not until John Ashcroft's Justice Department had done everything to keep him jailed, defenseless, and smeared as a "terrorist" in the eyes of the world.

Since he had nothing to do with Al Queda, and they invented a complete lying story - what were his real crimes against humanity? The FBI pointed to Mayfield's attendance at a local mosque, and his advertising his legal services in a publication owned by a man suspected to have links to terrorism".

- From this link http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/B-HSO-FEMA/2004/05B-06-02-04-terror-in-the-US-back-to-the-old-shell-game.html

[coffeezombie]

John Ashcroft... there's a human being who is going to Hell for sure if the afterlife he believes in really does exist.

[songbird36]

If the democratic party could come up with a better ideas than what the republican party has come up with for national security, rather than just complaining, I think they'd have some credibility and things would improve. I think they haven't come up with better ideas because of how implausible it is to have impeccable security yet be able to do anything you want anytime you want.

My understanding is that the definitions in the Act which trigger intervention are very loose and open to all sorts of interpretations.

That is part of the problem, it was a poorly and hastily drafted piece of legislation.

[booyalab]

Google “patriot act mayfield spain bombing Oregon”

Example:

“When the FBI finally swooped down on the Mayfields' home in a quiet suburb of Portland, Oregon, they burst in the door, trashed the place, and trundled him off in handcuffs without a word. He was jailed for weeks without charges. Ashcroft's goons told the media he was being held as a "material witness" to the Madrid bombings. By mid-April, the Spanish authorities were saying there was no trace of Mayfield's presence in their country, and also disagreed with the FBI's contention that the prints found on a detonator bag matched Mayfield's at all.

The government finally let Mayfield go, but not until John Ashcroft's Justice Department had done everything to keep him jailed, defenseless, and smeared as a "terrorist" in the eyes of the world.

Since he had nothing to do with Al Queda, and they invented a complete lying story - what were his real crimes against humanity? The FBI pointed to Mayfield's attendance at a local mosque, and his advertising his legal services in a publication owned by a man suspected to have links to terrorism".

- From this link http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/B-HSO-FEMA/2004/05B-06-02-04-terror-in-the-US-back-to-the-old-shell-game.html
that sounds like a very biased source, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's based on truth.



That is part of the problem, it was a poorly and hastily drafted piece of legislation.
I agree, but I do think some sacrifices should be made for security. I still respect the intention of it, even if it hasn't been executed the best.

[Dman]

that sounds like a very biased source, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's based on truth.


I did choose one that drove home the point, but feel free to google it for a more credible source. That is essentially the way it was reported and the description the man himself gave on live television.

Edit - you asked to show you where this has happened, I gave you one. I was hoping you'd be pleased that I catered to your whim!

[booyalab]

I did choose one that drove home the point, but feel free to google it for a more credible source. That is essentially the way it was reported and the description the man himself gave on live television.

Edit - you asked to show you where this has happened, I gave you one. I was hoping you'd be pleased that I catered to your whim!

Give yourself a pat on the back for me.


The way I've heard it, the patriot act has it's pros too...like equipping law enforcement with better technology and surveillance privileges to keep up with those they're trying to track down. I dont see anything wrong with that.

[Dman]

Give yourself a pat on the back for me.

Nope, just one whim catering per day, sorry.


The way I've heard it, the patriot act has it's pros too...like equipping law enforcement with better technology and surveillance privileges to keep up with those they're trying to track down. I dont see anything wrong with that.

So I suppose the pros justify the cons...hmmm...seeing something wrong with that line of thinking...

(decides to leave that one alone)

[Claverhouse]

If the democratic party could come up with a better ideas than what the republican party has come up with for national security, rather than just complaining, I think they'd have some credibility and things would improve. I think they haven't come up with better ideas because of how implausible it is to have impeccable security yet be able to do anything you want anytime you want.

I've already pointed out ( elsewhere ) that it was the democrats who came up with the Homeland Security Act at first and Bush and Ridge who said it was unnecessary and unworkable ( or words to that effect: probably 'blah, blee, bobbledy goop' ). Then the repubs took it over and implemented it, and the demos turned around and criticised.

Same in this country: new labour tries to fuck up our lives with ever-stronger anti-terrorist security measures, and the tories whimper: when they get back into power they will continue along the same path and the socialists will whimper. Back before Blair's 'government', all the little labour mps --- including Blair --- annually voted against the 'Prevention of Terrorism' Act which back then ( 10 years ago ) was aimed just at the repulsive IRA and all it's repulsive little buddies: now they all vote for far stronger measures against a more diffuse alleged enemy in order to extend state power.

If al Quada wants to kill many thousands of Americans ( or Europeans, or Arabs ) it can do it, no matter what the security measures. If they haven't since 9/11, either they're not clever enough or don't wish to. In the meantime the extension of government powers is useful for future control of Americans rather than terrorists. Which, for all I know, may be necessary, since I am not privy to the intelligence that supplies your government with predictions and estimates of the dangers ahead.

Didn't the Prophet Koresh have WMD ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[booyalab]

So I suppose the pros justify the cons...hmmm...seeing something wrong with that line of thinking...

(decides to leave that one alone)


good idea.....since you would be jumping to conclusions

[SheepDog]

Didn't the Prophet Koresh have WMD ?

I think he only had "assault weapons." That also means "scary looking guns", in case you're wondering.

[booyalab]

Which, for all I know, may be necessary, since I am not privy to the intelligence that supplies your government with predictions and estimates of the dangers ahead.


If you were being sarcastic here that would be great, since I wouldn't have to respond, but I dont know if you are or not! Apparently our intelligence agencies suck (yeah big surprise), so the information they're allowed is not as crucial to change as the way they work with the information they have. A good idea would probably be to replace the Patriot Act with the Intelligent Intelligence Act (or something to that effect)

[booyalab]

I think he only had "assault weapons." That also means "scary looking guns", in case you're wondering.

emphasis on looking, since a gun with a picture of hello kitty on it would kill you just as well.....but that's another topic

[songbird36]

If you were being sarcastic here that would be great, since I wouldn't have to respond, but I dont know if you are or not! Apparently our intelligence agencies suck (yeah big surprise), so the information they're allowed is not as crucial to change as the way they work with the information they have. A good idea would probably be to replace the Patriot Act with the Intelligent Intelligence Act (or something to that effect)

The Act doesn't require a warrant in certain situations (i.e. where a person looks or acts suspicious).

It's a piece of crap and an embarrassment to the statute books. Someone should take a bazooka to it.

[Robespierre]

It's not his ideas that bother me, but his lack of open-mindedness about anything that might contradict his "set in concrete" opinions.

This is the tactic of someone who simply wishes to express opposition, without knowing why.

This is silly. I am here to have discussions with you all on the topic of political philosophy. I have not stated that I know everything, or that I am infallible. I have presented my ideas, typically in the form of a criticism of some existing policy or government, without malice.

Why do you suggest that I am "set in concrete"? Have I demonstrated an unwillingness to address ANY points directed at me in discussion? If I were to simply tell you all what I thought, then decried you as idiots or some such thing, I would clearly not be open minded or even open for discussion, but that is not the case.


As an INTP, I am fully capable of saying "okay, there, you have a point," but I disagree with it on this, this, and this level.

Your initial comments, months ago, tended to be snide attempts at sarcasm and lefthanded compliments. You have not added to these discussions in any meaningful way.


Our loveable pal Robespierre won't budge, continually asserting that he is correct and that we are all a bunch of nimrods.

I have not insulted the intelligence of the INTP forum. And I have certainly not done so simply due to disagreement. If you think I am not used to strong reactions to my ideas by know, you are naive.


Therefore, I voted that his ideas are interesting, but fundamentally flawed.

Flawed because .... I continually assert that I am correct?

[Robespierre]

Didn't the Prophet Koresh have WMD ?

Okay, I know sheepdog already got this one, but geepers. WMD? Chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons?

[songbird36]

Mind you our PM's not exactly the poster girl for human rights either.

The Government here has held Ahmed Zhaoui - an Algerian politician, in Auckland central remand prison for 18 months on suspicion of terrorism, without charging him, and then refused to disclose the contents of the SIS security certificate supporting the allegations.

[Robespierre]

Oh and govts are the root of all evil?

No, just the preferred tool of evil.

[booyalab]

No, just the preferred tool of evil.
hmm, I might agree with that.

[Robespierre]

No chance. The worst government can never be as bad as many individuals;

Well, governments are made up of individuals. The government is what enables those individuals to be "bad".

You can honestly say what you said above, knowing that governments have designed, built, and used nuclear weapons, and killed over 500 million people in the last 100 years?


and you can be sure that these individuals, unrestrained, would take everything they can from everyone they rightly consider weaker than they. And in the worse ways possible.

Not one argument lodged against my position has yet to be a charge unique to individualism. All the problems proposed for individual rule can just as easily, if not more so, be questioned in coercive government.

[songbird36]

The only WMD of concern at the moment is an over-zealous US administration which is out of control of its foreign policy.

Instead of fighting *actual* problems (like genocide in Uganda and Western Sudan) it fights imaginary ones instead.

[Robespierre]

The real root of all evil, is the human race. We are the only beings known who are capable of acting morally, that is, in a good or evil manner.

[Claverhouse]

I think he only had "assault weapons." That also means "scary looking guns", in case you're wondering.

But he was opening the Seventh Seal ! Armageddon would come once he opened the Seventh Seal !



And the killer is, that, courtesy of Bill and Hillary and Janet, it did. For him.



Claverhouse :ph34r:




[ Anyone who knows of a fourth relevant name to make up the Four Horsemen above, could make a brilliant scary porn movie, mixing genres. ]

[booyalab]

The only WMD of concern at the moment is an over-zealous US administration which is out of control of its foreign policy.

Instead of fighting *actual* problems (like genocide in Uganda and Western Sudan) it fights imaginary ones instead.

Is it the defining characteristic of politically (edit: ) "moral" superiors to volunteer OTHER countries to solve the world's problems?

[songbird36]

Well apparently the US was benevolently saving the Iraqi Shi'ites and Kurds from a corrupt and bloodthirsty dictator (who just happened to have non-existent WMD).

So why can't the US do it elsewhere then?

[Claverhouse]

If you were being sarcastic here that would be great, since I wouldn't have to respond, but I dont know if you are or not! Apparently our intelligence agencies suck (yeah big surprise), so the information they're allowed is not as crucial to change as the way they work with the information they have. A good idea would probably be to replace the Patriot Act with the Intelligent Intelligence Act (or something to that effect)
Sarcastic, yes; insofar as I ever yield to the temptation. Governments want power when in office. And the opposition ( supposing Gore Vidal is wrong and they aren't two faces of the same coin ), says they want government to have less power while they are not in office.

And having really poor intelligence services does not excuse creating war either on Iraq or the Seventh Day Adventists.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Robespierre]

So why can't the US do it elsewhere then?

The US should not intervene in the local problems of Uganda, Somalia, Ukraine, Sudan, or anywhere else.

[Sally]

Screw it. Let's give the planet back to the dinosaurs.

[booyalab]

you haven't answered the question of whether your views are realistic...if you have, I'm too lazy to go back and read so please repeat it.

[songbird36]

The US should not intervene in the local problems of Uganda, Somalia, Ukraine, Sudan, or anywhere else.

That's absurd. The UN Security Council which is dominated by the US and Britain showed no hesitation in sending NATO troops into Kossovo in 1999 when genocide was occurring then. It hasn't shown the same level of concern in other areas (notably African countries such as Rwanda).

UN countries are justified in intervening to prevent the violation of international conventions against genocide and other war crimes.

The problem lies with how the battles are picked, and at the moment the criteria seem to be entirely arbitrary.

[Robespierre]

you haven't answered the question of whether your views are realistic...if you have, I'm too lazy to go back and read so please repeat it.

Well, i didn't vote in the poll, because the answers are too slanty.

I do think my ideas are "realistic" in that they have a possible application in human society. That doesn't mean that I think I will wake up one day and see myself proven right in an overnight change. It is something that I think huamn kind is moving towards. Techonology like cheap space-vehicles will further this along greatly.

[Robespierre]

That's absurd. The UN Security Council which is dominated by the US and Britain showed no hesitation in sending NATO troops into Kossovo in 1999 when genocide was occurring then.

That's absurd too. Are you trying to justify the wrong of US involvement in local affairs by pointing out another instance of this wrong?


It hasn't shown the same level of concern in other areas (notably African countries such as Rwanda).

What does the level of concern over a manufactured crisis in the Balkans have to do with the right/wrong nature of US intervention in sub-saharan africa?


UN countries are justified in intervening to prevent the violation of international conventions against genocide and other war crimes.

What gives them that justification? The UN itself? Sounds pretty circular to me.


The problem lies with how the battles are picked, and at the moment the criteria seem to be entirely arbitrary.

The problem lies in the fact that those who use the armies in question don't have to pay for them or put their own lives on the line.

[Claverhouse]

The US should not intervene in the local problems of Uganda, Somalia, Ukraine, Sudan, or anywhere else.
Not being able to find/remember the ( conservative ) thinker who expresses the same belief --- which is not to say I wholly agree, since I think it may be legitimate to attempt to stop such things as Dafur ( not that they are doing so ); instead I offer you The Last Ditch (http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/) which has some interesting articles, some of which I agree with & some not. You may already know it of course.

( Yeah, yeah it's slightly revisionist, but more like the Memory Hole rather than those I would not bring here and which would justly offend you ).



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Robespierre]

Not being able to find/remember the ( conservative ) thinker who expresses the same belief --- which is not to say I wholly agree, since I think it may be legitimate to attempt to stop such things as Dafur ( not that they are doing so ); instead I offer you The Last Ditch (http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/) which has some interesting articles, some of which I agree with & some not. You may already know it of course.

I'm up for reading, but you'll need to suggest a specific article, I don't have the time to browse the whole thing.


( Yeah, yeah it's slightly revisionist, but more like the Memory Hole rather than those I would not bring here and which would justly offend you ).

I am quite revisionistic myself. I believe that if the popular understanding of events is wrong, it requires revision. There's nothing sinister about revisionism.

[songbird36]

A manufactured crisis? Have you had your head in a paper bag for the last 10 years?

I don't call the wholesale slaughter of ethnic Albanians a "manufactured crisis".

[Robespierre]

I don't call the wholesale slaughter of ethnic Albanians a "manufactured crisis".

Wholesale slaughter? Is there any evidence? I guess if it were so severe, there should be...

[songbird36]

http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue33/Vol3Issue33Zavales.html

This article cites some figures and also contrasts the "action" in Kosovo with the "inaction" in Rwanda in similar (arguably worse) circumstances.

Perhaps people would respect your views on libertarianism more if you could demonstrate some passing familiarity with recent world events.

[Robespierre]

Perhaps people would respect your views on libertarianism more if you could demonstrate some passing familiarity with recent world events.

Your position isn't served by insulting me.

You have yet to provide ONE rationale for invading Uganda or Sudan.

The status of UN involvement in Kosovo has no bearing on the morality of any proposed intervention in Africa.

[Lee]

Oh Robespierre, the reason I think your anarcho-capitalism would not work is because cheaters always prosper if they can get away with it, anarcho-capitalism leaves to much room open for cheating.

[songbird36]

Well if you won't read my previous posts outlining justification, there's not much I can do, is there?

Except go and watch a DVD..

[Robespierre]

Except go and watch a DVD..

OH PLEASE NO! Stay around!

[mgb]

Well, i didn't vote in the poll, because the answers are too slanty.

I do think my ideas are "realistic" in that they have a possible application in human society. That doesn't mean that I think I will wake up one day and see myself proven right in an overnight change. It is something that I think huamn kind is moving towards. Techonology like cheap space-vehicles will further this along greatly.

Any ideas are potentially realistic, given the ability of a group to adhere to the ideals. I think your ideals might not work on a larger scale but feel free to discuss them.

I like the idea of human political thought evolving but it doesn't seem to want to, not for lack of trying though. The last big practical innovation happened two thousand years ago or so with democracy, even then it wasn't a huge stretch from the prevailing types of government that had existed since pre-historic times.

[Claverhouse]

I'm up for reading, but you'll need to suggest a specific article, I don't have the time to browse the whole thing.
Well, it was merely a gift. There's some good writing there. Even if an anti-libertarian statist, I still read them, and agree with some things. As with other political things. I detest communism as the perfect tyranny, nonetheless it would be silly to say that every communist word was a lie or not worth thinking about. This is a hard-stance site. But I've just read George Washington --- The Dark Side (http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/fields_wash.htm).



I am quite revisionistic myself. I believe that if the popular understanding of events is wrong, it requires revision. There's nothing sinister about revisionism.
I agree. Even if the revisionism is itself deluded, the effort must be made in order to come to truth and test the accepted versions. But it is not always well to tell the truth ( as in answering the rhetorical question asked by some: 'Do I look like an idiot ?' ) since the consequences of revealing truth may be far more painful than it is easy to imagine. Quite seriously: destroying illusions can be more harmful to the average person than killing them. As a very harmless example, the above article if it converted a hitherto truly simple believer in Washington's glory, might leave such a hole in their world-construct as to leave them empty. No-one has the right to brutally hurt other people's assumptions about themselves; or the theory of their existence as based on what they were taught.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dman]

that sounds like a very biased source, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's based on truth.


I agree, but I do think some sacrifices should be made for security. I still respect the intention of it, even if it hasn't been executed the best.

well, speak of the devil, look what I found on today's front page paper -

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/111295461768540.xml

[Dman]

Speaking of realistically, I mentioned a point in another thread I don’t recall ever hearing any “anarcho-capitalist” proponents explain very well, that goes something like this -

“Besides, once you have a few situations where the corporations in those societies act dishonestly or cause harm to the people, they (the people) will likely demand some type of regulation (to prevent this from occurring ever again). I’m referring to situations which are not “corrected” by the market until many people have died or other irreversible damages have been done, such as environmental. In these cases, sure, the market eventually corrects itself, but the market can take longer to correct itself than people’s life spans last. For this reason alone people will demand some form of regulation – no one wants to be harmed waiting for the market to correct itself.

I agree that taking a more libertarian stance in a social system is realistically sustainable, but is not realistic to the extent that you suggest. At some point you have to reconcile idealism with reality if you truly want to move towards a superior sustainable model.

Oh yeah, and who’s gonna build the roads in these government-free colonies?”

Perhaps Robespierre can enlighten me, as he seems to be very well-versed in the subject (which is why I enjoy his posts so much - regardless of whether I agree or not). Of course, if anyone else has any reasonable explanation I would welcome them too. But it is issues such as the above why I don’t think it could ever work.

Also, where is the “500 million” people killed by governments figure coming from? I don’t deny that it would be a significant number such as that, just wondering how that figure was arrived at.

BTW I didn’t vote in the poll either. I made it “slanty” because it seemed more interesting that way rather than a simple “yes or no”.

But regardless, the point is simply to have a discussion about whether or not the idea is perceived as pointless or not. I would surmise that a “softer” stance that encouraged gradual movement towards a more individualist society would be more effective than a rigid purely non-gov’t stance, at least at this point of societal evolution.

As evidenced by many posts here, people are not disenfranchised enough with the current system nor do most people see absolutely all government action as inherently evil or always leading to a chain reaction of negative events.

I think in the end it all boils back down to human nature at any rate, and the first step would be identifying what truly is more representative of human nature – some need for leadership/authority, or pure individualism.

[Robespierre]

Speaking of realistically, I mentioned a point in another thread I don’t recall ever hearing any “anarcho-capitalist” proponents explain very well, that goes something like this -

“Besides, once you have a few situations where the corporations in those societies act dishonestly or cause harm to the people, they (the people) will likely demand some type of regulation (to prevent this from occurring ever again). I’m referring to situations which are not “corrected” by the market until many people have died or other irreversible damages have been done, such as environmental. In these cases, sure, the market eventually corrects itself, but the market can take longer to correct itself than people’s life spans last. For this reason alone people will demand some form of regulation – no one wants to be harmed waiting for the market to correct itself.

You're suggesting that in a system of self-rule, where no government exists, people will clamor for regulation? Who will they suggest does the regulating?


I agree that taking a more libertarian stance in a social system is realistically sustainable, but is not realistic to the extent that you suggest. At some point you have to reconcile idealism with reality if you truly want to move towards a superior sustainable model.

Reality reality reality. That is the most popular word around here. It also happens to be a very under-defined word. What part of reality suggests that individual liberty is not sustainable?


Oh yeah, and who’s gonna build the roads in these government-free colonies?”

Perhaps Robespierre can enlighten me, as he seems to be very well-versed in the subject (which is why I enjoy his posts so much - regardless of whether I agree or not). Of course, if anyone else has any reasonable explanation I would welcome them too. But it is issues such as the above why I don’t think it could ever work.

Geepers... the same people that build them now, road builders! The only difference is that they will be owned operated in a for-profit basis, much like any other business, which means they will be much more usefully allocated, and those who do not drive, will not bear the costs of those that do.

You guys act like it is a fact of nature that roads cannot be built by anyone but governments. Why? There exist privately owned roads in the US right now, and in the past, most roads were private.


Also, where is the “500 million” people killed by governments figure coming from? I don’t deny that it would be a significant number such as that, just wondering how that figure was arrived at.

Add up all the deaths caused directly by war, genocide, government induced famine, etc etc etc.


BTW I didn’t vote in the poll either. I made it “slanty” because it seemed more interesting that way rather than a simple “yes or no”.

Well that doesn't make much sense to me. Why even ask the question then, if you know all the answers are untenable?


But regardless, the point is simply to have a discussion about whether or not the idea is perceived as pointless or not. I would surmise that a “softer” stance that encouraged gradual movement towards a more individualist society would be more effective than a rigid purely non-gov’t stance, at least at this point of societal evolution.

I disagree. A softer stance would be met with just as much bile and anger from the supporters of statism and collectivism, but would then be subject to dismemberment because it would not be logically sound. I am not taking the position that I do simply because it is extreme, but because I beleive it to be right. If I decided to argue a somewhat watered down version, I would be lying.


As evidenced by many posts here, people are not disenfranchised enough with the current system nor do most people see absolutely all government action as inherently evil or always leading to a chain reaction of negative events.

Your point has not been disputed, why restate it?


I think in the end it all boils back down to human nature at any rate, and the first step would be identifying what truly is more representative of human nature – some need for leadership/authority, or pure individualism.

I agree. Any system which ignores human nature is doomed to failure. It is all a matter of interpreting human nature correctly.

[Architectonic]

Well, governments are made up of individuals. The government is what enables those individuals to be "bad".

:rofl:

So really, you are actually making similar flawed assumptions - therefore your ideas (ideals) are just as flawed as mine.


What part of reality suggests that individual liberty is not sustainable?

Individual liberty is sustainable. Your vision is not.

The 'reality' is that a sustainable libertarian society differs somewhat from your vision and it is many ways similar (but with some important differences) to certain current systems.


It is all a matter of interpreting human nature correctly.

So how are we to interpret human nature correctly?

But really, I thank Robespierre for enligtening me. I no longer think that all libertarians are crackpots (actually, I never really made that assumption, but...) and that libertarians can otherwise be safely ignored.

[Robespierre]

:rofl:

So really, you are actually making similar flawed assumptions - therefore your ideas (ideals) are just as flawed as mine.

Groups don't act. Only individuals act. Disprove it.


Individual liberty is sustainable. Your vision is not.

Why?


The 'reality' is that a sustainable libertarian society differs somewhat from your vision and it is many ways similar (but with some important differences) to certain current systems.

Examples?


So how are we to interpret human nature correctly?

Logic, rationality, experience, etc. It's a science.


But really, I thank Robespierre for enligtening me. I no longer think that all libertarians are crackpots (actually, I never really made that assumption, but...) and that libertarians can otherwise be safely ignored.

Wow, you've really added a lot to the discussion, thanks. There's never enough people cheering from the sidelines.

[Architectonic]

Join the dots and also look 'act' up in a dictionary.

I'm not merely on the sidelines, I'm also planning on moving to New Hampshire and will be starting the Jemma from Tannum Sands (http://intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3294&page=1) Foundation. :P

[Robespierre]

Join the dots and also look 'act' up in a dictionary.

This is intellectual laziness. If you have a point to make, do so.

[Dman]

You're suggesting that in a system of self-rule, where no government exists, people will clamor for regulation? Who will they suggest does the regulating?

Due to (among other things) the occassional "long-term" correction of the market where people are or have been harmed while the market has yet to "correct" itself (which I still haven't seen a valid response to from anyone in the anarcho-capitalist crowd), yes, people would clamor for regulation, i.e. protection from future harms that may take decades to correct. Isn't that one reason people have accepted/desired regulation in our existing society?

I imagine they would suggest that a group of trusted individuals would be chosen to do the regulating, with the support of the persons electing them.


Reality reality reality. That is the most popular word around here. It also happens to be a very under-defined word. What part of reality suggests that individual liberty is not sustainable?

Yeah, reality is being batted around quite a bit... I suspect because we all depend on it and it's pretty critical to functioning in our world. I think the key aspect of it in our debate is that folks don't see a society completely lacking in government as being a sustainable one. Yeah, sustainable is another word being beat to death, but again, because if a social system is not sustainable why bother trying to change the world for something that eventually won't work. This is really what the debate is turning into isn't it, it's not that your ideas are necessarily wrong or incorrect (subject to opinion), but more so that it's a plan that just doesn't seem possible.

I could tell everyone that all we need to do is cooperate, share, and love each other, and we'd have a superior society based upon a, b, and c. Regardless of how convincing a, b, and c arguments are, if they are not realistic based upon certain dynamics that cannot be appropriately dealt with in that type of scenario, then my "idea" is superior but the reality of it occurring is nil. I could spend a lot of time coming up with great plans, but vision without execution is simply dreaming.


Geepers... the same people that build them now, road builders! The only difference is that they will be owned operated in a for-profit basis, much like any other business, which means they will be much more usefully allocated, and those who do not drive, will not bear the costs of those that do.

You guys act like it is a fact of nature that roads cannot be built by anyone but governments. Why? There exist privately owned roads in the US right now, and in the past, most roads were private.

So all these utilities would be owned by what, one company? Or would we have many competitors with dozens of redundant power lines, sewer pipes, roads, etc. I don't understand how the dynamics of providing these services could efficiently fit in an unregulated environment, as you would either have a situation where one company had sole ownership over a utility (similar to a monopoly) or many companies each providing their own infrastructure for the utilities (which would be a logistical nightmare).

Still wondering about how people would react to a harmful long-term market correction.



Add up all the deaths caused directly by war, genocide, government induced famine, etc etc etc.

I came up with 471,239,048 deaths, and 471,239,049 lives saved due to government interventions, for a net of 1 life saved. Government wins!
I'm kidding of course.


Well that doesn't make much sense to me. Why even ask the question then, if you know all the answers are untenable?

Because I'm socially ignorant, and I try to win favor with people by attempting to make humorous, sarcastic and clever statements. I also have a predisposition to believe that people will respond more to colorful remarks - especially the F-word (I should have thrown that in the name of the thread) rather than purely objective scientific surveys. At least, when they're in the "Rants and Raves" section.

Ok - everyone, just consider option one "YES" and option 2 "NO".


I disagree. A softer stance would be met with just as much bile and anger from the supporters of statism and collectivism, but would then be subject to dismemberment because it would not be logically sound. I am not taking the position that I do simply because it is extreme, but because I beleive it to be right. If I decided to argue a somewhat watered down version, I would be lying.

Good point.


I agree. Any system which ignores human nature is doomed to failure. It is all a matter of interpreting human nature correctly.

Yeah...assuming everyone thinks the same way is a slippery slope. I'm inclined to look at past behaviors on a large scale and infer what future behaviors may resemble. Which is precisely why I believe a purely individualist society is not feasible (sustainably realistic if you will).

[Robespierre]

Still wondering about how people would react to a harmful long-term market correction.

Correction of what? I think you have a major misunderstanding somewhere. Markets only need correction when something is throwing them off, like price supports, tariffs, inflation, or other regulations imposed upon the market. The market left to itself tends towards a slow but steady growth.

[Tlalocone]

Are Robespierre’s views of an individualistic society realistic? Are his views valid, or idealistic?


Well, I think it is really a pity that we have no member here (Avatar)called
'Guillotine'. Because he should answer to all question in connection with Robespierre.:) :devil: :smooch:

[Thermo]

Based on my conversations with Robespierre, I have come to the conclusion freedom does not exist, because when one person has power over another they can infringe on that person's freedom.

I do like the concept of libertarianism and I think it can be applied in certain places.

[Dman]

Correction of what? I think you have a major misunderstanding somewhere. Markets only need correction when something is throwing them off, like price supports, tariffs, inflation, or other regulations imposed upon the market. The market left to itself tends towards a slow but steady growth.

* sighs *

For example a corporation that is inadvertently causing harm to people through it’s production processes. It becomes aware of this, but the people it is harming are not affecting its customer base nor its profits in any way. Therefore it chooses to continue its processes, which it believes to be the most efficient, regardless of the human costs. Eventually, 25 years later, people find out what is going on. Market forces subsequently act and the business as it exists disappears. Unfortunately thousands of people are dead or dying due directly to the actions of that company.

Does this situation occur even in the presence of governments? Of course, but it is less likely to happen as often and less likely to last as long. Rather than taking 25 years for the market to discover the information, regulatory bodies and/or notifications to government agencies could have been informed and investigated much sooner to end the harmful practices. People would demand a regulatory body to prevent the same type of thing from ever happening again.

Claiming that regulatory bodies could themselves be private companies, i.e. the industry “self-regulating” has proven to be unreliable as there are often conflicts of interest. Furthermore, how would these private regulatory companies exist? If they found no wrongdoing by any companies, where would they receive their funding?



And on another note, who's running those utilities again? Monopolistic type entities, or logistical nightmares?

[Robespierre]

* sighs *

For example a corporation that is inadvertently causing harm to people through it’s production processes. It becomes aware of this, but the people it is harming are not affecting its customer base nor its profits in any way. Therefore it chooses to continue its processes, which it believes to be the most efficient, regardless of the human costs. Eventually, 25 years later, people find out what is going on. Market forces subsequently act and the business as it exists disappears. Unfortunately thousands of people are dead or dying due directly to the actions of that company.

That is an especially bleak and cynical example, and while I would say that such cases will not happen often in a free market system, it is certainly possible.

However, when using the term "market correction", one is typically referring to prices. Perhaps that was the source of confusion...



Does this situation occur even in the presence of governments? Of course, but it is less likely to happen as often and less likely to last as long.

Why? See, I disagree with you. When the only people looking out for these sort of abuses are a few government officials who can be bribed, rather than the entire population, you have a problem.

Centralization by force will always result in corruption. In this case, companies will use those centralized government organs to punish competition and to provide a false sense of security in their own products.

[Dman]

That is an especially bleak and cynical example, and while I would say that such cases will not happen often in a free market system, it is certainly possible.

However, when using the term "market correction", one is typically referring to prices. Perhaps that was the source of confusion...


Why? See, I disagree with you. When the only people looking out for these sort of abuses are a few government officials who can be bribed, rather than the entire population, you have a problem.

Centralization by force will always result in corruption. In this case, companies will use those centralized government organs to punish competition and to provide a false sense of security in their own products.

I was speaking to an economic market correction, not necessarily a stock market correction. As in the “market”, economically speaking, weeding out through natural forces those businesses that engage in unwholesome or harmful activities.

Of course, in the absence of government, a company could frequently pull the wool over everyone’s eyes however often it liked, provided it felt the risk was worth the rewards or that it figured no one would find out until decades later.

Once a few of these bleak and cynical actions occurred (I don’t think it would take many “bad apples” to cause people to begin to distrust all businesses – look at history), my inclination is to believe that people would demand some type of transparency about the operations and practices of companies, which as evidenced by recent situations can only occur when you have a large governmental regulatory body that monitors them.

Corporations have by and large proven that they are generally more inclined to cover up any harmful activities they engage in regardless of any direct or indirect government intervention, because there are many scenarios where it is better for the bottom line to lie and cover it up than to tell the truth – regardless of whom may be harmed in the meantime. Again, government actions do not prevent all these cases from happening, but they certainly prevent and/or catch many long before otherwise would have occurred. The corruption can and does occur on both sides.

Major difference is that gov agencies can be separated from conflicts of interest, i.e. their major source of funds is through penalizing companies who violate the rules. Plus, government corruption may only be limited to certain individuals of questionable moral character. Corporations on the other hand would rarely have any incentive to blow the whistle on themselves, as it would be a conflict of interest. How often would they willing to sacrifice themselves, their profit, their way of life if they could just lie and cover it up, and get away with it?

Anyways, regardless of how rare (bleak and cynical) it may be, people do not quickly forget when a company’s actions are responsible for killing or otherwise harming their loved ones, and would probably be willing to allow some coercive form of governing regulation to ensure that it didn’t happen again or to someone else – even at the sacrifice of a purely free market. Thus, a government body has got its foot in the door, and the rest will follow.

[Robespierre]

Of course, in the absence of government, a company could frequently pull the wool over everyone’s eyes however often it liked, provided it felt the risk was worth the rewards or that it figured no one would find out until decades later.

Again, possible. However, you have yet to show that this sort of crime would be more common without centralized easily bribable officials handling quality assurance.


Once a few of these bleak and cynical actions occurred (I don’t think it would take many “bad apples” to cause people to begin to distrust all businesses– look at history), my inclination is to believe that people would demand some type of transparency about the operations and practices of companies, which as evidenced by recent situations can only occur when you have a large governmental regulatory body that monitors them.

Transparancy can only result from large governmental regulatory bodies? Hahahaha. I think you got that backwards.

Seriously though, the point you make, that if people see wrongdoing on the rise, as you suggest might happen, they clamor for openness. Do you not see how this sews up my argument? Those businesses that provided the transparency that you describe will be successful, with those that attempt to remain shady reduced to the fringes. Never forget, that the government regulators did NOT catch Enron, the market did.


Corporations have by and large proven that they are generally more inclined to cover up any harmful activities they engage in regardless of any direct or indirect government intervention, because there are many scenarios where it is better for the bottom line to lie and cover it up than to tell the truth – regardless of whom may be harmed in the meantime.

I disagree with you. Corporations have shown, that in a system of centrally regulated safety controls and quality assurance by government, that it is better for their bottom line to be corrupt and shifty.


Again, government actions do not prevent all these cases from happening, but they certainly prevent and/or catch many long before otherwise would have occurred. The corruption can and does occur on both sides.

Enron.


Major difference is that gov agencies can be separated from conflicts of interest

I'm sorry, but this is supremely naive.


, i.e. their major source of funds is through penalizing companies who violate the rules.

Not true. The SEC may get some extra cash in fines when they lynch someone, but their budget is paid for by politicians, who are paid for by the very people whom they are charged with regulating. The entire system is happily tolerated by the truly huge corporations because it is a weapon against their competitors. Large corporations exist, in large part, because they can gain influence over governmental organizations and exclude their competition.

Politics is supremely corrupt. The individuals who run the various regulatory bodies are always and without question acting in their own interests, as all people always do, so why should we give them power over the property of others? They will simply abuse it for their own ends.


Plus, government corruption may only be limited to certain individuals of questionable moral character.

What? How does this differ from a corporation? Are you saying that corporations can be wholely evil, but governments not? Or that groups can act in one context, corporations, but not in others, the government?


Corporations on the other hand would rarely have any incentive to blow the whistle on themselves

Just like governments. Are governments eager to expose their own frauds and diminish their influence?


as it would be a conflict of interest. How often would they willing to sacrifice themselves, their profit, their way of life if they could just lie and cover it up, and get away with it?

Just as often as any individual, in any line of work, I suppose.


Anyways, regardless of how rare (bleak and cynical) it may be, people do not quickly forget when a company’s actions are responsible for killing or otherwise harming their loved ones, and would probably be willing to allow some coercive form of governing regulation to ensure that it didn’t happen again or to someone else – even at the sacrifice of a purely free market. Thus, a government body has got its foot in the door, and the rest will follow.

What government body? You keep saying that anarchy won't work because when something bad happens, people will ask the government to regulate businesses....... what government?

[Dman]

Again, possible. However, you have yet to show that this sort of crime would be more common without centralized easily bribable officials handling quality assurance.



Transparancy can only result from large governmental regulatory bodies? Hahahaha. I think you got that backwards.

Seriously though, the point you make, that if people see wrongdoing on the rise, as you suggest might happen, they clamor for openness. Do you not see how this sews up my argument? Those businesses that provided the transparency that you describe will be successful, with those that attempt to remain shady reduced to the fringes. Never forget, that the government regulators did NOT catch Enron, the market did.

My point is that the market will reward those they THINK are being open and honest, which is not the same thing as those who are ACTUALLY being open and honest.

Even savvy investors and watchdogs often miss what’s truly happening within a company because companies can be very wily about hiding what they don’t want people to see.

The market caught Enron because it was so blatantly abusing the system – it was practicing a completely unsustainable system and was inevitable that it would collapse. It’s a miracle it took as long as it did. Besides, that was fudging the books, not necessarily causing physical harm to people. It’s the companies that do the hidden damage on the side that I’m referring to – like polluting the local water supply for years and years for example. How many examples do we have where the regulatory caught wrongdoings and/or prevented them? It would likely be difficult to quantify, admittedly, since it is mostly intangible.



I disagree with you. Corporations have shown, that in a system of centrally regulated safety controls and quality assurance by government, that it is better for their bottom line to be corrupt and shifty.

Are you saying it is not in a corporations best interests to make significantly more profit, even if it causes harm to people and the chance of getting caught (i.e. losing revenues or increasing expenses in the future) is extremely low – even in a government –free system?

Somehow I doubt the existence of gov changes this philosophy, but maybe I’m the cynical one.



Enron.

One example. See above. How many were prevented due to existing regulations and laws?

Additionally, the government was relying on private businesses (the market) to do their jobs, i.e. the auditors (Arthur Andersen), the analysts (Charles Schwab) and the creditors (Citicorp). Those “market” institutions sure didn’t stop what happened – they enabled it to happen and to continue as long as it did. Because they benefited from it. Or was that all the governments fault too?

EDIT: Although the market took care of Arthur A, how did the market punish Citicorp, who was just as guilty? It didn’t. The gov fined them millions of dollars, which will likely prevent Citi from doing something like that again in the near future at least. Had the gov not fined them, what would have prevented them from acting the same way again?


I'm sorry, but this is supremely naive.

As naïve as assuming corporations will always act in the best interests of human beings, and that market forces will immediately take care of any that don’t?


Not true. The SEC may get some extra cash in fines when they lynch someone, but their budget is paid for by politicians, who are paid for by the very people whom they are charged with regulating. The entire system is happily tolerated by the truly huge corporations because it is a weapon against their competitors. Large corporations exist, in large part, because they can gain influence over governmental organizations and exclude their competition.

Politics is supremely corrupt. The individuals who run the various regulatory bodies are always and without question acting in their own interests, as all people always do, so why should we give them power over the property of others? They will simply abuse it for their own ends.

Of course they are acting in their own interests – their job is to catch the “bad guys”. They get re-elected/more money whatever suits their needs by busting those who break the rules. That’s the point – eliminate the conflict of interest. I’d rather have someone who gets rewarded for catching the bad guys in charge than waiting for the market to notice and react. Cops get rewarded for catching bad guys too – would the system be more effective if we let “the market” (i.e. mobs) take care of perceived criminals?



What? How does this differ from a corporation? Are you saying that corporations can be wholely evil, but governments not? Or that groups can act in one context, corporations, but not in others, the government?

Just like governments. Are governments eager to expose their own frauds and diminish their influence?

Checks and balances. It’s all about checks and balances for both sides. Do you disagree with that? As I’ve indicated in the “harm to humans” scenario, the market itself cannot be solely relied upon to provide timely checks and balances. If not the market, then who?



What government body? You keep saying that anarchy won't work because when something bad happens, people will ask the government to regulate businesses....... what government?

My contention would be that a government would inevitably be created; formed in the absence of none, to deal with market imperfections that caused harm.

[coffeezombie]

I disagree with you. Corporations have shown, that in a system of centrally regulated safety controls and quality assurance by government, that it is better for their bottom line to be corrupt and shifty.


If these controls didn't exist, they'd be downright evil if it meant gaining more money for their shareholders. And if such corporations are not regulated to be more transparent, nobody would never know how evil they are, and the market would not adjust as a result. By evil I mean going against the general morality of a certain society, of course.

[Robespierre]

We can go back and forth all day on which system will permit more corruption. I happen to think that the system of totalitarian centralized regulation will be more corrupt.

In order to move this discussion to a more meaningful point, I would like to suggest that the relative level of corruption does not form any portion of my support for the free market. While I happen to believe that the free market yield vastly safer and more honest businesses, this does not justify free markets. As I have said, the ends can never justify the means.

So, the reason I support free markets is because they are just. Only a system which allows absolute individual sovreignty over private property can be defined as just, or non-aggressive.

I realize that this thread is a pragmatic question posed of my beliefs, but I feel it important to point out the basis of my opinions.

[Robespierre]

And if such corporations are not regulated to be more transparent, nobody would never know how evil they are, and the market would not adjust as a result. By evil I mean going against the general morality of a certain society, of course.

And what is the general morality of society, and how do you suppose that businesses can exist outside of it?

[Robespierre]

My point is that the market will reward those they THINK are being open and honest, which is not the same thing as those who are ACTUALLY being open and honest.

This sums up your entire post. Actually, it sums up our previous few exchanges. We are both saying that the system the other suggests is more corrupt. Let's get down closer to why we think what we do.

You seem to think that the motivation of the regulator can be set up in such a way as to make him an impartial judge capable of making value decisions for everyone under his rule.

I believe that such a domination by any authority, no matter how balanced, will cause horrible corruption. I also suggest to you that there it is no objective answer to the questions typically tackled by regulators, such as: what is safety, how much is safety worth, who is responsible for paying to improve safety, what is "fair", etc. You see where I'm coming from on this?

[Dman]

This sums up your entire post. Actually, it sums up our previous few exchanges. We are both saying that the system the other suggests is more corrupt. Let's get down closer to why we think what we do.

You seem to think that the motivation of the regulator can be set up in such a way as to make him an impartial judge capable of making value decisions for everyone under his rule.

I believe that such a domination by any authority, no matter how balanced, will cause horrible corruption. I also suggest to you that there it is no objective answer to the questions typically tackled by regulators, such as: what is safety, how much is safety worth, who is responsible for paying to improve safety, what is "fair", etc. You see where I'm coming from on this?

Yes, I see where you are coming from and it is a valid point.

However, my contention was based more upon how market imperfections (i.e. long-term, harmful effects) would be dealt with and what the likely results would be, which to me explains why the system you propose would never work.

Within your defined system that is “just” or non-aggressive, you have critical components of that system (people) that by nature do not always act just or non-aggressive. With these components operating the system, there will continue to be acts that are unjust or aggressive, same as now.

Your contention is that your system best deals with such actions through the natural forces of the market. My contention is that people will not / cannot always accept the natural forces of the market as the most just. An example was the long term harm a company intentionally caused people by polluting their water source. Hence people will always trend towards a system that includes some of form of “external” regulation in an effort to place more control on the uncontrollable aspects of the system. This is natural human behavior.


I am not arguing that regulation is perfect. A regulator may ultimately become corrupt and lose its value. Regulations may take on a life of their own and end up being ineffective or causing more harm than they are supposedly preventing. Even having said that, the point would be to have a more effective system of eliminating this “fluff” and bureaucracy when it reached these points. How? I don’t know, if I did know, I’d run for office. But by abolishing all forms of “coercive authority” it creates a new set of problems as I’ve pointed out. Your system may appear more “natural” or “just”, but fixing our existing system would be a much more efficient and successful course of action. Balance is the key.

Throwing out all regulators would simply swing the pendulum the other way, which would have the exact opposite effect as a system that was entirely dictated by coercive regulators and complete stifling of the market - people would reject the existing system in favor of more control by force rather than less. In one system, there is too much control, too much interference with natural just systems, for humans to accept – and in the other there is not enough control in the system for humans to accept.

Ignoring the human element would be fallacious.

[Robespierre]

Within your defined system that is “just” or non-aggressive, you have critical components of that system (people) that by nature do not always act just or non-aggressive. With these components operating the system, there will continue to be acts that are unjust or aggressive, same as now.

If we follow this logic, we must then accept that no individual deserves any type of freedom, as he will likely use it to do something wrong, or perhaps that no system involving humans can ever "work".


Your contention is that your system best deals with such actions through the natural forces of the market. My contention is that people will not / cannot always accept the natural forces of the market as the most just. An example was the long term harm a company intentionally caused people by polluting their water source.

I could swear we covered the Erin Brockovich thing already....


Hence people will always trend towards a system that includes some of form of “external” regulation in an effort to place more control on the uncontrollable aspects of the system. This is natural human behavior.

Why?


I am not arguing that regulation is perfect. A regulator may ultimately become corrupt and lose its value.

No regulator can ever have a value, outside of that which each and every individual places on it. There is no objective value. The regulator values his own regulations in one way, a large-scale corporation values them in another, a small start-up in still another way. Which one is right? All of them, of course. Value is purely a matter of taste. Arguing value is like arguing about taste.


Regulations may take on a life of their own and end up being ineffective or causing more harm than they are supposedly preventing.

Replace the word "may" with the word "always" and you are closer to the truth.


Even having said that, the point would be to have a more effective system of eliminating this “fluff” and bureaucracy when it reached these points.

Effective for who? The regulator? The large business? Or perhaps the small business? Will we all eat hamburgers, or will we all each tofu, or will we all eat cheesecakes? It's a matter of taste, and imposing one's values upon another, is the problem.


How? I don’t know, if I did know, I’d run for office. But by abolishing all forms of “coercive authority” it creates a new set of problems as I’ve pointed out. Your system may appear more “natural” or “just”, but fixing our existing system would be a much more efficient and successful course of action. Balance is the key.

Balance? Why? What are we balancing? You have not directly answered the core question:

Do the ends ever justify the means?

You answer the question indirectly with you above statement. Effectively you say that actions which are not just, should be taken sometimes because they are "efficient". Nevermind that you don't explain what efficient means with respect to a government. It is efficient for those who are forced out of business by their politically connected comeptitors?


Throwing out all regulators would simply swing the pendulum the other way, which would have the exact opposite effect as a system that was entirely dictated by coercive regulators and complete stifling of the market - people would reject the existing system in favor of more control by force rather than less. In one system, there is too much control, too much interference with natural just systems, for humans to accept – and in the other there is not enough control in the system for humans to accept.

Ignoring the human element would be fallacious.

I agree, why do you ignore the human element in your idealized view of the current system?

Another point against your idea of "balance". Should there be a "balance" between punishing murderers and letting them go? Should there be a balance between locking people in jail for no reason and leaving them alone?

[Robespierre]

Here's an article I just lifted from www.strike-the-root.com

I have edited it for length, he creates a very long and detailed scenario at the end of the article, you all can read it if you like, but it will add to the already enormous lenth of this post.





"The Singapore Factor"

by David MacGregor

A proper definition of anarchy is: 1) the absence of government, and 2) a political theory opposed to government.

That begs the question, "what is government?" Government is the POLITICAL means of social organisation and control - the political means of imposing order.

Anarchy does not mean NO order, it simply means no "political" order.

You can have order without a government--as in the way a company is run. If you work for Microsoft, or Ford, then you are working for an organisation. It is orderly. There are rules. The big difference is that you do not have to work for such a company if it is not to your liking. But once you sign on to it, you must either abide by its internal regulations or resign (or be fired). In other words, order--but not by government, by mutual consent.

Similarly, if you have purchased an apartment in a large complex, then you will have run into what is sometimes called the Body Corporate. Essentially, most freehold residential complexes are run by elected representatives of the owners--who set various rules and regulations to produce the best outcomes for those who live there.

Once again, there is order--but no government.

Government is the POLITICAL means of achieving order. The market is the VOLUNTARY means of achieving order.

The political process is entirely different from the market process. In a political order the power derives from the use of force. In a market order the power derives from the voluntary consent of the participants.

So, to use the Body Corporate analogy again, if you buy a condo in a classy complex--which has the rule that you cannot make undue noise after 11 p.m.--then the Body Corporate will enforce those rules. However, you agreed to them when you first purchased your property, as part of the contract you entered into.

It is this important element of "agreement" that is missing in the political ordering of things. Things happen WITHOUT your agreement. And they happen to YOU!

Oh sure, this is glossed over by reference to voting every three or four years. But this is a joke obviously, because you know that even if you vote, it makes no difference--especially if who you voted for doesn't gain power. Political voting is a charade, designed to give the cloak of respectability to an otherwise thoroughly despicable practice--rule by the mob.

And you certainly didn't enter into any "contract" with your existing nation of birth. Socialists like to talk of the "social contract," but that's just a red herring. To be born somewhere is a complete accident on your part, and cannot be construed as some sort of contract.

Political order is ultimately the rule of brute force. Market order is ultimately the rule of agreement and contract.

But what if someone reneges on an agreement or contract? In a market order, such situations would be resolved by arbitration and enforced, if necessary, by resort to various agents of the arbitration company.

When it comes to getting things done in this world, the verdict is already in. The market order delivers the goods in easily verifiable abundance, whereas the political order fails miserably. Soviet Russia and Maoist China, as the most extreme versions of the political order, presented irrefutable evidence of this fact.

Just one visit to your local supermarket should disabuse you of any notion that the government could do it better. Or another example: Who would you trust to manufacture your next new computer--the government or a company of your own choosing?

One of the perennial rebuttals of anarchy--or no political order--is that when push comes to shove, a third party must be able to intervene to enforce contracts and civil behaviour, if the parties to such an agreement cannot resolve a dispute. And in a market order society, this would be done by the private agents of law and order--including insurance and security companies and private arbitration courts.

The sceptic will then say that this would lead to multiple jurisdictions--where you may have your own legal environment and I may have mine--and never the twain shall meet.

But this is a straw man argument--because we already have a working model of such competing jurisdictions in the world today. I'm talking about the world community of nations. Each nation is a sovereign jurisdiction--and a crime in one may not be a crime in another. However, when it comes to major crimes, you'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how different nations and cultures agree--as in response to murder, rape and robbery, for example.

Nations get over this "problem" of different jurisdictions by setting up various forms of cooperation--a perfectly natural thing to do. That's why we have such things as extradition orders, Interpol etc.

If you are truly against the "anarchy" of multiple sovereign nation states--then you have nowhere to go, except to endorse and work for a WORLD government. Just one government. Just one jurisdiction.

Sure, there are many supporters of world government. But I believe that no thinking freedom lover would countenance such an idea. Why? Because a WORLD government would be a magnification of all the bad things that arise from government. Things like graft and corruption; inefficiency; incompetence, cronyism; inertia; and the sheer horror of having nowhere else to run, should you be targeted for any reason whatsoever. And I haven't even mentioned taxes!

But that's the choice. Either we "progress" to the logical endpoint of political governance--World Government--or we think outside the square and start to question the very notion of political order itself.

[codeElemental]

This whole issue seems more a matter of semantics than anything else...

Assuming that everything in this world was privately owned, and free market economics are left to self regulate, and everyone has the choice to partake of any service they want, provided they have the money, I see the following situation occurring.

Family finds some land that is presently unowned, and purchase it for themselves. Doing so exhausted much of their resources, so they cannot afford to hire security. Someone comes along, burns said family's home, perhaps kills one of them, leaves.

This family, realizing that they need security, but don't have the resources and/or ability to acquire resources on their own, realize they can't, in fact, own their own destiny and protect it, so they strike a deal with the fellow who owns land x to work for him in exchange for security (security, after survival, being the goal of much of humanity.) If they don't do what said fellow likes, they are sent away, to another area, where they are again at the whims of whoever owns the land.... serfdom all over again.

Arguably, we're all a part of that now. If we don't pay our taxes, our homes, land etc. are taken away. If I don't like that rule, I can try to go to another nation, but all nations are run in basically the same manner, so I'm left with little choice... in a world this populous, humans are almost always pawns in some larger system.

So ultimately, the cynic in me sees no ultimate difference in what I've read of your system and government, since those who are not the most cunning and capable will still always be beholden to someone else. I cannot imagine any system that could ever change this fact. It seems as natural a part of humanity as breathing. The strong dominate the weaker around them, and eventually you're surrounded on all sides by those who are stronger, so are always trapped.

So exchanging government for an overpowered landlord could be an interesting experiment, but I don't see it ultimately inflicting any less hardship on humankind in the long run... and besides, that landlord, or gang that needs you to pay "protection" or anything else, all can be defined as government in its own right. If you get rid of the state, you merely end up replacing it with something that maintains the same functions, with a different name. Same shit, different semantics.

People are either governed, or they are alone.

[Robespierre]

This whole issue seems more a matter of semantics than anything else...

Assuming that everything in this world was privately owned, and free market economics are left to self regulate, and everyone has the choice to partake of any service they want, provided they have the money, I see the following situation occurring.

Family finds some land that is presently unowned, and purchase it for themselves.

Who do you purchase unowned land from?

Let's also be clear that my use of the word property, is not limited to land. Property, as I use it, is anything that can be owned.


Doing so exhausted much of their resources, so they cannot afford to hire security. Someone comes along, burns said family's home, perhaps kills one of them, leaves.

This family, realizing that they need security, but don't have the resources and/or ability to acquire resources on their own, realize they can't, in fact, own their own destiny and protect it, so they strike a deal with the fellow who owns land x to work for him in exchange for security (security, after survival, being the goal of much of humanity.) If they don't do what said fellow likes, they are sent away, to another area, where they are again at the whims of whoever owns the land.... serfdom all over again.

All over again? Where did this family come from?


Arguably, we're all a part of that now. If we don't pay our taxes, our homes, land etc. are taken away. If I don't like that rule, I can try to go to another nation, but all nations are run in basically the same manner, so I'm left with little choice... in a world this populous, humans are almost always pawns in some larger system.

Systems do not have goals or ends, the individuals who compose those systems may.


So ultimately, the cynic in me sees no ultimate difference in what I've read of your system and government, since those who are not the most cunning and capable will still always be beholden to someone else.

In what way? How did you come to this conclusion?


I cannot imagine any system that could ever change this fact. It seems as natural a part of humanity as breathing. The strong dominate the weaker around them, and eventually you're surrounded on all sides by those who are stronger, so are always trapped.

As you say, there will always be someone trying to dominate others, either thieves, murderers, fraudsters, whatever. These things will never be eliminated, and anyone who proposed to eliminate these things entirely is full of shit.

What I suggest to you, is that a system which is sold as one that is designed to prevent these things, should not itself commit these crimes.

[codeElemental]

Who do you purchase unowned land from?

Let's also be clear that my use of the word property, is not limited to land. Property, as I use it, is anything that can be owned.


See, that's what I'm not getting from you though. Individual ownership is nice, and makes sense. Outside of a system, ownership has no meaning other than "I want this and I will fight you to keep it"




All over again? Where did this family come from?


All over again as in similar to the past, not that this family has been involved in a previous serfdom. Not entirely sure how their origins matter here, however.



Systems do not have goals or ends, the individuals who compose those systems may.


I agree that individuals all have goals and/or ends. My point is the unfortunate fact that stronger individuals tend to do a better job at achieving their own goals, often at the expense of the weaker, and I don't believe human nature will change enough to stamp this out.



In what way? How did you come to this conclusion?


I've just not seen (or understood?) how your system prevents people from dominating others. I come to that conclusion by believing that even if people choose not to be controlled, if forced into a position of "die or submit" they'll often submit.



As you say, there will always be someone trying to dominate others, either thieves, murderers, fraudsters, whatever. These things will never be eliminated, and anyone who proposed to eliminate these things entirely is full of shit.


Entirely true.




What I suggest to you, is that a system which is sold as one that is designed to prevent these things, should not itself commit these crimes.

How is it sold that way, though? I love the *idea* of people living their own lives, under nobody's guidance but their own, but I just think it's quite a stretch to assume that people are willing to respect their neighbors enough to crush them. I respect your ideas, but I just think they require a stronger believe that people are basically good than I currently have.

Again, I'm sure I've missed a lot of your posts, and if everything was explained earlier, I don't aim to force you to repeat it, but I've got to head out for the night. Thanks for giving me something to think about, anyway.

EDIT: Er, that should read "not to crush them"

[Robespierre]

See, that's what I'm not getting from you though. Individual ownership is nice, and makes sense. Outside of a system, ownership has no meaning other than "I want this and I will fight you to keep it"

I don't think you got my question. Who do you purchase unowned land from? You suggested that a family would purchase some unowned land and this would drain their resources... well who would they be sending those resources to if the land were unowned?


All over again as in similar to the past, not that this family has been involved in a previous serfdom. Not entirely sure how their origins matter here, however.

Well, if for some odd reason they moved into a piece of land they couldn't maintain, and decided to leave, might they not go back to where they came from, whether it is their parent's house, a previous piece of land, etc etc?


I agree that individuals all have goals and/or ends. My point is the unfortunate fact that stronger individuals tend to do a better job at achieving their own goals, often at the expense of the weaker, and I don't believe human nature will change enough to stamp this out.

It's only unfortunate when the "strong" achieve their goals at the expense of the weak, otherwise, what is wrong with someone achieving their goals? It is my opinion that coercive governments enable individuals to attain their goals at the expense of others, this is the very definition of politics.


I've just not seen (or understood?) how your system prevents people from dominating others.

The same forces the compel businesses to supply better and better products.


I come to that conclusion by believing that even if people choose not to be controlled, if forced into a position of "die or submit" they'll often submit.

Almost always, this is how governments maintain their control.


How is it sold that way, though? I love the *idea* of people living their own lives, under nobody's guidance but their own, but I just think it's quite a stretch to assume that people are willing to respect their neighbors enough to crush them. I respect your ideas, but I just think they require a stronger believe that people are basically good than I currently have.

I don't see it that way. I see it exactly opposite. We could trust individuals with centralized regulatory power IF there existed some objective standard of good and we could trust that individual to strive towards that good, but such is not the case. There exists no objective standard of what is good, that is, what ends we should all strive towards, which eliminates the question of trust.


Again, I'm sure I've missed a lot of your posts, and if everything was explained earlier, I don't aim to force you to repeat it, but I've got to head out for the night. Thanks for giving me something to think about, anyway.

EDIT: Er, that should read "not to crush them"

No problem. I realize that many of my statements are based upon very obscure interpretations of society. It is always best to clear up the underlying assumptions in these sort of complicated discussions, otherwise they will dissolve into both sides arguing at cross purposes.

[Dman]

If we follow this logic, we must then accept that no individual deserves any type of freedom, as he will likely use it to do something wrong, or perhaps that no system involving humans can ever "work".



I could swear we covered the Erin Brockovich thing already....

Actually, no, I think you just patronized me for using that example, and basically dodged the question (like now).


Hence people will always trend towards a system that includes some of form of “external” regulation in an effort to place more control on the uncontrollable aspects of the system. This is natural human behavior.


Why?

Why what? Why is it natural human behavior to want control over our lives? I’m not sure “why” is relevant; in this case it’s more a matter of simply understanding that it’s human nature and thus will affect any social system accordingly. People will not wait for a market to correct itself when they are being harmed and have the ability to control (or attempt to control) it.

Here’s an analogy – bear with me – say that in a world that strictly followed “natural” systems, whenever I was sick I would do nothing to control it – I would simply wait it out and hope I got better soon as I stood idly by waiting for my natural immune system to correct itself. But the reality is we all know that when we are aware that there are “unnatural” levers (let’s say man-made medicines) that we can use to lessen the pain and control it, we will take it. Do these medicines always make everything better in the long run, or even in the short run? No, and they could potentially make things worse. Does that necessarily prevent people from attempting to control something they feel is harmful?

It’s the same type of situation. No matter how “natural” a system is, free market individualism in this case, people will always desire control over things that they do not feel control over, particularly if it is harmful. This itself is natural. Thus, in your proposed system, I’m saying you must take into account this type of behavior. It wouldn’t take long or very many “bad apples” as I referred to previously to cause people to start looking for ways to control their environment. One of those controls is ultimately a coercive regulatory body. It is just as natural a function as anything else in your proposed system.

This is why I find it difficult to debate your system; most of your contentions are perfectly logical and therefore irrefutable. However by ignoring natural basic human tendencies, such as the need to control natural systems (which inevitably in social systems result in governments, which is why they always reappear in every long term sustainable society) your entire premise is flawed. Now, if you ignore that basic tenet of human nature, sure, your system likely works. Alas, those pesky humans are always getting in the way of perfectly good ideas.

I cannot argue that governments will not be corrupted or that they will solve any or all problems. What I can argue is that they are just as natural a component of human society as the market is.

I do think that types of government and the level of government involvement/interference absolutely make a huge difference in the quality of life and the efficiency of markets, obviously, but it is impossible to construct a lasting society that either contains no government or never develops some type of government.

But what the hell do I know, I’m working class, and thus have been effectively brainwashed. Ah well, at least I’m not so delusional that I’m a republican.

[Frab]

Thank you, this has been a hilarious read. Now to cut to the chase, sometime ago in Foreign Policy magazine, some senior official of the present U.S. administration remonstrated directives from the Pentagon (if I recall correctly) with the words: "This isn't Stalinist Russia. You can't just rewrite history.' No, you can't rewrite history although much of the post-modern deconstructivist pap one finds in bookstores attempts to do so. Next, Stalin is renowned for declaring 'one man's death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.' My take on all this is to inflate Hannah Arendt's insight with the observation that our present world lives and breathes the banality of totalitarian attitudes (all dressed up with garments of democracy, free-trade, globalism, and justifiable uses of torture). But realistically the world has known much worse, may yet know more horrid still, but then may not if as stated above, men and women of good will and better sense stand up to be counted. Especially if they are supposedly of the kin opposed to humanistic values, I tell you, this too shall pass once this DeLay is past.

Bottom line was best expressed by the late Professor Jacob Bronowski: two ills afflict humanity, the idea that the end justifies the means, and the indifference to suffering. Which is all right and good if one has been blessed with the eugenics to prevail? But then, Ray Kurzwail is quite confident in his future immortality, convinced that scientific advances in nanotechnology will repair his decaying cell structure; this for the secular view. The opposition proclaims its salvation, and evident prospect of not being left behind... Righteous. Pared of all artifice, pretty much the same language is being held across the spectrum, what that dictatorial extrovert Napoleon (a scion of another Robespierre) declared: 'the world is run by money and self-interest.'

So let's just make the best of it, and do what good we can demand and perform with our individual contribution, like use that right to vote? To say that, I'd rather live with democracy, whatever the problems than to suffer the conformity of a totalitarian regime... And folks who have no appreciation of the second half of 'The Road to Wigan Pier' aren't just committed new agers, but are just as likely to be rethreaded souls of religion, whose idea of introspection religiously is about as profound as the sincere self-criticism one can read was common at the All Soviets Union of Writers. Thin-slice and microwave this.

[Frab]

Maximilien de Robespierre, (1758-1794) was a man torn by many ideals. None of which proved to be productive, except in the horrible Terror of the guillotine. Robespierre essentially failed to construct his own personality cult, and lost his life as a result at the hands of his political opponents. I do not consider him a great man, but a middling figure whose mistakes helped the French Revolutionaries construct the very height of the Rights of Man, the nation in arms. A powerful instrument a later First Consul and Emperor of the French utilized with much effect.

This is what our world knows today, nationalism and terror. And if anything recent more clearly points us back to Rob above, it is his 'Justifications for the use of terror.' Personally though, I much prefer the tone of Dr. Jonathan Swift's 'A modest proposal.' But then, Isaah Berlin did state: 'Most folks would sooner die than think-in fact, they do so.' Perhaps this explains the slaughter... But then, to highlight extremes, if Tom DeLay and Karl Rove are despicable in my optic, so is Ward C., Duke of Marlborough of Political-Correctness; obviously an intellectual still praising Robert Mugabe's freedom fighter experiences...

[Robespierre]

Maximilien de Robespierre, (1758-1794) was a man torn by many ideals. None of which proved to be productive, except in the horrible Terror of the guillotine.

Ironic, no? It's funny, there's always someone who thinks I missed something when picking my name. No, I know all about him and the Jacobins.

[Robespierre]

Actually, no, I think you just patronized me for using that example, and basically dodged the question (like now).

What do you want? I have outlined numerous times how a voluntary society might deal with issues of pollution.


Why what? Why is it natural human behavior to want control over our lives? I’m not sure “why” is relevant; in this case it’s more a matter of simply understanding that it’s human nature and thus will affect any social system accordingly.

Why is it human nature? What makes you say it is?


People will not wait for a market to correct itself when they are being harmed and have the ability to control (or attempt to control) it.

You have yet to explain who these people are going to appeal to.


Here’s an analogy – bear with me – say that in a world that strictly followed “natural” systems, whenever I was sick I would do nothing to control it – I would simply wait it out and hope I got better soon as I stood idly by waiting for my natural immune system to correct itself.

Why would you do something so stupid? You would take medicine, rest, etc. in attempt to reduce the sickness.


But the reality is we all know that when we are aware that there are “unnatural” levers (let’s say man-made medicines) that we can use to lessen the pain and control it, we will take it.

Your analogy makes no sense at all. You were unable to capture the most important aspect which is the moral aspect. If you need to point a gun at your neighbor or kill someone to get your medicine, then the analogy might be a little more meaningful. And nothing, nothing at all is unnatural. Unless you believe in god and the supernatural...


Do these medicines always make everything better in the long run, or even in the short run? No, and they could potentially make things worse. Does that necessarily prevent people from attempting to control something they feel is harmful?

I can't stress enough how useless is this analogy. So many things are wrong with it.. Control? Who are you controlling when you attempt to heal yourself?


It’s the same type of situation.

Not even remotely similar, no.


No matter how “natural” a system is, free market individualism in this case, people will always desire control over things that they do not feel control over, particularly if it is harmful.

You're really serious about this aren't you? Are you suggesting that the exertion of "control" over a virus or bacteria is in ANY way analogus to the control of other humans? Do you suggest that a willingness of humans to "control" viruses and bacteria implies anything about human's relations with each other?


This itself is natural. Thus, in your proposed system, I’m saying you must take into account this type of behavior.

My system requires this type of behaviour. Individuals acting in the own interest, as they understand it, which is something we can say that people do without exception or pause.


It wouldn’t take long or very many “bad apples” as I referred to previously to cause people to start looking for ways to control their environment.

Right, like forming consumer watch groups? Boycotting producers or retailers that committ such evils, etc etc etc.


One of those controls is ultimately a coercive regulatory body. It is just as natural a function as anything else in your proposed system.

It may be a natural desire to kill a man who looks at your female, this does not make it proper. However, I don't believe that when immersed in a system without ANY recourse to such violent authoritarianism, people will magically create a huge bureaucracy to do so.


This is why I find it difficult to debate your system; most of your contentions are perfectly logical and therefore irrefutable.

Okay... but?


However by ignoring natural basic human tendencies, such as the need to control natural systems (which inevitably in social systems result in governments, which is why they always reappear in every long term sustainable society) your entire premise is flawed.

So it's not logical? Which is it? Either it makes sense or it doesn't. Either my premises are sound, or they are not.

I really want to take issue with your constant apeal to a need for some diligent and all-seeing authority. "Your system doesn't have specific answers for my specific questions". Of course it doesn't. However, if people value something, they will work to protect it, just as you suggest some all-seeing centralized authority should. However, I am suggesting that there are better methods than bashing people over the head with a regulatory club. Spontaneous order is something that exists all around us, and something that has generated all that we see (unless you are a creationist... then... well, we have not much more to discuss). I merely wish to steer this process in a direction which will benefit all people, and not just those in the political majority.


Now, if you ignore that basic tenet of human nature, sure, your system likely works. Alas, those pesky humans are always getting in the way of perfectly good ideas.

I would use this identical sentiment against your view. You argue that centralized authoritarian control is superiour to individual and spontaneous control. Your premise relies on the assumption that those who take on the massive power of regulating large sectors of a very wealthy economy will remain perfectly honest and act according to a mythical "greater good", something which is not possible.


I cannot argue that governments will not be corrupted or that they will solve any or all problems. What I can argue is that they are just as natural a component of human society as the market is.

What does that have to do with it? As I said earlier, jealous murder is natural. Is it proper or something we must welcome? How about snake venom? Also very natural.


I do think that types of government and the level of government involvement/interference absolutely make a huge difference in the quality of life and the efficiency of markets

Efficiency? By who's standard? The only possible way to examine efficiency is when the end goal is known. And only individuals may set goals, or have values. Not entire economies or societies.

Is it efficient for me to mow the lawn tonight? Perhaps, if I value a nice looking lawn more than I value sitting inside and reading. But who, other than myself, can possibly make this assessment?


obviously, but it is impossible to construct a lasting society that either contains no government or never develops some type of government.

That may end up being true. But, to strain my example even more, it is also impossible to have a society of humans without crime of some nature, theft, murder, rape, etc. Such crimes will always exist, should we then, ignore them?


But what the hell do I know, I’m working class, and thus have been effectively brainwashed. Ah well, at least I’m not so delusional that I’m a republican.

Republicans are no more delusional than democrats. Both believe the centralized state should control our lives. The only difference is between what aspects of our lives the government should control. Republicans tend to want government to be very active in law-enforcement and policing moral crimes, and democrats want government to chop off the rich at the knees and redistribute their wealth.

[Robespierre]

the idea that the end justifies the means

This sentiment puts democracy right out.

[Dman]

Ok, the analogy was poorly communicated. Throw it out; apparently it is not relevant anyways.

I was going down the path that governments are inevitable rather than necessary (along the same lines as your contentions as to the murderous tendencies of humans which is also natural) but that would lead to me agreeing with you on some level – we can’t have that happening! I will go back to the governments are necessary POV to prevent any confusion.

Let’s take it a different direction. How about the beginnings of the US – you mentioned before that colonial systems similar to them were the best chance of adopting an individualist system. Why then did the US form a federal and state body? Why did they feel that was superior? Why did the majority of people living in that system agree? Was it because the persons drafting this system were bureaucrats themselves, protecting their own ways of life, and convincing enough to sway the masses?

Take defense for example. These people, acting in their own self-interests, stood up against a central government and effectively defeated it. But look how they did it – taxes, enlistment, and other facets of government behavior. And as a result of their efforts they formed… another government. Would they have been able to defeat the British without government aids? Arguable. More importantly, would they have been able to defend their property if they had not formed a government, and indeed constructed an individualist society? I imagine this would require a private service to provide defense of property, as each individual property owner himself could not stand up to an army.

Say such an entity was formed to defend the property owners, with the intention of making a profit of course. Say this entity was successful. Now say this entity decides it wants to charge more for its services, to the point of costing more than many property owners can afford. So the entity decides it will take their property as compensation. Said property owners refuse. So, how does the defense entity defend the paying parties and not the non-payers, when they are all in the same place? What incentive would anyone be willing to pay for defense, if some were able to receive the benefits without paying?

Furthermore, what prevents the entity from deciding to take the property by force – who is going to stop this powerful military? Or are we assuming that everyone plays fair in this world. In an unfair world, I’d rather have a democratic gov than a military controlled one.

[Robespierre]

Let’s take it a different direction. How about the beginnings of the US – you mentioned before that colonial systems similar to them were the best chance of adopting an individualist system. Why then did the US form a federal and state body?

For a short while, it didn't, not until 1787. And even then, it took a lot of arguing and was far from unianimous. They believed, as some libertarians do today, that government can be kept small. There was no question as to whether or not it should be small, but about how small, and what specifically it should do. Anyone who is still so naive as to believe that a large centralized government can be kept small in scale and power, after viewing the american example, has no business discussing political philosophy.

Quite simply, they made a mistake. The philosophy of voluntarism and free-market economics were both just getting started. Had they had the works of Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, etc to refer to, I doubt they would have created the federal system that they did.

It is important to note, however, that secession was thought to be the ultimate check against over-powering government. This only changed in 1861 when the great dictator Lincoln decided he couldn't live without the tariff money raised in the south. Those who created the federal government never imagined it regulating everyday affairs of the citizens of the various states. The United States were thought of as seperate and individual nations, which hang together in free trade and common defense.


Why did they feel that was superior? Why did the majority of people living in that system agree? Was it because the persons drafting this system were bureaucrats themselves, protecting their own ways of life, and convincing enough to sway the masses?

They did as best they could, given their limited understanding. The wrong people won out. Had the anti-federalists won, we would be a lot better off, being ruled by the Articles of Confederation instead of the consitution.


Take defense for example. These people, acting in their own self-interests, stood up against a central government and effectively defeated it. But look how they did it – taxes, enlistment, and other facets of government behavior.

Taxes? Who collected them, and from whom were they collected? And enlistment is a government behavior? Perhaps you mean conscription? Because there was no conscription of americans during the revolutionary war.


And as a result of their efforts they formed… another government. Would they have been able to defeat the British without government aids?

What government aids? The british were the government.


Arguable. More importantly, would they have been able to defend their property if they had not formed a government, and indeed constructed an individualist society?

Obviously, yes. Almost every threat to the "security" of the US can be directly linked to actions taken by those wearing the mantle of government.


I imagine this would require a private service to provide defense of property, as each individual property owner himself could not stand up to an army.

The revolution is what happened, and it shows how the problem was solved. Men voluntarily formed large defensive armies, and won the day.


Say such an entity was formed to defend the property owners, with the intention of making a profit of course. Say this entity was successful. Now say this entity decides it wants to charge more for its services, to the point of costing more than many property owners can afford.

At this point, all who currently send them money will stop, and any of their agents will be considered not welcomed.


So the entity decides it will take their property as compensation.

Said entity is now an invader and will be fought by those whom it has oppressed. However, this scenario is unlikely in the extreme. Those running the defense service are likely smart enough to know that they can make much much more money by continuing to provide a service, than in becoming bandits. It really is crazy to seriously consider that a company could make more money by becoming violent oppressors than by providing a service.

Also, why wouldn't people just switch to defense company B? Or C?


Said property owners refuse. So, how does the defense entity defend the paying parties and not the non-payers, when they are all in the same place? What incentive would anyone be willing to pay for defense, if some were able to receive the benefits without paying?

What kind of defense are you talking about? Security from theives? Security from invading armies?


Furthermore, what prevents the entity from deciding to take the property by force

The exact same thing that prevents you from taking someone's property by force right now, the property owner and those whom he can convince to help him.


– who is going to stop this powerful military?

This idea is absurd. Who is going to PAY for this military?


Or are we assuming that everyone plays fair in this world. In an unfair world, I’d rather have a democratic gov than a military controlled one.

Please outline exactly what "fair" means. I seem to encounter this term a LOT when talking to people about these issues. It's entirely too subjective.

[Dman]

Taxes? Who collected them, and from whom were they collected? And enlistment is a government behavior? Perhaps you mean conscription? Because there was no conscription of americans during the revolutionary war.

Yes, I meant conscription. During the American revolution. (I think you’ll appreciate some of these links)

“In the American Revolution, the new state governments assumed the colonies' authority to draft men, through county militia officers, for their short-term militias. They extended it to the long-term state units of the Continental Army, but they denied Gen. George Washington's request that the central government be empowered to conscript. As the initial volunteering subsided, most states boosted enlistment bounties and held an occasional draft, producing more hired substitutes than actual draftees. Although some dissenters suffered, several states recognized Quaker and other religious conscientious objectors. In contrast to the largely middle-class, short-term militia, the long-term volunteers and substitutes of the Continental Army were mainly poor youths, white and black, who were indentured servants, laborers, unemployed drifters, recent immigrants, or the sons of marginal farmers.”
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_019500_conscription.htm

“American governments, state or national, drafted men not only to fight the Revolution…”
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_4/15_4_2.pdf

And taxes –
“Sumner is very critical of their decision. In his view, since they had decided to resist the authority of Great Britain, they needed to "subject themselves to the necessary cost of it, in money and military effort, like men." Instead, Congress cranked up the printing press and called on the states to levy taxes to retire the bills. Congress could then issue a new batch of currency. The states, however, never laid the taxes. What was worse, they began issuing their own currency to match the Continental issues. The disastrous result was that all the bills stayed in circulation, Congress and the states continually printed more, and the whole mass depreciated to almost nothing in five years. “
…
“Congress called on the states to retire the Continentals by levying taxes payable in either paper or specie. If one preferred the latter, one silver dollar would pay $40 in taxes. Over the next year, the states would retire $120 million continentals. They also levied taxes to collect their own worthless currencies. The experiment of fiat paper was over.”
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1273



What government aids? The british were the government.

Taxes and conscription, for example.


The revolution is what happened, and it shows how the problem was solved. Men voluntarily formed large defensive armies, and won the day.

See conscription, above.



Please outline exactly what "fair" means. I seem to encounter this term a LOT when talking to people about these issues. It's entirely too subjective.

By fair I was referring to not infringing upon the property rights of others.

Also that the entire world was free of government, not just one society.

[Robespierre]

Note the use of the plural "governments" in all of your references. The states may have done conscripted men, raised taxes, printed paper money, etc, but the federal government did not. And that federal government is what you were speaking of. You suggested that they all came together and formed one government to oppose the brits, and that without that one central government, the war could not have been won. Well it was, and they didn't. It has never been my contention that the people of 1770's eastern-seaboard america had a great understanding of and respect for property rights. Certainly they more of an understanding than most in the world, and more respect as well, but they also owned slaves! Not just the southern colonies, mind you, all of them.

[Dman]

Note the use of the plural "governments" in all of your references. The states may have done conscripted men, raised taxes, printed paper money, etc, but the federal government did not. And that federal government is what you were speaking of. You suggested that they all came together and formed one government to oppose the brits, and that without that one central government, the war could not have been won. Well it was, and they didn't. It has never been my contention that the people of 1770's eastern-seaboard america had a great understanding of and respect for property rights. Certainly they more of an understanding than most in the world, and more respect as well, but they also owned slaves! Not just the southern colonies, mind you, all of them.

Slight diversion, since we continue to reach an impasse (imo) -

What, in your opinion, is the primary reason(s) that most people do not accept the anarcho-capitalist system as achievable and/or superior to any current system - i.e. lack of awareness, brainwashed, disbelief, etc.?

[Robespierre]

What, in your opinion, is the primary reason(s) that most people do not accept the anarcho-capitalist system as achievable and/or superior to any current system - i.e. lack of awareness, brainwashed, disbelief, etc.?

Primarily, most people have no idea that a serious consideration of society without coercive government even exists.

A big factor for me, was history. Before I become overly interested in political philosophy, I was primarily into history. I started getting into the various revisitionist historical opinions about Lincoln, WWI, FDR, etc and finding that one's understanding of history plays a huge part in what one is willing to promote in the present.

[Architectonic]

So exchanging government for an overpowered landlord could be an interesting experiment, but I don't see it ultimately inflicting any less hardship on humankind in the long run... and besides, that landlord, or gang that needs you to pay "protection" or anything else, all can be defined as government in its own right. If you get rid of the state, you merely end up replacing it with something that maintains the same functions, with a different name. Same shit, different semantics.

Precisely. If there is no government, the rich/strong controls the poor. But how is that necessarily any different from the systems of today or the past?


Do the ends ever justify the means?

No, because the means defines the end. The justification is just a matter of opinion.

Anyway, Robespierre, what you need to illustrate is (a) why human nature has lead to the previous government systems and why it will ultimately lead to a transition into a goverment-less system. And (b) Illustrate such a system, pointing out how it will provide a workable justice system that will respect the rights of the individual (ie, prevent crime, enforce contracts etc) as well as deal with other problems - say, if not all individuals can afford all of the services needed, or the services that they do have are incomplete - for example, if an individual developed a health problem that prevented them from working and was not covered by their insurance policy? That and many other possible problems facing individuals in society.

The real problem is, even though there is no government many of the same inefficiencies (that a goverment may have) still exist - you still have to abide by someone elses terms (in a contract for example) just like you do with a goverment. You won't necessarily have a choice. Specialized services - niche markets will of course be more expensive and thus not everyone will be able to afford them. As codeElemental said, "Same shit, different semantics".

I know that my biggest resistance against the libertarian society is of course not in the ideals of the society but simply the transistionary period.

[Robespierre]

Precisely. If there is no government, the rich/strong controls the poor. But how is that necessarily any different from the systems of today or the past?

Well I don't see domination of the poor by the rich as a possible outcome. The only system which can allow such domination is one of coercion, like centralized governments.



No, because the means defines the end. The justification is just a matter of opinion.

Means define ends? What exactly does that mean?

Humans define ends with their intelligence. Goals are set which can be a product of reason or emotion or both. An example of an end would be eating. The end is consumption of nutritious goods, and means to this end could be executed in any number of ways. Growing some food, trading something in exchange for food, simply taking the food from another, etc etc. It is my position that the ends, eating, do not justify the means, theft. You are not granted the right to pillage and murder simply because you have the end of eating.


Anyway, Robespierre, what you need to illustrate is (a) why human nature has lead to the previous government systems and why it will ultimately lead to a transition into a goverment-less system.

Go back and read my conversation with Dman, much of this ground is already covered. If I have missed any specific issue you wish addressed, lay it out.


And (b) Illustrate such a system, pointing out how it will provide a workable justice system that will respect the rights of the individual (ie, prevent crime, enforce contracts etc) as well as deal with other problems - say, if not all individuals can afford all of the services needed, or the services that they do have are incomplete - for example, if an individual developed a health problem that prevented them from working and was not covered by their insurance policy? That and many other possible problems facing individuals in society.

Again, this ground has been covered. I have described the likely form and content of a purely voluntary society.


The real problem is, even though there is no government many of the same inefficiencies (that a goverment may have) still exist

The idea of inefficiencies is a fallacy. There are no systemic inefficiencies, only those perceived by individuals.


you still have to abide by someone elses terms (in a contract for example) just like you do with a goverment.

Not at all, the two situations are polar opposites. If you decide that the terms of a contract with another are unacceptible, you are perfectly free to not enter into that contract, without losing your property or freedom. This is not the case with government. There is only the illusion of choice in voting. Voting is an institution which grants people the self-edifying illusion that they have some control over their lives.


You won't necessarily have a choice. Specialized services - niche markets will of course be more expensive and thus not everyone will be able to afford them. As codeElemental said, "Same shit, different semantics".

Again, couldn't be more wrong. If there is one supplier of something, say a new type of medicine, you are still perfectly free to refuse to do business with that provider. Over time, if the demand for his product is high, but his prices are above those that people are willing to pay, the capital markets will fund competition, or the provider will be forced to lower his price.

However, with government, you MUST purchase the service, whether you deem it necessary or not. I find public schools to be a disgusting establishment of religion by government, yet I am force to fund them. That's a true monopoly.


I know that my biggest resistance against the libertarian society is of course not in the ideals of the society but simply the transistionary period.

If you actually believe in the ideals, than the transitionary period should be one of an increasingly just society.

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS