Those who are high on Capitalism, what is the nation to do with those Capitalism doesnt/isnt working for? Are they just our 'dirty little secret'? Or does America deport them? Execute them?
I don't quite follow what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that supporters of Capitalism have ever suggested that we eliminate the poor? And what do you mean by Capitalism working or not working? Are you implying that there is a system out there that works for everyone at all times? It doesn't matter if you have a mixed economy (Socialism/Capitalism), Communism, or Capitalism: there will be poverty, and there will be negative tradeoffs. If you think otherwise, you're drinking too much of the utopia Kool-Aid.
Those who are high on Capitalism, what is the nation to do with those Capitalism doesnt/isnt working for? Are they just our 'dirty little secret'? Or does America deport them? Execute them?
Capitalism requires that people be poor. There is nothing in it that requires the wealthy to share their money with the poor and such the wealthy gain a larger and larger separation from the poor hoarding their wealth. It would also be in the best interests of the wealthy to minimize the printing of money so as to maximize the return on investment of money they loan out. This would eventually lead to the extreme of Serfdom all over again: all the wealth in the hands of few and everyone else fighting for scraps.
Capitalism does not require that people be poor. I'm not sure what your definition of Capitalism is, but relatively free trade, private property, and private ownership of the production of goods and services are the fundamental values of Capitalism, not some ridiculous oligarchy system like you describe. There are ways to game the system in a capitalistic economy, just like there are ways to game a socialist economy. Let's not pretend that some outcomes define an entire social system.
Of course some have. The appeal of eugenics in the early 20th century did not come out of nowhere.
I'd love for you to connect eugenics to Adam Smith, Milton Friedman or any Economist of the 20th Century(I'll stop myself there because John Maynard Keynes was heavily into eugenics)
Less utopian liberals (not in the US sense) might of course simply accept that capitalism 'capitalizes' on people that don't succeed/have bad luck being poor. They will not be bothered so much by instances of poverty and will attempt to retain their electoral position without having to exclude the failures of their society.
Or they focus on trickle-down economics. Or on nationalism or on religion. There are plenty of ways for a liberal to look at poverty.
"Trickle-down economics" is not a policy that any economist anywhere has ever advocated. It's simply a buzzword the left uses to demonize Capitalism.
Yes, it does. Capitalism functions by using the rewards of success as an instigator for people to do things that are as profitable as possible. You can't do this if there is no downside to not being successful.
The profit motive does not by itself require that people be poor. The division of labor might require people at the bottom of the ladder, but income and social mobility are important features of Capitalism. Like I said, Capitalism does not require people to be poor.
I get that most education systems are really just "baby's first grammar school" all the way to grade 12, but come on. You should have a basic concept of what the social contract is by now. Taxes are payment for services rendered, except those services are publicly owned and operated. It is in fact the best deal you can get with your money.
Defend this position.
I don't remember signing any contract. I did not voluntarily enter into any binding agreement to be taxed a portion of my labor, etc.
I get it though, I signed the contract by default simply by being born here, and if I don't like it, I can leave.
Honestly, the proper response to this argument is simply 'quit whining'. None of us have a choice to be born, none of us have a choice to be born into the life circumstances we are, and none of us can change the basic tenets of life. The basic concept of nature is that the strong succeed where the weak don't. Human beings don't actually have any rights but what they can take or what society offers them. We can philosophize all day long, but if it's just you and me on an island, one of us will claim dominance or we could form a partnership. If you don't want to partner, and I'm bigger, stronger and smarter (more powerful) than you, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it but bow before your Alpha. Rights only exist within the social contract, so if we form a partnership, we have certain obligation in order to maintain that partnership, but at least in the partnership you have some semblance of fairness. Even if you believe in universal rights or an objective morality, God is not going to step in to guarantee your rights, all that comes later, so the situation on Earth is the same.
Since human beings are strongest in a group, we tend to band together and establish common rules enforced by the most powerful. Note, here, that power doesn't have to mean physically strongest or force of arms. Hard and Soft power apply. It can be the most persuasive, coercive, cunning as much as those with the most followers, resources or physical strength. Taxation and Government is simply the most effective way we've found to manage these large groups and enforce the group's rules.
People born into the group have four options:
A) Abide by the rules
B) Change the rules
C) Disregard the rules
D) Leave the group
You can choose any of these options, but everyone has to choose. Sometimes they choose a combination, but most people just choose A.
But you've ruled out D right away, despite it being a legitimate option, for no other reason than you don't want to do it. You aren't powerful enough for C or B. So you're only left with one (begrudging) option. It may not be 'fair', but 'fair' is something that only exists inside the social contract.
You can't have it both ways, you do not get to have all the conceptual rights that the social contract offers without participating, but that's exactly what you want. By failing to accomplish B, and not choosing C or D, you have signed the contract simply by choosing to participate. This is my problem with anarchists (including the more extreme Libertarians) in general. You can't have the benefits of a social contract without the inevitable obligations of one. If you choose to remove government, someone with power will step in.
You're free to attempt to change the system or disregard the rules, but those with more power than you are also free to keep you from doing so or retaliate. Our democratic system is still quite a bit more fair than most human systems. You are free to dissent and try to change things, but you don't get to be exempt from the social contract while still having the privileges involved.
TL;DR- You can't both shun the idea of the social contract and demand the privileges being a part of that contract provides.
Those who are high on Capitalism, what is the nation to do with those Capitalism doesnt/isnt working for? Are they just our 'dirty little secret'? Or does America deport them? Execute them?
I don't quite follow what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that supporters of Capitalism have ever suggested that we eliminate the poor? And what do you mean by Capitalism working or not working? Are you implying that there is a system out there that works for everyone at all times? It doesn't matter if you have a mixed economy (Socialism/Capitalism), Communism, or Capitalism: there will be poverty, and there will be negative tradeoffs. If you think otherwise, you're drinking too much of the utopia Kool-Aid.
Capitalism works, and works well for a small percentage of the population. The majority of the population, capitalism doesnt, they are just stuck in a system. Some so bad they can not afford shelter or to eat regularly. Yet those that capitalism works for feel those that are struggling in the system are not worth their time or money to help. In the end, we have a small group living large watching the majority suffer in the system.
I agree no system is perfect, but we really have not mixed systems to the fullest to see if we can get something that helps more people. We already know pure capitalism and pure communism dont work.
Capitalism works, and works well for a small percentage of the population. The majority of the population, capitalism doesnt, they are just stuck in a system. Some so bad they can not afford shelter or to eat regularly. Yet those that capitalism works for feel those that are struggling in the system are not worth their time or money to help. In the end, we have a small group living large watching the majority suffer in the system.
That's not true though, Capitalism has done a lot to advance technology, medicine, and the standard of living of many nations and people across the board. I think people who take this stance take a lot of the positive effects of capitalism for granted while focusing on the negative effects of bad policies, corporatism, and inflation and then attribute them to Capitalism. The problem here is black and white thinking, and ignoring the nuances that public policy and outside factors have on an economy.
I agree no system is perfect, but we really have not mixed systems to the fullest to see if we can get something that helps more people. We already know pure capitalism and communism dont work.
We don't know if pure capitalism and communism would work, because we've never actually seen either in action. Some have tried to get there, but nobody has come close. We most likely never will and honestly I doubt that we should bother trying. I feel people should focus on what they can change now and what the best course of action is in the present than to focus on what the utopia should be. Not that I think people shouldn't have utopias, but they shouldn't focus solely on the end goal.
It does, actually. That's kind of a basic tenant, where the successful accumulate wealth and the unsuccessful don't.
Capitalism does not require that there be poverty, but poverty is not the same thing as poor.
Capitalism is not zero-sum. Wealth is not a set value, it's created and expanded.
I think you misunderstood my point. Poor is a relative term while poverty is not. The point is there will always be rich and poor in a capitalist system, but poverty isn't inevitable.
Yet those that capitalism works for feel those that are struggling in the system are not worth their time or money to help.
Where in the world do you get that from? If that were true then no capitalist in the world would donate to charities, yet in our last election the republican/capitalist candidate donated by himself more money to charitable causes than the other candidate, his wife and his running mate earned earned in total.
Political and even ideological affiliation have little do do with how we feel about helping people. Generally people want to improve their position and generally people want to improve other people's positions as well. Maybe when that is realized an actual civil discourse can be had.
I think you misunderstood my point. Poor is a relative term while poverty is not. The point is there will always be rich and poor in a capitalist system, but poverty isn't inevitable.
So . . . what's wrong with having less than someone else? If I can take care of all my needs and have a bit left over to enjoy myself with, what does it matter if someone else has 10 or 100 times more than me? Why should my evaluation of my position be in any way measured by someone else's success or lack thereof?
I think you misunderstood my point. Poor is a relative term while poverty is not. The point is there will always be rich and poor in a capitalist system, but poverty isn't inevitable.
So . . . what's wrong with having less than someone else? If I can take care of all my needs and have a bit left over to enjoy myself with, what does it matter if someone else has 10 or 100 times more than me? Why should my evaluation of my position be in any way measured by someone else's success or lack thereof?
I didn't say there was anything inherently wrong with a poor/rich dynamic. The issue comes in when there is poverty, and basic services are unavailable or unaffordable. To fix that second part, you need some sort of socialist program. Socialism isn't a boogeyman, and it can work in a successful capitalist country.
That's why I said a good system would balance capitalist and socialist ideals.
It does, actually. That's kind of a basic tenant, where the successful accumulate wealth and the unsuccessful don't.
Capitalism does not require that there be poverty, but poverty is not the same thing as poor.
Capitalism is not zero-sum. Wealth is not a set value, it's created and expanded.
I think you misunderstood my point. Poor is a relative term while poverty is not. The point is there will always be rich and poor in a capitalist system, but poverty isn't inevitable.
No, I understand what you're saying. But even if you're relatively poor compared to the top 1% of your nation, do you consider yourself poor? I doubt the upper middle class of the United States would consider themselves poor, even though they are relatively poorer than the top 1%. That's not really how the statement "Capitalism requires that people be poor" was presented though (the post that I quoted). It was presented as if there is a fixed pie of wealth and that in order for someone to be successful, someone else has to lose. That's simply not how it works.
Yet those that capitalism works for feel those that are struggling in the system are not worth their time or money to help.
Where in the world do you get that from? If that were true then no capitalist in the world would donate to charities, yet in our last election the republican/capitalist candidate donated by himself more money to charitable causes than the other candidate, his wife and his running mate earned earned in total.
Political and even ideological affiliation have little do do with how we feel about helping people. Generally people want to improve their position and generally people want to improve other people's positions as well. Maybe when that is realized an actual civil discourse can be had.
Charity and helping those at or under the poverty level are not the same. Just because some billionaire gives computers to an inner city school district, doesnt mean those kids will be any less in poverty.
All you have to do is look at poverty and homeless numbers to see you are wrong.
To many capitalism is not different then communism or a monarchy at this point in time. The system is not working for the majority and the few are building fortunes off those the system isnt working for.
What is a system supposed to do for people that they can't do now?
How do you define the system working for someone? It looks like in 2011 the median income in the US was about $50k, if poverty level is defined as ~$20k, then it would seem the current system is working for the majority. So I'm thinking you must have a different definition of what that means.
I get that most education systems are really just "baby's first grammar school" all the way to grade 12, but come on. You should have a basic concept of what the social contract is by now. Taxes are payment for services rendered, except those services are publicly owned and operated. It is in fact the best deal you can get with your money.
Defend this position.
I don't remember signing any contract. I did not voluntarily enter into any binding agreement to be taxed a portion of my labor, etc.
I get it though, I signed the contract by default simply by being born here, and if I don't like it, I can leave.
Honestly, the proper response to this argument is simply 'quit whining'. None of us have a choice to be born, none of us have a choice to be born into the life circumstances we are, and none of us can change the basic tenets of life. The basic concept of nature is that the strong succeed where the weak don't. Human beings don't actually have any rights but what they can take or what society offers them. We can philosophize all day long, but if it's just you and me on an island, one of us will claim dominance or we could form a partnership. If you don't want to partner, and I'm bigger, stronger and smarter (more powerful) than you, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it but bow before your Alpha. Rights only exist within the social contract, so if we form a partnership, we have certain obligation in order to maintain that partnership, but at least in the partnership you have some semblance of fairness. Even if you believe in universal rights or an objective morality, God is not going to step in to guarantee your rights, all that comes later, so the situation on Earth is the same.
Since human beings are strongest in a group, we tend to band together and establish common rules enforced by the most powerful. Note, here, that power doesn't have to mean physically strongest or force of arms. Hard and Soft power apply. It can be the most persuasive, coercive, cunning as much as those with the most followers, resources or physical strength. Taxation and Government is simply the most effective way we've found to manage these large groups and enforce the group's rules.
People born into the group have four options:
A) Abide by the rules
B) Change the rules
C) Disregard the rules
D) Leave the group
You can choose any of these options, but everyone has to choose. Sometimes they choose a combination, but most people just choose A.
But you've ruled out D right away, despite it being a legitimate option, for no other reason than you don't want to do it. You aren't powerful enough for C or B. So you're only left with one (begrudging) option. It may not be 'fair', but 'fair' is something that only exists inside the social contract.
You can't have it both ways, you do not get to have all the conceptual rights that the social contract offers without participating, but that's exactly what you want. By failing to accomplish B, and not choosing C or D, you have signed the contract simply by choosing to participate. This is my problem with anarchists (including the more extreme Libertarians) in general. You can't have the benefits of a social contract without the inevitable obligations of one. If you choose to remove government, someone with power will step in.
You're free to attempt to change the system or disregard the rules, but those with more power than you are also free to keep you from doing so or retaliate. Our democratic system is still quite a bit more fair than most human systems. You are free to dissent and try to change things, but you don't get to be exempt from the social contract while still having the privileges involved.
TL;DR- You can't both shun the idea of the social contract and demand the privileges being a part of that contract provides.
Well, I'm not an anarchist, or even an anarcho-capitalist. I'd say I'm a minarchist.
I was simply pointing out that "Social Contract" has always been a de facto form of self-sold-slavery. None of us signed up per se, but opting out is virtually impossible thanks to, as was mentioned, the market of nations.
Where exactly does one run off to freedom? When everywhere is pretty much just another farm? Will I be free in Canada? in Mexico? In Denmark? In Ukraine? In Iran?
Heck, even people who live out in remote parts of Alaska where the only way in or out is by plane, still enjoy the regular visitations of someone with a badge and a gun telling them what's allowed or not allowed.
We are all born on the farm. True there are other farms, and you get to decide which one you live on. Some really suck (looking at you North Korea), some are barely tolerable (looking at you Russia), and some appear to let the cows run wild (good old 'Murrrica!). But claiming they are not tax farms is either ignorant, or just disingenuous. They most certainly are tax farms. Always have been, always will be.
Now, as a pessimist, and a minarchist, and a realist, I have come to accept the nature of the thing, and I see that the farm I live on is about as good as it gets. It appears we have a high level of freedom, and a high level of self-actualization. The beatings are relatively light compared to other farms, and the chance to find some amount of happiness until you die is relatively higher than most.
I like government. I like the rule of law. I've never once argued for anarchy or lawlessness. I desire a small, just, and accountable government.
However, the reality of free range cattle is NOT freedom - but better milk and steak.
The farmers give us freedoms to increase their yields. It's not hard to understand.
What is a system supposed to do for people that they can't do now?
How do you define the system working for someone? It looks like in 2011 the median income in the US was about $50k, if poverty level is defined as ~$20k, then it would seem the current system is working for the majority. So I'm thinking you must have a different definition of what that means.
Like has been explained, there is a difference between poor and poverty. What percentage of the population in in poverty? What percentage of people are homeless? If you can honestly look at those numbers and say it isnt that bad, then you are right, you and I have a very different definition of 'working'.
I was simply pointing out that "Social Contract" has always been a de facto form of self-sold-slavery. None of us signed up per se, but opting out is virtually impossible thanks to, as was mentioned, the market of nations.
Where exactly does one run off to freedom? When everywhere is pretty much just another farm? Will I be free in Canada? in Mexico? In Denmark? In Ukraine? In Iran?
Heck, even people who live out in remote parts of Alaska where the only way in or out is by plane, still enjoy the regular visitations of someone with a badge and a gun telling them what's allowed or not allowed.
While I understand your concern, what I'm not sure most people get is that the current large nation situation is inevitable.
But in terms of where to go? Off the grid, man. Even the people living out in Alaska you mention are still technically 'on the grid'
And that's just it. You're defining the world the way people who live within the social contract do. If you don't subscribe to the social contract, there are no countries, you'd just be trading one imposed contract for another. If you really don't want to be a part of the social contract, don't be a part of it. You should consider everyone else members of a rival tribe and find a place to eek out a living in defiance of your rival tribes. If you're unwilling or unable to do to so, I've already told you what to do. Bow before your Alpha That's reality.
You are more than able to simply not pay taxes, to walk into the woods one day and make your own living as a Mountain Man - people do it. The complaint that the government will come after you is a silly one. Of course they will! They're a rival, and that's the cost of being independent from a society: the society is always going to be stronger than you alone, meaning it can take what it wants from you. So you have a choice, serve the social contract or deal with the consequences of defying the Alpha. Reality isn't fair, and the strong get what they want. The idea that society is stealing from you through is ironic because society is the only thing keeping you from a state of nature where the strong can take what they want from you. So instead of getting everything taken from you, 'they' take a little to ensure that no one else takes the rest.
I participate in the social contract because it serves my interests well enough, but if it were ever to stop doing so I wouldn't complain about it. I'd simply stop participating in the social constructs of society and attempt to take what I want. This is my biggest problems with anarchists (and I'm including all the more extreme political beliefs here that are essentially a version of anarchy). They're all talk. If you want a severe societal shift, you have to be willing to pay the price for it. You don't get to live your comfy life and change things. You can't be an armchair revolutionary.
Now, as a pessimist, and a minarchist, and a realist, I have come to accept the nature of the thing, and I see that the farm I live on is about as good as it gets. It appears we have a high level of freedom, and a high level of self-actualization. The beatings are relatively light compared to other farms, and the chance to find some amount of happiness until you die is relatively higher than most.
I like government. I like the rule of law. I've never once argued for anarchy or lawlessness. I desire a small, just, and accountable government.
I think we're actually pretty close in opinion, it just seems to be pretty clear that you're missing a vital component of the whole deal. You're so concerned about being trapped on the farm, you're missing the bigger picture. I'll use your farm example to explain, because it's actually quite apt.
First, never forget that we inherited the farm. It wasn't imposed on us, it was given to us, for better or worse, as the best solution our ancestors could come up with to date.
To put it in simple terms, we're domesticated animals and there are wolves outside the fence. The farm is the construct we developed to keep ourselves safe from the wolves. Is it perfect? No. Does it require sacrifices we may not agree with? Sure. But it certainly beats having to fight for survival. I honestly think most libertarian idealists forget about the wolves.
The wolves being people who operate in a way society would deem unfair or criminal, they represent disease, competition from other animals, the struggle for resources, etc.
However, the reality of free range cattle is NOT freedom - but better milk and steak.
Free range cattle are also easier targets for the dangers outside the fence. All the truly free cattle have already been hunted down by stronger creatures. The rest banded together to build the fence. You see where your analogy starts to fall part? You're trying to imply that the farm construct isn't a good thing because it restrains freedom, without recognizing that the cattle have flourished with fences to protect them.
You know, I don't like the farm analogy as much as I did a while ago, because it implies control belongs in the hands of an other, some creature that isn't also one of us. But it isn't. We built the walls we did because the alternative sucked, and wanted something better. It's by no means perfect, but I'm hard pressed to say otherwise. So is it self-sold slavery? Maybe, but that would be true of anyone participating in any societal construct.
In any case, this conceptual background gets me to the real point of smaller government. Where would you make the cuts? I know many conservatives hate the FDA, but the alternative are a lot of bad products on the market. I honestly feel like too many conservatives skipped The Jungle in favor Atlas Shrugged. But the solution isn't getting rid of the FDA, it's finding out what works and what doesn't, and fix what doesn't. The regulations that exist are largely there for a reason.
I don't like the expense of government, either, but 2/3rds of our spending (funded through taxation) are on Military, Medicare and Social Security. If you want to talk 'smaller' government, those are the only three issues we should be looking at. Anything else is symbolic at best - we could literally cut everything else in government and still not successfully solved the problem.
So, how do we go about fixing those issues? Social Security is such a problem because of the American independent spirit. Children no longer belief it's their duty to care for their parents but don't want them to die, and parents don't want to be a burden or dependent but also won't kill themselves like older societies that found their way into the same conundrum. So how do we reconcile the fact that one of the biggest socialist programs we have exists as an almost direct result of our belief in freedom and independence? That's an honest question, because I don't have the answer.
I've already let this go long enough so I won't get into the other two, but I think you get where I'm going with this How do we preserve the quality of life we've become accustomed in the transition to without sacrificing the less fortunate of our society? Is a slight increase in your perceived lack of freedoms (lack of freedom being code for increased paycheck) worth someone else's life? If you can't answer yes, you shouldn't push for a system where that would happen (and this is the plural 'you', none of this is targeting you in particular). I want an efficient government as much as an Republican, but I don't think smaller is necessarily any more efficient or effective than large government, especially when talking about a country as large and populous as the US.
Apologies for typos, thanks for giving me an opportunity to rant a little, buddy
What is a system supposed to do for people that they can't do now?
How do you define the system working for someone? It looks like in 2011 the median income in the US was about $50k, if poverty level is defined as ~$20k, then it would seem the current system is working for the majority. So I'm thinking you must have a different definition of what that means.
Like has been explained, there is a difference between poor and poverty. What percentage of the population in in poverty? What percentage of people are homeless? If you can honestly look at those numbers and say it isnt that bad, then you are right, you and I have a very different definition of 'working'.
So, what does it mean to you? What would a system that "works" accomplish? Not just the ends, but the means to get there as well.
I was simply pointing out that "Social Contract" has always been a de facto form of self-sold-slavery. None of us signed up per se, but opting out is virtually impossible thanks to, as was mentioned, the market of nations.
My point with the market of nations is that you can opt out, you can go pick from whatever social contracts the market offers or even make a new one.
I'd challenge the notion that slavery remains meaningful when applied to the social contract. Even anarchy has a social contract (often a very detailed one). The only systems that don't have social contracts are ones where it is impossible for two people to ever be in association with each other. For some reason those ones always die out within about one generation.
Indeed even the notion that "I don't remember signing anything" has standing as an argument is based on a social contract.
Well, I'm not an anarchist, or even an anarcho-capitalist. I'd say I'm a minarchist.
What is a minarchist?
Unlike an anarchist who wants no government, a minarchist generally wants the minimum amount of government necessary to maintain the rule of law, and the settlement of conflicts between parties.
I was simply pointing out that "Social Contract" has always been a de facto form of self-sold-slavery. None of us signed up per se, but opting out is virtually impossible thanks to, as was mentioned, the market of nations.
Where exactly does one run off to freedom? When everywhere is pretty much just another farm? Will I be free in Canada? in Mexico? In Denmark? In Ukraine? In Iran?
Heck, even people who live out in remote parts of Alaska where the only way in or out is by plane, still enjoy the regular visitations of someone with a badge and a gun telling them what's allowed or not allowed.
While I understand your concern, what I'm not sure most people get is that the current large nation situation is inevitable.
Oh I definitely see the inevitability.
But in terms of where to go? Off the grid, man. Even the people living out in Alaska you mention are still technically 'on the grid'
Yep.
And that's just it. You're defining the world the way people who live within the social contract do. If you don't subscribe to the social contract, there are no countries, you'd just be trading one imposed contract for another. If you really don't want to be a part of the social contract, don't be a part of it. You should consider everyone else members of a rival tribe and find a place to eek out a living in defiance of your rival tribes. If you're unwilling or unable to do to so, I've already told you what to do. Bow before your Alpha That's reality.
There are few habitable places where you can go "off-grid". Even the deep forest is usually state or federal land, and barring a homesteaders agreement with whoever governs that neck of the woods, expect to get evicted by someone with a badge.
You are more than able to simply not pay taxes, to walk into the woods one day and make your own living as a Mountain Man - people do it. The complaint that the government will come after you is a silly one. Of course they will! They're a rival, and that's the cost of being independent from a society: the society is always going to be stronger than you alone, meaning it can take what it wants from you. So you have a choice, serve the social contract or deal with the consequences of defying the Alpha. Reality isn't fair, and the strong get what they want. The idea that society is stealing from you through is ironic because society is the only thing keeping you from a state of nature where the strong can take what they want from you. So instead of getting everything taken from you, 'they' take a little to ensure that no one else takes the rest.
You are correct - believe me I get it.
The option is basically to let someone steal 10% of my labor - as opposed to having it all stolen by roving bands of slavers.
I participate in the social contract because it serves my interests well enough, but if it were ever to stop doing so I wouldn't complain about it. I'd simply stop participating in the social constructs of society and attempt to take what I want. This is my biggest problems with anarchists (and I'm including all the more extreme political beliefs here that are essentially a version of anarchy). They're all talk. If you want a severe societal shift, you have to be willing to pay the price for it. You don't get to live your comfy life and change things. You can't be an armchair revolutionary.
Now, as a pessimist, and a minarchist, and a realist, I have come to accept the nature of the thing, and I see that the farm I live on is about as good as it gets. It appears we have a high level of freedom, and a high level of self-actualization. The beatings are relatively light compared to other farms, and the chance to find some amount of happiness until you die is relatively higher than most.
I like government. I like the rule of law. I've never once argued for anarchy or lawlessness. I desire a small, just, and accountable government.
I think we're actually pretty close in opinion, it just seems to be pretty clear that you're missing a vital component of the whole deal. You're so concerned about being trapped on the farm, you're missing the bigger picture. I'll use your farm example to explain, because it's actually quite apt.
First, never forget that we inherited the farm. It wasn't imposed on us, it was given to us, for better or worse, as the best solution our ancestors could come up with to date.
To put it in simple terms, we're domesticated animals and there are wolves outside the fence.
While this is true, it's too simplistic. Sometimes the wolf is not as bad as the butcher, and sometimes we have a better chance at facing wolves, than we do the slaughterhouse.
The farm is the construct we developed to keep ourselves safe from the wolves. Is it perfect? No. Does it require sacrifices we may not agree with? Sure. But it certainly beats having to fight for survival. I honestly think most libertarian idealists forget about the wolves.
I'm reminded of a recent movie starring Leonardo Di Caprio.
Are we not living in a situation today where the real wolves are running the farm?
Where greedy, corrupt, selfish bastards manipulate and control the farmers?
A strong argument could be made that we are.
The wolves being people who operate in a way society would deem unfair or criminal, they represent disease, competition from other animals, the struggle for resources, etc.
I fail to see how the fences are working though.
Women are raped, kids are killed, drunk drivers wipe people out, we have the highest incarceration rate, recidivism is high - exactly how is the government is keeping the wolves at bay?
However, the reality of free range cattle is NOT freedom - but better milk and steak.
Free range cattle are also easier targets for the dangers outside the fence. All the truly free cattle have already been hunted down by stronger creatures. The rest banded together to build the fence. You see where your analogy starts to fall part? You're trying to imply that the farm construct isn't a good thing because it restrains freedom, without recognizing that the cattle have flourished with fences to protect them.
I guess.
I am willing to concede that the cattle have flourished more than they might have without the fences. hence, the minarchism.
You know, I don't like the farm analogy as much as I did a while ago, because it implies control belongs in the hands of an other, some creature that isn't also one of us. But it isn't. We built the walls we did because the alternative sucked, and wanted something better. It's by no means perfect, but I'm hard pressed to say otherwise. So is it self-sold slavery? Maybe, but that would be true of anyone participating in any societal construct.
I agree. "The enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."
~ Karl von Clausewitz
The issue then becomes, can we do better? If the answer is yes, why don't we?
I would answer, because those who have been in power and have risen to power have construed the system to work in their favor for long that real effective changes are next to impossible.
In any case, this conceptual background gets me to the real point of smaller government. Where would you make the cuts? I know many conservatives hate the FDA, but the alternative are a lot of bad products on the market. I honestly feel like too many conservatives skipped The Jungle in favor Atlas Shrugged. But the solution isn't getting rid of the FDA, it's finding out what works and what doesn't, and fix what doesn't. The regulations that exist are largely there for a reason.
Well, I would certainly start out with reducing our military interventionism and warmongering, then go from there.
I don't like the expense of government, either, but 2/3rds of our spending (funded through taxation) are on Military, Medicare and Social Security. If you want to talk 'smaller' government, those are the only three issues we should be looking at. Anything else is symbolic at best - we could literally cut everything else in government and still not successfully solved the problem.
Let's not forget that we already have trillions in unfunded liabilities. The oxen living today will surely fight to receive what has been promised to them, even if the fulfillment of those promises guarantee that their children, and their grandchildren, and their great grandchildren will be born unto the same yokes that weighed upon their necks.
So, how do we go about fixing those issues? Social Security is such a problem because of the American independent spirit. Children no longer belief it's their duty to care for their parents but don't want them to die, and parents don't want to be a burden or dependent but also won't kill themselves like older societies that found their way into the same conundrum. So how do we reconcile the fact that one of the biggest socialist programs we have exists as an almost direct result of our belief in freedom and independence? That's an honest question, because I don't have the answer.
I have an answer, but it's unpopular and ugly.
I've already let this go long enough so I won't get into the other two, but I think you get where I'm going with this How do we preserve the quality of life we've become accustomed in the transition to without sacrificing the less fortunate of our society? Is a slight increase in your perceived lack of freedoms (lack of freedom being code for increased paycheck) worth someone else's life? If you can't answer yes, you shouldn't push for a system where that would happen (and this is the plural 'you', none of this is targeting you in particular). I want an efficient government as much as an Republican, but I don't think smaller is necessarily any more efficient or effective than large government, especially when talking about a country as large and populous as the US.
You show here a difference that you and I would have fundamentally.
Not that I don't care about the less fortunate, but instead of safety nets, I'd rather people learn to fly.
I believe we should not strive to ensure we get the most people possible, or have people live as long as they can, but to ensure that we develop the best possible people, who live happy and enriching lives.
(Please do not construe that into some sort of racist thing where I'm calling for a resurgence of eugenics, as many people jump to that conclusion)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
What is a system supposed to do for people that they can't do now?
How do you define the system working for someone? It looks like in 2011 the median income in the US was about $50k, if poverty level is defined as ~$20k, then it would seem the current system is working for the majority. So I'm thinking you must have a different definition of what that means.
Like has been explained, there is a difference between poor and poverty. What percentage of the population in in poverty? What percentage of people are homeless? If you can honestly look at those numbers and say it isnt that bad, then you are right, you and I have a very different definition of 'working'.
So, what does it mean to you? What would a system that "works" accomplish? Not just the ends, but the means to get there as well.
Ends to a means? You have seen the defense spending of late...right?
As long as we have homeless and people starving we are spending the monies in the wrong areas.
Ends to a means? You have seen the defense spending of late...right?
As long as we have homeless and people starving we are spending the monies in the wrong areas.
Is that supposed to be an answer? You proposal to fix poverty is simply to reduce defense spending? Then what, do we give people in poverty cash? Is that what you think will make the system work for everyone?
I'm not understanding your position. I see you have some vehement one liners opposing me, but I'd like to know what do you think ought to be done?
Who's saying that an investment bank should be functioning like a charity? We already have private organizations designed to help the poor. The Salvation Army doesn't have the ability to initiate force and take away money at gunpoint like the government does. The SA and other organizations similar to it can only get money by people voluntarily giving money.
Okay, so. You saw the point, but took a sharp left on to Irrelevance Street and kept going all the way down to Completely Missed the Point Avenue.
How exactly does bureaucracy solve the issue of corruption? If anything, more bureaucracy exacerbates it. It's the corporations that thrive from all the massive bureaucracy that government creates. You know, the same corporations that you and many people on the forums here hate. Smaller businesses and individuals don't have armies of lawyers or time and money devoted to compliance.
One person in charge, you just need to own that person. One hundred people in charge you need to own fifty of them. But then there's another fifty which are not owned by you, and so may end up working against you.
This is of course predicated on the assumption that your bureaucracy is not composed of the aging and elderly, who think the internet is witchcraft and ten bucks can still buy you a nice night out.
The social contract really isn't a good excuse to justify statism of any kind. In fact, the social contract really isn't a contract at all when you think about it.
It is, though. You live in the country and you abide by the terms that country has set. Consider taxes just as a monthly subscription for your continued legal residence.
I mean, you could try that whole Freeman nonsense, but it doesn't end very well.
A contract requires two parties; it is not a unilateral instrument. Furthermore, it requires a meeting of the minds (effectively, both parties understand what they're agreeing to), clear terms, actual agreement, and exchange of considerations (you don't need a contract to give a gift).
Old papers signed by the dead are not contracts binding on the living. You can't sign a contract for other people (without their explicit permission, e.g., power of attorney).
Living in the country is an implicit agreement.
Pay up, or you get either put in a cage or shot.
Right, because private companies won't gouge prices or strongarm you into paying fees. Haha. Suuuure.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't quite follow what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that supporters of Capitalism have ever suggested that we eliminate the poor? And what do you mean by Capitalism working or not working? Are you implying that there is a system out there that works for everyone at all times? It doesn't matter if you have a mixed economy (Socialism/Capitalism), Communism, or Capitalism: there will be poverty, and there will be negative tradeoffs. If you think otherwise, you're drinking too much of the utopia Kool-Aid.
Capitalism does not require that people be poor. I'm not sure what your definition of Capitalism is, but relatively free trade, private property, and private ownership of the production of goods and services are the fundamental values of Capitalism, not some ridiculous oligarchy system like you describe. There are ways to game the system in a capitalistic economy, just like there are ways to game a socialist economy. Let's not pretend that some outcomes define an entire social system.
There are, people just like to pretend that idiots like Ron Paul or Alex Jones speak for all of us.
I'd love for you to connect eugenics to Adam Smith, Milton Friedman or any
Economist of the 20th Century(I'll stop myself there because John Maynard Keynes was heavily into eugenics)"Trickle-down economics" is not a policy that any economist anywhere has ever advocated. It's simply a buzzword the left uses to demonize Capitalism.
The profit motive does not by itself require that people be poor. The division of labor might require people at the bottom of the ladder, but income and social mobility are important features of Capitalism. Like I said, Capitalism does not require people to be poor.
Honestly, the proper response to this argument is simply 'quit whining'. None of us have a choice to be born, none of us have a choice to be born into the life circumstances we are, and none of us can change the basic tenets of life. The basic concept of nature is that the strong succeed where the weak don't. Human beings don't actually have any rights but what they can take or what society offers them. We can philosophize all day long, but if it's just you and me on an island, one of us will claim dominance or we could form a partnership. If you don't want to partner, and I'm bigger, stronger and smarter (more powerful) than you, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it but bow before your Alpha. Rights only exist within the social contract, so if we form a partnership, we have certain obligation in order to maintain that partnership, but at least in the partnership you have some semblance of fairness. Even if you believe in universal rights or an objective morality, God is not going to step in to guarantee your rights, all that comes later, so the situation on Earth is the same.
Since human beings are strongest in a group, we tend to band together and establish common rules enforced by the most powerful. Note, here, that power doesn't have to mean physically strongest or force of arms. Hard and Soft power apply. It can be the most persuasive, coercive, cunning as much as those with the most followers, resources or physical strength. Taxation and Government is simply the most effective way we've found to manage these large groups and enforce the group's rules.
People born into the group have four options:
A) Abide by the rules
B) Change the rules
C) Disregard the rules
D) Leave the group
You can choose any of these options, but everyone has to choose. Sometimes they choose a combination, but most people just choose A.
But you've ruled out D right away, despite it being a legitimate option, for no other reason than you don't want to do it. You aren't powerful enough for C or B. So you're only left with one (begrudging) option. It may not be 'fair', but 'fair' is something that only exists inside the social contract.
You can't have it both ways, you do not get to have all the conceptual rights that the social contract offers without participating, but that's exactly what you want. By failing to accomplish B, and not choosing C or D, you have signed the contract simply by choosing to participate. This is my problem with anarchists (including the more extreme Libertarians) in general. You can't have the benefits of a social contract without the inevitable obligations of one. If you choose to remove government, someone with power will step in.
You're free to attempt to change the system or disregard the rules, but those with more power than you are also free to keep you from doing so or retaliate. Our democratic system is still quite a bit more fair than most human systems. You are free to dissent and try to change things, but you don't get to be exempt from the social contract while still having the privileges involved.
TL;DR- You can't both shun the idea of the social contract and demand the privileges being a part of that contract provides.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Capitalism works, and works well for a small percentage of the population. The majority of the population, capitalism doesnt, they are just stuck in a system. Some so bad they can not afford shelter or to eat regularly. Yet those that capitalism works for feel those that are struggling in the system are not worth their time or money to help. In the end, we have a small group living large watching the majority suffer in the system.
I agree no system is perfect, but we really have not mixed systems to the fullest to see if we can get something that helps more people. We already know pure capitalism and pure communism dont work.
It does, actually. That's kind of a basic tenant, where the successful accumulate wealth and the unsuccessful don't.
Capitalism does not require that there be poverty, but poverty is not the same thing as poor.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
That's not true though, Capitalism has done a lot to advance technology, medicine, and the standard of living of many nations and people across the board. I think people who take this stance take a lot of the positive effects of capitalism for granted while focusing on the negative effects of bad policies, corporatism, and inflation and then attribute them to Capitalism. The problem here is black and white thinking, and ignoring the nuances that public policy and outside factors have on an economy.
We don't know if pure capitalism and communism would work, because we've never actually seen either in action. Some have tried to get there, but nobody has come close. We most likely never will and honestly I doubt that we should bother trying. I feel people should focus on what they can change now and what the best course of action is in the present than to focus on what the utopia should be. Not that I think people shouldn't have utopias, but they shouldn't focus solely on the end goal.
It clearly refers to something that doesn't exist, or better yet to something that's constantly misunderstood.
Capitalism is not zero-sum. Wealth is not a set value, it's created and expanded.
I think you misunderstood my point. Poor is a relative term while poverty is not. The point is there will always be rich and poor in a capitalist system, but poverty isn't inevitable.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Where in the world do you get that from? If that were true then no capitalist in the world would donate to charities, yet in our last election the republican/capitalist candidate donated by himself more money to charitable causes than the other candidate, his wife and his running mate earned earned in total.
Political and even ideological affiliation have little do do with how we feel about helping people. Generally people want to improve their position and generally people want to improve other people's positions as well. Maybe when that is realized an actual civil discourse can be had.
So . . . what's wrong with having less than someone else? If I can take care of all my needs and have a bit left over to enjoy myself with, what does it matter if someone else has 10 or 100 times more than me? Why should my evaluation of my position be in any way measured by someone else's success or lack thereof?
I didn't say there was anything inherently wrong with a poor/rich dynamic. The issue comes in when there is poverty, and basic services are unavailable or unaffordable. To fix that second part, you need some sort of socialist program. Socialism isn't a boogeyman, and it can work in a successful capitalist country.
That's why I said a good system would balance capitalist and socialist ideals.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
No, I understand what you're saying. But even if you're relatively poor compared to the top 1% of your nation, do you consider yourself poor? I doubt the upper middle class of the United States would consider themselves poor, even though they are relatively poorer than the top 1%. That's not really how the statement "Capitalism requires that people be poor" was presented though (the post that I quoted). It was presented as if there is a fixed pie of wealth and that in order for someone to be successful, someone else has to lose. That's simply not how it works.
Charity and helping those at or under the poverty level are not the same. Just because some billionaire gives computers to an inner city school district, doesnt mean those kids will be any less in poverty.
All you have to do is look at poverty and homeless numbers to see you are wrong.
To many capitalism is not different then communism or a monarchy at this point in time. The system is not working for the majority and the few are building fortunes off those the system isnt working for.
What is a system supposed to do for people that they can't do now?
How do you define the system working for someone? It looks like in 2011 the median income in the US was about $50k, if poverty level is defined as ~$20k, then it would seem the current system is working for the majority. So I'm thinking you must have a different definition of what that means.
Well, I'm not an anarchist, or even an anarcho-capitalist. I'd say I'm a minarchist.
I was simply pointing out that "Social Contract" has always been a de facto form of self-sold-slavery. None of us signed up per se, but opting out is virtually impossible thanks to, as was mentioned, the market of nations.
Where exactly does one run off to freedom? When everywhere is pretty much just another farm? Will I be free in Canada? in Mexico? In Denmark? In Ukraine? In Iran?
Heck, even people who live out in remote parts of Alaska where the only way in or out is by plane, still enjoy the regular visitations of someone with a badge and a gun telling them what's allowed or not allowed.
We are all born on the farm. True there are other farms, and you get to decide which one you live on. Some really suck (looking at you North Korea), some are barely tolerable (looking at you Russia), and some appear to let the cows run wild (good old 'Murrrica!). But claiming they are not tax farms is either ignorant, or just disingenuous. They most certainly are tax farms. Always have been, always will be.
Now, as a pessimist, and a minarchist, and a realist, I have come to accept the nature of the thing, and I see that the farm I live on is about as good as it gets. It appears we have a high level of freedom, and a high level of self-actualization. The beatings are relatively light compared to other farms, and the chance to find some amount of happiness until you die is relatively higher than most.
I like government. I like the rule of law. I've never once argued for anarchy or lawlessness. I desire a small, just, and accountable government.
However, the reality of free range cattle is NOT freedom - but better milk and steak.
The farmers give us freedoms to increase their yields. It's not hard to understand.
Pretty much everything here has only gotten worse, not better, and this is like 20 years old.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcE5qLtiQLU
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Like has been explained, there is a difference between poor and poverty. What percentage of the population in in poverty? What percentage of people are homeless? If you can honestly look at those numbers and say it isnt that bad, then you are right, you and I have a very different definition of 'working'.
What is a minarchist?
While I understand your concern, what I'm not sure most people get is that the current large nation situation is inevitable.
But in terms of where to go? Off the grid, man. Even the people living out in Alaska you mention are still technically 'on the grid'
And that's just it. You're defining the world the way people who live within the social contract do. If you don't subscribe to the social contract, there are no countries, you'd just be trading one imposed contract for another. If you really don't want to be a part of the social contract, don't be a part of it. You should consider everyone else members of a rival tribe and find a place to eek out a living in defiance of your rival tribes. If you're unwilling or unable to do to so, I've already told you what to do. Bow before your Alpha That's reality.
You are more than able to simply not pay taxes, to walk into the woods one day and make your own living as a Mountain Man - people do it. The complaint that the government will come after you is a silly one. Of course they will! They're a rival, and that's the cost of being independent from a society: the society is always going to be stronger than you alone, meaning it can take what it wants from you. So you have a choice, serve the social contract or deal with the consequences of defying the Alpha. Reality isn't fair, and the strong get what they want. The idea that society is stealing from you through is ironic because society is the only thing keeping you from a state of nature where the strong can take what they want from you. So instead of getting everything taken from you, 'they' take a little to ensure that no one else takes the rest.
I participate in the social contract because it serves my interests well enough, but if it were ever to stop doing so I wouldn't complain about it. I'd simply stop participating in the social constructs of society and attempt to take what I want. This is my biggest problems with anarchists (and I'm including all the more extreme political beliefs here that are essentially a version of anarchy). They're all talk. If you want a severe societal shift, you have to be willing to pay the price for it. You don't get to live your comfy life and change things. You can't be an armchair revolutionary.
I think we're actually pretty close in opinion, it just seems to be pretty clear that you're missing a vital component of the whole deal. You're so concerned about being trapped on the farm, you're missing the bigger picture. I'll use your farm example to explain, because it's actually quite apt.
First, never forget that we inherited the farm. It wasn't imposed on us, it was given to us, for better or worse, as the best solution our ancestors could come up with to date.
To put it in simple terms, we're domesticated animals and there are wolves outside the fence. The farm is the construct we developed to keep ourselves safe from the wolves. Is it perfect? No. Does it require sacrifices we may not agree with? Sure. But it certainly beats having to fight for survival. I honestly think most libertarian idealists forget about the wolves.
The wolves being people who operate in a way society would deem unfair or criminal, they represent disease, competition from other animals, the struggle for resources, etc.
Free range cattle are also easier targets for the dangers outside the fence. All the truly free cattle have already been hunted down by stronger creatures. The rest banded together to build the fence. You see where your analogy starts to fall part? You're trying to imply that the farm construct isn't a good thing because it restrains freedom, without recognizing that the cattle have flourished with fences to protect them.
You know, I don't like the farm analogy as much as I did a while ago, because it implies control belongs in the hands of an other, some creature that isn't also one of us. But it isn't. We built the walls we did because the alternative sucked, and wanted something better. It's by no means perfect, but I'm hard pressed to say otherwise. So is it self-sold slavery? Maybe, but that would be true of anyone participating in any societal construct.
In any case, this conceptual background gets me to the real point of smaller government. Where would you make the cuts? I know many conservatives hate the FDA, but the alternative are a lot of bad products on the market. I honestly feel like too many conservatives skipped The Jungle in favor Atlas Shrugged. But the solution isn't getting rid of the FDA, it's finding out what works and what doesn't, and fix what doesn't. The regulations that exist are largely there for a reason.
I don't like the expense of government, either, but 2/3rds of our spending (funded through taxation) are on Military, Medicare and Social Security. If you want to talk 'smaller' government, those are the only three issues we should be looking at. Anything else is symbolic at best - we could literally cut everything else in government and still not successfully solved the problem.
So, how do we go about fixing those issues? Social Security is such a problem because of the American independent spirit. Children no longer belief it's their duty to care for their parents but don't want them to die, and parents don't want to be a burden or dependent but also won't kill themselves like older societies that found their way into the same conundrum. So how do we reconcile the fact that one of the biggest socialist programs we have exists as an almost direct result of our belief in freedom and independence? That's an honest question, because I don't have the answer.
I've already let this go long enough so I won't get into the other two, but I think you get where I'm going with this How do we preserve the quality of life we've become accustomed in the transition to without sacrificing the less fortunate of our society? Is a slight increase in your perceived lack of freedoms (lack of freedom being code for increased paycheck) worth someone else's life? If you can't answer yes, you shouldn't push for a system where that would happen (and this is the plural 'you', none of this is targeting you in particular). I want an efficient government as much as an Republican, but I don't think smaller is necessarily any more efficient or effective than large government, especially when talking about a country as large and populous as the US.
Apologies for typos, thanks for giving me an opportunity to rant a little, buddy
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
So, what does it mean to you? What would a system that "works" accomplish? Not just the ends, but the means to get there as well.
My point with the market of nations is that you can opt out, you can go pick from whatever social contracts the market offers or even make a new one.
I'd challenge the notion that slavery remains meaningful when applied to the social contract. Even anarchy has a social contract (often a very detailed one). The only systems that don't have social contracts are ones where it is impossible for two people to ever be in association with each other. For some reason those ones always die out within about one generation.
Indeed even the notion that "I don't remember signing anything" has standing as an argument is based on a social contract.
Unlike an anarchist who wants no government, a minarchist generally wants the minimum amount of government necessary to maintain the rule of law, and the settlement of conflicts between parties.
Oh I definitely see the inevitability.
Yep.
There are few habitable places where you can go "off-grid". Even the deep forest is usually state or federal land, and barring a homesteaders agreement with whoever governs that neck of the woods, expect to get evicted by someone with a badge.
You are correct - believe me I get it.
The option is basically to let someone steal 10% of my labor - as opposed to having it all stolen by roving bands of slavers.
Indeed.
It's no more inherited than this, but I get your point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acp-_B7jl40
While this is true, it's too simplistic. Sometimes the wolf is not as bad as the butcher, and sometimes we have a better chance at facing wolves, than we do the slaughterhouse.
I'm reminded of a recent movie starring Leonardo Di Caprio.
Are we not living in a situation today where the real wolves are running the farm?
Where greedy, corrupt, selfish bastards manipulate and control the farmers?
A strong argument could be made that we are.
I fail to see how the fences are working though.
Women are raped, kids are killed, drunk drivers wipe people out, we have the highest incarceration rate, recidivism is high - exactly how is the government is keeping the wolves at bay?
I guess.
I am willing to concede that the cattle have flourished more than they might have without the fences. hence, the minarchism.
I agree.
"The enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."
~ Karl von Clausewitz
The issue then becomes, can we do better? If the answer is yes, why don't we?
I would answer, because those who have been in power and have risen to power have construed the system to work in their favor for long that real effective changes are next to impossible.
Well, I would certainly start out with reducing our military interventionism and warmongering, then go from there.
Let's not forget that we already have trillions in unfunded liabilities. The oxen living today will surely fight to receive what has been promised to them, even if the fulfillment of those promises guarantee that their children, and their grandchildren, and their great grandchildren will be born unto the same yokes that weighed upon their necks.
I have an answer, but it's unpopular and ugly.
You show here a difference that you and I would have fundamentally.
Not that I don't care about the less fortunate, but instead of safety nets, I'd rather people learn to fly.
I believe we should not strive to ensure we get the most people possible, or have people live as long as they can, but to ensure that we develop the best possible people, who live happy and enriching lives.
(Please do not construe that into some sort of racist thing where I'm calling for a resurgence of eugenics, as many people jump to that conclusion)
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Ends to a means? You have seen the defense spending of late...right?
As long as we have homeless and people starving we are spending the monies in the wrong areas.
Is that supposed to be an answer? You proposal to fix poverty is simply to reduce defense spending? Then what, do we give people in poverty cash? Is that what you think will make the system work for everyone?
I'm not understanding your position. I see you have some vehement one liners opposing me, but I'd like to know what do you think ought to be done?
Okay, so. You saw the point, but took a sharp left on to Irrelevance Street and kept going all the way down to Completely Missed the Point Avenue.
One person in charge, you just need to own that person. One hundred people in charge you need to own fifty of them. But then there's another fifty which are not owned by you, and so may end up working against you.
This is of course predicated on the assumption that your bureaucracy is not composed of the aging and elderly, who think the internet is witchcraft and ten bucks can still buy you a nice night out.
It is, though. You live in the country and you abide by the terms that country has set. Consider taxes just as a monthly subscription for your continued legal residence.
I mean, you could try that whole Freeman nonsense, but it doesn't end very well.
Living in the country is an implicit agreement.
Right, because private companies won't gouge prices or strongarm you into paying fees. Haha. Suuuure.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West