Government = the essence of control comes from one effort: to create conflict where none exists, to live in duality. The Powers That Be do one thing tremendously: THEY KEEP YOU IN MATERIAL CONSCIOUSNESS, NOT SPIRITUAL CONSCIOUSNESS.
Will SOMEONE who knows something about Ayn Rand please watch the following short video and respond? If you find something wrong, please spell out what it is.
@mrrobotica Yes, I'm aware of her and all other apologists you will be able to dredge up. She obviously doesn't understand even basic psychology, so there's nothing to discuss there. Going to have to do better than that. Try again.
@kropotkinbeard1 I'm not interested in convincing you of anything if you're so irrational that you can't see that the fact that Ayn Rand, at a relatively young age, admiring one aspect of an evil man is not a criticism of her ideas.
@mrrobotica Haha...Yes, just that throughout Rand's entire career she boasted the exact psychological characteristics and qualities of the child-rapist and used them as the basis of her heroes mindset, not to mention the economics which she also preferred, which really does make one wonder about the psychology of anyone who might admire her. You have nothing to convince me of unless it is that you and your psychology aren't as depraved as her's was. Rand and her various mental....
@zentonil Umm...Yes, child rapist murderer. I didn't stutter, make a typo, or even give an opinion. I was simply sharing a few of the facts. You weren't aware? Not only did Rand's idol rape and kill the 12 year old girl, he dismembered her body, wired her eyes open so that when he went to trade her for the randsome money her fater was to bring he'd think she was still alive. Then, after taking the money, he drove down the street and threw the body parts out the window. So, before you start..
@zentonil ...up with your obviously indoctrinated name-calling, it may be better for you to keep your arrogant pie hole closed and study a little bit first. A 10 second Google search will offer you thousands of articles discussing the factual account. And pathetic demagogues are notorious for projecting their own disorders onto others as you have done here. You look it up. I don't spoon-feed drooling idiots who shoot their mouths off before thinking. Yep, Rand's heroes based on Hickman.
@kropotkinbeard1 "And pathetic demagogues are notorious for projecting their own disorders onto others as you have done here."
Another fabricated statement to give a false sense of confidence to your dribble. I doubt you even know what a demagogue is, considering that you called it a disorder.
@zentonil Don't know what you're referring to. I have made no fabricated statements, nor have you show that I have. Isn't there a knitting thread you can go drool to somewhere? It's very simple, little boy. Go to Google. Do you know Google? If not, ask a 5 year old to help you. Then simply type in any number of words, say, 'Ayn Rand's love for a serial killer' or something and then you can learn something about the basics. But that you may have been unaware of such basics doesn't really bother
@zentonil ..me as it's quite common for anyone attracted to Rand not to know much. What's much more interesting, as far as I'm concerned, is how and why, even without such data, anyone would have been attracted to her obviously sociopathic characters, or not even noticed that they were sociopathic. What does this tell a rational person? For example, were a person to watch Hannibal and think that he exhibited all the characteristics of a hero, not noticing his obvious pathology, well..?
@zentonil Here, it's 9 minutes and 36 seconds long, but very simple and basic. Maybe even you can understand the information. The only problem with this video clip is that the fellow speaking is far too lenient to Rand, and only mentions a small part of her mental disorders, as well as how these can be seen all over her work.
youtube.com/watch?v=51YlLrcV0GY
If you find a strong desire not to believe this data..uhh...well....tough. Grow up. Rand was a racist, sociopathic, pig.
@mrrobotica ..mental disorders aren't an issue. These were recognized LONG ago. The only thing of any interest now is those who, even after pathologies have been long known about, are still attracted to her. I recognized in high school that her heroes had mental disorders and this wasn't really bad in itself. It's when people actually looked up to them which was the problem. It's as if upon watching Silence of the Lambs people decided to make Hannibal their hero. Perhaps worse in Rand's case.
I wish this was understood in my country of birth--Mali (in West Africa). The societies that get the role of government right are the only ones who can truly proper and be free at the same time.
"The use of force cannot be left to the decision of private individuals." So, if a man pulls a gun on me, should I wait for the government official to show up and decide what to do with my body after he shoots me, or should I shoot him? It is more logical to say that 'No man has the right to initiate force against another, not even those claiming the consent of the governed.' rather than grant a monopoly of force on some sovereign body which you think you control.
"The use of force cannot be left to the decision of private individuals." So, if a man pulls a gun on me, should I wait for the government official to show up and decide what to do with my body after he shoots me, or should I shoot him?
First of all, what defines a criminal? Someone who possesses marijuana, but politicians who exploit the taxpayer in their own favor are held as heroes of the common man in the current system.
@Sivels What do you do with the guy who decides to walk down the street hacking people to death? Or breaking into homes and raping women? Ignore him? Make fun of him until he's sorry? ....You need a legal system.
@216trixie If someone attacks you, you can always defend yourself, lol... But obviously there is a huge demand for protection, police, guard and so on. The police of today are here to serve and protect... just not us. As for a legal system please watch /watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw if you have the time, very interesting points on the points you raised.
@TheKaffeeKlatsch She was a statist. She did us silly arguments such as "man who had his wallet stolen will shoot the first person who looks slightly suspicious" (paraphrasing) and use it to establish the necessity of the State. She also assumes that no State means no rules, blatantly untrue. And she also assumes that a monopoly will somehow limit itself to "protecting of property" as if the very existence of a monopoly were not a violation of property rights.
@rumco It was not to suggest that without the state, everyone would shoot people who look suspicious, or that the person who did shoot somebody for looking suspicious did so because of a lack of government. The point she was making is that judicial systems require objective rules for evidence to establish that a crime has actually been committed, and that objectivity would not exist if justice was left to individuals. Abandon your preconceived statist caricature and listen to her argument again.
@Qvoim How is a monopoly more objective than a competition in police and judicial services? You've got it backwards. If we learned anything from history, it should be that a limited government (State) is an oxymoron and a direct violation of property rights.
@rumco I'm not sure what of history has taught you that states cannot be limited, but your question is illogical at face value. If there are multiple different judicial systems each defining their own terms, then obviously none of them can be objective. The idea is that justice requires a consistent protocol, which cannot be met if prosecution is left to individual discretion.
Also, how can the industries responsible for upholding rule of law compete when rule of law is required for competition?
@rumco While that's usually the case, it's not true. Many governments have grown smaller as time goes on, with or without revolution. China is a modern example. Their leaders began realizing that the market worked better when they were less involved.
I'm not seeing what you meant to say by that list of terms there at the beginning.
@Qvoim I'm pointing to a framework of rights that does not need a State monopoly in judicial or police services. In fact, the State is a direct violation of such rights. You can google any of those terms.
With regards to empirical case for the State - I am not saying that it is impossible to reverse such course of action (marching towards more statism), what I am saying however is that the incentives are for the State to grow since it has a monopoly in many areas of life.
@rumco A system of natural rights is not an alternative to the state. I'd say that society requires some means of upholding natural rights, i.e. to prevent them from being infringed on. To do this requires the utilization of force. And industries that require the use of force should be regulated, and prevented from competing with each other. The industries that uphold natural rights cannot compete, because competition requires natural rights. This doesn't mean that the govt should be a monopoly.
@rumco To clarify, my last comment used "monopoly" in a colloquial sense, meaning an entity without competition. In the literal sense of "one buyer, many sellers," the govt should be a monopoly. If you were to purchase every golf course in America, then, while technically owning a monopoly, you would still have competition in the form of deciding not to play golf. This isn't the case for govt because paying taxes is mandatory. I believe in voluntarily funded govt, NOT privately-owned force.
There is no place in a civilized society for institutional violence... For a monopoly of violence. Any form of government...minimal or not which has a monopoly of violence will sooner or later turn that violence on its own citizens. The citizens themselves will turn it against each other. Sooner or later we will be back to the same place we are now...
@dzikv01 Not trying to debate much with you here just wanted my 2 cents.. I think a truly free market would in fact have institutional force..as a means to deal with those who commit violent acts or fraud. So in way..civilized society does need institutionalized force to manage criminality. BUT what we can definitely say No to is a monopoly on such force..as with all other government supported monopolies it always works to the detriment to society.
@Debatewithme And you are right. The key word here is choice. We are all forced into this monopoly of violence that is supposed to defend us... We have no choice.
I love Rand and her works but i can't agree with her on the necessity of monopoly of force. If there is a "gun in the room" like that someone is going to grab it. There is no free market with such a "gun in the room". We see people grabbing this "gun" all the time in our today political life forcing others to do as they please...
@Qvoim What is the no.1 killer in the world? Murderers? criminals? The highest death toll of the 20th century is on the hands of governments... Only a government can spend billions of dollars on military.. No single person can afford it EVER. Wars and oppression caused by governments cannot be repeated without tax to fuel it.
Without a government there is a free market for defense... Imagine.. you as a customer choosing the best defense option. Not competitive violence but market competition.
@dzikv01 You say that a single person could not afford it, as if that the only alternative to institutionalized violence is violence committed by a single person. Organized crime does exist, and hopefully always will. The question becomes whether it should be owned privately or publicly. If market competition requires rule of law, then how can the entity that upholds the rule of law engage in competition itself? Government may be evil, but evil may not be unnecessary.
What she's discussing is the ideal gov't.But, it's like discussing the ideal business. A business is not likely to serve the consumer if it's the only business in that industry and has a captured consumer base.What keeps businesses honest is the fear of failure, loss, and bankruptcy.The fear thatanother business will do the right thing, serve the customer, and put the failing business out of business.It is this dynamic of competition.How then can we discuss an ideal gov't if it is monopolistic?
@selfrealizedexile That is the question isn't it, that's why people like Milton Friedman say keeping a free society is difficult and not a norm in the world.
@selfrealizedexile A very nice point. Though, i guess the idea is that enough people in society are in favor of indivdual freedom, that they will vote people into office who protect indivdual freedoms.
Firstly, a state can never protect private property since the "health" of the state requires the restriction of private property to a large extend. Secondly, a state is in no ways needed to protect property. You should see/hear podcasts by Stefan Molyneux on the anarchic system, in case you are interested in seeing how such a system would protect private property in practice.
@niklasbastholmhansen Yes, I listen to Stefbot and the FDR podcasts, he's certainly introduced me to the ideas of anti-statism. Like I said in my other post, I think minarchism has failed in every way. Minarchism will always lead to statism, it's just inevitable, or so it seems.
I actually suspected you were a listener too after reading your second comment :) Anarchism could also lead to statism if enough people in a society choose it. this is the reason why anarchy is a development stage for society and not something that can be achieved within the next 2-300 years. THis is an important point as to why anarchism will not arrive in our lifetime. Let's say we had a transition toward anarchism over the next 10 years. Statism would quickly reemerge.
It would reemerge because people would choose it, at the first risk of invasion or societal disorder. This is for the same reason that a frightened people choose to grant dictatorial power to a leader voluntarily during a war time, then only many years later to find that the powers are never returned. Anarchy will never happen for us, why we must settle with the wonders of anarchy in our personal life. To me, that is actually quite enough and I am from Denmark. 50% income tax, 25% VAT
Sounds like you are not particularly fond of Stefans work... :) True? I started following him 6 months ago, and I am so far finding myself learning something new every day. Do you have any criticism I can get you to share with me? Would love to read them since that always helps advance ones understanding. Thanks
@niklasbastholmhansen This is not because I have no thoughts of my own, but simply because of the character limit, I'll just say go to fdrliberated(dot)com
Hi Spalg. thanks for sharing. I have actually already seen this website, and some of its critique is absolutely correct. Let me clarify: It is my conviction that there are logicaæ inconsistencies in some of the finer details of what SM talks about. Therefore the website has been exciting for me to see, and to now see again because of you. However, the critique on fdrliberated is mostly about something which is not an issue to me so it is really not a threat to me. Thanks
@Sivels If you realize that all government power grows out of the barrel of a gun - which I believe you do realize, being on this channel; then I don't see how it would be moral or even practical to turn this kind of power over to private citizens accountable only to themselves.
There's no problem with competition - but competition depends on being voluntary, free from force. That's why government shouldn't make our choices - and that's why no one else should be permitted the use of force.
@fab006 Well, if you're for the non-aggression principle, that is no one has the right to initiate the use of force, only in self-defense as a primary moral principle, then you cannot be for government... You're saying that the government should be allowed to do what no individual is allowed to do... Government services should be funded through donation because it's in your self-interest.. the government serves you, no one serves the government.
@Sivels The question of taxation is a difficult one for me, because I can certainly how it is morally shaky.
On the other hand - provided a government limited to its proper role of outlawing and punishing private force - I have to say that I don't taxation is wrong. I'm not sure if there's anything wrong at all with people being forced to protect others' rights (lest those rights become a meaningless assertion!) -> I'll continue in another post...
@fab006 (...continuing:) I fear that if funding (proper) government becomes voluntary, then we'll start off a merging of the "power of the dollar" and the "power of the whip".
That is because those who have a great deal of money could simply choose to rely on their money to protect themselves from force privately; and those with less money wouldn't have the funds to protect themselves neither privately nor collectively. That said, I haven't yet had a chance to see what Ayn Rand says about it :)
@Sivels How has minarchism "failed utterly," at least in comparison to anarchism which has never been implemented at all? You may as easily say that the elimination of state power is impossible even if the majority was for it, therefore agorism will fail utterly.
@Qvoim It has failed because tax monopolies will always seek to expand their power... It's human nature I guess. If you have a tumor you don't reduce it 90%, you remove it completely.
@Sivels Yes, tax monopolies will try to expand their own power. And if you leave people unorganized and without government, somebody will step up and do whatever it takes to create one. It's human nature to control others; you don't change that by destroying the current establishment. How do you think it got this way to begin with? And according to whom is the government a tumor? Please don't try to sell me the idea that government can do no good.
@Qvoim It's not human nature to control others, it's human nature to profit and ADAPT to one's environment. People don't organize thmselves because a gvernment tells them to, they do so because it's in their self-interest to cooperate with others meeting similar OR separate goals. Statism creates an environment in which in order to be successful you must be an asshole.
Frthrmre the argumnt tht governmnt is abve human nature is : /.........
Btw, I'm not against government, I'm against taxation.
@Sivels Controlling others is not implicit in expanding your own power? The mere fact that the state exists attests to the fact that we try to control each other. But to clarify, what exactly is the tumor that you want to remove completely? Just the method by which the state is funded?
Semi-related note: You can save characters by saying govt instead of government.
@Qvoim The main trouble that I have with minarchism is that it recognizes the threat of government, and the inherent immorality of government, and it recognizes the inherent growth of government, then sets about finding an acceptable level of the unacceptable. I want to be a minarchist because people find it far more palatable than anarchism; but can't. having come this far, and I cannot go back. All government is immoral.
Anarchists make many legitimate philosophical criticisms of government, but from what I've seen offer little in terms of viable alternative. While it is the nature of government to expand, it is also the nature of government to be formed. From chaos comes order. Call me pragmatic, but how would a privately owned judicial system work? If not from constitution or democracy, then from where would its authority be derived? Anarchists leave too many questions unanswered to effect social change.
@Qvoim There is no way I can answer that properly in 500 characters, so we have reached the limitation of this form. Look up Hans-Hermann Hoppe's lectures on YourTube; specifically his lecture on Private Law Society.
@032125 I'm not looking for the intricacies of a system that has never existed and ergo has had no chance to be studied. Obviously we're talking in hypothetical terms. But if you're talking about private ownership of the industries most vital to government, then merely positing "the market" doesn't explain anything. Rule of law is essential to the market, so you cannot leave the very entity that upholds the rule of law to compete. I'll watch your lectures sometime tomorrow when I have time.
@Qvoim I appreciate your taking a look at Prof Hoppe's lectures. I think it will clarify our conversation a lot, even if you disagree with the content.
I agree that rule of law is essential to a functional society (and a market as a facet of that society) but the bifurcation of our opinions starts with the premise that the State is equivalent to Rule of Law. Said otherwise, I think that in the long term the State is an enemy of consistent ROL, whereas competition breeds stability. More later.
@032125 Actually, our wish to be governed by men stems from our tendency to take personal justice for wrongs to an extreme. Rather than let nature govern us, we seek men to govern us because we erroneously believe that such men have authority to govern (which is why we always corrupt once we have power and authority). Nature is the ultimate judge and therefore, we should be governed by it rather than by men.
@032125 You don't seem to have understood. There is no inherent immorality in proper government (that being government as protector of individual rights and arbiter).
That's exactly why I don't like the term minarchism myself. I don't want "minimal" government, I want proper government.
Comment removed
MrCase22100 5 days ago
Government = the essence of control comes from one effort: to create conflict where none exists, to live in duality. The Powers That Be do one thing tremendously: THEY KEEP YOU IN MATERIAL CONSCIOUSNESS, NOT SPIRITUAL CONSCIOUSNESS.
JOINTHERESISTANCE1 1 month ago
Will SOMEONE who knows something about Ayn Rand please watch the following short video and respond? If you find something wrong, please spell out what it is.
youtube.com/watch?v=tjQeeRn6kW0
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Well first of all, your link doesn't work.
mrrobotica 1 month ago
@mrrobotica Did for me just now. Try by title.
Steve Leser on Ayn Rand and the Objectivist Hoax
I'll save you the trouble. There's nothing wrong.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Search, "Diana Hsieh Hickman".
mrrobotica 1 month ago
@mrrobotica Yes, I'm aware of her and all other apologists you will be able to dredge up. She obviously doesn't understand even basic psychology, so there's nothing to discuss there. Going to have to do better than that. Try again.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 I'm not interested in convincing you of anything if you're so irrational that you can't see that the fact that Ayn Rand, at a relatively young age, admiring one aspect of an evil man is not a criticism of her ideas.
mrrobotica 1 month ago
@mrrobotica Haha...Yes, just that throughout Rand's entire career she boasted the exact psychological characteristics and qualities of the child-rapist and used them as the basis of her heroes mindset, not to mention the economics which she also preferred, which really does make one wonder about the psychology of anyone who might admire her. You have nothing to convince me of unless it is that you and your psychology aren't as depraved as her's was. Rand and her various mental....
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Umm, a child-rapist? You really need to qualify that statement because you sound like a pathetic demagogue...
zentonil 1 month ago
@zentonil Umm...Yes, child rapist murderer. I didn't stutter, make a typo, or even give an opinion. I was simply sharing a few of the facts. You weren't aware? Not only did Rand's idol rape and kill the 12 year old girl, he dismembered her body, wired her eyes open so that when he went to trade her for the randsome money her fater was to bring he'd think she was still alive. Then, after taking the money, he drove down the street and threw the body parts out the window. So, before you start..
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@zentonil ...up with your obviously indoctrinated name-calling, it may be better for you to keep your arrogant pie hole closed and study a little bit first. A 10 second Google search will offer you thousands of articles discussing the factual account. And pathetic demagogues are notorious for projecting their own disorders onto others as you have done here. You look it up. I don't spoon-feed drooling idiots who shoot their mouths off before thinking. Yep, Rand's heroes based on Hickman.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "And pathetic demagogues are notorious for projecting their own disorders onto others as you have done here."
Another fabricated statement to give a false sense of confidence to your dribble. I doubt you even know what a demagogue is, considering that you called it a disorder.
zentonil 1 month ago
@zentonil Don't know what you're referring to. I have made no fabricated statements, nor have you show that I have. Isn't there a knitting thread you can go drool to somewhere? It's very simple, little boy. Go to Google. Do you know Google? If not, ask a 5 year old to help you. Then simply type in any number of words, say, 'Ayn Rand's love for a serial killer' or something and then you can learn something about the basics. But that you may have been unaware of such basics doesn't really bother
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@zentonil ..me as it's quite common for anyone attracted to Rand not to know much. What's much more interesting, as far as I'm concerned, is how and why, even without such data, anyone would have been attracted to her obviously sociopathic characters, or not even noticed that they were sociopathic. What does this tell a rational person? For example, were a person to watch Hannibal and think that he exhibited all the characteristics of a hero, not noticing his obvious pathology, well..?
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@zentonil Here, it's 9 minutes and 36 seconds long, but very simple and basic. Maybe even you can understand the information. The only problem with this video clip is that the fellow speaking is far too lenient to Rand, and only mentions a small part of her mental disorders, as well as how these can be seen all over her work.
youtube.com/watch?v=51YlLrcV0GY
If you find a strong desire not to believe this data..uhh...well....tough. Grow up. Rand was a racist, sociopathic, pig.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@mrrobotica ..mental disorders aren't an issue. These were recognized LONG ago. The only thing of any interest now is those who, even after pathologies have been long known about, are still attracted to her. I recognized in high school that her heroes had mental disorders and this wasn't really bad in itself. It's when people actually looked up to them which was the problem. It's as if upon watching Silence of the Lambs people decided to make Hannibal their hero. Perhaps worse in Rand's case.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
I wish this was understood in my country of birth--Mali (in West Africa). The societies that get the role of government right are the only ones who can truly proper and be free at the same time.
Kingcoul11 4 months ago
Actually debt can also force you do to that too if that debt is crushing. No force needed.
Foreshadow44 5 months ago
I agree with Ayn Rand. I will spend my time stealing her stuff and bypassing the weak government she helps set up. I will then laugh about it.
Foreshadow44 5 months ago
BIOSHOCK LADY!
screwedupsomewhere 5 months ago
"The use of force cannot be left to the decision of private individuals." So, if a man pulls a gun on me, should I wait for the government official to show up and decide what to do with my body after he shoots me, or should I shoot him? It is more logical to say that 'No man has the right to initiate force against another, not even those claiming the consent of the governed.' rather than grant a monopoly of force on some sovereign body which you think you control.
Killedkennyagain 10 months ago
"The use of force cannot be left to the decision of private individuals." So, if a man pulls a gun on me, should I wait for the government official to show up and decide what to do with my body after he shoots me, or should I shoot him?
Killedkennyagain 10 months ago
No government? What do you do with the criminal?
216trixie 11 months ago
@216trixie Social ostracism.
First of all, what defines a criminal? Someone who possesses marijuana, but politicians who exploit the taxpayer in their own favor are held as heroes of the common man in the current system.
Sivels 11 months ago
@Sivels What do you do with the guy who decides to walk down the street hacking people to death? Or breaking into homes and raping women? Ignore him? Make fun of him until he's sorry? ....You need a legal system.
216trixie 11 months ago
@216trixie If someone attacks you, you can always defend yourself, lol... But obviously there is a huge demand for protection, police, guard and so on. The police of today are here to serve and protect... just not us. As for a legal system please watch /watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw if you have the time, very interesting points on the points you raised.
Sivels 11 months ago
There is no proper role for government.
asalade 11 months ago
Ayn Rand, Rand Paul, Ron Paul.
Z0mbeSlayer 11 months ago
Private, anarcho-currencies trading in the cipherspace will replace government currencies.
Decentralized currencies will lead to anarchy. Free Markets are inevitable.
There will be no role for government.
MoneyIsSilver 11 months ago
Love all of Liberty Pen's videos, but the narrators of these books are among some of the worst.
tabber87 11 months ago
she will make a good minsiter of law
hlimkb 11 months ago
@LibertyPen, you're a hero to us all!
Kame6000 11 months ago
If I weren't an Objectivist, 666 views might bother me......
TheKaffeeKlatsch 11 months ago
She is so silly about this, poor statist.
rumco 11 months ago
@rumco Silly is making an unsubstantiated comment and attempted insult without basis.
TheKaffeeKlatsch 11 months ago
@TheKaffeeKlatsch She was a statist. She did us silly arguments such as "man who had his wallet stolen will shoot the first person who looks slightly suspicious" (paraphrasing) and use it to establish the necessity of the State. She also assumes that no State means no rules, blatantly untrue. And she also assumes that a monopoly will somehow limit itself to "protecting of property" as if the very existence of a monopoly were not a violation of property rights.
rumco 11 months ago
@rumco Would you post the quote? In context I might add.
TheKaffeeKlatsch 11 months ago
@TheKaffeeKlatsch
The quote rumco gave you is from here:
tinyurl . com / 3vosv8v
Qvoim 11 months ago
@rumco It was not to suggest that without the state, everyone would shoot people who look suspicious, or that the person who did shoot somebody for looking suspicious did so because of a lack of government. The point she was making is that judicial systems require objective rules for evidence to establish that a crime has actually been committed, and that objectivity would not exist if justice was left to individuals. Abandon your preconceived statist caricature and listen to her argument again.
Qvoim 11 months ago
@Qvoim How is a monopoly more objective than a competition in police and judicial services? You've got it backwards. If we learned anything from history, it should be that a limited government (State) is an oxymoron and a direct violation of property rights.
rumco 11 months ago
@rumco I'm not sure what of history has taught you that states cannot be limited, but your question is illogical at face value. If there are multiple different judicial systems each defining their own terms, then obviously none of them can be objective. The idea is that justice requires a consistent protocol, which cannot be met if prosecution is left to individual discretion.
Also, how can the industries responsible for upholding rule of law compete when rule of law is required for competition?
Qvoim 11 months ago
@Qvoim Natural rights, self-ownership, homesteading, private property anarchism.
As for limited government being a naive idea - US is an example. A monopoly (State) will always use its power to expand.
rumco 11 months ago
@rumco While that's usually the case, it's not true. Many governments have grown smaller as time goes on, with or without revolution. China is a modern example. Their leaders began realizing that the market worked better when they were less involved.
I'm not seeing what you meant to say by that list of terms there at the beginning.
Qvoim 11 months ago
@Qvoim I'm pointing to a framework of rights that does not need a State monopoly in judicial or police services. In fact, the State is a direct violation of such rights. You can google any of those terms.
With regards to empirical case for the State - I am not saying that it is impossible to reverse such course of action (marching towards more statism), what I am saying however is that the incentives are for the State to grow since it has a monopoly in many areas of life.
rumco 11 months ago
@rumco A system of natural rights is not an alternative to the state. I'd say that society requires some means of upholding natural rights, i.e. to prevent them from being infringed on. To do this requires the utilization of force. And industries that require the use of force should be regulated, and prevented from competing with each other. The industries that uphold natural rights cannot compete, because competition requires natural rights. This doesn't mean that the govt should be a monopoly.
Qvoim 11 months ago
@rumco To clarify, my last comment used "monopoly" in a colloquial sense, meaning an entity without competition. In the literal sense of "one buyer, many sellers," the govt should be a monopoly. If you were to purchase every golf course in America, then, while technically owning a monopoly, you would still have competition in the form of deciding not to play golf. This isn't the case for govt because paying taxes is mandatory. I believe in voluntarily funded govt, NOT privately-owned force.
Qvoim 11 months ago
There is no place in a civilized society for institutional violence... For a monopoly of violence. Any form of government...minimal or not which has a monopoly of violence will sooner or later turn that violence on its own citizens. The citizens themselves will turn it against each other. Sooner or later we will be back to the same place we are now...
Say no to institutionalized violence.
dzikv01 11 months ago
@dzikv01 Not trying to debate much with you here just wanted my 2 cents.. I think a truly free market would in fact have institutional force..as a means to deal with those who commit violent acts or fraud. So in way..civilized society does need institutionalized force to manage criminality. BUT what we can definitely say No to is a monopoly on such force..as with all other government supported monopolies it always works to the detriment to society.
Debatewithme 11 months ago
@Debatewithme And you are right. The key word here is choice. We are all forced into this monopoly of violence that is supposed to defend us... We have no choice.
I love Rand and her works but i can't agree with her on the necessity of monopoly of force. If there is a "gun in the room" like that someone is going to grab it. There is no free market with such a "gun in the room". We see people grabbing this "gun" all the time in our today political life forcing others to do as they please...
dzikv01 11 months ago
@dzikv01 Question: Is a monopoly on violence more or less of a threat than competitive violence?
Qvoim 11 months ago
@Qvoim What is the no.1 killer in the world? Murderers? criminals? The highest death toll of the 20th century is on the hands of governments... Only a government can spend billions of dollars on military.. No single person can afford it EVER. Wars and oppression caused by governments cannot be repeated without tax to fuel it.
Without a government there is a free market for defense... Imagine.. you as a customer choosing the best defense option. Not competitive violence but market competition.
dzikv01 11 months ago
@dzikv01 You say that a single person could not afford it, as if that the only alternative to institutionalized violence is violence committed by a single person. Organized crime does exist, and hopefully always will. The question becomes whether it should be owned privately or publicly. If market competition requires rule of law, then how can the entity that upholds the rule of law engage in competition itself? Government may be evil, but evil may not be unnecessary.
Qvoim 11 months ago
Common sense really!
tjohn1986 11 months ago
What she's discussing is the ideal gov't.But, it's like discussing the ideal business. A business is not likely to serve the consumer if it's the only business in that industry and has a captured consumer base.What keeps businesses honest is the fear of failure, loss, and bankruptcy.The fear thatanother business will do the right thing, serve the customer, and put the failing business out of business.It is this dynamic of competition.How then can we discuss an ideal gov't if it is monopolistic?
selfrealizedexile 11 months ago
@selfrealizedexile That is the question isn't it, that's why people like Milton Friedman say keeping a free society is difficult and not a norm in the world.
Mezey5 11 months ago
Comment removed
shaqdaddy11 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@selfrealizedexile A very nice point. Though, i guess the idea is that enough people in society are in favor of indivdual freedom, that they will vote people into office who protect indivdual freedoms.
shaqdaddy11 11 months ago
Role of govt. is to wipe my ass
tjohn1986 11 months ago
Does private property need a monopoly state to uphold it?
Sivels 11 months ago 7
@Sivels
Firstly, a state can never protect private property since the "health" of the state requires the restriction of private property to a large extend. Secondly, a state is in no ways needed to protect property. You should see/hear podcasts by Stefan Molyneux on the anarchic system, in case you are interested in seeing how such a system would protect private property in practice.
:)
niklasbastholmhansen 11 months ago
@niklasbastholmhansen Yes, I listen to Stefbot and the FDR podcasts, he's certainly introduced me to the ideas of anti-statism. Like I said in my other post, I think minarchism has failed in every way. Minarchism will always lead to statism, it's just inevitable, or so it seems.
Sivels 11 months ago
@Sivels
I actually suspected you were a listener too after reading your second comment :) Anarchism could also lead to statism if enough people in a society choose it. this is the reason why anarchy is a development stage for society and not something that can be achieved within the next 2-300 years. THis is an important point as to why anarchism will not arrive in our lifetime. Let's say we had a transition toward anarchism over the next 10 years. Statism would quickly reemerge.
niklasbastholmhansen 11 months ago
@Sivels
It would reemerge because people would choose it, at the first risk of invasion or societal disorder. This is for the same reason that a frightened people choose to grant dictatorial power to a leader voluntarily during a war time, then only many years later to find that the powers are never returned. Anarchy will never happen for us, why we must settle with the wonders of anarchy in our personal life. To me, that is actually quite enough and I am from Denmark. 50% income tax, 25% VAT
niklasbastholmhansen 11 months ago
@niklasbastholmhansen you guys stay intelligent until you bring up stefan molyneux
Spalg 11 months ago
@Spalg
Sounds like you are not particularly fond of Stefans work... :) True? I started following him 6 months ago, and I am so far finding myself learning something new every day. Do you have any criticism I can get you to share with me? Would love to read them since that always helps advance ones understanding. Thanks
niklasbastholmhansen 11 months ago
@niklasbastholmhansen This is not because I have no thoughts of my own, but simply because of the character limit, I'll just say go to fdrliberated(dot)com
Spalg 11 months ago
@niklasbastholmhansen
Hi Spalg. thanks for sharing. I have actually already seen this website, and some of its critique is absolutely correct. Let me clarify: It is my conviction that there are logicaæ inconsistencies in some of the finer details of what SM talks about. Therefore the website has been exciting for me to see, and to now see again because of you. However, the critique on fdrliberated is mostly about something which is not an issue to me so it is really not a threat to me. Thanks
niklasbastholmhansen 11 months ago
@Sivels monopolies only exist throught government colusion, so how could a monopoly state exist?
mart83648 11 months ago
@mart83648 the state is a monopoly... That's what we have today, state monopolies, it's called governments.
Sivels 11 months ago
@Sivels No.
Killedkennyagain 10 months ago
@Sivels Yes.
fab006 10 months ago
@fab006 You could have competing legal agencies. DRO's (dispute resolution organization)
Sivels 10 months ago
@Sivels If you realize that all government power grows out of the barrel of a gun - which I believe you do realize, being on this channel; then I don't see how it would be moral or even practical to turn this kind of power over to private citizens accountable only to themselves.
There's no problem with competition - but competition depends on being voluntary, free from force. That's why government shouldn't make our choices - and that's why no one else should be permitted the use of force.
fab006 10 months ago
@fab006 Well, if you're for the non-aggression principle, that is no one has the right to initiate the use of force, only in self-defense as a primary moral principle, then you cannot be for government... You're saying that the government should be allowed to do what no individual is allowed to do... Government services should be funded through donation because it's in your self-interest.. the government serves you, no one serves the government.
Sivels 10 months ago
@Sivels The question of taxation is a difficult one for me, because I can certainly how it is morally shaky.
On the other hand - provided a government limited to its proper role of outlawing and punishing private force - I have to say that I don't taxation is wrong. I'm not sure if there's anything wrong at all with people being forced to protect others' rights (lest those rights become a meaningless assertion!) -> I'll continue in another post...
fab006 10 months ago
@fab006 (...continuing:) I fear that if funding (proper) government becomes voluntary, then we'll start off a merging of the "power of the dollar" and the "power of the whip".
That is because those who have a great deal of money could simply choose to rely on their money to protect themselves from force privately; and those with less money wouldn't have the funds to protect themselves neither privately nor collectively. That said, I haven't yet had a chance to see what Ayn Rand says about it :)
fab006 10 months ago
@fab006 Gah, proofreading would help. I meant to say:
"because I can certainly SEE how...", and
"I have to say that I don't THINK taxation..."
fab006 10 months ago
@fab006 I meant, then you cannot be for taxation... I'm not against government, I'm against taxation.
Sivels 10 months ago
As a former minarchist I must say that it has failed utterly... Reduction of state power is impossible even if a majority was for it.
Sivels 11 months ago
@Sivels How has minarchism "failed utterly," at least in comparison to anarchism which has never been implemented at all? You may as easily say that the elimination of state power is impossible even if the majority was for it, therefore agorism will fail utterly.
Qvoim 11 months ago
@Qvoim It has failed because tax monopolies will always seek to expand their power... It's human nature I guess. If you have a tumor you don't reduce it 90%, you remove it completely.
Sivels 11 months ago
@Sivels Yes, tax monopolies will try to expand their own power. And if you leave people unorganized and without government, somebody will step up and do whatever it takes to create one. It's human nature to control others; you don't change that by destroying the current establishment. How do you think it got this way to begin with? And according to whom is the government a tumor? Please don't try to sell me the idea that government can do no good.
Qvoim 11 months ago
@Qvoim It's not human nature to control others, it's human nature to profit and ADAPT to one's environment. People don't organize thmselves because a gvernment tells them to, they do so because it's in their self-interest to cooperate with others meeting similar OR separate goals. Statism creates an environment in which in order to be successful you must be an asshole.
Frthrmre the argumnt tht governmnt is abve human nature is : /.........
Btw, I'm not against government, I'm against taxation.
Sivels 11 months ago
@Sivels Controlling others is not implicit in expanding your own power? The mere fact that the state exists attests to the fact that we try to control each other. But to clarify, what exactly is the tumor that you want to remove completely? Just the method by which the state is funded?
Semi-related note: You can save characters by saying govt instead of government.
Qvoim 11 months ago
@Qvoim The main trouble that I have with minarchism is that it recognizes the threat of government, and the inherent immorality of government, and it recognizes the inherent growth of government, then sets about finding an acceptable level of the unacceptable. I want to be a minarchist because people find it far more palatable than anarchism; but can't. having come this far, and I cannot go back. All government is immoral.
032125 11 months ago 12
Anarchists make many legitimate philosophical criticisms of government, but from what I've seen offer little in terms of viable alternative. While it is the nature of government to expand, it is also the nature of government to be formed. From chaos comes order. Call me pragmatic, but how would a privately owned judicial system work? If not from constitution or democracy, then from where would its authority be derived? Anarchists leave too many questions unanswered to effect social change.
Qvoim 11 months ago
@Qvoim There is no way I can answer that properly in 500 characters, so we have reached the limitation of this form. Look up Hans-Hermann Hoppe's lectures on YourTube; specifically his lecture on Private Law Society.
032125 11 months ago
@032125 I'm not looking for the intricacies of a system that has never existed and ergo has had no chance to be studied. Obviously we're talking in hypothetical terms. But if you're talking about private ownership of the industries most vital to government, then merely positing "the market" doesn't explain anything. Rule of law is essential to the market, so you cannot leave the very entity that upholds the rule of law to compete. I'll watch your lectures sometime tomorrow when I have time.
Qvoim 11 months ago
@Qvoim I appreciate your taking a look at Prof Hoppe's lectures. I think it will clarify our conversation a lot, even if you disagree with the content.
I agree that rule of law is essential to a functional society (and a market as a facet of that society) but the bifurcation of our opinions starts with the premise that the State is equivalent to Rule of Law. Said otherwise, I think that in the long term the State is an enemy of consistent ROL, whereas competition breeds stability. More later.
032125 11 months ago
@032125 Actually, our wish to be governed by men stems from our tendency to take personal justice for wrongs to an extreme. Rather than let nature govern us, we seek men to govern us because we erroneously believe that such men have authority to govern (which is why we always corrupt once we have power and authority). Nature is the ultimate judge and therefore, we should be governed by it rather than by men.
EltonJThe 11 months ago
@032125 You don't seem to have understood. There is no inherent immorality in proper government (that being government as protector of individual rights and arbiter).
That's exactly why I don't like the term minarchism myself. I don't want "minimal" government, I want proper government.
fab006 10 months ago
Is there such a thing as a "proper" role for government?
waksibra 11 months ago
@waksibra - Yes. and was outlined in this video very clearly.
Mrcharliebobo 11 months ago
@Mrcharliebobo Nonsense. Such monopoly is a direct violation of property rights.
rumco 11 months ago
@rumco - Get a HELMET! Try reading the comments correctly, and to whom they were directed.
Mrcharliebobo 11 months ago
A Monopoly has no "proper role"
Anarchy 2012.
helltrackrider 11 months ago