what are you suggesting is going to happen to minorities?
Do you think that the white majority is going to put everyone brown, yellow or red on a boat or a train "home?" Set up different minimum wage laws for different ethnicities? Consider everyone non-white to be a terrorist? Allow racial discrimination in the workplace? ???
I think government IS in place to protect the minority... like Jefferson said (paraphrasing) "the role of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority"
I see the problem as being diametrically opposite to your supposition. Government allows the majority to be oppressed and protects "the minority of the opulent", not the minority of race or creed. If we had an absolute democracy this would end immediately. We don't need the few-hundred head dictator to control us any longer.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
what are you suggesting is going to happen to minorities?
Do you think that the white majority is going to put everyone brown, yellow or red on a boat or a train "home?" Set up different minimum wage laws for different ethnicities? Consider everyone non-white to be a terrorist? Allow racial discrimination in the workplace? ???
I think government IS in place to protect the minority... like Jefferson said (paraphrasing) "the role of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority"
I see the problem as being diametrically opposite to your supposition. Government allows the majority to be oppressed and protects "the minority of the opulent", not the minority of race or creed. If we had an absolute democracy this would end immediately. We don't need the few-hundred head dictator to control us any longer.
I am not speaking simple about racial minorities...all groups can be minorities. but let's go with race for a minute...what would stop people from returning to segregation? what would stop people from legalizing the systemic elimination of certain peoples...do you not see that as a possibility? there will always be people trying to lead and there will always be followers...if you feel you are the former not the latter than go out and lead...but people NEED to be saved from themselves...what you are talking about is tantamount to anarchy
Please, go in and shadow your local city or county government...go to town hall meetings...tell me that there is room for everyone to be able to participate in the formulation of the legal, tax, or any other codes that ALL people would have to live by.
The old joke is that a camel is a horse designed by a committee...can you imagine a horse designed by the entire country?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
well, Mikepegg... if that is the reality of the situation then count me out. If people are so hateful and vitriolic that they'll just allow everyone else in our tribe to be segregated, exploited, raped, burglarized, etc... I want NO PART of this fucking human race.
And yes, ANARCHY should be the end-goal. Anyone who thinks differently is a blind fool. It may not be in our lifetimes or in our children's lifetimes, but for us to evolve individually and become a "CIVILIZATION" the predatory practices subscribed to everyone in the hierarchy must be abolished.
Man used to work together for the common benefit of the tribe. Now we compete against each other with fervent passion and without remorse for tickets to play a game that are allocated by evil man A or evil man B. It's a broken system.
Anyone who works in government is part of the problem.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Man used to work together for the common benefit of the tribe. Now we compete against each other with fervent passion and without remorse for tickets to play a game that are allocated by evil man A or evil man B. It's a broken system.
And you can blame capitalism for that. Not government.
well, Mikepegg... if that is the reality of the situation then count me out. If people are so hateful and vitriolic that they'll just allow everyone else in our tribe to be segregated, exploited, raped, burglarized, etc... I want NO PART of this fucking human race.
And yes, ANARCHY should be the end-goal. Anyone who thinks differently is a blind fool. It may not be in our lifetimes or in our children's lifetimes, but for us to evolve individually and become a "CIVILIZATION" the predatory practices subscribed to everyone in the hierarchy must be abolished.
Man used to work together for the common benefit of the tribe. Now we compete against each other with fervent passion and without remorse for tickets to play a game that are allocated by evil man A or evil man B. It's a broken system.
Anyone who works in government is part of the problem.
Yeah, I am a huge part of the problem...public health is a huge part of the problem...
people who make statements such as yourself can stand on your soapbox all you want, but you would be the first person asking for protection when society got together and decided you were the one they were going to eat first. People are animals...never forget that.
Anarchy shouldn't be the end goal...and I take offense to the idea that I am a fool for believing that.
what you describe about the way man USED to work is the epitome of the myth of the noble savage. I would even go as far as to say man never worked that way, they worked for self interest and it was in their best self interest to work together...but those loyalties fell apart pretty fast when people were able to provide for themselves... if you feel that the competition is unfair than that is fine, but if you think going back to tribal living will make it more fair you are turning a very complicated problem over to an all too simple solution that will have many more and dangerous problems...
but you are right, I am the problem...people yelling solutions without ever addressing the repercussions are the real savior of society...
but don't let the door hit you on the way out...the human race will miss you,
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
saying that ALL government employees are a problem was a hyperbole... and incorrect. I apologize.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion is the liberal, police-state loving, status quo abhorrent vomit that makes me stay away from this forum.
Peace.
I think I will frame that. I couldn't be further from that. Just check with gimmie for proof...I cannot stand the size and scope of government...but enjoy closing your mind up
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
saying that ALL government employees are a problem was a hyperbole... and incorrect. I apologize.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion is the liberal, police-state loving, status quo abhorrent vomit that makes me stay away from this forum.
Peace.
I think I will frame that. I couldn't be further from that. Just check with gimmie for proof...I cannot stand the size and scope of government...but enjoy closing your mind up
I agree with both of you often. It seems the argument here has changed to anarchism (or to use a much nicer and much greater term for describing the true purpose of having no government, voluntarism) vs. limited government. Limiting government would be on the path to voluntarism if the transition was smooth, and it seems that He Still Stands wants to achieve this by 100% total democracy within a small, local, government framework run by online voting. Whether that would be a total clusterfuck or not remains to be seen, but I think it's a cool idea. I personally believe that anarchy (in a very nasty form) may come to us from government ballooning to the point where bloody revolution may bring it to be. I certainly do not want this to happen, but I've got my reasons for believing that staying the current course here in this country will make this a reality.
I think it may be time that something revolutionary should happen with regards to our system of governance here and elsewhere all over the globe. It seems to me that if countries like the US, Canada, and a few European and Asian nations are doing an "OK" job at governing their people today, that government as a whole is still 90% a failure historically worldwide. What good is government if there is NO respect for the rule of law? Those who actually do the "governing" seem to have the least amount of respect for the rule of law, and their well connected friends in big business have the rule of law bend around them. I have said it once, and I'll say it a million times-- capitalism is not the problem, but crony capitalism is. Remove the force of government from behind big business and I promise that over time things will never be perfect, but will be a lot better.
Also, true progressives should advocate progress via persuasion, not coercion.
saying that ALL government employees are a problem was a hyperbole... and incorrect. I apologize.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion is the liberal, police-state loving, status quo abhorrent vomit that makes me stay away from this forum.
Peace.
I think I will frame that. I couldn't be further from that. Just check with gimmie for proof...I cannot stand the size and scope of government...but enjoy closing your mind up
I apologize again for my hasty and overly-simplified responses... I don't know why I do that online because I would never do it in person.
What about a method of non-compulsory government? Meaning that I can opt out of EVERYTHING if I so desire. I don't know how i'd get around using the government's infrastructure though... and obviously this will never work because I'm a form of energy that produces tickets (money) and the government either a) wants about 40% of those tickets or b) will lock me up or even kill me.
Ugh, I just feel complicit in the government's size/scope and abuse of power because I'm not doing anything to stop it. There really is no alternative, other than to become militant. That's not an option because I have a son to take care of and he doesn't need a dead dad.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
saying that ALL government employees are a problem was a hyperbole... and incorrect. I apologize.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion is the liberal, police-state loving, status quo abhorrent vomit that makes me stay away from this forum.
Peace.
I think I will frame that. I couldn't be further from that. Just check with gimmie for proof...I cannot stand the size and scope of government...but enjoy closing your mind up
I apologize again for my hasty and overly-simplified responses... I don't know why I do that online because I would never do it in person.
What about a method of non-compulsory government? Meaning that I can opt out of EVERYTHING if I so desire. I don't know how i'd get around using the government's infrastructure though... and obviously this will never work because I'm a form of energy that produces tickets (money) and the government either a) wants about 40% of those tickets or b) will lock me up or even kill me.
Ugh, I just feel complicit in the government's size/scope and abuse of power because I'm not doing anything to stop it. There really is no alternative, other than to become militant. That's not an option because I have a son to take care of and he doesn't need a dead dad.
no worries, As government shrinks my smile gets larger...but there is a tipping point where things move backwards. Government can help, government can facilitate, but the problem is government is becoming a type of provider for millions of americans. That is what I want to avoid. The size and scope is up to us, as we vote...but either in a representative democracy or a voluntarism/anarchy situation like you initially described you still need EDUCATED voters.
The size and scope that government has been allowed to get to is a reflection of the people and what they want...Even people who claim to want small government vote for those who do nothing but increase the size and scope because they see an r next to the name...i blame republican voters for the size of government more than democrats...the Democrats do not hide their want for large government...but republican voters who all claim to want less government intrusion vote for people based on social issues that INCREASE government intrusion...I don't understand it...
What happens to the rule of law in a one person/one vote situation? that is the problem I have with it...it seems that it will be all to easy to shift...
what we need to do as a country is remember the USA stands for the united STATES of america...not STATE...and if we can hold to that principle, the representative democracy we have could and should work...Eliminating Political Parties would be a great start...at the very least take the political party affiliations off the ballots
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Man used to work together for the common benefit of the tribe. Now we compete against each other with fervent passion and without remorse for tickets to play a game that are allocated by evil man A or evil man B. It's a broken system.
And you can blame capitalism for that. Not government.
Man used to work together for the common benefit of the tribe. Now we compete against each other with fervent passion and without remorse for tickets to play a game that are allocated by evil man A or evil man B. It's a broken system.
And you can blame capitalism for that. Not government.
How dare you insult God!!!!
Whoa whoa... Capitalism isn't God... THE MARKET IS!
well, Mikepegg... if that is the reality of the situation then count me out. If people are so hateful and vitriolic that they'll just allow everyone else in our tribe to be segregated, exploited, raped, burglarized, etc... I want NO PART of this fucking human race.
And yes, ANARCHY should be the end-goal. Anyone who thinks differently is a blind fool. It may not be in our lifetimes or in our children's lifetimes, but for us to evolve individually and become a "CIVILIZATION" the predatory practices subscribed to everyone in the hierarchy must be abolished.
Man used to work together for the common benefit of the tribe. Now we compete against each other with fervent passion and without remorse for tickets to play a game that are allocated by evil man A or evil man B. It's a broken system.
Anyone who works in government is part of the problem.
I'm on board with this. It's going to be a long, tough road to get there, though.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
well, Mikepegg... if that is the reality of the situation then count me out. If people are so hateful and vitriolic that they'll just allow everyone else in our tribe to be segregated, exploited, raped, burglarized, etc... I want NO PART of this fucking human race.
And yes, ANARCHY should be the end-goal. Anyone who thinks differently is a blind fool. It may not be in our lifetimes or in our children's lifetimes, but for us to evolve individually and become a "CIVILIZATION" the predatory practices subscribed to everyone in the hierarchy must be abolished.
Man used to work together for the common benefit of the tribe. Now we compete against each other with fervent passion and without remorse for tickets to play a game that are allocated by evil man A or evil man B. It's a broken system.
Anyone who works in government is part of the problem.
I'm on board with this. It's going to be a long, tough road to get there, though.
I agree with both of you often. It seems the argument here has changed to anarchism (or to use a much nicer and much greater term for describing the true purpose of having no government, voluntarism) vs. limited government. Limiting government would be on the path to voluntarism if the transition was smooth, and it seems that He Still Stands wants to achieve this by 100% total democracy within a small, local, government framework run by online voting. Whether that would be a total clusterfuck or not remains to be seen, but I think it's a cool idea. I personally believe that anarchy (in a very nasty form) may come to us from government ballooning to the point where bloody revolution may bring it to be. I certainly do not want this to happen, but I've got my reasons for believing that staying the current course here in this country will make this a reality.
I think it may be time that something revolutionary should happen with regards to our system of governance here and elsewhere all over the globe. It seems to me that if countries like the US, Canada, and a few European and Asian nations are doing an "OK" job at governing their people today, that government as a whole is still 90% a failure historically worldwide. What good is government if there is NO respect for the rule of law? Those who actually do the "governing" seem to have the least amount of respect for the rule of law, and their well connected friends in big business have the rule of law bend around them. I have said it once, and I'll say it a million times-- capitalism is not the problem, but crony capitalism is. Remove the force of government from behind big business and I promise that over time things will never be perfect, but will be a lot better.
Also, true progressives should advocate progress via persuasion, not coercion.
I agree with you on the crony capitalism pretty much, but pure capitalism, with the absence of any sort of social programs equals 'everyone out for themselves'. That's what I believe. Capitalism alone would work... but would also promote greed. I also think that anarchy is NOT the answer, according to the number 1 and 2 definitions of the word:
an·ar·chy
/ˈænərki/ Show Spelled[an-er-kee] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a state of society without government or law.
2.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3.
a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
However, as long as number 3 would actually work, amidst complete non rule, I would be all for it.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,436
"3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
However, as long as number 3 would actually work, amidst complete non rule, I would be all for it.
Yes, #3 seems ideal. The closest example I can come up with in terms of this working historically occured in some of the American Indian tribes before the time of continental conquest and the genocide of Native Americans. Even in those situations there were councils and often a matriarchal leadership (not a bad thing at all as it usually worked quite well!) but, as I understand it, some form of altruistic anarchy did exist amongst many tribes.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I agree with both of you often. It seems the argument here has changed to anarchism (or to use a much nicer and much greater term for describing the true purpose of having no government, voluntarism) vs. limited government. Limiting government would be on the path to voluntarism if the transition was smooth, and it seems that He Still Stands wants to achieve this by 100% total democracy within a small, local, government framework run by online voting. Whether that would be a total clusterfuck or not remains to be seen, but I think it's a cool idea. I personally believe that anarchy (in a very nasty form) may come to us from government ballooning to the point where bloody revolution may bring it to be. I certainly do not want this to happen, but I've got my reasons for believing that staying the current course here in this country will make this a reality.
I think it may be time that something revolutionary should happen with regards to our system of governance here and elsewhere all over the globe. It seems to me that if countries like the US, Canada, and a few European and Asian nations are doing an "OK" job at governing their people today, that government as a whole is still 90% a failure historically worldwide. What good is government if there is NO respect for the rule of law? Those who actually do the "governing" seem to have the least amount of respect for the rule of law, and their well connected friends in big business have the rule of law bend around them. I have said it once, and I'll say it a million times-- capitalism is not the problem, but crony capitalism is. Remove the force of government from behind big business and I promise that over time things will never be perfect, but will be a lot better.
Also, true progressives should advocate progress via persuasion, not coercion.
I agree with you on the crony capitalism pretty much, but pure capitalism, with the absence of any sort of social programs equals 'everyone out for themselves'. That's what I believe. Capitalism alone would work... but would also promote greed. I also think that anarchy is NOT the answer, according to the number 1 and 2 definitions of the word:
an·ar·chy
/ˈænərki/ Show Spelled[an-er-kee] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a state of society without government or law.
2.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3.
a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
However, as long as number 3 would actually work, amidst complete non rule, I would be all for it.
It's a nice theory, but may only work in a laboratory setting where everyone is omniscient and devoid of all human psychology. The free market is impossible to be fair in the real world, I think.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
It's a nice theory, but may only work in a laboratory setting where everyone is omniscient and devoid of all human psychology. The free market is impossible to be fair in the real world, I think.
Try this and we'll be back to leaders in no time. Here is a prediction:
"Really, I have to vote on another bill? This is like the 10th one this week. I don't have time for this. You know, (insert name) and I agree on a lot of things. Maybe he could just do my voting for me because I've got other things I want to do."
Before you know it, you have elected officials making the decisions again. It is a simple concept you see EVERYWHERE. A company has a board of directors, not for profits have board of directors, sports teams have coaches, armies have generals, etc... If you own shares in a company that you have a financial interest in, do you vote every time you receive something in the maii about the company, or do you throw it away or give authority to someone else to vote on your behalf? What is more complex, one company or a country?
The current system is flawed because of huge amounts of greed on one side, and huge amounts self-entitlement on the other. Both are greed I guess.
It's a nice theory, but may only work in a laboratory setting where everyone is omniscient and devoid of all human psychology. The free market is impossible to be fair in the real world, I think.
I agree.
I don't see how the free market is any less fair than the current system which has rules on top of rules, on top of rules, that are randomly or selectively enforced at best, and amounts to being nothing more than pyramid scheme. There are thousands of rules and regulations that grant special priveleges to financial institutions that no one else will ever have-- legalized counterfeitting and legalized fraud to name just a couple. If people believe that a free market would be more unfair because somewhere, somehow, multiple forms of the mob are going to replace government, strong arming people out of their property and possessions, they need to look no further than our current system, where there is not only illegal groups of thugs doing this, but institutionalized ones as well. What's worse is how often they work together and feed off of each other. A recent example: How bad has the idea of "Al Queada" bled this country? How much money has gone into "defense," or no bid contracts, how many agencies have been created, how many people have lost their lives either fighting terrorism or have lost their lives as "collateral damage" along the way? How many people have lost their rights and freedoms at the hands of the "good guys" in the attempt to thwart the "bad guys"? Where is the fairness in any of this?
Simply put, the non-agression principle must be realized for any system to work properly. No one has a right to anyone else's life or property, and no one has the right to initiate force against anyone else unless in self-defense. People must once again be given the greatest opportunity to voluntarily enter into contracts, and therefore have to be CONSCIOUS while doing it if they do not want to get ripped off. If there must be written law, it should be kept simple: Theft is illegal. Fraud is illegal. The use of force against another is illegal unless in self-defense.
Free markets and / or limited government do not exist to most people because they have truly never been tried. Some people are terrified of this idea. I do not see how the people who own the majority of the resources in this country / the world right now would thrive if a truly free system were implemented, because they would be lacking one major tool that they lack currently: the ability to FORCE their products and policies down our throats.
One final note, if the ideas of free markets (or at least freer ones) would be unfair to the little guy, and better for big business, then why isn't a guy like Ron Paul being showered with campaign donations from major corporations, banks, and weapons manufacturers? Instead, he's STILL being left off of polls by major media outlets (conglomerate corporations themselves), despite polling in double digits when he actually IS included in the polls (a huge difference from a couple of years ago).
I personally believe that freedom will work, if given the chance. A fair amount of people still believe in freedom of speech, freedom in their beliefs, freedom to do what they want with their body-- but why not the freedom to choose what a person can or cannot do with the fruits of his/her labor?
"That government is best which governs the least" - Thomas Jefferson
Naturally and logically, the least government is NO government.
Naturally and logically you cannot be the best government if you are not a government, and Thomas Jefferson's quote is comparing different governments. So if there were no government like you say, then it could not be the best government since there is no government. Thomas Jefferson would have said the best government is no government if that was how he felt.
You know Thomas Jefferson was President, right? You know he was governor of Virginia, right? Hardly sounds like an individual supporting no government, which makes you using his quote to support no government absurd.
The best reason for "why not?" is ...... the Yahoo "comments" section.
Take any hot topic news story, read the comments section, and you will realize what chaos this would lead to.
No kidding. I've read a few articles on CNN and looked at some of the comments and hardly any of the comments are about the story. They all end up fighting one another, and there are a few perverts who throw in random comments.
It's a nice theory, but may only work in a laboratory setting where everyone is omniscient and devoid of all human psychology. The free market is impossible to be fair in the real world, I think.
I agree.
I don't see how the free market is any less fair than the current system which has rules on top of rules, on top of rules, that are randomly or selectively enforced at best, and amounts to being nothing more than pyramid scheme. There are thousands of rules and regulations that grant special priveleges to financial institutions that no one else will ever have-- legalized counterfeitting and legalized fraud to name just a couple. If people believe that a free market would be more unfair because somewhere, somehow, multiple forms of the mob are going to replace government, strong arming people out of their property and possessions, they need to look no further than our current system, where there is not only illegal groups of thugs doing this, but institutionalized ones as well. What's worse is how often they work together and feed off of each other. A recent example: How bad has the idea of "Al Queada" bled this country? How much money has gone into "defense," or no bid contracts, how many agencies have been created, how many people have lost their lives either fighting terrorism or have lost their lives as "collateral damage" along the way? How many people have lost their rights and freedoms at the hands of the "good guys" in the attempt to thwart the "bad guys"? Where is the fairness in any of this?
Simply put, the non-agression principle must be realized for any system to work properly. No one has a right to anyone else's life or property, and no one has the right to initiate force against anyone else unless in self-defense. People must once again be given the greatest opportunity to voluntarily enter into contracts, and therefore have to be CONSCIOUS while doing it if they do not want to get ripped off. If there must be written law, it should be kept simple: Theft is illegal. Fraud is illegal. The use of force against another is illegal unless in self-defense.
Free markets and / or limited government do not exist to most people because they have truly never been tried. Some people are terrified of this idea. I do not see how the people who own the majority of the resources in this country / the world right now would thrive if a truly free system were implemented, because they would be lacking one major tool that they lack currently: the ability to FORCE their products and policies down our throats.
One final note, if the ideas of free markets (or at least freer ones) would be unfair to the little guy, and better for big business, then why isn't a guy like Ron Paul being showered with campaign donations from major corporations, banks, and weapons manufacturers? Instead, he's STILL being left off of polls by major media outlets (conglomerate corporations themselves), despite polling in double digits when he actually IS included in the polls (a huge difference from a couple of years ago).
I personally believe that freedom will work, if given the chance. A fair amount of people still believe in freedom of speech, freedom in their beliefs, freedom to do what they want with their body-- but why not the freedom to choose what a person can or cannot do with the fruits of his/her labor?
Allow me to respond and continue with a few things.
1. I like the thoughts on the Ron Paul scenario. It's an interesting point.
2. Let's talk about the swap government for various mobs idea. You basically said they are really no different, which I agree with, by the way. So how would one be better than the other?
3. Don't you think that small government and freedom are relative? One person's idea of limited government is another person's idea of tyranny and oppression. So let me ask you, Vinnie Goomba, what specifically would you have the government actually oversee or do in your limited government scenario? Military, roads, etc. and how does the stuff you want to do get paid for? Voluntary donations, taxes?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
It's a nice theory, but may only work in a laboratory setting where everyone is omniscient and devoid of all human psychology. The free market is impossible to be fair in the real world, I think.
I agree.
I don't see how the free market is any less fair than the current system which has rules on top of rules, on top of rules, that are randomly or selectively enforced at best, and amounts to being nothing more than pyramid scheme. There are thousands of rules and regulations that grant special priveleges to financial institutions that no one else will ever have-- legalized counterfeitting and legalized fraud to name just a couple. If people believe that a free market would be more unfair because somewhere, somehow, multiple forms of the mob are going to replace government, strong arming people out of their property and possessions, they need to look no further than our current system, where there is not only illegal groups of thugs doing this, but institutionalized ones as well. What's worse is how often they work together and feed off of each other. A recent example: How bad has the idea of "Al Queada" bled this country? How much money has gone into "defense," or no bid contracts, how many agencies have been created, how many people have lost their lives either fighting terrorism or have lost their lives as "collateral damage" along the way? How many people have lost their rights and freedoms at the hands of the "good guys" in the attempt to thwart the "bad guys"? Where is the fairness in any of this?
Simply put, the non-agression principle must be realized for any system to work properly. No one has a right to anyone else's life or property, and no one has the right to initiate force against anyone else unless in self-defense. People must once again be given the greatest opportunity to voluntarily enter into contracts, and therefore have to be CONSCIOUS while doing it if they do not want to get ripped off. If there must be written law, it should be kept simple: Theft is illegal. Fraud is illegal. The use of force against another is illegal unless in self-defense.
Free markets and / or limited government do not exist to most people because they have truly never been tried. Some people are terrified of this idea. I do not see how the people who own the majority of the resources in this country / the world right now would thrive if a truly free system were implemented, because they would be lacking one major tool that they lack currently: the ability to FORCE their products and policies down our throats.
One final note, if the ideas of free markets (or at least freer ones) would be unfair to the little guy, and better for big business, then why isn't a guy like Ron Paul being showered with campaign donations from major corporations, banks, and weapons manufacturers? Instead, he's STILL being left off of polls by major media outlets (conglomerate corporations themselves), despite polling in double digits when he actually IS included in the polls (a huge difference from a couple of years ago).
I personally believe that freedom will work, if given the chance. A fair amount of people still believe in freedom of speech, freedom in their beliefs, freedom to do what they want with their body-- but why not the freedom to choose what a person can or cannot do with the fruits of his/her labor?
It's just that, in my opinion, that currency, and the love of currency will be the end of our civilization. Maybe govt is beyond this or outside of this idea, but to build currency is to use up the world's resources. Once they're used up (and they will be some day) there will be nothing left to buy/sell. I just think that the idea of being so focused on money is our civilization's downfall. That said, going back to the way hunter/gatherers traded and did business the way they did things, was the right idea. But world currency has blown up and the end is greed, and that greed is a disease that's not going to go away and will always be tied into any sort of market we have, whether it's "free" or not. Free markets, while a good idea, is still related to that greed that has overtaken the world. And there's no way out of it!
I don't know enough about Ron Paul, but he will always be considered an outsider because he's an independent thinker, and for that will always be punished by mainstream, system politics. It's really too bad.
Allow me to respond and continue with a few things.
1. I like the thoughts on the Ron Paul scenario. It's an interesting point.
2. Let's talk about the swap government for various mobs idea. You basically said they are really no different, which I agree with, by the way. So how would one be better than the other?
3. Don't you think that small government and freedom are relative? One person's idea of limited government is another person's idea of tyranny and oppression. So let me ask you, Vinnie Goomba, what specifically would you have the government actually oversee or do in your limited government scenario? Military, roads, etc. and how does the stuff you want to do get paid for? Voluntary donations, taxes?
1. Thanks!
2. The mobs - I believe this to be the fear of people who are against a no-government scenario, but I also believe it to be the worst possible case in this scenario. It may not turn out this way-- especially in a society that IS trying to progress (although I believe we're going about progress the wrong way by focusing mostly on legislation, and even worse, creation of agencies that write rules on a whim which are comprised of former industry professionals who are expected to "police" their buddies still in business). The "various forms of mob" would not have any absolute power, where currently government has claimed absolute power. If they did continue to exist, they might even keep each other in check a whole lot more than "our mob" (the government) does. At this point in the United States, it has granted itself the power to do anything really, although it hasn't necessarily always acted on it, the power is there in legal black in white. This includes the power to assassinate of US citizens, the ability to steal the wealth of the people without permission through counterfeitting, spy on them, force entry into their houses, etc... With the wrong people in power, all of these things can be carried out and can be done "legally." History has shown that really bad people do come to power, even through elections and the illusion of "choice." People should take great issue to a system that does everything it can to eliminate choice. I mean, this is America. We love competition-- think about our insatiable apetite for sports. How boring would the MLB/NBA/NFL/NHL be if they were only comprised of 2 teams? Even worse, 2 teams from the same city? That is essentially what the political party system has become. Shit, we even love to vote and vote often when we feel their is actual CHOICE involved: American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, All-Star voting in sports, Vote my baby the cutest baby on Flickr, etc... So in summary, I do not believe no government and having government to be the exact same thing, but at worst, I believe they could end up being similar in some ways if this grand experiment in voluntarism were to fail. This is what makes it worth a shot, being that this society which wants progress (unlike some others) will have to achieve it without universally-accepted coercion, and without recognition that there should is a class of people that are subject to a completely different set of rules than the rest of us. Government should not be able to do what the rest of us cannot. THAT'S equal protection under the law in full practice. I think volunatarism can be done here, with similar ideas taking root elsewhere once it takes off. Humanity is still in its infancy, really. We're just getting over slavery and ROYALTY, and still acknowledge that stuff to some extent, so I see the hesitation with this idea. But as He Still Stands said, the end goal should be self-governance.
3. Yes, government and freedom are relative. I've seen members on this forum say that freedom is having government protect us from all of the scary things out there. I think differently, since I think government tends to breed some of the "scary" things out there. I think total freedom means no government at all, but there can be a division when it comes to property rights: freedom might mean the right to own things to some, and freedom might mean that no one owns anything but themselves, really. I believe in property ownership personally. But since we have government, and will have it until we progress out of it, or it completely collapses in on itself, here's what I personally think it should be responsible for if it is going to stick around: National level - National Defense. And that's DEFENSE, not offense. It can also serve as a moderator between the states for inter-state issues. Maybe it has a place in roadwork at state borders? If not let that fall onto the states. The states responsibilities should be to let counties, cities, and municipalities govern as locally as possible with full respect for the Bill of Rights like the Federal Government. However, if people want to live in a town that is more "socialist" than another, and everyone there pretty much agrees to this, let them do it. This idea just gets much messier when it's done at a federal level. I've seen it breakdown at the dinner table in a restaurant when paying the bill: one guy gets 5 beers with his filet mignon and expects the bill to be divided up evenly among everyone there even though everyone else had burgers and soda. I'm definitely against this implementation on a national or world level-- it will have better results the more locally it is applied, and this way it doesn't force anyone to partake in this system who doesn't want to be a part of it. That's my biggest beef with people who love government: the bigger, the better. At least my system allows you to be highly governed on a local level, while I don't have to be. Their system drags ME into something that I do not wish to be a part of while they live in their version of utopia. As far as collecting taxes go, yes, they should be voluntary. If the government is somehow doing a greater job at something than the private sector, then people should feel the need to throw their money that way. The private sector that is NOT connected to obscene bailouts and safety nets lives and dies by its ability to provide quality to its customers. Government should do the same. Otherwise taxation should appear in the form of user fees and tolls for roads. If you use it, you pay for it. If you don't, you don't. If the government needs to borrow money for something, or needs a cash advance, it needs to repay these debts to the people who invested in it in anything but paper money-- namely, whatever the market has chosen as currency. However, I would much rather advocate a system where the government didn't need to borrow, and didn't undertake any projects until the funds were 100% raised before the project started.
It's just that, in my opinion, that currency, and the love of currency will be the end of our civilization. Maybe govt is beyond this or outside of this idea, but to build currency is to use up the world's resources. Once they're used up (and they will be some day) there will be nothing left to buy/sell. I just think that the idea of being so focused on money is our civilization's downfall. That said, going back to the way hunter/gatherers traded and did business the way they did things, was the right idea. But world currency has blown up and the end is greed, and that greed is a disease that's not going to go away and will always be tied into any sort of market we have, whether it's "free" or not. Free markets, while a good idea, is still related to that greed that has overtaken the world. And there's no way out of it!
I don't know enough about Ron Paul, but he will always be considered an outsider because he's an independent thinker, and for that will always be punished by mainstream, system politics. It's really too bad.
Greed does, and always will exist. You make a great point about the love of currency-- the way you state it is practically straight out of the Bible, and a point I totally agree with. However, trade will always exist, resources will always exist, and what resources are deemed valuable will continue to shift as time goes on. Trade will never die, but it can be stifled greatly, just as it is being done right now. Eliminating potential valuable trading partners also makes them enemies as well-- more government intervention that is overlooked in regards to its ability to impede peace and prosperity. Right now, paper money is on it's last leg. It is the only legal tender here in the United States save some fairly abundant non-precious metals that make up our coins. It is ILLEGAL to use anything but dollars here in the United States. Gold clauses in contracts are ILLEGAL. In a free market, anything can be currency, thus opening up more choices and more opportunities for people to do business. The people holding the most paper dollars aren't necessarily as relevant or powerful in a free market. Some true competition in currency would yield a more barter-type system, maybe one currency would come out the winner, but at least other options could always be considered. I've always thought that cannabis would make a great currency. Seriously. Especially today with smart phones that have apps that can actually weigh things. Even people who don't smoke it realize its value to people who do. Bottomline, we could all benefit from more choices. Free competition in currency wouldn't force people to clamor for any one currency in particular-- especially a particularly useless one: shitty paper.
As far as Ron Paul goes-- look him up. Watch a few of his videos to get some of the things he is about. If you're at all intrigued, but left questioning how any of his ideas would work, check out a couple of his books or scribblings on his website. He's not given nearly enough time in soundbytes to properly convey his ideas and how they could actually be implemented. And really, they're not all his ideas and he'll be the first to tell you that, but he's done more to bring these ideas to light in the last 20 years than anyone else.
"That government is best which governs the least" - Thomas Jefferson
Naturally and logically, the least government is NO government.
Naturally and logically you cannot be the best government if you are not a government, and Thomas Jefferson's quote is comparing different governments. So if there were no government like you say, then it could not be the best government since there is no government. Thomas Jefferson would have said the best government is no government if that was how he felt.
You know Thomas Jefferson was President, right? You know he was governor of Virginia, right? Hardly sounds like an individual supporting no government, which makes you using his quote to support no government absurd.
well, I think someone (you) needs to take a cursory look into linguistics. The least of ANYTHING is zero. Zero is nothing, no government.
And I have to admit, I got this quote analysis from a writing by Henry David Thoreau, one of the best American writers in history. So, this is not an original or unique idea.
Jefferson was also quoted saying that the anarchy of Native Americans is the direction our society should aim for rather than the oligarchy and minarchy of 18th century Europe... however, I can't find the quote. I got this one from Howard Zinn's "People's History of the US"
And in summary, it's clear from Jefferson's writings that he favored either very minimal or no government, but it doesn't matter really if he favored ANARCHY or MINARCHY, I share his minarchist views and he would undoubtedly be sickened by the lack of social liberties and birth of the police state. Imagine what he would think about people being arrested for dancing at his memorial?
Would the People have voted for that measure?
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
oh, and by the way, just to be clear; I think that if we can't get our business done with voluntary association or by replacing force with voluntary cooperation, contractual arrangements and so on, we should have a government that does a few basic things; 1) builds/maintains physical and technological infrastructure 2) provides people medicine and health care 3) ensures an adequate supply of food/water 4) has a small army to protect that supply of food/water 5) provides basic necessities to people who otherwise can't provide for themselves 6) collects taxes only for those basic functions
the reason that I'm opposed to this Minarchy (the smallest possible government), is that we started out with that and it only took us 200 years to arrive at the tsarist occupation government that we have now. I think any government is dangerous, now matter how small it may be.
"the state is concentric and the individual is eccentric" - James Joyce
edit: this is just to clear up any misunderstandings about me possibly being a "tea partier" or other such nonsense. I'm a humanist, not a conservative. Also, this is not an exhaustive list of actions... for example, a small police/fire department can be voted for but shouldn't be compulsory or necessarily public appointments.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Comments
Do you think that the white majority is going to put everyone brown, yellow or red on a boat or a train "home?" Set up different minimum wage laws for different ethnicities? Consider everyone non-white to be a terrorist? Allow racial discrimination in the workplace? ???
I think government IS in place to protect the minority... like Jefferson said (paraphrasing) "the role of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority"
I see the problem as being diametrically opposite to your supposition. Government allows the majority to be oppressed and protects "the minority of the opulent", not the minority of race or creed. If we had an absolute democracy this would end immediately. We don't need the few-hundred head dictator to control us any longer.
I am not speaking simple about racial minorities...all groups can be minorities. but let's go with race for a minute...what would stop people from returning to segregation? what would stop people from legalizing the systemic elimination of certain peoples...do you not see that as a possibility? there will always be people trying to lead and there will always be followers...if you feel you are the former not the latter than go out and lead...but people NEED to be saved from themselves...what you are talking about is tantamount to anarchy
Please, go in and shadow your local city or county government...go to town hall meetings...tell me that there is room for everyone to be able to participate in the formulation of the legal, tax, or any other codes that ALL people would have to live by.
The old joke is that a camel is a horse designed by a committee...can you imagine a horse designed by the entire country?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
And yes, ANARCHY should be the end-goal. Anyone who thinks differently is a blind fool. It may not be in our lifetimes or in our children's lifetimes, but for us to evolve individually and become a "CIVILIZATION" the predatory practices subscribed to everyone in the hierarchy must be abolished.
Man used to work together for the common benefit of the tribe. Now we compete against each other with fervent passion and without remorse for tickets to play a game that are allocated by evil man A or evil man B. It's a broken system.
Anyone who works in government is part of the problem.
And you can blame capitalism for that. Not government.
Yeah, I am a huge part of the problem...public health is a huge part of the problem...
people who make statements such as yourself can stand on your soapbox all you want, but you would be the first person asking for protection when society got together and decided you were the one they were going to eat first. People are animals...never forget that.
Anarchy shouldn't be the end goal...and I take offense to the idea that I am a fool for believing that.
what you describe about the way man USED to work is the epitome of the myth of the noble savage. I would even go as far as to say man never worked that way, they worked for self interest and it was in their best self interest to work together...but those loyalties fell apart pretty fast when people were able to provide for themselves... if you feel that the competition is unfair than that is fine, but if you think going back to tribal living will make it more fair you are turning a very complicated problem over to an all too simple solution that will have many more and dangerous problems...
but you are right, I am the problem...people yelling solutions without ever addressing the repercussions are the real savior of society...
but don't let the door hit you on the way out...the human race will miss you,
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
We'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion is the liberal, police-state loving, status quo abhorrent vomit that makes me stay away from this forum.
Peace.
I think I will frame that. I couldn't be further from that. Just check with gimmie for proof...I cannot stand the size and scope of government...but enjoy closing your mind up
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I agree with both of you often. It seems the argument here has changed to anarchism (or to use a much nicer and much greater term for describing the true purpose of having no government, voluntarism) vs. limited government. Limiting government would be on the path to voluntarism if the transition was smooth, and it seems that He Still Stands wants to achieve this by 100% total democracy within a small, local, government framework run by online voting. Whether that would be a total clusterfuck or not remains to be seen, but I think it's a cool idea. I personally believe that anarchy (in a very nasty form) may come to us from government ballooning to the point where bloody revolution may bring it to be. I certainly do not want this to happen, but I've got my reasons for believing that staying the current course here in this country will make this a reality.
I think it may be time that something revolutionary should happen with regards to our system of governance here and elsewhere all over the globe. It seems to me that if countries like the US, Canada, and a few European and Asian nations are doing an "OK" job at governing their people today, that government as a whole is still 90% a failure historically worldwide. What good is government if there is NO respect for the rule of law? Those who actually do the "governing" seem to have the least amount of respect for the rule of law, and their well connected friends in big business have the rule of law bend around them. I have said it once, and I'll say it a million times-- capitalism is not the problem, but crony capitalism is. Remove the force of government from behind big business and I promise that over time things will never be perfect, but will be a lot better.
Also, true progressives should advocate progress via persuasion, not coercion.
Because people are stupid and lazy....
I apologize again for my hasty and overly-simplified responses... I don't know why I do that online because I would never do it in person.
What about a method of non-compulsory government? Meaning that I can opt out of EVERYTHING if I so desire. I don't know how i'd get around using the government's infrastructure though... and obviously this will never work because I'm a form of energy that produces tickets (money) and the government either a) wants about 40% of those tickets or b) will lock me up or even kill me.
Ugh, I just feel complicit in the government's size/scope and abuse of power because I'm not doing anything to stop it. There really is no alternative, other than to become militant. That's not an option because I have a son to take care of and he doesn't need a dead dad.
no worries, As government shrinks my smile gets larger...but there is a tipping point where things move backwards. Government can help, government can facilitate, but the problem is government is becoming a type of provider for millions of americans. That is what I want to avoid. The size and scope is up to us, as we vote...but either in a representative democracy or a voluntarism/anarchy situation like you initially described you still need EDUCATED voters.
The size and scope that government has been allowed to get to is a reflection of the people and what they want...Even people who claim to want small government vote for those who do nothing but increase the size and scope because they see an r next to the name...i blame republican voters for the size of government more than democrats...the Democrats do not hide their want for large government...but republican voters who all claim to want less government intrusion vote for people based on social issues that INCREASE government intrusion...I don't understand it...
What happens to the rule of law in a one person/one vote situation? that is the problem I have with it...it seems that it will be all to easy to shift...
what we need to do as a country is remember the USA stands for the united STATES of america...not STATE...and if we can hold to that principle, the representative democracy we have could and should work...Eliminating Political Parties would be a great start...at the very least take the political party affiliations off the ballots
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
How dare you insult God!!!!
Whoa whoa... Capitalism isn't God... THE MARKET IS!
I'm on board with this. It's going to be a long, tough road to get there, though.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
"That government is best which governs the least" - Thomas Jefferson
Naturally and logically, the least government is NO government.
Count me in.
I agree with you on the crony capitalism pretty much, but pure capitalism, with the absence of any sort of social programs equals 'everyone out for themselves'. That's what I believe. Capitalism alone would work... but would also promote greed. I also think that anarchy is NOT the answer, according to the number 1 and 2 definitions of the word:
an·ar·chy
/ˈænərki/ Show Spelled[an-er-kee] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a state of society without government or law.
2.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3.
a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
However, as long as number 3 would actually work, amidst complete non rule, I would be all for it.
Yes, #3 seems ideal. The closest example I can come up with in terms of this working historically occured in some of the American Indian tribes before the time of continental conquest and the genocide of Native Americans. Even in those situations there were councils and often a matriarchal leadership (not a bad thing at all as it usually worked quite well!) but, as I understand it, some form of altruistic anarchy did exist amongst many tribes.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
It's a nice theory, but may only work in a laboratory setting where everyone is omniscient and devoid of all human psychology. The free market is impossible to be fair in the real world, I think.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
I agree.
"Really, I have to vote on another bill? This is like the 10th one this week. I don't have time for this. You know, (insert name) and I agree on a lot of things. Maybe he could just do my voting for me because I've got other things I want to do."
Before you know it, you have elected officials making the decisions again. It is a simple concept you see EVERYWHERE. A company has a board of directors, not for profits have board of directors, sports teams have coaches, armies have generals, etc... If you own shares in a company that you have a financial interest in, do you vote every time you receive something in the maii about the company, or do you throw it away or give authority to someone else to vote on your behalf? What is more complex, one company or a country?
The current system is flawed because of huge amounts of greed on one side, and huge amounts self-entitlement on the other. Both are greed I guess.
I don't see how the free market is any less fair than the current system which has rules on top of rules, on top of rules, that are randomly or selectively enforced at best, and amounts to being nothing more than pyramid scheme. There are thousands of rules and regulations that grant special priveleges to financial institutions that no one else will ever have-- legalized counterfeitting and legalized fraud to name just a couple. If people believe that a free market would be more unfair because somewhere, somehow, multiple forms of the mob are going to replace government, strong arming people out of their property and possessions, they need to look no further than our current system, where there is not only illegal groups of thugs doing this, but institutionalized ones as well. What's worse is how often they work together and feed off of each other. A recent example: How bad has the idea of "Al Queada" bled this country? How much money has gone into "defense," or no bid contracts, how many agencies have been created, how many people have lost their lives either fighting terrorism or have lost their lives as "collateral damage" along the way? How many people have lost their rights and freedoms at the hands of the "good guys" in the attempt to thwart the "bad guys"? Where is the fairness in any of this?
Simply put, the non-agression principle must be realized for any system to work properly. No one has a right to anyone else's life or property, and no one has the right to initiate force against anyone else unless in self-defense. People must once again be given the greatest opportunity to voluntarily enter into contracts, and therefore have to be CONSCIOUS while doing it if they do not want to get ripped off. If there must be written law, it should be kept simple: Theft is illegal. Fraud is illegal. The use of force against another is illegal unless in self-defense.
Free markets and / or limited government do not exist to most people because they have truly never been tried. Some people are terrified of this idea. I do not see how the people who own the majority of the resources in this country / the world right now would thrive if a truly free system were implemented, because they would be lacking one major tool that they lack currently: the ability to FORCE their products and policies down our throats.
One final note, if the ideas of free markets (or at least freer ones) would be unfair to the little guy, and better for big business, then why isn't a guy like Ron Paul being showered with campaign donations from major corporations, banks, and weapons manufacturers? Instead, he's STILL being left off of polls by major media outlets (conglomerate corporations themselves), despite polling in double digits when he actually IS included in the polls (a huge difference from a couple of years ago).
I personally believe that freedom will work, if given the chance. A fair amount of people still believe in freedom of speech, freedom in their beliefs, freedom to do what they want with their body-- but why not the freedom to choose what a person can or cannot do with the fruits of his/her labor?
Naturally and logically you cannot be the best government if you are not a government, and Thomas Jefferson's quote is comparing different governments. So if there were no government like you say, then it could not be the best government since there is no government. Thomas Jefferson would have said the best government is no government if that was how he felt.
You know Thomas Jefferson was President, right? You know he was governor of Virginia, right? Hardly sounds like an individual supporting no government, which makes you using his quote to support no government absurd.
No kidding. I've read a few articles on CNN and looked at some of the comments and hardly any of the comments are about the story. They all end up fighting one another, and there are a few perverts who throw in random comments.
Allow me to respond and continue with a few things.
1. I like the thoughts on the Ron Paul scenario. It's an interesting point.
2. Let's talk about the swap government for various mobs idea. You basically said they are really no different, which I agree with, by the way. So how would one be better than the other?
3. Don't you think that small government and freedom are relative? One person's idea of limited government is another person's idea of tyranny and oppression. So let me ask you, Vinnie Goomba, what specifically would you have the government actually oversee or do in your limited government scenario? Military, roads, etc. and how does the stuff you want to do get paid for? Voluntary donations, taxes?
"With our thoughts we make the world"
It's just that, in my opinion, that currency, and the love of currency will be the end of our civilization. Maybe govt is beyond this or outside of this idea, but to build currency is to use up the world's resources. Once they're used up (and they will be some day) there will be nothing left to buy/sell. I just think that the idea of being so focused on money is our civilization's downfall. That said, going back to the way hunter/gatherers traded and did business the way they did things, was the right idea. But world currency has blown up and the end is greed, and that greed is a disease that's not going to go away and will always be tied into any sort of market we have, whether it's "free" or not. Free markets, while a good idea, is still related to that greed that has overtaken the world. And there's no way out of it!
I don't know enough about Ron Paul, but he will always be considered an outsider because he's an independent thinker, and for that will always be punished by mainstream, system politics. It's really too bad.
1. Thanks!
2. The mobs - I believe this to be the fear of people who are against a no-government scenario, but I also believe it to be the worst possible case in this scenario. It may not turn out this way-- especially in a society that IS trying to progress (although I believe we're going about progress the wrong way by focusing mostly on legislation, and even worse, creation of agencies that write rules on a whim which are comprised of former industry professionals who are expected to "police" their buddies still in business). The "various forms of mob" would not have any absolute power, where currently government has claimed absolute power. If they did continue to exist, they might even keep each other in check a whole lot more than "our mob" (the government) does. At this point in the United States, it has granted itself the power to do anything really, although it hasn't necessarily always acted on it, the power is there in legal black in white. This includes the power to assassinate of US citizens, the ability to steal the wealth of the people without permission through counterfeitting, spy on them, force entry into their houses, etc... With the wrong people in power, all of these things can be carried out and can be done "legally." History has shown that really bad people do come to power, even through elections and the illusion of "choice." People should take great issue to a system that does everything it can to eliminate choice. I mean, this is America. We love competition-- think about our insatiable apetite for sports. How boring would the MLB/NBA/NFL/NHL be if they were only comprised of 2 teams? Even worse, 2 teams from the same city? That is essentially what the political party system has become. Shit, we even love to vote and vote often when we feel their is actual CHOICE involved: American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, All-Star voting in sports, Vote my baby the cutest baby on Flickr, etc... So in summary, I do not believe no government and having government to be the exact same thing, but at worst, I believe they could end up being similar in some ways if this grand experiment in voluntarism were to fail. This is what makes it worth a shot, being that this society which wants progress (unlike some others) will have to achieve it without universally-accepted coercion, and without recognition that there should is a class of people that are subject to a completely different set of rules than the rest of us. Government should not be able to do what the rest of us cannot. THAT'S equal protection under the law in full practice. I think volunatarism can be done here, with similar ideas taking root elsewhere once it takes off. Humanity is still in its infancy, really. We're just getting over slavery and ROYALTY, and still acknowledge that stuff to some extent, so I see the hesitation with this idea. But as He Still Stands said, the end goal should be self-governance.
3. Yes, government and freedom are relative. I've seen members on this forum say that freedom is having government protect us from all of the scary things out there. I think differently, since I think government tends to breed some of the "scary" things out there. I think total freedom means no government at all, but there can be a division when it comes to property rights: freedom might mean the right to own things to some, and freedom might mean that no one owns anything but themselves, really. I believe in property ownership personally. But since we have government, and will have it until we progress out of it, or it completely collapses in on itself, here's what I personally think it should be responsible for if it is going to stick around: National level - National Defense. And that's DEFENSE, not offense. It can also serve as a moderator between the states for inter-state issues. Maybe it has a place in roadwork at state borders? If not let that fall onto the states. The states responsibilities should be to let counties, cities, and municipalities govern as locally as possible with full respect for the Bill of Rights like the Federal Government. However, if people want to live in a town that is more "socialist" than another, and everyone there pretty much agrees to this, let them do it. This idea just gets much messier when it's done at a federal level. I've seen it breakdown at the dinner table in a restaurant when paying the bill: one guy gets 5 beers with his filet mignon and expects the bill to be divided up evenly among everyone there even though everyone else had burgers and soda. I'm definitely against this implementation on a national or world level-- it will have better results the more locally it is applied, and this way it doesn't force anyone to partake in this system who doesn't want to be a part of it. That's my biggest beef with people who love government: the bigger, the better. At least my system allows you to be highly governed on a local level, while I don't have to be. Their system drags ME into something that I do not wish to be a part of while they live in their version of utopia. As far as collecting taxes go, yes, they should be voluntary. If the government is somehow doing a greater job at something than the private sector, then people should feel the need to throw their money that way. The private sector that is NOT connected to obscene bailouts and safety nets lives and dies by its ability to provide quality to its customers. Government should do the same. Otherwise taxation should appear in the form of user fees and tolls for roads. If you use it, you pay for it. If you don't, you don't. If the government needs to borrow money for something, or needs a cash advance, it needs to repay these debts to the people who invested in it in anything but paper money-- namely, whatever the market has chosen as currency. However, I would much rather advocate a system where the government didn't need to borrow, and didn't undertake any projects until the funds were 100% raised before the project started.
Greed does, and always will exist. You make a great point about the love of currency-- the way you state it is practically straight out of the Bible, and a point I totally agree with. However, trade will always exist, resources will always exist, and what resources are deemed valuable will continue to shift as time goes on. Trade will never die, but it can be stifled greatly, just as it is being done right now. Eliminating potential valuable trading partners also makes them enemies as well-- more government intervention that is overlooked in regards to its ability to impede peace and prosperity. Right now, paper money is on it's last leg. It is the only legal tender here in the United States save some fairly abundant non-precious metals that make up our coins. It is ILLEGAL to use anything but dollars here in the United States. Gold clauses in contracts are ILLEGAL. In a free market, anything can be currency, thus opening up more choices and more opportunities for people to do business. The people holding the most paper dollars aren't necessarily as relevant or powerful in a free market. Some true competition in currency would yield a more barter-type system, maybe one currency would come out the winner, but at least other options could always be considered. I've always thought that cannabis would make a great currency. Seriously. Especially today with smart phones that have apps that can actually weigh things. Even people who don't smoke it realize its value to people who do. Bottomline, we could all benefit from more choices. Free competition in currency wouldn't force people to clamor for any one currency in particular-- especially a particularly useless one: shitty paper.
As far as Ron Paul goes-- look him up. Watch a few of his videos to get some of the things he is about. If you're at all intrigued, but left questioning how any of his ideas would work, check out a couple of his books or scribblings on his website. He's not given nearly enough time in soundbytes to properly convey his ideas and how they could actually be implemented. And really, they're not all his ideas and he'll be the first to tell you that, but he's done more to bring these ideas to light in the last 20 years than anyone else.
well, I think someone (you) needs to take a cursory look into linguistics. The least of ANYTHING is zero. Zero is nothing, no government.
And I have to admit, I got this quote analysis from a writing by Henry David Thoreau, one of the best American writers in history. So, this is not an original or unique idea.
Jefferson was also quoted saying that the anarchy of Native Americans is the direction our society should aim for rather than the oligarchy and minarchy of 18th century Europe... however, I can't find the quote. I got this one from Howard Zinn's "People's History of the US"
And in summary, it's clear from Jefferson's writings that he favored either very minimal or no government, but it doesn't matter really if he favored ANARCHY or MINARCHY, I share his minarchist views and he would undoubtedly be sickened by the lack of social liberties and birth of the police state. Imagine what he would think about people being arrested for dancing at his memorial?
Would the People have voted for that measure?
the reason that I'm opposed to this Minarchy (the smallest possible government), is that we started out with that and it only took us 200 years to arrive at the tsarist occupation government that we have now. I think any government is dangerous, now matter how small it may be.
"the state is concentric and the individual is eccentric" - James Joyce
edit: this is just to clear up any misunderstandings about me possibly being a "tea partier" or other such nonsense. I'm a humanist, not a conservative. Also, this is not an exhaustive list of actions... for example, a small police/fire department can be voted for but shouldn't be compulsory or necessarily public appointments.