Commentary: Govt is [... &] doesn't work (Sage v Leyla)

[Ryan Rudolph]

Integral,

Theft=taking of someone else's property without their consent.
Ryan: When one simply looks at the definition of theft, how is your above claim valid?

I'm defining theft in another context, through a much broader vast scope of life. The fact is that you need energy to live, but the current economic system demands that you must give energy to others first as a means to take, which is a sort of theft. Labor is a sort of involuntary theft, which is necessary for survival. Your own energy is your highest property of all in my opinion, and people demand it as a means satisfy their own desires. So the present life is a sort of theft. Life is a sort of slavery.
Nick,

Using the terms negative and positive liberty is completely off base, in fact if I am correct in understanding what you mean by positive liberty, there is no such thing. Liberty only exists when we are free from coercion by our fellow man. And coerce is exactly what government does BY DEFINITION. Government being an entity that does in fact govern, control, and guide their subjects through taxation, threat of imprisonment, or death The antithesis of liberty. So its a blatant contradiction that government provides liberty, positive or not, when in fact its purpose is to do the exact opposite.

Your definition of liberty is missing one factor. In my opinion, the definition of 'Economic Liberty' also includes the positive right to have suffering alleviated by specialists. It includes many positive rights, the right to have certain vital and essential services provided even if you cannot afford them. I include these positive rights in my definition of liberty.

Regardless of what you say here, I still don't want government in my pockets, bottom line. If I die from cancer at age 65 as opposed to age 75 I don't care because I lived my life freely instead of as a slave, and I am in no way responsible for whether or not someone else gets health service. Secondly if I do directly address your health care scenario; what makes you think that the price of health care wouldn't drop dramatically due to being forced to compete in the free market just like every other industry? Patents and intellectual property do not exist under anarchy so they can not be used to prevent others from using technology someone else invented, and making it even better. It seems like the only services that are over priced are the industries that government has their hands in. As for anarchy being to extreme, I have no problem with that because it leads to extreme liberty, something I am fully supportive of. If you ask me, any form of government is too extreme, in an anti-liberty type of way

.

And so, you’re strictly adhering to your “negative right” definition of economic liberty, which is how most libertarians and anarchists tend to think. It is a very common view, and has a certain amount of truth to it, but it doesn’t solve the pragmatic problem of how to provide expensive vital services to all income classes, and liberalism government philosophy addresses the issue, while libertarians and anarchists ignore it because they can’t find a solution that finds into their ideology.

Loki,

Anarchy is an ideology which promotes the elimination of the State from society: it is against all coercion, hierarchies, undue authorities and attempts to enslave or beat down human beings. More simply, to quote Benjamin Tucker:

What about a government that serves the people? In my province of Nova Scotia, there is very little corruption, coercison, or abuses of authority, I would say that the government in my province are simply servants of the working class. Most are retired teachers, lawyers or doctors that simply wanted to give back to the society, and so they got involved in politics to improve conditions.

because it represent the means by which the concentration of wealth and power is accelerated.

Do you think corporate wealth and power is always evil? Do you realize that a company cannot improve its product without an increase of wealth and power?

the fact that they maintain work hierarchies, that they concentrate wealth, that they concentrate power, that they exploit their "customers" (as mediated by government action), their suppliers, and the third-world, and that they are fictional entities, like God if God was less of an asshole and got a sudden urge to hoard as much money as possible.

But some people are more intelligent and gifted, while others prefer to do drone like positions, where they don't have to think, why do you object to what people prefer to do? A hierarchy is inevitable in a world of relative intelligence and talent. Civilization cannot function with the degree of complexity it has unless there are specialized command hierarchies.

The synergy between government and corporations, which is manifested in a number of social phenomena (statist justice system, property rights that exclude use/occupation rules, a centralized banking system that controls the currency and its parameters

America is an extreme example, and libertarian and anarchist thought is an extreme reaction to extreme tyranny, but there are moderate countries that do not abuse their central monetary power, or political power, and they are able to keep their inflation levels quite low, while keeping a growing middle-class of people, with a smaller wealthy class and poor class.

[Leyla Shen]

And I think the most important part of my argument, the part I can't stress enough, is that anarchy is not a means to a political or social end, it is the end result of people truly valuing absolute liberty.

The means is, most definitely, individuals valuing freedom from coercion in all its forms; the end, anarchism. However, anarchy IS itself a social and political end since it is precisely about what value(s) regulate(s) the interactions between the individual and the group.

That's what I said, which is that anarchy is not a means to an end, but rather it is the end result of people valuing liberty. So yes, people valuing liberty certainly has political and social implications, and I would define these implications as anarchy.

Right. And it's exactly these social and political implications which call into question the matter and form of government consistent with capitalism. This is an area that the proponents here of "free market anarchism" have, so far, failed to address---yourself included. It seems that such proponents see no connection between existing forms of Western government and capitalism despite capitalism being very much the single order of the day, preferring instead to conceive of it as some outgrowth of the people completely disconnected to capitalism. Some undesirable "socialist" wart without its roots in the body of institutionalised capitalism. I have asked in numerous ways, and continue to ask, how you proponents of this "free market anarchism" rationally justify such a disconnection?

[Nick Treklis]

Using the terms negative and positive liberty is completely off base, in fact if I am correct in understanding what you mean by positive liberty, there is no such thing. Liberty only exists when we are free from coercion by our fellow man. And coerce is exactly what government does BY DEFINITION. Government being an entity that does in fact govern, control, and guide their subjects through taxation, threat of imprisonment, or death The antithesis of liberty. So its a blatant contradiction that government provides liberty, positive or not, when in fact its purpose is to do the exact opposite.

Your definition of liberty is missing one factor. In my opinion, the definition of 'Economic Liberty' also includes the positive right to have suffering alleviated by specialists. It includes many positive rights, the right to have certain vital and essential services provided even if you cannot afford them. I include these positive rights in my definition of liberty.

Ryan, I already proved to you that positive liberty does not exist. You can't take peoples liberty away to provide certain "rights" to others and still call it liberty, positive or otherwise. Also, rights actually have nothing to do with liberty. You ought to just face the fact that you actually don't value liberty, and that you think society works best when a small group of people can control the masses. Which in that case, I'd like to make a proposal. How about from this point on, I am your government. All your checks from your job, and all the fruits of your labor must be sent to me. In turn I will take 50% of each of those things and spend it how I see fit (because obviously you can't be trusted to live your life in a way that is socially acceptable), then I'll send you the other 50% for you to spend however you want, unless of course it's on products which I don't think you particularly need which in that case you'll have to send me an extra 6% of everything you buy of this nature. Now you may or may not directly benefit, or benefit at all, from how I spend your taxes, but you know and I know I'll make sure it gets spent in a way that is most beneficial to society. Have a nice day. : )

Oh, and if you don't abide by these rules I'll have to come place you under arrest, and if you resist I maintain the right to physically injure you up to and including the point of death.

but it doesn’t solve the pragmatic problem of how to provide expensive vital services to all income classes, and liberalism government philosophy addresses the issue, while libertarians and anarchists ignore it because they can’t find a solution that finds into their ideology.

You're missing the point Ryan. Providing expensive "vital services" to all income classes is NOT my problem, nor is it my responsibility. If you want to make it my "responsibility" you're going to have to do it by force.

[Nick Treklis]

Right. And it's exactly these social and political implications which call into question the matter and form of government consistent with capitalism. This is an area that the proponents here of "free market anarchism" have, so far, failed to address---yourself included.

I didn't know I was supposed to be addressing it.

It seems that such proponents see no connection between existing forms of Western government and capitalism despite capitalism being very much the single order of the day, preferring instead to conceive of it as some outgrowth of the people completely disconnected to capitalism.

And it seems this way based on what I've said or what others have said? Because I know I haven't even touched on the topic of capitalism at all in this thread.

Some undesirable "socialist" wart without its roots in the body of institutionalised capitalism. I have asked in numerous ways, and continue to ask, how you proponents of this "free market anarchism" rationally justify such a disconnection?

Well, I'm not a proponent of capitalism. I am a proponent of anarchy, and as I've said, under anarchy there can be absolutely no coercion of an individual by another individual or individuals.

If you think there is a scenario where I might back away from this position feel free to present it. Also, you might want to take note that that in the third sentence of my most recent response to Ryan, I made it clear that under anarchy there are no "rights", which is because when we establish rights for ourselves it leaves the potential for another person's liberty to be violated, meaning anarchy ceases to exist.

[Loki]

Ryan Rudolph,

Loki,

Anarchy is an ideology which promotes the elimination of the State from society: it is against all coercion, hierarchies, undue authorities and attempts to enslave or beat down human beings. More simply, to quote Benjamin Tucker:

What about a government that serves the people? In my province of Nova Scotia, there is very little corruption, coercison, or abuses of authority, I would say that the government in my province are simply servants of the working class. Most are retired teachers, lawyers or doctors that simply wanted to give back to the society, and so they got involved in politics to improve conditions.

because it represent the means by which the concentration of wealth and power is accelerated.

Do you think corporate wealth and power is always evil? Do you realize that a company cannot improve its product without an increase of wealth and power?

the fact that they maintain work hierarchies, that they concentrate wealth, that they concentrate power, that they exploit their "customers" (as mediated by government action), their suppliers, and the third-world, and that they are fictional entities, like God if God was less of an asshole and got a sudden urge to hoard as much money as possible.

But some people are more intelligent and gifted, while others prefer to do drone like positions, where they don't have to think, why do you object to what people prefer to do? A hierarchy is inevitable in a world of relative intelligence and talent. Civilization cannot function with the degree of complexity it has unless there are specialized command hierarchies.

The synergy between government and corporations, which is manifested in a number of social phenomena (statist justice system, property rights that exclude use/occupation rules, a centralized banking system that controls the currency and its parameters

America is an extreme example, and libertarian and anarchist thought is an extreme reaction to extreme tyranny, but there are moderate countries that do not abuse their central monetary power, or political power, and they are able to keep their inflation levels quite low, while keeping a growing middle-class of people, with a smaller wealthy class and poor class.

You're peppering me with questions again. I asked you to choose one topic and tell us what YOU believe about it. Don't ask me what I believe or assume what I believe. Then I will tell you what I believe about it. Then we can have a discussion.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nick,

Ryan, I already proved to you that positive liberty does not exist.

How did you prove that positive liberty does not exist? Meaning the right for everyone to have access basic essential services such as education, healthcare, paved roads, dental coverage, police services and so on. And not just the wealthy classes. The problem I have with libertarian thinking is that it becomes a sort of religion where people believe that the ideology alone can solve all of humanities problems. It clearly cannot.

You're missing the point Ryan. Providing expensive "vital services" to all income classes is NOT my problem, nor is it my responsibility. If you want to make it my "responsibility" you're going to have to do it by force.

You use such strong language to exaggerate your points. Then whose problem is it then? I think it is everyone’s problem to figure out how to create a fair society, but you seem to have bought into the oversimplified libertarian dogma – don’t bother me, stay away from me, don’t take my money. That is all your conception of liberty amounts to, and it seems rather shortsighted to me.

As long as you cannot admit that all people are entitled to certain basic services then you’re going to continue to religiously buy into all libertarian philosophy. All political theory is incomplete to some degree, so it is naïve to buy into one particular political philosophy as the holy grail of pragmatic thought.

I knew aspects of libertarian thought was suspect when Ron Paul was asked how to solve the problem of the US healthcare system, and his answer was to allow the church to run the hospitals through volunteering. Despite all his economic understanding, he actually believes such an idea is a realistic solution to the country’s failing health care system. And even though, I gained much of my economic understanding from Ron Paul, some of his ideas are just plain wacky, like returning to the gold standard. Just not feasible.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Loki,

You're peppering me with questions again. I asked you to choose one topic and tell us what YOU believe about it. Don't ask me what I believe or assume what I believe. Then I will tell you what I believe about it. Then we can have a discussion.

Here is how I define many of the topics debated:

I define a corporation as a group of humans specializing in providing some good or service, while growing their business through profits. There is nothing inherently evil about a corporation. Only the behavior of people is inherently evil. For instance: Responsible people can run corporations responsibly, and the entity “corporation” has been a useful legal definition as it ensures a fair contract between the corporation and the consumer. Moreover, Corporations make their money through the sale of their product.

I define a government as a group of humans voted in by the masses, and they are put in positions of voting power to oversee services that should not be privatized by the free-market. IE; healthcare, police force, military, fire department, public libraries, museums, city maintenance, and so on. They make their money through taxation of property, income, and the sale of goods and services.

I define the overall behavior of capitalism as simply allowing the free-market to handle all goods and services that should be privatized, while allowing the government to provide all goods and services that should not be privatized.

A corporation and the state are very similar in the sense that each has a certain level of power and responsibility to provide something of value to the general public. And what they provide has some intrinsic value because people need it continuously to ensure a high standard of living.

Moreover, I actually believe that the legal definitions of the corporation and government are very useful, but the abuses come from unconscious humans who are motivated by more animalistic primal desires. Greed, lust and exploitation should not be blamed on the government or the corporation, but on the psychology of the individual.

Moreover, if the psychology of the individual was enlightened, there would be no problem with the entity “corporation” or the entity “government”

[Nick Treklis]

How did you prove that positive liberty does not exist?

Because positive liberty implies that liberty is created through government, which is by definition the antithesis of liberty.

Meaning the right for everyone to have access basic essential services such as education, healthcare, paved roads, dental coverage, police services and so on. And not just the wealthy classes.

And these rights which are not to be confused with liberty, come at the expense of another's liberty. They don't magically get the resources they need to pay for such things. Rights do not exist under anarchy.

The problem I have with libertarian thinking is that it becomes a sort of religion where people believe that the ideology alone can solve all of humanities problems. It clearly cannot.

This isn't necessarily about solving all of humanities "problems". If you see a problem, take the responsibility to go fix it yourself instead of forcing others to do it for you. You are just whining now.

You use such strong language to exaggerate your points.

Does it scare you?

Then whose problem is it then?

Yours apparently.

I think it is everyone’s problem to figure out how to create a fair society,

How kind and generous of you to tell us all we have a problem. It must have taken a lot of effort, critical thinking, and an undying love of liberty to come up with the idea that you should take from others what you don't think they deserve and spend it how you see fit.

but you seem to have bought into the oversimplified libertarian dogma – don’t bother me, stay away from me, don’t take my money. That is all your conception of liberty amounts to, and it seems rather shortsighted to me.

Then it's obvious you haven't been paying attention to what I've said. Because if you were you might see the nature of your government dogma - (I know how to live your life better than you do). It's also obvious you are very short sighted when it comes to how society would flourish under anarchy, as if liberty weren't enough of a reason to value it already.

As long as you cannot admit that all people are entitled to certain basic services then you’re going to continue to religiously buy into all libertarian philosophy.

Ha! And this entitlement comes from what one can only assume to be a God or higher power of some sort? And I'm the one behaving religiously here... Honestly Ryan, take the plank out of your own eye before you attempt to remove the splinter from someone else's.

All political theory is incomplete to some degree, so it is naïve to buy into one particular political philosophy as the holy grail of pragmatic thought.

This isn't about libertarian philosophy or any type of political theory at all. This is about the simple fact that I value liberty, and that any society that truly values it will necessarily be living under anarchy. Also the fact that I believe the type of society under anarchy would be flourishing in comparison to a society under government is just icing on the cake.

Like I said, you ought to just face facts and be honest with yourself about having no respect for liberty. And if you had the balls to go out and do the work for yourself (become a regular Robin Hood of sorts) I might even have a little respect for your position, but instead you would rather just kick back and let the government do all the dirty work for you. And if you think a society under government is better than a society under anarchy, well, I can agree to disagree on that one. But I must point out that society has lived under government for quite a while now and things only seem to get better where government isn’t involved.

I knew aspects of libertarian thought was suspect when Ron Paul was asked how to solve the problem of the US healthcare system, and his answer was to allow the church to run the hospitals through volunteering. Despite all his economic understanding, he actually believes such an idea is a realistic solution to the country’s failing health care system. And even though, I gained much of my economic understanding from Ron Paul, some of his ideas are just plain wacky, like returning to the gold standard. Just not feasible.

Why are you still talking about Ron Paul and libertarianism?

[Leyla Shen]

I didn't know I was supposed to be addressing [the matter and form of government consistent with capitalism].

Well, there’s no iron-clad rule, of course…

Leyla Shen wrote:It seems that such proponents see no connection between existing forms of Western government and capitalism despite capitalism being very much the single order of the day, preferring instead to conceive of it as some outgrowth of the people completely disconnected to capitalism.

Nick: And it seems this way based on what I've said or what others have said?

You. For example, you say to Ryan:

Like I said, you ought to just face facts and be honest with yourself about having no respect for liberty. And if you had the balls to go out and do the work for yourself (become a regular Robin Hood of sorts) I might even have a little respect for your position, but instead you would rather just kick back and let the government do all the dirty work for you.

Are you unaware of all the government legislation in place that protects the rights of capitalists, under which you (and, of course, not JUST you) personally just so happen to be making a living. I mean, as an absolute anarchist who doesn’t support rights at all, you’re not yourself using your own balls to go out and do the work necessary to live so you’re not dependent on government, are you?

Because I know I haven't even touched on the topic of capitalism at all in this thread.

No, you have never mentioned the word. You have, in another thread some time ago, said something about wiping out socialism.

Leyla Shen wrote: Some undesirable "socialist" wart without its roots in the body of institutionalised capitalism. I have asked in numerous ways, and continue to ask, how you proponents of this "free market anarchism" rationally justify such a disconnection?

Nick: Well, I'm not a proponent of capitalism. I am a proponent of anarchy, and as I've said, under anarchy there can be absolutely no coercion of an individual by another individual or individuals.

If you think there is a scenario where I might back away from this position feel free to present it.

See above.

Also, you might want to take note that that in the third sentence of my most recent response to Ryan, I made it clear that under anarchy there are no "rights", which is because when we establish rights for ourselves it leaves the potential for another person's liberty to be violated, meaning anarchy ceases to exist.

OK. So, again, see above.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nick,

Because positive liberty implies that liberty is created through government, which is by definition the antithesis of liberty.

As I’ve suggested, the behavior of government isn’t all that different from the behavior of corporations. Corporations provide services that people have no choice to need, and governments provide services that people have no choice to need. For instance: I don’t actually choose to buy food, I involuntarily need food, so are corporations secretly forcing me to buy food? Of course not. Just as the government is not forcing me to have access to free healthcare.

And these rights which are not to be confused with liberty, come at the expense of another's liberty. They don't magically get the resources they need to pay for such things. Rights do not exist under anarchy.

Well, that is an inferior system, as the living standards of each citizen would decrease. My point is that working in the society is at the expense of everyone’s liberty, so what does it matter if there is government? In one sense, the human condition is at the expense of liberty. And government is just a central pragmatic agency, and it role has been to reduce the burden of each citizen.

If you see a problem, take the responsibility to go fix it yourself instead of forcing others to do it for you. You are just whining now.

One person does not have the power to solve a failing healthcare system of an entire nation, and that is why central government intervention is necessary.

Yours apparently.

The quality of living conditions is everyone’s concern.

(I know how to live your life better than you do)

No, it’s about providing a fair society for all, rather than just selfishly hording your money under your bed, while sitting by the door with a shotgun, waiting for that nasty government to come through your door and take your money, so that they can force you to have access to very expensive healthcare facitities. THOSE BASTARDS!

Ha! And this entitlement comes from what one can only assume to be a God or higher power of some sort?

No, just examine life. All people need basic healthcare, dental services, safe work conditions, health standards, and all the rest of it. And by eliminating government, the corporation isn't going to pick up the slack, they will actually become much more lazy when it comes to human rights, as it is human nature to sacrifice human rights for profit.

I might even have a little respect for your position, but instead you would rather just kick back and let the government do all the dirty work for you.

minimal retribution is effortless, and the results are immense, as long as the extent of the redistribution doesn’t go too far, and become extreme. It is all about balance. The beauty of taxation is that it is an automatic mechanism that takes just enough to provide essential services for all, while not taking too much from each one, and thereby allowing them to secure basic food, clothes and shelter. When taxation is conservatively governed, it is quite a brilliant mechanism.

However, I believe that if taxation becomes too high then it should be reduced. A person shouldn't lose any more than 30% of their income. 25% is probably ideal in a true conservative nation. In some European countries such as France, citizens lose 40% of their income, but the government provides a vast amount of services, more so than any other nation. it is a give and take relationship.

[Nick Treklis]

Are you unaware of all the government legislation in place that protects the rights of capitalists, under which you (and, of course, not JUST you) personally just so happen to be making a living. I mean, as an absolute anarchist who doesn’t support rights at all, you’re not yourself using your own balls to go out and do the work necessary to live so you’re not dependent on government, are you?

Well I already said I don't claim to have any rights, so if the government is defending anyone's rights, they aren't mine. Also, it is not my responsibility to side step every government service that is provided to the public. Partially because I am forced to pay taxes and I ought to use what I can so I can get reimbursed for them, and partially because the government has monopolized services to the point that it is legally and economically impossible to provide services for one's self or others in a free market or anarchist fashion without the risk or imprisonment or extreme hardship. I'm not sure what you expect of me Leyla. Should I live in the woods without relying on any government services? Oh shit I forgot, those woods are a government designated wild life sanctuary, guess I'll have to move to the north pole. Point is, government is intrusive to the point that it is now impossible to live completely independent of it, it's just the way things are. What I do in fact do, is educate others about liberty and government, and not willingly participate in any of the politics that support governments.

No, you have never mentioned the word. You have, in another thread some time ago, said something about wiping out socialism.

They way I understand it, capitalism and socialism are not polar opposites. So to say that just because I don't support socialism automatically implies that I support capitalism would be false.

[Nick Treklis]

As I’ve suggested, the behavior of government isn’t all that different from the behavior of corporations. Corporations provide services that people have no choice to need, and governments provide services that people have no choice to need. For instance: I don’t actually choose to buy food, I involuntarily need food, so are corporations secretly forcing me to buy food? Of course not. Just as the government is not forcing me to have access to free healthcare.

There are things we need to survive, but we can choose how we go about achieving those ends. If you think a governed market is more efficient at providing these things than a free market, well I only need to name two things inherent in governed markets that makes it inferior to a free market: Corruption and lack of Competition. If you don't agree with this, you're gonna have a hell of a time reasoning your way out from under those two big C's.

Well, that is an inferior system, as the living standards of each citizen would decrease.

How? Without rights everyone has liberty. Unless of course you think liberty hampers one's living standards. Care to elaborate?

My point is that working in the society is at the expense of everyone’s liberty, so what does it matter if there is government? In one sense, the human condition is at the expense of liberty.

Based on how I have repeatedly defined liberty, you are completely off base with these allegations.

And government is just a central pragmatic agency, and it role has been to reduce the burden of each citizen.

Government reduces the burden not of each citizen, but of certain citizens, at the expense of putting the burden on another citizen.

One person does not have the power to solve a failing healthcare system of an entire nation, and that is why central government intervention is necessary.

Prove that government intervention is necessary in regards to quality health care.

No, it’s about providing a fair society for all,

Fair for who? Fair to the people who have a greater burden and responsibility forced on to them by the state, or the people with all the cushy government jobs and the power that goes along with it?

rather than just selfishly hording your money under your bed, while sitting by the door with a shotgun, waiting for that nasty government to come through your door and take your money, so that they can force you to have access to very expensive healthcare facitities. THOSE BASTARDS!

So if the IRS comes breaking the door down with a tax funded Swat team holding tax funded assault rifles and throw me into a tax funded prison because I stopped paying taxes it was because I didn't accept government funded health services? Excuse me while I LOL.

No, just examine life. All people need basic healthcare, dental services, safe work conditions, health standards, and all the rest of it. And by eliminating government, the corporation isn't going to pick up the slack, they will actually become much more lazy when it comes to human rights, as it is human nature to sacrifice human rights for profit.

Corporations can't exist without government so what you are saying here has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

minimal retribution is effortless, and the results are immense, as long as the extent of the redistribution doesn’t go too far, and become extreme. It is all about balance. The beauty of taxation is that it is an automatic mechanism that takes just enough to provide essential services for all, while not taking too much from each one, and thereby allowing them to secure basic food, clothes and shelter. When taxation is conservatively governed, it is quite a brilliant mechanism.

However, I believe that if taxation becomes too high then it should be reduced. A person shouldn't lose any more than 30% of their income. 25% is probably ideal in a true conservative nation. In some European countries such as France, citizens lose 40% of their income, but the government provides a vast amount of services, more so than any other nation. it is a give and take relationship.

"It is not the anarchist who is guilty of wishful thinking. Those who believer that a single institution can be given a monopoly on force, the right to be the judge in cases against itself, and the sole right to interpret the laws binding itself, and then be expected to behave because of a piece of paper--they are the ones indulging in utopian fantasies."

[Loki]

Loki,

You're peppering me with questions again. I asked you to choose one topic and tell us what YOU believe about it. Don't ask me what I believe or assume what I believe. Then I will tell you what I believe about it. Then we can have a discussion.

Here is how I define many of the topics debated:

I define a corporation as a group of humans specializing in providing some good or service, while growing their business through profits. There is nothing inherently evil about a corporation. Only the behavior of people is inherently evil. For instance: Responsible people can run corporations responsibly, and the entity “corporation” has been a useful legal definition as it ensures a fair contract between the corporation and the consumer. Moreover, Corporations make their money through the sale of their product.

I define a government as a group of humans voted in by the masses, and they are put in positions of voting power to oversee services that should not be privatized by the free-market. IE; healthcare, police force, military, fire department, public libraries, museums, city maintenance, and so on. They make their money through taxation of property, income, and the sale of goods and services.

I define the overall behavior of capitalism as simply allowing the free-market to handle all goods and services that should be privatized, while allowing the government to provide all goods and services that should not be privatized.

A corporation and the state are very similar in the sense that each has a certain level of power and responsibility to provide something of value to the general public. And what they provide has some intrinsic value because people need it continuously to ensure a high standard of living.

Moreover, I actually believe that the legal definitions of the corporation and government are very useful, but the abuses come from unconscious humans who are motivated by more animalistic primal desires. Greed, lust and exploitation should not be blamed on the government or the corporation, but on the psychology of the individual.

Moreover, if the psychology of the individual was enlightened, there would be no problem with the entity “corporation” or the entity “government”

Okay, well I already told you my position on these issues. So let's isolate the points on which we differ and discuss those.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nick

Corruption and lack of Competition.

Corporations are also guilty of corruption. IE: Worldcom and Enron. And corporations can influence the market in such a way to eliminate competition, its called a monopoly, and corporations do it all the time. The problem isn’t with the entity 'corporation' or 'government', it is a problem with human beings.

Unless of course you think liberty hampers one's living standards. Care to elaborate?

Government has been largely responsible for the drastic increase of living standards for over the past decade, while many corporations refuse new regulations because it cuts into their profit margins, even if those changes might make the work conditions less hellish for employees.

Government reduces the burden not of each citizen, but of certain citizens, at the expense of putting the burden on another citizen.

Taxation isn’t bad if it is kept under check. People can still survive comfortably while increasing the overall living standards for all income classes. It is a very moral system if it is done correctly. In Canada, the taxation system still allows people to pursue what they want, it isn’t that crippling to people’s needs. You interpret the severity of the situation through an extreme situation - America.

Prove that government intervention is necessary in regards to quality health care.

USA.

Fair to the people who have a greater burden and responsibility forced on to them by the state, or the people with all the cushy government jobs and the power that goes along with it?

There are a lot of nasty government jobs as well, what about the people that pick up garbage or clean storm drains, or plow snow in the middle of the night, and so on. You have an oversimplified bureaucratic view of government. I maintain that some level of government is definitely necessary for high living standard. For instance: All the G8 Countries have democracies with some form of universal taxation system, universal law system, and all the rest. Just the fact that there are no functional anarchist/libertarian societies is a cause for suspicion.

So if the IRS comes breaking the door down with a tax funded Swat team holding tax funded assault rifles and throw me into a tax funded prison because I stopped paying taxes it was because I didn't accept government funded health services?

Americans are extreme in every thing they do, but people who do not pay tax deserve some form of punishment as a deterrent, but the actions of Americans are over the top, I’ll agree to that. Here is an example: Wesley Snipes – multi-millionaire. He evaded taxes for five or six years, and they finally arrested him. Did he deserve it? I think so. Why? Because consider all the government services he used, and didn’t pay for that were necessary for him to make his fortune, so he owed the government for what they provided him. It is simple cause and affect. However, I don’t think police raids are necessary to collect taxes, but a letter with a threat to your credit score might be more appropriate.

"It is not the anarchist who is guilty of wishful thinking. Those who believer that a single institution can be given a monopoly on force, the right to be the judge in cases against itself, and the sole right to interpret the laws binding itself, and then be expected to behave because of a piece of paper--they are the ones indulging in utopian fantasies."

Like I have stated, if human nature wasn’t so feeble, there would be less corruption in government. Government wouldn’t be a problem if people were more responsible. As I have previously stated, there is far less corruption in Canada compared to America, and as a result Canadians are much more content with the present system because it works. Why is there less corruption here? Canadians are generally less ambitious and materialistic, and the population is lower. All these factors contribute to the smaller, and less harmful government experienced here.

Another problem with American politics is that you have many more irrational special interest groups and corporations constantly influencing the behavior of government. You don't get that sort of behavior to the same extreme degree in Canada.

[Loki]

Ryan,

Let's talk about health care.

Health care depends on a number of things: the ability to school doctors, the ability to build hospitals, the ability to procure equipment. What specifically about health care necessitates a government?

Remember that governments do not produce: they control production and its results. Anyone can build a hospital, but few people can control it.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Loki,

What specifically about health care necessitates a government?

I would suggest that government funded health care system is much more accessible than a privatized health care system based on the fact that the wealthy and upper-middle class gets the best coverage, while the lower middle-class and poverty classes are stuck with basic coverage or no coverage at all. And then there is the problem of trying to get claims processed through insurance companies, which are not as full proof as a government system.

In America, if you don't have the money or an approved insurance plan, you can die waiting for service in the emergency room, while in Canada, you just present a government provided health card at the hospital, and you instantly gain access to health services. And despite the wait times in Canada, they do prioritize surgeries and ailments that are life threatening over ones that are not.

Remember that governments do not produce: they control production and its results. Anyone can build a hospital, but few people can control it.

It basically comes down to deciding whether or not to give control over to insurance companies or government to provide health coverage for citizens, and there are pros and cons to each system.

on the one hand, a privatized system such as the US usually has the most advanced research and specialized treatment facilities, but its services are not as easily accessible for all the different income classes. While a socialized system may only have average technology and equipment, but the services are much more accessible to everyone.

Overall, if I had to judge, I would suggest that a government funded socialized health care system is a bit more fair and balanced.

It results in the greatest good for the greatest number, which is a utilitarian standpoint.

[Nick Treklis]

Corporations are also guilty of corruption. IE: Worldcom and Enron. And corporations can influence the market in such a way to eliminate competition, its called a monopoly, and corporations do it all the time.

That's because they are protected by government.

The problem isn’t with the entity 'corporation' or 'government', it is a problem with human beings.

Right, which is why anarchy would be the social environment best suited for harnessing the power of the constructive side of human beings. Having government can only amplify the problematic nature of human beings because it gives a certain group of people power over another group of people. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Government has been largely responsible for the drastic increase of living standards for over the past decade, while many corporations refuse new regulations because it cuts into their profit margins, even if those changes might make the work conditions less hellish for employees.

So you don't hold government responsible when things go bad, but if things improve government is responsible? You just put your foot in your mouth with your last two statements.

You look at all the countries in the world, and I can guarantee you that the countries with the least intrusive forms of government will generally contain a population who’s overall well being far exceeds countries with more intrusive forms of government

Taxation isn’t bad if it is kept under check. People can still survive comfortably while increasing the overall living standards for all income classes. It is a very moral system if it is done correctly. In Canada, the taxation system still allows people to pursue what they want, it isn’t that crippling to people’s needs. You interpret the severity of the situation through an extreme situation - America.

You are contradicting yourself again. Taxation necessarily reduces the quality of life of all income classes which are taxed because the fruits of their labor is diminished. You can not reconcile this with the statement that “living standards increase for all income classes” because they don’t, bottom line.

I’ll ask you again Ryan, to stop beating around the bush. Just admit that you do not value liberty and you value a dictatorship where an individual or small group of individuals controls the masses as their subjects, because you think it would lead to an ideal society. And like I said, I’ll agree to disagree with you on this point because I would be wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise.

Prove that government intervention is necessary in regards to quality health care.

USA.

This proves nothing. The United States government has their hands all overall the infastucture of health care in this country. If you really believe that centrally governed health care will provide the best quality of service you are going to have to spell it out in detail. I suspect you haven’t thought this out very well so do take your time with this one. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders.

Fair to the people who have a greater burden and responsibility forced on to them by the state, or the people with all the cushy government jobs and the power that goes along with it?

There are a lot of nasty government jobs as well, what about the people that pick up garbage or clean storm drains, or plow snow in the middle of the night, and so on. You have an oversimplified bureaucratic view of government.

I have an oversimplified view of government? I could charge you with the same accusation with your blind faith in a system ran by people that you view as problematic. You argument is flawed from the get go based on this. Also, don’t try to state anything about my view on government based on that single statement, because you know I‘ve presented you with numerous other flaws in government. Unless of course you just aren’t paying attention, which would indeed explain a lot.

I maintain that some level of government is definitely necessary for high living standard. For instance: All the G8 Countries have democracies with some form of universal taxation system, universal law system, and all the rest.

This does not prove anything about government being necessary for a high standard of living. You need to start doing the ground work for your arguments, Ryan.

Just the fact that there are no functional anarchist/libertarian societies is a cause for suspicion.

Suspicion of what? How is it the fault of anarchy that government keeps getting in the way? Like I said, anarchy is not a means to an end, it is the end result of people valuing liberty. Government on the other hand is a means to an end, which is why you need to do a lot more work if you want to justify stealing from a certain group of people and redistributing the fruits of their labor to yourself and others that you see as more deserving.

So if the IRS comes breaking the door down with a tax funded Swat team holding tax funded assault rifles and throw me into a tax funded prison because I stopped paying taxes it was because I didn't accept government funded health services?

Americans are extreme in every thing they do, but people who do not pay tax deserve some form of punishment as a deterrent, but the actions of Americans are over the top, I’ll agree to that. Here is an example: Wesley Snipes – multi-millionaire. He evaded taxes for five or six years, and they finally arrested him. Did he deserve it? I think so. Why? Because consider all the government services he used, and didn’t pay for that were necessary for him to make his fortune, so he owed the government for what they provided him. It is simple cause and affect. However, I don’t think police raids are necessary to collect taxes, but a letter with a threat to your credit score might be more appropriate.

What does this have to do with the fact that I get my life threatened and thrown in prison based on some ridiculous assertion that it’s because I didn’t accept government health care services? Why don’t you just admit how stupid it was of you to say something like that?

Like I have stated, if human nature wasn’t so feeble, there would be less corruption in government. Government wouldn’t be a problem if people were more responsible. As I have previously stated, there is far less corruption in Canada compared to America, and as a result Canadians are much more content with the present system because it works. Why is there less corruption here? Canadians are generally less ambitious and materialistic, and the population is lower. All these factors contribute to the smaller, and less harmful government experienced here.

Again your putting your foot in your mouth. You say it is the people (being less ambitious and materialistic), NOT the government, that is responsible for Canada’s alleged superior quality of life when compared to the USA’s. Which means you are actually proving my point that an anarchist society is superior to a governed society. So which is it Ryan, do you value liberty or slavedom as a means to a better society? There is no middle ground.

Another problem with American politics is that you have many more irrational special interest groups and corporations constantly influencing the behavior of government. You don't get that sort of behavior to the same extreme degree in Canada.

Again you are actually inadvertently supporting my argument. Which is that without government there is no outlet for people to control others, which necessarily means the less powerful and intrusive government is, the more safe the people are from tyranny. So when there is no government, people are absolutely safe from tyranny.

Also, if people were wiser, more conscious, and more enlightened than they are, it should be obvious that government would never arise. One can not logically reconcile the fact that government is necessarily run by the people you view as problematic, and believe that this will lead to a better society. It appears government is solely the spawn of irrational people.

[Loki]

Ryan,

You answered that government health care is more accessible than privatized health care. First of all, you don't know if this is the case because we have no examples of private health care to look at (if you want to argue that more private health care is less accessible, that's another issue). Since we don't want privatization anyway, your point is completely irrelevant. You need to compare MARKET health care with government health care, not corporate health care with government health care.

But most importantly, you haven't answered my question at all. I asked you "What specifically about health care necessitates a government?" You didn't say anything about that, you went into a tangent. So answer the question.

It results in the greatest good for the greatest number, which is a utilitarian standpoint.

Utilitarianism is not a valid moral system, because it is based on an unjustifiable premise. There's no particular reason why we should pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. Why not the least harm for the greatest number? Why not some combination of both? None of these premises can be derived from observations, and therefore they are all unjustifiable and arbitrary.

[Leyla Shen]

Nick:

They way I understand it, capitalism and socialism are not polar opposites.

Exactly.

So to say that just because I don't support socialism automatically implies that I support capitalism would be false.

That is true, also. However, curiously to me, you seem to have a passionate position on socialism but not capitalism.

Perhaps more will be revealed on why this is as the discussion between members on this thread progresses.

That is what I am looking for---what I "want from you," Nick.

[Nick Treklis]

That is true, also. However, curiously to me, you seem to have a passionate position on socialism but not capitalism.

That's probably because socialists seem to want to eliminate all aspects of a free market, whereas capitalists at least has some respect for the idea.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nick,

That's because they are protected by government.

but the government doesn’t always have to be involved for men to do dishonest things in the business world.

Right, which is why anarchy would be the social environment best suited for harnessing the power of the constructive side of human beings. Having government can only amplify the problematic nature of human beings because it gives a certain group of people power over another group of people. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Yes, there is more power with government, but government has been able to accomplish quite a bit of good with concentrated power as well. I’m not against giving humans power, but I prefer humans who are more rational to better weld that power.

So you don't hold government responsible when things go bad, but if things improve government is responsible? You just put your foot in your mouth with your last two statements.

No. I’m saying that government has been both directly responsible for advancements in civilization and degeneration in civilizations. However, just because degeneration is sometimes caused by government doesn’t imply that the ‘entity’ government should be totally abandoned. That is logical leap that should be fully examined. Moreover, if more people in politics were more rational and understood basic economics, then governments wouldn’t be that much of a problem.

Taxation necessarily reduces the quality of life of all income classes which are taxed because the fruits of their labor is diminished.

Maybe in America where there is runaway inflation, but in Canada, and other nations, the quality of living isn’t diminished to a critical degree. I would actually argue that the quality of life of each citizen has been enhanced by government, not degraded.

Government on the other hand is a means to an end, which is why you need to do a lot more work if you want to justify stealing from a certain group of people and redistributing the fruits of their labor to yourself and others that you see as more deserving.

I already went into that with my positive rights argument – all humans are entitled to certain essential services just for the fact of being human, and not enough income shouldn’t prevent someone from gaining access to those services. Since economic inequality is a fact, humans can establish institutions to ease the severity of that inequality, and that is what the taxation system accomplishes. As I have stated previously, I include both positive and negative rights in my definition of ‘economic liberty’, whereas you only define liberty with negative rights.

NOT the government, that is responsible for Canada’s alleged superior quality of life when compared to the USA’s. Which means you are actually proving my point that an anarchist society is superior to a governed society. So which is it Ryan, do you value liberty or slavedom as a means to a better society? There is no middle ground.

I’m just saying that the more responsible and informed the congress, the less of a problem they are.

Again you are actually inadvertently supporting my argument. Which is that without government there is no outlet for people to control others, which necessarily means the less powerful and intrusive government is, the more safe the people are from tyranny. So when there is no government, people are absolutely safe from tyranny.

My point is that the entity government is actually a fairly decent idea based on the positive affects it has on increasing the quality of living for all income classes. However, I’m perfectly open to technology reaching a point where government becomes partially obsolete, and this could happen as things become more automated.

My main argument is that government has been responsible for quite a bit of good for nations, as well as tyranny. I just felt the need to balance out your anarchy argument, which I feel is too extreme, and doesn't give the history of government a fair account. Government should not be fully demonized, as not all of its affects have been negative. It should only be partially demonized.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Loki,

First of all, you don't know if this is the case because we have no examples of private health care to look at

The US system is privatized – meaning it is run by private corporations.

if you want to argue that more private health care is less accessible, that's another issue)

No, it’s the same issue, you asked - what specifically about health care necessitates a government? And my answer to that question was the government should provide health care because it is more accessible than when private corporations provide it.

Utilitarianism is not a valid moral system, because it is based on an unjustifiable premise. There's no particular reason why we should pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. Why not the least harm for the greatest number

.

Have you ever read how Utilitarianism is defined? One of the pillars of utilitarianism is the harm principle meaning that if harm is reduced for the majority, and suffering isn’t inflicted on others to accomplish that end, then the greatest good for the greatest number has been achieved.

So your objection as to why utilitarianism isn’t a moral argument is actually part of its definition, which makes it a moral argument.

[Jamesh]

Nick said:

This isn't about libertarian philosophy or any type of political theory at all. This is about the simple fact that I value liberty, and that any society that truly values it will necessarily be living under anarchy. Also the fact that I believe the type of society under anarchy would be flourishing in comparison to a society under government is just icing on the cake.

You are a dreamer, or just arguing for arguments sake.

The poor state of Government management just represents the same problems that occur in all persons and communities. The cause is the same – namely that the human ego creates greed, and greed causes more wealth and power to rest in the hands of those whom are most greedy.

While it is not possible for a large society to develop at all under an anarchy non-system, lets imagine that over the next 20 years your dream came true and anarchistic groups grew stronger and stronger and whittled away the control of the government of X country. Lets make it Iceland, that no other countries with government would bother invade.

No more taxes, everything run by private citizens or cooperative private groups on a user pays basis. For the first few years everything is rosy. Families put away money for future health care and so on or pay for their elderly parents (or just let them die). One year however there is a summer season where there are massive storms and few crops can be grown. People begin to starve. What happens next? (lets ignore the incredible inflation that would occur for the sake of this fantasy)

What happens is that those with the most powerful connections will begin to exert control over others. The most powerful connections will tend to be religious groups (which are just another type of government, though potentially far more insidious). Life forms have a will to power, and in people this is expressed through the ego. We enjoy the act of pleasing our ego, though as emotions are in the moment, the ego is never able to be fully sated. Testosterone levels will rise, and men with both large egos, and powerful bodies or charisma, will begin to strive to dominate. They will try and extend their domain of control and this will lead to constant fighting, resulting in severe hardships to those who are now controlled by the domineers.

Life would either be hell, or there would be almost no freedom as we’d end up under the control of some form of ruling dynasty. We’d be no better off at all.


In any case you overestimate just how much governments cost you. The most highly governed capitalistic countries tend to do the best economically. So what if some clowns are skimming the bulk of the cream off the top – what does this really cost you, compared to what you gain from government!

You have the freedom to do anything you like – except harm others, or to take actions to potentially harm others, and to not pay taxes. At least you won’t be judged under the power of some cretinous rulers whim.

There are pluses and minuses to all actions or outcomes, including those of humans. Democratic governments just smooth down the pluses and minuses, and provides the oil for cross-community trade. Non-democratic governments, such as Hitlers Germany or Zimbabwe are a result of increased anarchy + control, as caused by a small number of massive egos.


In addition, I do not believe any anarchic system could lead to economies of scale except where peoples liberties are taken away by others. I just can’t imagine any health organisation in an anarchic society being able to allocate anywhere near the resources on scientific development (most of which fails miserably) to get past a witch doctor type of health provision. Nothing would get off the ground in any industry that requires major levels of investment, as everyone would always be frightened of investing when there would be no protect from those who might be stronger, or who might collude privately to destroy or take over such investments.


There is however, one thing that governments (or any other organisation) should not control, but so very often attempt to. This is the liberty to exercise well considered reason. We need the freedom to think outside of tradition or the prevailing memes and to act on that which is most rational for the times and the future.

[Jason]

Again you are actually inadvertently supporting my argument. Which is that without government there is no outlet for people to control others, which necessarily means the less powerful and intrusive government is, the more safe the people are from tyranny.

Every single human interaction has the potential to be an outlet for controlling others. Religion controls believers, bosses control workers, schools control students, parents control children, big brothers control little brothers. If you're going to(and maybe you're not) try to reduce the argument down to being fundamentally about people controlling others, government is just one among many.

This isn't about libertarian philosophy or any type of political theory at all. This is about the simple fact that I value liberty, and that any society that truly values it will necessarily be living under anarchy.

You're free to choose not to pay taxes, and the cops are free to choose to follow their orders to throw you in prison, and you can freely choose to fight their attempts to do so. Freedom all 'round.

[Nick Treklis]

Yes, there is more power with government, but government has been able to accomplish quite a bit of good with concentrated power as well. I’m not against giving humans power, but I prefer humans who are more rational to better weld that power.

Government doesn't "accomplish" anything, people do. All government does is the only thing it can do, which is govern. The only difference is that under government, people are forced to provide for others, and under anarchy people solely provide things willingly.

No. I’m saying that government has been both directly responsible for advancements in civilization and degeneration in civilizations. However, just because degeneration is sometimes caused by government doesn’t imply that the ‘entity’ government should be totally abandoned. That is logical leap that should be fully examined. Moreover, if more people in politics were more rational and understood basic economics, then governments wouldn’t be that much of a problem.

Religion has also been responsible for advancements in civilization, but I have no doubt in my mind you would jump at the chance to eliminate that from the face of the Earth. The point is, the free market has been responsible for far more advancements in civilization than government and religion combined. So why not get rid of the dead wood? As for rational people being interested in politics, that is an oxymoron.

Maybe in America where there is runaway inflation, but in Canada, and other nations, the quality of living isn’t diminished to a critical degree. I would actually argue that the quality of life of each citizen has been enhanced by government, not degraded.

If I take your notion that Canada is better off than the United States at face value, I can directly relate that to the fact that the Canada's government is miniscule in comparison to the United States.

I already went into that with my positive rights argument – all humans are entitled to certain essential services just for the fact of being human, and not enough income shouldn’t prevent someone from gaining access to those services.

Humans are not inherently entitled to anything, whether it be life, liberty, or "essential services".

Since economic inequality is a fact, humans can establish institutions to ease the severity of that inequality, and that is what the taxation system accomplishes. As I have stated previously, I include both positive and negative rights in my definition of ‘economic liberty’, whereas you only define liberty with negative rights.

Economic inequality is a reality, but it is not written in stone. Don't you see how if we lived under anarchy, all causes of economic inequality do not exist, except for one's own desires and ambitions?

I’m just saying that the more responsible and informed the congress, the less of a problem they are.

Why settle for less of a problem, when we could have no problem?

My point is that the entity government is actually a fairly decent idea based on the positive affects it has on increasing the quality of living for all income classes. However, I’m perfectly open to technology reaching a point where government becomes partially obsolete, and this could happen as things become more automated.

Like I said, government necessarily reduces the quality of life of some income classes, if not most income classes.

My main argument is that government has been responsible for quite a bit of good for nations, as well as tyranny. I just felt the need to balance out your anarchy argument, which I feel is too extreme, and doesn't give the history of government a fair account. Government should not be fully demonized, as not all of its affects have been negative. It should only be partially demonized.

This sounds eerily similar to someone defending the continued existence of religion.