The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

[Mashuri]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Modern day Libertarians are thinly-veiled collectivists -- if elected, they will just add their spin to the current problems.

I think that's true for a lot of "Libertarian" politicians and "think tanks" like the Cato Institute. I recently came across this great essay from Rothbard that I believe separates true Libertarians (be they anarchists, minarchists or whatever), Classic Liberals, etc, from the pretenders. Count me as a minarchist button pusher.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Over the years I have had the honour to have met and at times, worked with, some very fine individuals that in turn spent their entire working lives working within the State. It is not the state as such that is the problem, it is a mentality within that is completely indifferent to the nation surrounding them; indifference is the problem.

[marvenger]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

That's your choice

[Sharky]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

i don't get this staunch individualism, no one operates in a vacuum, there's always going to be some collectivism, that's just reality. its a balance, you need some support to be an individual.

Individualism does not require working in a vacuum. It is perfectly reasonable and possible to ask for and receive support while being a staunch individualist. The difference compared to collectivism is that the "support" is forced or supplied based out of a sense of duty; with an individualist approach, it's purely voluntary. If someone has to be forced to help me, I don't want their help.

Individualism simply means that you are the owner of your own life; no one else can or should dictate what you do or how you live, unless your actions involve violence or other criminal activity.

Collectivism may be today's reality, but it's also the source of today's problems.

[Sharky]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Over the years I have had the honour to have met and at times, worked with, some very fine individuals that in turn spent their entire working lives working within the State. It is not the state as such that is the problem, it is a mentality within that is completely indifferent to the nation surrounding them; indifference is the problem.

So you're saying if they just cared more, that everything would be OK? I could actually argue the reverse: some people care too much about stuff that's none of their damn business.

No, by its very nature, I think the State is at the core of the problem. Fundamentally, what's the difference between the State and private enterprise? Isn't it that only the State can legally exercise violence to achieve its goals?

I would be interested to hear why you think that's OK, and how less indifference would fix it. Is the implied threat of violence really the best way for people to relate to one another over the long term?

[marvenger]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

[quote=Sharky;112190] The difference compared to collectivism is that the "support" is forced or supplied based out of a sense of duty; with an individualist approach, it's purely voluntary.
quote]

I understand this concept in interpersonal relations, but when people are forced to engage in a monetary economy to survive i think there needs to be some sort of monetary safety net and redistribution of money for education and health to provide an acceptable denominator for everyone. It may not be perfect and some people are going to abuse it, but neither is forcing everyone into a monetary economy prone to abuse perfect.

[Hypatia1]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

I don't think anyone has brought this up yet.

We'll never have a "serious" third party in the U.S., except perhaps during a transitional period to a new two-party equilibrium. With winner-takes all elections, there's only going to be two viable contenders by election day. Support is always going to coalesce around those two parties.

Yep, it's true. The two party system in the U.S. is an unintended side effect of the constitution. The framers weren't even thinking about political parties, yet they created a constitution that made the existence of two, and only two, dominant parties inevitable. Sometimes a party will die off and be replaced. Other times they will leapfrog each other to the left or right. In the first half of the 20th century the then conservative Democratic party leaped over the relatively liberal Republican party to become the new liberal party. It took decades for the south to realign itself.

Since the Democrats becoming more centrist and pro status quo, maybe the Republicans will leap left this time??

[Sharky]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

I understand this concept in interpersonal relations, but when people are forced to engage in a monetary economy to survive i think there needs to be some sort of monetary safety net and redistribution of money for education and health to provide an acceptable denominator for everyone. It may not be perfect and some people are going to abuse it, but neither is forcing everyone into a monetary economy prone to abuse perfect.

OK, so you believe that it's OK to steal from me to pay for other people's "safety nets." Who defines what a safety net is, and who gets one? Are there any limits on how much you can steal from anyone? What happens if the majority of people need a safety net? Exactly who is abusing the system?

Also, what does it mean to be "forced into a monetary system"? If you want to trade with me, I would happily consider barter. You don't have to use money. Money certainly makes many things easier, but it is by no means the only approach. But even if it was, how does that justify the immorality of you stealing from me?

Or are you really saying that because people are forced to work to support themselves, that if they don't want to work, then it's the duty of the rest of us to support them? Hey, I don't want to work. How about if you just send me half your paycheck, and we can cut out the middle man? Please? I mean, I really, really need it. It's your duty!

The problem with this line of thinking is that it leads to tyranny. The more you try to control people, the more you have to control them, and the more harsh the penalties have to be for not submitting to that control.

[marvenger]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

yeah but not trying to control tyranny also leads to tyranny.

Papua New Guinea's property ownership system is still predominately indigenous, I don't understand it its a totally different system to my normal frame of reference and has a lot to do with family trees but seeing as everyone has a family tree everyone has some access to property. Slowly the western system is gaining a foothold. I don't think you need to think too hard about who is being forced into what and who is abusing who.

tax is also a much abused thing, but seriously do you think its always theft. Do you really want there to be zero government.

[Sharky]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Hey, I'm all for fighting tyranny. Opposing oppression is totally compatible with individualism.

Yes, I think taxes are always theft. I didn't agree to them. They are being imposed on me, under the threat of violence if I don't do as I'm told. Through taxation (including inflation), current government is denying me the right to the fruits of my labor without my consent. That is, by definition, theft.

Government can and should be funded from voluntary payments and user fees. Its role should be limited to protecting people against things like violence and fraud. Government should not be allowed to "redistribute" wealth. In fact, they should not be involved with business or commerce in any way.

You might argue that if paying for government was voluntary, that it wouldn't work, because no one would pay. My response would be that if no one would pay voluntarily, then what moral grounds are there to take the money by force?

In fact, morality is at the heart of the core issues here. Is it morally right for one group to vote themselves benefits of some kind, at the expense of some other group? Whether the group is the poor or Wall Street, it's the same moral choice.

[Willette]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

No, by its very nature, I think the State is at the core of the problem. Fundamentally, what's the difference between the State and private enterprise? Isn't it that only the State can legally exercise violence to achieve its goals?

I would be interested to hear why you think that's OK, and how less indifference would fix it. Is the implied threat of violence really the best way for people to relate to one another over the long term?

Violence is a fact of life and human nature. It has always been with us. The idea of eliminating violence is merely utopian. The real issue is how to limit or control violence so that it does not dominate social interaction. The theory is that you give government a monopoly on violence, then try to control government by non-violent means. Neat trick!

Government has legitimate uses, chiefly to defend the people against outside attack (again, the inescapability of violence in some form). The thorny problem is to limit the size and sphere of authority of political government, hence the idea of a constitution, a charter that circumscribes governments powers and responsibilities. The natural tendency is for government to grow in size and usurp authority. Hence, we in the USA have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, for the purpose of curbing government if necessary. As Washington said, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

All in all, a very unstable system, like keeping a tiger in a bamboo cage. You better do your cage maintenance!

[marvenger]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

I'm fine with user pays tax.

I just think that trusting free markets is too abstract, proponents are always saying if only the markets were more free everything would be great; but its the desire for wealth that means the markets are never going to be free. User pays tax would be great but laws are made to facilitate and protect transactions and those that make the most of them, the wealthy, are generally highly involved in creating them; hence labour starts getting taxed heavily and ways for the wealthy to avoid tax are generated. the free market is never going to exist because of the pursuit of profit its supposed to facilitate. there needs to be counterbalances in place or you're going to get tyranny, and yes there will be unintended consequences which you need to try and minimise while maximising the gains.

[Willette]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

there needs to be counterbalances in place or you're going to get tyranny

Yes indeed! Big government only ever gets bigger. Big business gets bigger as it uses its power to eliminate competition. The very rich have the means to get much richer, and even to control/buy government support and protection. And debt grows, compounds and eventually becomes unsupportable.

Life can never grow without limits because death intervenes. But in the realm of human organization, we have created governments and corporations with unlimited life that continue to grow from generation to generation, crowding out the merely human. The ultimate goal of all that has become One World Government, operatied by a One World Ruling Class of the superwealthy. It is that process of growth that has to be controlled in order to allow room for human liberty and a middle class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No social "system" be it "free markets", "capitalism" "fractional reserve banking" or anything else, can be allowed to run unchecked or it will end up dominating everything else. There needs to be a balance of powers whereby nothing is allowed to grow to the sky. It's like a balanced ecology, vs. monoculture. Natural creation is always a balance of many forces, none of which becomes supreme. Political power, especially, needs to be kept divided.

[marvenger]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

The ultimate goal of all that has become One World Government, operatied by a One World Ruling Class of the superwealthy.

Yeah I think that would be the ultimate goal of many. Our whole system is geared to expecting more more more. what more do you expect. how childish.

[Raz]

Re: The worst rhyme of Great Depression history

Modern day Libertarians are thinly-veiled collectivists -- if elected, they will just add their spin to the current problems.

The only long-term solution is for believers in Individualism, which includes supporters of true freedom, to realize that we are in fact in a fight for our lives. We need to beat the dems & repubs at their own game.

Two party dominance can and has been broken in the past. The parties of today are so badly fragmented, a truly organized and well-funded third party may have a chance.

An important key to success, IMO, is understanding that the political system includes much more than just the parties themselves. The infrastructure that supports them is just as important: the mass media, industry, labor, etc.

I believe that the majority of Americans are actually happy with the current system -- but I also think they don't really understand it. Most seem to try to ignore it as much as they can. Unfortunately, the people attracted to political office are also the ones who are attracted to power, and therefore to using that power against others. The Big Challenge is convincing people who despise power to seek positions of power for the purpose of disabling it.

You're a "man after my own heart".

I couldn't agree more.