JonBostwick:No it doesn't. Government is not a part of society, it preys upon it.
There is no mention of a government in what LS is saying....
JonBostwick:If slavery is beneficial, why can only governments own people? If slavery is bad, why do governments get to own people?
I never thought that slavery is beneficial.
JonBostwick:Volunteerism is the norm, coercion is the exception
I can agree with that.
marquise: JonBostwick:If slavery is beneficial, why can only governments own people? If slavery is bad, why do governments get to own people? I never thought that slavery is beneficial.
I know. I'm demonstrating a contradiction.
marquise: Laughing Man:What LS is discussing has been discussed for ages If it has been discussed for ages then why am I not seeing any realisation of it?
Laughing Man:What LS is discussing has been discussed for ages
If it has been discussed for ages then why am I not seeing any realisation of it?
I'll relink this.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/5865/82248.aspx#82248
Not to mention the fact that feudalism is all but extinct in most parts of the world.
Peace
Laughing Man:Some are just faint of heart.
I think that people are impatient. They are used to voting their demands, and when that doesn't work out, voting again.
I don't think they are ready to work for liberty for 50 years, and never see it in their lifetime. Or to engage in market competition, only to find out they are overpaid relative to their productive output. But unfortunately, it is going to take that sort of risk and effort to move and actualize a more free human condition.
You and I understand this I think.
JonBostwick: I'll relink this. http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/5865/82248.aspx#82248
Thank you, I will look into it ;)
JonBostwick:Not to mention the fact that feudalism is all but extinct in most parts of the world.
Hmmmm.....and it evolved into communism, fascism, nationalism.....very far from the free trade without government society....
marquise: JonBostwick:Not to mention the fact that feudalism is all but extinct in most parts of the world. Hmmmm.....and it evolved into communism, fascism, nationalism.....very far from the free trade without government society....
This is a must read.
Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty
Communism, Fascism and Nationalism existed long before Feudalism
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: Spideynw:And giving the legislators full veto power. That means that any one of them could veto any legislation brought to a vote. Why would you need to increase the size of the legislative branch in order to do that?
Spideynw:And giving the legislators full veto power. That means that any one of them could veto any legislation brought to a vote.
Why would you need to increase the size of the legislative branch in order to do that?
You increase the size of the legislature so that there are more people to veto legislation. Preferably, the legislature would be made up of every citizen. But that would just be too big to try and get everyone together and no one would go for that idea. Of course, no one would probably go for my idea in the first place, since it would in essence make government ineffective.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Like I have said, each and every legislator would have full veto power. That means that in order for a vote to pass, you would need 100% of the legislators saying yes, in essence giving each of them full veto power, because even if one says no, then the legislation would not pass. And society will pay the salary of these individuals? I think not.
Spideynw:Like I have said, each and every legislator would have full veto power. That means that in order for a vote to pass, you would need 100% of the legislators saying yes, in essence giving each of them full veto power, because even if one says no, then the legislation would not pass.
And society will pay the salary of these individuals? I think not.
Who said they should get paid? Voting does not take that long.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Maybe. Maybe not. But given that it seems people want a government (67% of the people approve of Obama), I think we need one that is as ineffective as possible while at the same time satisfying the masses need to have one. Its not ACTUALLY 67% of the country...they are survey's based on 1000 takers.
Spideynw:Maybe. Maybe not. But given that it seems people want a government (67% of the people approve of Obama), I think we need one that is as ineffective as possible while at the same time satisfying the masses need to have one.
Its not ACTUALLY 67% of the country...they are survey's based on 1000 takers.
And statistically speaking, it represents the whole country. Have you taken statistics?
Laughing Man:How would this government sustain itself?
Why would it need to sustain itself? It is just a bunch of people casting votes every once in a while.
Laughing Man:And what will force people to listen to it?
Listen to what? Well, it probably would not last long. Most things do not with humans.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Laughing Man:You stated that they do not have the right to life since they could not defend themselves.
Look, I do think people should have a "right to life" in that if someone kills another without consent, then he or she should be punished. I do not think there is some mystical right to life that is God given however. Humans punish humans for killing, not God.
Laughing Man:If that is true what is the basis for punishment SINCE an individual was not worthy of life since they could not defend it?
Well, if the law does not hand out a punishment, then someone else probably will. The law should just be a way for humans to resolve differences peacefully. I think the idea of property rights is a good idea in that it helps us resolve disputes. But property rights can be disregarded, and they are all the time. If you steal a doughnut, do you think it is really going to be worth it to someones to prosecute you.
Spideynw:You increase the size of the legislature so that there are more people to veto legislation. Preferably, the legislature would be made up of every citizen. But that would just be too big to try and get everyone together and no one would go for that idea. Of course, no one would probably go for my idea in the first place, since it would in essence make government ineffective.
Well there are individuals who want to see the end of government, not keep it on life-support.
Spideynw:Who said they should get paid? Voting does not take that long.
So these voting individuals have no pay, are numerous and just vote. Please appeal to me why I should follow anything these voters pass.
Spideynw:And statistically speaking, it represents the whole country. Have you taken statistics?
You are engaging a qualitative subject with quantitative determinism. So I disagree that it 'represents the whole country.'
Spideynw:Why would it need to sustain itself? It is just a bunch of people casting votes every once in a while.
Again I wonder who will actually listen to these people. You seem to be establishing a government only for the sake of having a government and expect that everyone will listen to this useless form of government and decide to keep it around for the same reasons you established it in the first place. If society has evolved into a non-aggression axiom world and government is no longer used as a facade to ensure social tranquility, what then is the necesscity of voting? What would these members actually vote on that wouldn't contradict what the Mises Institute and what you implicitly agree to by being here, propose?
Spideynw:Look, I do think people should have a "right to life" in that if someone kills another without consent, then he or she should be punished. I do not think there is some mystical right to life that is God given however. Humans punish humans for killing, not God.
When did I ever bring up God?
Spideynw:Well, if the law does not hand out a punishment, then someone else probably will. The law should just be a way for humans to resolve differences peacefully. I think the idea of property rights is a good idea in that it helps us resolve disputes
So there is no moral aspect to rights? Because what I am understanding from your writings is a complete utilitarian justification for property rights and law in general.
Spideynw:If you steal a doughnut, do you think it is really going to be worth it to someones to prosecute you.
That is up to the original owner of the doughnut. However, what you cannot say with a straight face is that the theft of the doughnut is justified because the owner couldn't defend it. Whither or not an individual can defend themself from aggression is not the basis for whither or not they are able to have rights.
Laughing Man: Communism, Fascism and Nationalism existed long before Feudalism
If we are talking ideology, then yes.
I was referring to the social and political system. Unless I have a lack in my history knowledge....
JonBostwick: This is a must read. Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty
Oks
Guys,
This line of discussion should not take place in a newbies introductory thread.
Start a new thread on the specific topic you wish to discuss.
Laughing Man:Well there are individuals who want to see the end of government, not keep it on life-support.
Again, what is the difference between an ineffective government and no government? In both cases government is not interfering with your life.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Who said they should get paid? Voting does not take that long. So these voting individuals have no pay, are numerous and just vote. Please appeal to me why I should follow anything these voters pass.
The legislators in New Hampshire get something like $1 a year. That is akin to not getting paid. Elected officials should not get paid.
But in theory, you should not have to follow any government that does not have your consent. But that is not reality.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:And statistically speaking, it represents the whole country. Have you taken statistics? You are engaging a qualitative subject with quantitative determinism. So I disagree that it 'represents the whole country.'
Then obviously you have not taken statistics. Statistically speaking, it does represent the whole country.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Why would it need to sustain itself? It is just a bunch of people casting votes every once in a while. Again I wonder who will actually listen to these people. You seem to be establishing a government only for the sake of having a government and expect that everyone will listen to this useless form of government and decide to keep it around for the same reasons you established it in the first place.
Again I wonder who will actually listen to these people. You seem to be establishing a government only for the sake of having a government and expect that everyone will listen to this useless form of government and decide to keep it around for the same reasons you established it in the first place.
You must have missed out the comment I made pointing out this is probably just a pipe dream, just as much as your no government society is a pipe dream.
Spideynw:Again, what is the difference between an ineffective government and no government? In both cases government is not interfering with your life.
I can not see the purpose of having an ineffective government.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Look, I do think people should have a "right to life" in that if someone kills another without consent, then he or she should be punished. I do not think there is some mystical right to life that is God given however. Humans punish humans for killing, not God. When did I ever bring up God?
Fine then nature. Pick whichever you like.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Well, if the law does not hand out a punishment, then someone else probably will. The law should just be a way for humans to resolve differences peacefully. I think the idea of property rights is a good idea in that it helps us resolve disputes So there is no moral aspect to rights? Because what I am understanding from your writings is a complete utilitarian justification for property rights and law in general.
Morality is subjective. Do you think it is always wrong to kill someone? Probably not. Do you think the punishment for every murder should be the same? Probably not. Do you think property lines are absolute? Of course not. So this begs the question, do you think "rights" are absolute? If so, then you are being inconsistent, because if you agree that killing someone is not always wrong, then obviously people do not always have a right to life.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:If you steal a doughnut, do you think it is really going to be worth it to someones to prosecute you. That is up to the original owner of the doughnut. However, what you cannot say with a straight face is that the theft of the doughnut is justified because the owner couldn't defend it. Whither or not an individual can defend themself from aggression is not the basis for whither or not they are able to have rights.
Of course that would not justify it. And rights are based on whether or not society is willing to punish someone for harming another.
marquise: Spideynw:Again, what is the difference between an ineffective government and no government? In both cases government is not interfering with your life. I can not see the purpose of having an ineffective government.
To keep the masses pacified.
Sorry my error... I had copy/pasted the quote function when I repied to your post and did not change the name....
liberty student: There is no way to reduce net gain because it is not a zero sum game.
There is no way to reduce net gain because it is not a zero sum game.
Even if it is an unreleased manuscript?
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Spideynw:To keep the masses pacified.
A government who keeps the masses pacified is a government who is "effective" and has a certain power....correct me if I am wrong, but you are having a contradiction here....
marquise: Spideynw:To keep the masses pacified. A government who keeps the masses pacified is a government who is "effective" and has a certain power....correct me if I am wrong, but you are having a contradiction here....
I am just coming from the viewpoint that the masses want a government and that maybe even if they are given an ineffective one, that may be sufficient.
Spideynw:I am just coming from the viewpoint that the masses want a government and that maybe even if they are given an ineffective one, that may be sufficient.
I already understood your viewpoint....but if you are giving the opportunity to the masses to rely upon a whatever government, be it an ineffective one, then they will expect it to do more, in a, more or less short, amount of time.
Spideynw: I never made an argument that you could. And then it could be sold to an individual. To clarify, only individuals can own things. Otherwise, you have a conflict of interest. Now, individuals can agree to co-ownership. You could even have a whole neighborhood agree to build a park and pay for the upkeep of the park. This could be "public" property. But it is still owned by the individuals in the neighborhood. So, let's say someone threw away a chair, put it out for the garbage company to pick up. And let's say that someone got to it before the garbage company did and puts it in the park. Now anyone can use it. But, someone could come to the park association and ask to buy the chair. The association could sell the chair, and now an individual owns it again.
I never made an argument that you could.
And then it could be sold to an individual.
To clarify, only individuals can own things. Otherwise, you have a conflict of interest. Now, individuals can agree to co-ownership. You could even have a whole neighborhood agree to build a park and pay for the upkeep of the park. This could be "public" property. But it is still owned by the individuals in the neighborhood. So, let's say someone threw away a chair, put it out for the garbage company to pick up. And let's say that someone got to it before the garbage company did and puts it in the park. Now anyone can use it. But, someone could come to the park association and ask to buy the chair. The association could sell the chair, and now an individual owns it again.
By extension you did, someone gave away the Roman Alphabet, for the use of language generation and written communication...
"A" is a common use item of language, this means that it does not only appear in one language, it is not owned as every individual has access to this, if I were to fit it into your cookie cutter example below, the letter "A" is owned by all sentient creatures as it was gifted by its originator(s) to all sentient creatures that wanted access to it.
At this point, you could ask, maybe the UN for the price to purchace the rights to "A", but ultimately the descision has to come from all owners in order for it to be concented exchange, But do not bother asking, I will say no anyway, which should effectively stop the sale...
Spideynw: All monopolies are government created monopolies. There is no such thing as a free market monopoly. At least none that we have ever seen come into existence. When I say a power company has a monopoly, I am saying that the government gave it a monopoly. That it was told by the government, "you can provide power to such and such an area, and we will not let anyone else provide power to that area." A patent or copyright is the government telling someone, "you and only you can produce such and such an item, and we will not let anyone else produce it."
All monopolies are government created monopolies. There is no such thing as a free market monopoly. At least none that we have ever seen come into existence.
When I say a power company has a monopoly, I am saying that the government gave it a monopoly. That it was told by the government, "you can provide power to such and such an area, and we will not let anyone else provide power to that area." A patent or copyright is the government telling someone, "you and only you can produce such and such an item, and we will not let anyone else produce it."
The problem with using utilities is that these businesses cause much undo stress to have competition on the community, with that said, the government does not stop the individual from competing by providing his own power...
Spideynw: Do you think the government should grant monopolies to power companies, simply because they were the first one to build a power company in a region? Do you think it is fair for them to lose revenue if someone else builds a power plant to compete with them? You are just talking about illegal copying. That is it.
Do you think the government should grant monopolies to power companies, simply because they were the first one to build a power company in a region? Do you think it is fair for them to lose revenue if someone else builds a power plant to compete with them?
You are just talking about illegal copying. That is it.
1. Illegal copying differs from stealing how?
2. US Constitution : To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
IP does not include power companies, let us work within the example, Scientific Discovery and Art...
Everyone, I am going to move my individual discussion to other forums to abide by the Moderator "Charles Anthony"
Harry Felker:The problem with using utilities is that these businesses cause much undo stress to have competition on the community,
What?
Harry Felker:with that said, the government does not stop the individual from competing by providing his own power...
So?
Harry Felker:1. Illegal copying differs from stealing how?
The one has a victim (stealing), the other does not (copying).
Harry Felker:2. US Constitution : To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Your point? I think this should be stricken from the Constitution.
Harry Felker:IP does not include power companies, let us work within the example, Scientific Discovery and Art...
I know IP does not include power companies. But IP is a monopoly, just like power companies that are given monopolies are monopolies. The monopoly issues are the same.
Would you not agree that if someone copies a painting of someone else, that the original person still has the painting? Would you also not agree that what is really "lost" is potential revenue? Just like the only thing lost by someone being allowed to build a competing power plant would be potential revenue? I mean, the original power plant still exists. It still has the same operating ability. Would you not agree that copying and stealing are not synonyms?
There is none. It's a ridiculous statement.
Harry Felker: Everyone, I am going to move my individual discussion to other forums to abide by the Moderator "Charles Anthony"
You were fine. Your thread was hijacked for side discussions. You should carry on here, it is the appropriate spot.
Harry Felker:Sorry my error... I had copy/pasted the quote function when I repied to your post and did not change the name....
No worries.
Harry Felker: liberty student: There is no way to reduce net gain because it is not a zero sum game. Even if it is an unreleased manuscript?
Sure. You still have your manuscript. If you didn't want it released, you would have never allowed anyone near it. Presumably, anyone who got at something you had tried to keep secret would have violated your property rights, which is a crime.
liberty student:I think that people are impatient. They are used to voting their demands, and when that doesn't work out, voting again.
I thought about this patience thing....and you are right, patience is not my first virtue....
I would, however, be more than willing to spend 50 yrs working on this idea without seeing it in my lifetime, which also means without any guarantee that it would one day take real shape, IF I would have any trust in human intelligence and nature.
This is the reason why I am saying that it is utopian.
marquise: This is the reason why I am saying that it is utopian.
What's utopian? I've been reading through the thread and I don't know if you clearly mentioned what you are pointing to as being utopian.
It is on page 6. liberty student: Education, decentralization, independent non-political action. Working towards the day where we can begin withdrawing our consent without the need for violence.
I wish it could not be utopian, LS....
marquise: It is on page 6. liberty student: Education, decentralization, independent non-political action. Working towards the day where we can begin withdrawing our consent without the need for violence. I wish it could not be utopian, LS....
Maybe I'm being too hard headed about this, so, this is really a serious question: You wish what "could not be utopian"... What LS said or what the State is or...
marquise: I was referring to the social and political system. Unless I have a lack in my history knowledge....
Well how do you differenciate between an 'ideology' and a 'social/political system'?
wilderness:Maybe I'm being too hard headed about this, so, this is really a serious question: You wish what "could not be utopian"... What LS said or what the State is or...
LOL!
LS was talking about a society without government. So when I asked him how such a society would take shape he answered the quote above.
A society without any form of government, based on liberty and free will would be perfect. I just think it is utopian because of the human nature.
I am sorry if I am sometimes unclear or too short with my answers. Just remember that english is not my birth language and ask questions
Laughing Man:Well how do you differenciate between an 'ideology' and a 'social/political system'?
This is how I differentiate them:
an ideology stays at the idea level, while the system applies it.
marquise:A society without any form of government
Whoa! Coercive government. Voluntary government is what I prescribe. Obviously social order and cooperation will arise. But it must be peaceful.
marquise:I just think it is utopian because of the human nature.
But then you're saying that humans deserve coercive government because they are inherently bad.
It seems hopeless to me from this perspective.
I am optimistic. I may never see liberty in my lifetime. But I will work to advance the idea because I think it is moral, and noble, and honest and grand. Much better (to me) than following a sports team or pursuing the domination of my fellow men.
marquise:I thought about this patience thing....and you are right, patience is not my first virtue....
Nothing enduring is built without patience and care.
liberty student:Whoa! Coercive government. Voluntary government is what I prescribe.
Sorry. I think that I put my own vision in your words.
Can you explain the difference between a voluntary government and any other one? Not the difference when it is created, but after a while.
liberty student:Obviously social order and cooperation will arise.
Why is it obvious?
liberty student:But it must be peaceful.
liberty student:But then you're saying that humans deserve coercive government because they are inherently bad
I am not saying that they deserve it, but that it is a logical reaction to their actions.
liberty student:I think it is moral, and noble, and honest and grand.
Absolutely.
marquise:Can you explain the difference between a voluntary government and any other one? Not the difference when it is created, but after a while.
I cannot predict the future.
marquise: liberty student:Obviously social order and cooperation will arise. Why is it obvious?
Because the survival of the human race has always depended on interaction and cooperation. It is highly unlikely the species could survive and thrive without the division of labour.
marquise: liberty student:But then you're saying that humans deserve coercive government because they are inherently bad I am not saying that they deserve it, but that it is a logical reaction to their actions.
"... My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as is noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. ..."
Ayn Rand, 1957
liberty student:I cannot predict the future.
No, but you can study the logical course. When you have all the elements in hand you can draw one or several results. You can not just stay at the creation level.
liberty student:Because the survival of the human race has always depended on interaction and cooperation. It is highly unlikely the species could survive and thrive without the division of labour.
Yes, but not always voluntarily.
liberty student: "... My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as is noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. ..." Ayn Rand, 1957
Ok...you have a point....
marquise:No, but you can study the logical course. When you have all the elements in hand you can draw one or several results. You can not just stay at the creation level.
It's my opinion that it is impossible to predict the outcomes of a free market. If we could, then that would be an argument in favour of planning the market.
marquise: liberty student:Because the survival of the human race has always depended on interaction and cooperation. It is highly unlikely the species could survive and thrive without the division of labour. Yes, but not always voluntarily.
No, not always voluntary interaction and cooperation. But those who participate coercively have always achieved less aggregate prosperity. Freedom is the best system from a utilitarian point of view. It creates the most trading, which creates the most prosperity. So yes, in history, force has been used, but it is a second best system both morally and pragmatically. The task is to communicate and prove this to people, so that more people see the merit in choosing a system based on freedom rather than one based on collectivism.
Most people have never heard or considered anything but collectivism. Very few reject ideas of liberty when they are presented in a digestable manner.
You may see us in the "creation" phase, but this is a necessary step. It's not enough to make the case for liberty, but to start thinking about opportunities and consequences, about the first structures to test in the free market, so that there is something to move to, when people choose to withdraw their consent.