Political Theory

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

nirgrahamUK — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:34:21 GMT

the truth is they exist by popular consent. this is no more mysterious than people believing economic fallacies, like the broken window etc. if you can make people believe that you can make them believe government is necessary. and they can and do. its up to us to teach them that broken windows are bad, and so are governments. when they learn their lesson, there will be no more consent for government as for keynesian public spending pump priming fallacies and we can all get on with our lives.

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

nandnor — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:27:49 GMT

confederalsocialist posted a vid about this subject on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIop8XJqpPQ&feature=channel_page

the fact that anarchies, wen they do occur, happen at the edges of civilization like wild west,iceland,ireland, certainly shows the pervasiveness and inevitability of the state once it does take ahold.

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:38:16 GMT

Hmm, I posted a while ago a theory on why states are ubiquitous nowadays. Basically, I think it's because markets were weaker in past times given the technological state and general knowledge of those eras. That translates into reduced incentives to become an active player on the market (e.g. defense services) and failure to propagate information fast enough (the absence of stock markets and efficient means of communication). The only thing one could have wished besides basic needs and basic entertainment was power over a given population, since everything else was either abundent (e.g. free land) or completely absent and undiscovered yet (e.g. computers, crude oil, cars etc.).

But those times are long gone and I believe a market would provide sufficient equilibrium of power.

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

DanielMuff — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:27:08 GMT

malgratloprekindle:

I gave you a video explaining the point, and that the name was changed. I did answer it. It was originally a term used to support a federation of states with a weak central government that the states had power over, and was changed to mean a centralized form of government ("federal" government). I never said one was a form of the other (strawman).

Like how the term National Defense today has been opted by Neoconservatives to mean "offensive/pre-emptive war" (or something to that effect), instead of actual defense to make their policy seem more desirable.

So when individual states come together to form a federation, say for the purpose of creating a common defense, is not a centralization of political power? When several Soviet states broke off the Soviet Union, was that not a de-centralization of political power?

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

malgratloprekindle — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:26:59 GMT

I gave you a video explaining the point, and that the name was changed. I did answer it. It was originally a term used to support a federation of states with a weak central government that the states had power over, and was changed to mean a centralized form of government ("federal" government). I never said one was a form of the other (strawman).

Like how the term National Defense today has been opted by Neoconservatives to mean "offensive/pre-emptive war" (or something to that effect), instead of actual defense to make their policy seem more desirable.

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:22:37 GMT

answer the question directly, is federalism a form of centralised government?

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

malgratloprekindle — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:16:36 GMT

Watch the video.

He talks about how the Nationalists changed their name to Federalists to garner support.

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

Harry Felker — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:11:55 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism

so is this federalism or nationalism then?, or rather did Shane miss something out.......

Shane is apparently too stupid for Anarchy, there apparently was an argument for Extreme Statism or Extreme Statism as Shane believes.....

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:51:02 GMT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism

so is this federalism or nationalism then?, or rather did Shane miss something out.......

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

malgratloprekindle — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:28:05 GMT

Hermes on the day of your death:
Was federalism not an ingenious way (tho not perfect) of decentralizing power? Im asking this in the context of a real world where there has to be government.

I believe this video explains in depth what you are trying to convey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHuTs3rSiO0 ("Constitution Lecture 5: Federalism vs. Nationalism" by Shane Killian)

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

Harry Felker — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:48:40 GMT

Hermes on the day of your death:
Federalism doesnt mean federal governance.

No it was HOW we got the federal government

Hermes on the day of your death:
It means dividing the power structure among many actors; federal and state govts, seperation of powers, constitutional representation, etc. As opposed to having all lesser govts subservient to the top (king, congress, dictator, first-among-equals, etc).

This means you are an idiot, federalism is the centralization of power....

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

wilderness — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:39:46 GMT

Hermes on the day of your death:

I encourage you to retake any intro politics class. Federalism doesnt mean federal governance. It means dividing the power structure among many actors; federal and state govts, seperation of powers, constitutional representation, etc. As opposed to having all lesser govts subservient to the top (king, congress, dictator, first-among-equals, etc).

Federalism: This dictionary defines as:

1• of, relating to, or denoting the central government as distinguished from the separate units constituting a federation

2 advocacy of a federal system of government.• in Canada, support of confederation in opposition to Quebec separatism.

Federalism is about strengthening the federal aspect of government (and is the opposite action of decentralization)

Also there were the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist papers. These papers also provide clarity too on what Federalism is.

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

DanielMuff — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:54:12 GMT

Hermes on the day of your death:

I encourage you to retake any intro politics class. Federalism doesnt mean federal governance. It means dividing the power structure among many actors; federal and state govts, seperation of powers, constitutional representation, etc. As opposed to having all lesser govts subservient to the top (king, congress, dictator, first-among-equals, etc).

From: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203491/federalism

mode of political organization that unites separate states (emphasis added) or other polities within an overarching political system in such a way as to allow each to maintain its own fundamental political integrity...

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:34:02 GMT

voluntary government is that which is benign and which is the only form of government libertarians can condone in good conscience.

involuntary government is the evil of enslaving ones fellow man. which you seem to be at ease with.

Re: people are too stupid for anarchy to work

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:32:28 GMT

I encourage you to retake any intro to political history class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

Federalism in the 1780s

Federalism was the most influential political movement arising out of discontent with the Articles of Confederation. Leading Federalists tended to be (or be sympathetic to) merchants, traders, craftsmen and manufacturers, and capital-holders. In their opinion, only a far stronger national government could address the many, and growing, crises roiling the infant United States, which they identified as:

faltering domestic security
uncertain economic conditions and investment climate
fragmented markets and hampered internal commerce
poor and declining international credibility
failure to provide for the common defense against Native or European threats
lack of protection for property and coin lent out or otherwise risked
inter-state feuding over land claims, contributions, etc

-----------------

It was a movement pro the centralizing of government powers.