Case of capitalism

[burnt]

You bring up many many legit concerns. I will address at a later date too stoned and drunk

 

[burnt]

No one is saying people should be left to starve or live on the streets with nothing. The difference is who should take care of those people? I don't think the government at large needs too. I think it needs to be dealt with locally at the municipality and or state level. Second charities and family support organizations would be more widespread.

The single reason I don't give homeless people money is because I know half of them blow their welfare checks on crack or alcohol or whatever it depends where I am at the time. I have no respect for such a wasteful system that doesn't help people get out of these situations but rather encourages them to stay in it.

Anyway look forward to seeing your blueprint for practical utopia.

In a pre-industrial society:
Peasants each farm their own food. They are reasonably autonomous and enjoy a libertarian way of life. However, there is also a 'reserve' of common land which is farmed by all as an insurance policy. If one peasant's crops fails, then they are given a necessary share of the common crop. Most people do NOT take advantage of such kindness, and there is ample research to prove this. In any case, the community as a whole decides how to distribute the crop, and it's obvious if anyone is taking the piss. Land is POSSESSED, not OWNED. You can't leave a field unproductive because you own it- if you weren't using that resource, someone else who needs it can use it instead. Tell me that isn't better than aristocrats claiming enormous areas for themselves, just for their own hunting, or sheep, when others could be using that land themselves?

Peasants did not enjoy a libertarian way of life in feudal europe. Many other ancient civilizations they didn't either. The masses started enjoying a libertarian way of life when the concept of private property and ownership (which is a tenant of libertarian philosophy) came into being and all human kind become equal in the eyes of the law. Nations that have recognized that concept are the most free and enjoy the highest standards of living in the long term.

In an industrial society:
Obviously there is no going back to that way of life. But what was once the commons, is in this society the welfare state. People are expected to go about their lives without help (ideally in a libertarian society that we have yet to realise), but there is a small pool of money from everyone's labours that is held as insurance for those who fail economically, to fulfil their most basic human needs until they are able to get on their feet again. Because we must share the world- it is not one person's to own above anothers. Money is now shared instead of land for convenience.

How does one rationally calculate monetary exchange in such a system? They don't. Its arbitrary. Hence the waste. It also encourages idleness. I can think of so many people who live on welfare and never bother trying to improve their situation. This is a socialist idea and falls into the category of arguments I was making against the inefficiency of such a system. While its not necessarily socialist in the strictest sense (meaning total common owndership over the means of production) its on that road to common ownership. Its not necessary for the government to take care of everyone by some arbitrary distribution of wealth for reasons I stated above. This encourages so many inefficient big government policies that plague the modern world.

I wasn't using all that as an argument for socialism, stop implying that my arguments are socialist, McCarthy!
I'm a Pro-technology Green, Minarchist, Libertarian Social Anarchist. Or something. As capitalist as socialist as anarchist. I only care about what works, without leaving any member of society out of the loop.

They are socialist whether you realize it or not. You've stated that common ownership over the means of production is better then private ownership over the means of production.

Libertarian philosophy is not socialist at least if the terms are used correctly.

 

[ohayoco]

Haha you're always drunk! :lol: Ok I'm not actually comparing you with this person, it's just reminded me of a story... but once I was outside a bar at 1am and a guy started talking to me. He told me he was an accountant. And an alcoholic (with this entitled look on his face, like I was supposed to give him sympathy now). Then he started telling me how it was all the bloody immigrants who were ruining the economy. He ranted about the asylum seekers and immigrants for a while. I didn't bother arguing about how they actually improve our economy, you can't argue with an ignorant accountant because he's going to think he knows best. Instead I asked him if he was looking for sympathy, and said that with views like that he wasn't going to get it from me. Then I told him no wonder you're an alcoholic, your view of the world is so negative and hateful, you must need to drink to feel good. I explained to him why people found it necessary to move to this country, then told him that when he learnt compassion, then I and others would be prepared to help him in turn. Hahaha! He couldn't muster a retort to that (but he was drunk). Harsh but he needed to hear it. Anyway...

No one is saying people should be left to starve or live on the streets with nothing. The difference is who should take care of those people? I don't think the government at large needs too. I think it needs to be dealt with locally at the municipality and or state level. Second charities and family support organizations would be more widespread.

This point is key so I would like you to expand on it. How no-one is left to slip through the net (just because you're so enraged by the small majority who take advantage). Why not just retain a welfare system, but detect those who abuse it?

The single reason I don't give homeless people money is because I know half of them blow their welfare checks on crack or alcohol or whatever it depends where I am at the time. I have no respect for such a wasteful system that doesn't help people get out of these situations but rather encourages them to stay in it.

Do you give to a homeless charity instead? Or is this just an excuse to ignore them? I know, because I'm guilty of the same. I always think "I'll donate to Shelter instead", but I still haven't got round to it.

Peasants did not enjoy a libertarian way of life in feudal europe. Many other ancient civilizations they didn't either. The masses started enjoying a libertarian way of life when the concept of private property and ownership (which is a tenant of libertarian philosophy) came into being and all human kind become equal in the eyes of the law. Nations that have recognized that concept are the most free and enjoy the highest standards of living in the long term.

This is a historical misconception. If you look into how peasants lived in 'merry England', most of them actually had a pretty good time of it. Read the contemporary accounts and you will see this to be true. Even the serfs (though I doubt the few slaves, but who knows). They had land, had to work very little for the lord, had a ridiculous amount of holidays ('religious' but involved an awful lot of feasting and orgying for the common man). Their equivalent salary to how the wealth is shared today was ridiculously high. We have to work our entire lives to own our own home. For them, these things came incredibly cheaply. They were not actually as oppressed as we are by our war-on-drugs police force- communities policed themselves by voting for their own sheriff. One king delared that every peasant should grow a field of cannabis, because he thought this would keep the population happy. Sure there was the odd authoritarian fervour like the witchhunts, but this was the elite's doing, not the people's. The elite are always assholes. Obviously nowadays we have healthcare (good) and television (rather than community!) to make up for it, but I'm not comparing now with then.

Life got shitty for the peasants when the Puritan work ethic became fashionable. Catholic England was actually very liberal. Protestant England was not. The horrors of the enclosure acts were instigated under this new capitalist regime. Western society is still tyrannised by the Puritans.
'There is a policeman inside all our heads'! 'Emancipate yourself from mental slavery'!

It also encourages idleness.

Even if it did, what is idleness? Sounds puritanical to me. Others may call it 'enjoying life'.
I would call someone on the ratrace treadmill idle- emotionally and spiritually stagnant- ignoring their family and friends in the pursuit of the god PROFIT. What are they going to think when they're on their deathbed? "Ah what a fulfilled life I lead- I made myself rich exploiting others and making them miserable with my middle-management drone army. I didn't have much time to do anything else, but here I am in my lovely bed of money, about to die". I would say that it is THESE people who WASTE. They WASTE the most precious commodity anyone can possess. They waste LIFE. Theirs, and other peoples.

I can think of so many people who live on welfare and never bother trying to improve their situation.

Can you really? They seem pretty miserable to me, at least not fulfilled. And why is it a moral imperative that they have to strive to improve their lot? This is American brainwashing. Many of those who are drunks and drug addicts are so because it was a way out for them. Anyway, they're free to do as they like with their lives... to do nothing if they so wish. The Bhuddist path of Do-little! In the old days they would have lived off the land. Kings stole the land, civilisation stole the land, and has a duty now to provide for them in recompense for these sins.

They are socialist whether you realize it or not. You've stated that common ownership over the means of production is better then private ownership over the means of production.

This is exactly why I called you McCarthy. Another American flaw. "You're either with us, or against us". "You're either with us, or with the terrorists". Anyone who doesn't agree with you is your enemy. I don't agree with your view of capitalism, so I'm a socialist. I'm not a socialist because I am not advocating the common ownership of means of production, or even land for that matter. All I'm advocating is that society has an obligation to give a minimal amount to enable those down on their luck to survive. That's compassion, not socialism.

 

[ohayoco]

If you want to know more about medieval England, look at the booklist that Tom Hodgkinson used for his book 'How to be Free'. READ HIS SOURCES, THE BOOK ITSELF IS NOT A SOURCE! I'd never suggest it as such, it's journalistic and opinionated, nothing more than an entertaining read with some interesting idea. It's his actual sources that are worthwhile, he did his research well at least.
Also check out the sources I already posted, particularly Heavens Below.

PS don't take anything I say personally Burnt, I do respect your opinion

 

[burnt]

Its not that I don't have compassion for people in need. Not at all. I just think there would be less people in need in a productive society and more oppurtunities to help those in need in a society where people help each other rather then a government that takes money from some people and gives it to others.

Why not just retain a welfare system, but detect those who abuse it?

Welfare takes money from people and gives it to others by force in an inefficient manner. If the entire idea of government intervention went out the window everyone would be better off even those who have slipped through the net because there would be more ways to catch them rather then just relying on government beaucracies.

Do you give to a homeless charity instead? Or is this just an excuse to ignore them?

I used to give save beer cans from parties at college and give them to homeless guys who would return them for money. It wasn't giving them free money but it was a mutual exchange benefit relationship.

This is a historical misconception. If you look into how peasants lived in 'merry England', most of them actually had a pretty good time of it. Even if many of them were serfs. They had land, had to work very little for the lord, had a ridiculous amount of holidays ('religious' but involved an awful lot of feasting and orgying for the common man). Their equivalent salary to how the wealth is shared today was ridiculously high. We have to work our entire lives to own our own home. For them, these things came incredibly cheaply. They were not actually as oppressed as we are by our war-on-drugs police force- communities policed themselves by voting for their own sheriff. Sure there was the odd authoritarian fervour like the witchhunts, but this was the elite's doing, not the people's Obviously nowadays we have healthcare (good) and television (rather than community!) to make up for it, but I'm not comparing now with then.

Odd authoritarian fervour? That was the norm. Beheadings, torture, public execution was the norm. There no real judicial process until people began recognizing equality in the eyes of the law. People still vote for their own sheriffs in many places by the way.

Most serfs also couldn't read or write so who's conceptions were they exactly about how merry they were?

I don't see how one can fairly compare the modern world to the middle ages. Anyone in the middle ages who was transported to the future would think he was in paradise because of the abundance of food and free time not tilling the fields. Anyone now who was transported to the middle ages would be shocked at the conditions most people lived in.

The reason we have to work our whole lives to pay for a home is because the housing market is grossly over inflated via interventionist policies. This crisis is clearly showing how housing prices should be going down instead of artificially being propped up by government intervention. Not to mention the trend toward taking away property rights and how that effects the housing market. This lack of a natural balanced market is the direct result of interventionist policies. Thats being proven right now by this crisis.

Even if it did, what is idleness? Sounds puritanical to me. Others may call it 'enjoying life'.
I would call someone on the ratrace treadmill idle- emotionally and spiritually stagnant- ignoring their family and friends in the pursuit of the god PROFIT. What are they going to think when they're on their deathbed? "Ah what a fulfilled life I lead- I made myself rich exploiting others and making them miserable with my middle-management drone army. I didn't have much time to do anything else, but here I am in my lovely bed of money, about to die". I would say that it is THESE people who WASTE. They WASTE the most precious commodity anyone can possess. They waste LIFE. Theirs, and other peoples.

I mean not doing anything productive. Lets face it you cannot deny that people need to work. Without work you can't get food. In the beginning all human life was centered around finding food, then growing food now thanks to the division of labor and the benefits of private ownership of the means of productive their is surplus of food (in places that have adopted such means of production). The only way to increase leisure time in such a system is to increase productive capability. Thus people can produce more by working less. This is why the division of labor is so great because it increases this productive capability.

It seems like you are associating the overworked lifestyle of modern man with capitalism. This is a misconception. Its interventionism and socialist methods of production that decrease productive capability and thus make people have to work more for less. If we want to increase leisure time we need to increase productive capabilities. This is impossible without rational economic calculation which is impossible without private ownership over the means of production.

Can you really? They seem pretty miserable to me, at least not fulfilled. And why is it a moral imperative that they have to strive to improve their lot? This is American brainwashing. Many of those who are drunks and drug addicts are so because it was a way out for them. Anyway, they're free to do as they like with their lives... to do nothing if they so wish. The Bhuddist path of Do-little! In the old days they would have lived off the land. Kings stole the land, civilisation stole the land, and has a duty now to provide for them in recompense for these sins.

American brainwashing? Man I've mentioned to you before that I've lived in Europe for a number of years I know how the systems differ and are similar. So please don't say I am brainwashed by American society.

To answer your question though yes I have. I have seen how not just welfare but government intervention both in Europe and America stagnates people directly. People whose wage will always increase no matter what get lazier they don't work as hard as people who are in a business where they make more they more they produce. Its obvious.

In Europe I couldn't say how many times I saw 'homeless' people begging for money when all they had to do to get money and food was join up with a program in a local municipality for money and food. Even then these people refused to stop just running around on the streets doing drugs and asking people for money often very rudely as if I owed them something. Obviously they preferred doing that then entering a program where they could get out of that lifestyle. Therefore I refused to give them anything. Especially because I've been to parts of the world (africa, my partner is from there) where people have no such options they are poor in the truest sense. In other words seeing real impovershed nations changed my outlook on the welfare state dramatically especially the european welfare state were people are so disconnected from what it truly means to be poor that they continue to live as scumbags leaching off the rest of society even though society is providing them with many many options to improve their situation. Its actually pathetic in my view. I have zero respect for such people. I have way more respect for the poor guy in africa who would sell me things I really didn't need because at least he was doing something selling me a trinket or whatever. Or the poor person in africa who was willing to work his ass off for pay that europeans would scoff at rather then leach off some program because they had pride in earning things themselves.

For many others it might be the opposite but thats what I learned from my experiences in life. I am not going to explain my whole life and why I view things the way I do but I just want to make a point that I am not brainwashed by anybody. If you want to called me brainwashed I think we would do better to end this discussion.

This is exactly why I called you McCarthy. Another American flaw. "You're either with us, or against us". "You're either with us, or with the terrorists". Anyone who doesn't agree with you is your enemy. I don't agree with your view of capitalism, so I'm a socialist. I'm not a socialist because I am not advocating the common ownership of means of production, or even land for that matter. All I'm advocating is that society has an obligation to give a minimal amount to enable those down on their luck to survive. That's compassion, not socialism.

Again I am another flawed American? Don't generalize my outlook at "American". I am American but my outlook comes from my experiences in life and what I have learned educating myself on these matters. I am reffering to your ideas based on the absolute definition of the words I am using. Not by some rhetoric from the 1950's. I am saying that your ideas about welfare states and common ownership are socialist ideas because of the definitions of the words and how the systems relate to one another. I am not calling you anything I am just saying the ideas you have are based on what are truly socialist philosophies even if they go by another term.

The difference between my view point and yours (I think) is that you think the government should force wealth distribution and I think people should encourage one another both economically and socially to survive and progress in a free society however they see fit. If some rich guy wants to exploit a community or a group of people in a true free market he wouldn't be rich for long. Its interventionism and central economic planning (aspects of socialism but not necessarily full on socialism) that allows such abuse.

 

[polytrip]

Almost every homeless dude in the part of europe where i live is a schizofrenic. And we fail to take good care of them. Taking care of mentally ill people has nothing to do with communism. It is authentic solidarity, wich is a good thing. Letting people rot away like thei're trash is inhumane and turns our society into a robotic, careless society.
In increasing numbers people from eastern europe bring eastern european children to our western european states and let them beg for money. It might be that trying to take care of these children and schizofrenic drug addicts, taking them away from the people who abuse them and giving them foster home's is costly. But to me that's worth it.

 

[burnt]

Its worth it to me too I just don't think the government at large needs to deal with it because it does so less efficiently then a municipality or local governing body.

Regardless respectfully I will stand down from this discussion I've made my point and don't want to ramble on forever about it.

 

[polytrip]

Its worth it to me too I just don't think the government at large needs to deal with it because it does so less efficiently then a municipality or local governing body.

Regardless respectfully I will stand down from this discussion I've made my point and don't want to ramble on forever about it.

It has brought forth an interesting discussion though.

 

[burnt]

For sure. I like hearing other peoples view points because it brings up common arguments for or against different ways of governing society and how that impacts society.

 

[Pebble on the Beach]

It's only government regulation that stop us all working 16-hour shifts in the mills for peanuts like during the industrial revolution...

Another myth of the socialist writers, that without government intervention we would be slaves to big business. In capitalism you have more division of labor and business becomes more productive. The more productive a business the more wages can go up and the more work hours can go down, it is natural. But it requires technology and division of labor for this to happen and competitive businesses. For it to reach stable equillibriums it requires freedom from government intervention. In a free active society if you abuse your workers they leave and go work for someone else. Obviously thats an ideal situation but capitalism is more likely to bring that about then socialism. Socialism always lowers overall productivity thus everyone becomes poorer.

May I remind you that in the early days of capitalism, end 19th century and the dawn of the industrial revolution, the right to organize oneself in unions, to go on strike if the workload was too heavy etc., was forbidden? In that chapter in history, where deregulation was key, the workforce was categoricaly(don't know if that's spelled right) exploited, down to an age of six years. If people complained or stood up, this was smacked down with violence, even resulting in death sometimes. People died in bloody riots to get more pay, humane work hours and the lot wich are now emmbedded in legislation, not because of deregulation. Look at who's making our clothes and electronics in countries where regulation is absent, in situations our not-so-distant ancestors fought and died to change

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate for die-hard socialism either, But preaching the sole gospel of deregulation, wich also hasn't been empirically proven since an economic blank slate doesn't exist in this world, is as ignorant as preaching the other side like a fanatic. Friedmann's disciples tried to implement total deregulation in south-america during pinochet's junta and the results aren't reaaly an advocacy for total deregulation imo. (read "the shock doctrine" by N. Klein for more indepth info).

There need to be watchdogs, for economy is not an abstract phenomenon on wich equations can be let loose and derivatives get derived in a manner that garantuees 100% that the outcome will be as abstractly predicted, it is made up of man, 6 billion of 'em. That's a complex system and those things don't lend itself to foresight. Blaming regulation for the current situation is fingerpointing after the facts because we don't know if markets would balance out in real life if we set them loose.

Where Marx first started out, where NAZI germany (a socialist party) came to power, where communism completely divided a city and society in half for years and years (berlin wall). All that a result of the socialist experiment Marx envisioned. The irony was amazing.

I would just like to refine your nazi remark (wich was way under the belt), the nazi-party was a national-socialist party. you may feel that i'm nitpikking(?), and you are correct when you pressume that the socialist values are embedded in this ideology, the idea of national-socialism mainly focuses on narrowminded, racist concepts based on pseudoscientific research and has a tendency to fall back within the borders of the nation enforcing this ideology.The socialist aspect of the ideology was a minor one.

Also to incline that nazi germany's economy reclined because of the socialist aspects of it's governance is searching the proverbial stick to whack the dog. Germany's economy had fully transformed into a full blown war-economy in a year, lost the war, and had to rebuild the country from scratch AND had to pay the victimized countries millions, something I believe they are still doing, but tdon't hold me on that one.

 

[Pebble on the Beach]

BTW I live in Europe, and most countries there have a healthy mix of left and right wing thinkers in parliament.

My idea on the subject is that there are aspects of socialism wich should be implemented in an economic environment (decent social security, housing for the less well to do, health care)but should remain under state supervision. The things i summed up aren't commodities to be sold, they're a birthright and shouldn't be subject to market fluctuations.
As for the rest of econmic activity i'm willing to debate (de)regulation, but I lean more to the lefties on that one.

 

[burnt]

I disagree that people have a right to a home or food. Some people on this planet deserve neither. People who run around with machettes cutting off their neighbors arms and smashing in their childrens skulls are people I will never feel for or want to associate with. The same goes for those who bomb others or tell others how to live how to think how breathe where they can and can't walk as well as what they can or can't eat what god to worship how to plant their crops what to do with their land. Its all the same thing. Control by others or society (which is really just other people)

People do have the right to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and the law should exist to protect peoples liberty.

But remember there are no natural rights. Only free thinking human beings were able to come up with the idea that other members of its species have the right to be treated as equals. As well as the host of other amazing things society has actually done throughout our evolution.

May I remind you that in the early days of capitalism, end 19th century and the dawn of the industrial revolution, the right to organize oneself in unions, to go on strike if the workload was too heavy etc., was forbidden? In that chapter in history, where deregulation was key, the workforce was categoricaly(don't know if that's spelled right) exploited, down to an age of six years. If people complained or stood up, this was smacked down with violence, even resulting in death sometimes. People died in bloody riots to get more pay, humane work hours and the lot wich are now emmbedded in legislation, not because of deregulation. Look at who's making our clothes and electronics in countries where regulation is absent, in situations our not-so-distant ancestors fought and died to change

These things that happened are not inherant to free markets. If child labor was legalized now how many parents would send there kids off? In developed nations few if any. I can address the above issues in more detail at a later time.

Workers have the right to not work and to organize against their employers but they also have the right to be fired.

But anyway I look for answers in liberty. If a law violates liberty its not right. If you look at the roots of situations you find an answer that promotes well being through liberty. My entire argument is that liberty will always be better then the alternative (control by others). Even if our economic activity unless that activity violates others liberty.

The tough part is proving that to people.

But the simplest way to put it is I guess... is whether or not you want to live your life doing what you want or do you want to live your life doing what other people want you to.

 

[MalargueZiggy]

Interesting thread although I don't have the time to read it all fully at the moment.

Thanks for introducing me to the concept of Minarchism. I reckon I've come to the point now where I can identify myself as a Libertarian Socialist. The problem with this viewpoint is that I don't see it being achieved and I don't see any coherent means that I can assist it to be achieved.

Whatever flaws there may be in our current version of capitalism, people are too taken with the status quo. Particularly in England; the G20 protests were a big eye opener for me, people were sweating apathy. They gathered because, in a sense, they felt they should. They broke a few windows because the media thought they should, the reporters outnumbered the so-called anarchists by about 20-1.

Underneath it all was the thought, unspoken or not, that 'things are ok as they are'. I mean, they're fully investigating the police's attitudes, they're promising to get us out of this financial crisis, people are scared of the alternatives. There's the thought that our drugs laws are pretty reasonable (especially when put against the states), yes we have anti-terror laws, databases and so on but "as long as you don't intend on breaking the law you're ok." Yes there's inequality and there are problems but "at least we're not Russia, at least we can speak freely in the papers, at least there's no corruption, at least we can get state support and survive ok on minimum wage."

--> It's a viewpoint I instinctively don't like, but as I said, I have no viable alternative solution, and certainly no way of going about getting it.

What we need is a cataclysmic event, some external force, the concept of 'revoluion' is over and done with when people are generally content as well as apathetic.

Could there be some truth to 2012 but in an economic sense? If unemployment keeps spiralling, combined with a deepening financial crisis, the realisation in England that they've pissed away billions on an Olympics no-one wanted, Obama's re-election and something drastic happening there, the continuing destruction of squats, people actually on the streets... Burnt, that was for you, I know how you love 2012!

 

[burnt]

The viable alternative is freedom! That's what I am trying to say. How can I explain...mmm

Underneath it all was the thought, unspoken or not, that 'things are ok as they are'. I mean, they're fully investigating the police's attitudes, they're promising to get us out of this financial crisis, people are scared of the alternatives. There's the thought that our drugs laws are pretty reasonable (especially when put against the states), yes we have anti-terror laws, databases and so on but "as long as you don't intend on breaking the law you're ok." Yes there's inequality and there are problems but "at least we're not Russia, at least we can speak freely in the papers, at least there's no corruption, at least we can get state support and survive ok on minimum wage."

You see this is part of the conditioning I am talking about. They say they need more power to keep you safe. They say they need more of your wealth (taxes) to take better care of you. Its the same story with most governments in the world today. They want to control you its what they think their job is. They want to control society to make it work the way they think it should work.

But do they actually solve anything? Is this right?

Keeping us safe from terrorism has not just involved the violation of our rights by other people but also killed hundreds of thousands of people in wars that aren't really going to make anyone safer. What kind of leaders are they? Why should we give them the power to control our destiny like that? That's just one example of how they have failed.

This crisis 100% highlights how they have failed us economically because as I pointed out earlier this crisis is not a result of free market capitalism. It is the direct result of government interventionism into the free market. This can be proven if you trace the crisis and other crisis's that are similar down to their roots. So why should we give them more power to save the economy?

Most people today are deeply effected by this conditioning whether they realize it or not. I have throughout my life because of this conditioning thought that if only the government did this or that or made these people do this or that the world would be a better place. I have seen time over and over people say well I think this drug should be legal but not the ones I don't like (control). I think people shouldn't drive because its bad for the environment (control). I think people should all pay their taxes especially the rich and we'd all have healthcare (control). But its all about what someone else thinks someone else should be doing and unfortunately it also involves forcing others to do what others want.

It is the principle of violence that once dominated our primitive culture before we evolved civilizations. Even after civilization developed it still continued for thousands of years in various forms. One tribe versus another. One king ruling all.

Now we have the principle of peace and freedom after a long slow evolution. It has when understood brought profound improvement in the human condition. When people in a community just let each other do their own thing they work together far more effectively. Working together is part of the principle of peace and freedom. Its necessary for our survival and prosperity. It does not need to be forced upon anyone. Therefore the only role of a government should morally be to protects peoples liberty and property. Beyond that it becomes control and leads to the descent back into violence.


Alright I've rambeled long enough. I dunno I just think that the closer you look the more you will find out that freedom works. What we have no although is more free then many other places (depending on where you are) we still have way too much of the control attitude and unfortunately the weapons to make the horror of that attitude a painful reality for the human race.

 

[MalargueZiggy]

But how do you go about achieving this? Point out to the people in power that really, they should intervene less for their own ends?

No party of power will be elected on the basis that it'll let people get on with what they want, people like being told what to do.

This is why I think that the only solution will come when the system itself collapses, forcing the complete removal of all overarching institutions of power (including centralised government).

 

[burnt]

If people demand freedom instead of more government control I think we could get it. If the people in power were exposed for what they are doing more people would see.

Collapse may be one way things will change but I'd rather see people educate each other and themselves to understand how we can change things by first changing our mindset.

So yea I think the best way is to educate others about why they should support liberty is the best way forward. Tough part is most people don't see it that way. But they will learn, and your right it may take total collapse but hopefully one day people will learn.

 

[ohayoco]

If child labor was legalized now how many parents would send there kids off? In developed nations few if any.

Are you serious?!! I can tell you exactly what would happen.

The bourgeouis would make their children go to school. But many poor families would send their kids off to work instead. People at the bottom in America are poor and short-sighted enough to do that, and the same goes for the rest of the West. An underclass of illiterates would form, and we would quickly have a situation very much like that before school was made compulsory.

Do you really not see this? I have known poor families who didn't care about their children's schooling. Many would assume their children would end up in the factory just like them, after all it's a long shot in their eyes that their children would inherit more intelligence than they have/use, so many would take the opportunity to supplement the meagre family income. Their kids already all have paperrounds and help their parents with work in their freetime, making christmas crackers from home etc. And imagine what would happen to the unfortunate children of junkies, they'd be doing 80 hour weeks in the factories to fund their parents' habits! IT WOULD HAPPEN.

There's a reason why the US army actively targets children from low income families as soon as they're legally old enough to join. A lot of people are campaigning against this policy / prey on the poor.

 

[polytrip]

But remember there are no natural rights. Only free thinking human beings were able to come up with the idea that other members of its species have the right to be treated as equals. As well as the host of other amazing things society has actually done throughout our evolution.

This is not entirely true. The famous primate researcher Frans de Waal as well as other ethologists (goldschmid, tinbergen, etc) have shown repeatedly that altruism that is not merely instinctive programming like in ants, occurs in several higher species. Experiments have proven that many primates as well as other animals have the social intelligence to 'calculate' prisoner-dilemma situations as well as other strategic interaction problems, and anticipate on these situations.

Today i heard an economist talk on the radio, saying that current economic theories have not figured out yet exactly what rationalism is. The only thing i can come up with in this perspective, is that rationalism has an unpredictable/random component. Living beings, even the simplest, are better in dealing with this 'randomness in rationality' then many computer programs. Many skillfull mathematicians and philosophers (axelrod, van donselaar) have not fully succeeded in proving that many strategic interaction problems can be solved with strong, stable strategies, exactly because rationality has an intuïtive compound that leads to answers that can never be completely proven.

On a human level we can say that rational altruïsm is present in many intelligent animals (and even that in many species each 'tribe'has it's own 'political culture', leading to a great variety in altruistic behaviour). On an abstract level it might be fair to say that altruism is like a simple 'shape', where in behaviour animals tend to mould themselves into, but never completely for 100%, so that variety occurs.

 

[burnt]

ohayoco,

Your right that poor people or mean people would probably try to take advantage of their children if they could. But that begs the question. Who owns children? The state or the family. I think neither so that means the parents can't do anything to their children that violates the law, such as physical abuse etc. But I'd much rather see children being told what to do by their parents then the state. Also your right about the army it does take advantage of the poor.

But none of these things require intervention of the state into peoples lives except that the parents have to obey rules that protect childrens rights and liberty. Its a tough choice to say whether or not that means children NEED to go to school either considering the pathetic quality and brainwashing that goes into education.

Hmm though would that mean that a law could be passed that mandates some form of schooling for children whether it be home schooling, public, or private? I think if all three options were allowed it would be fair and fit in with the principles of freedom. I am not against home school even if it allows somewhat more stupidity I think public school breeds far more.

This is not entirely true. The famous primate researcher Frans de Waal as well as other ethologists (goldschmid, tinbergen, etc) have shown repeatedly that altruism that is not merely instinctive programming like in ants, occurs in several higher species. Experiments have proven that many primates as well as other animals have the social intelligence to 'calculate' prisoner-dilemma situations as well as other strategic interaction problems, and anticipate on these situations.

Cool. But regardless I think only humans have formulated laws about these moral and social situations.

Today i heard an economist talk on the radio, saying that current economic theories have not figured out yet exactly what rationalism is. The only thing i can come up with in this perspective, is that rationalism has an unpredictable/random component. Living beings, even the simplest, are better in dealing with this 'randomness in rationality' then many computer programs. Many skillfull mathematicians and philosophers (axelrod, van donselaar) have not fully succeeded in proving that many strategic interaction problems can be solved with strong, stable strategies, exactly because rationality has an intuïtive compound that leads to answers that can never be completely proven.

Yes and this further proves that central economic planning is impossible because its impossible to predict all aspects of human decision making. That's why free market capitalism is more productive then central economic planning because it minimizes the mis-calculation of irrational human behavior because there are many more players more deeply involved in their own ends.

Hehe obviously I am not able to stop discussing this stuff so forget it lets keep it going