[quote]Legionary wrote:
Hahaha this is social and political philosophy 101 you dumb ape. I suggest you pick up a copy of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, although I’m not sure if the meager intellect you have displayed thus far would be able to make much use of it. You possess ZERO understanding of the United States’ place within the international system, much less the incredibly immense economic, political, and social benefits that its primacy yields. Your naive and simple minded views are simply laughable when viewed through the prism of history.[/quote]
Hobbes is wrong. He never understood that market makes the “jungle” obsolete.
The real jungle he never saw is comprised of the predators that make up government.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Hahaha this is social and political philosophy 101 you dumb ape. I suggest you pick up a copy of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, although I’m not sure if the meager intellect you have displayed thus far would be able to make much use of it. You possess ZERO understanding of the United States’ place within the international system, much less the incredibly immense economic, political, and social benefits that its primacy yields. Your naive and simple minded views are simply laughable when viewed through the prism of history.[/quote]
Hobbes is wrong. He never understood that market makes the “jungle” obsolete.
The real jungle he never saw is comprised of the predators that make up government.[/quote]
It’s incredible that you can refute one of the greatest political theorist of all time with a mere three sentences, especially without a shred of historical evidence. Close economic relations between nations have failed to prevent war throughout history. Economics are a means to an end, not the the end itself.
So the civil power which exists to enforce contracts and the rule of law is the problem? How does the removal of the enforcement mechanism for free market capitalism provide an incentive for moral actors to be satisfied with their respective pieces of the economic pie? If I want what you have but I don’t have the means or desire to acquire it legitimately, what prevents me from resorting to physical violence? The world indeed becomes bellum omnium contra omnes.
Again, you continue to fail to address the United States place within the international system. What is a more globally beneficial balance of power than American economic, political, and social primacy?
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Hahaha this is social and political philosophy 101 you dumb ape. I suggest you pick up a copy of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, although I’m not sure if the meager intellect you have displayed thus far would be able to make much use of it. You possess ZERO understanding of the United States’ place within the international system, much less the incredibly immense economic, political, and social benefits that its primacy yields. Your naive and simple minded views are simply laughable when viewed through the prism of history.[/quote]
Hobbes is wrong. He never understood that market makes the “jungle” obsolete.
The real jungle he never saw is comprised of the predators that make up government.[/quote]
It’s incredible that you can refute one of the greatest political theorist of all time with a mere three sentences, especially without a shred of historical evidence. Close economic relations between nations have failed to prevent war throughout history. Economics are a means to an end, not the the end itself.
[/quote]
“Greatest political theorist of all time” is a bit of a stretch me thinks.
I have all the historical evidence I need when I see that government is the greatest killer of all time…even greater than the plague.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Hahaha this is social and political philosophy 101 you dumb ape. I suggest you pick up a copy of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, although I’m not sure if the meager intellect you have displayed thus far would be able to make much use of it. You possess ZERO understanding of the United States’ place within the international system, much less the incredibly immense economic, political, and social benefits that its primacy yields. Your naive and simple minded views are simply laughable when viewed through the prism of history.[/quote]
Hobbes is wrong. He never understood that market makes the “jungle” obsolete.
The real jungle he never saw is comprised of the predators that make up government.[/quote]
It’s incredible that you can refute one of the greatest political theorist of all time with a mere three sentences, especially without a shred of historical evidence. Close economic relations between nations have failed to prevent war throughout history. Economics are a means to an end, not the the end itself.
[/quote]
“Greatest political theorist of all time” is a bit of a stretch me thinks.
I have all the historical evidence I need when I see that government is the greatest killer of all time…even greater than the plague.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Hahaha this is social and political philosophy 101 you dumb ape. I suggest you pick up a copy of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, although I’m not sure if the meager intellect you have displayed thus far would be able to make much use of it. You possess ZERO understanding of the United States’ place within the international system, much less the incredibly immense economic, political, and social benefits that its primacy yields. Your naive and simple minded views are simply laughable when viewed through the prism of history.[/quote]
Hobbes is wrong. He never understood that market makes the “jungle” obsolete.
The real jungle he never saw is comprised of the predators that make up government.[/quote]
It’s incredible that you can refute one of the greatest political theorist of all time with a mere three sentences, especially without a shred of historical evidence. Close economic relations between nations have failed to prevent war throughout history. Economics are a means to an end, not the the end itself.
[/quote]
“Greatest political theorist of all time” is a bit of a stretch me thinks.
I have all the historical evidence I need when I see that government is the greatest killer of all time…even greater than the plague.
Government is the plague.[/quote]
I believe I wrote “one of the greatest political theorists of all time,” a qualitative statement. Again, you pop in to make an unsubstantiated remark unrelated to the meat of my post, and run away. I understand you have a difficult time with this. When you “see” something does it become fact? You have a remarkably low standard concerning what constitutes a credible source, which explains your laughably naive ideology. The only tool you possess is limp wristed Anarcho-capitalist quips that exist outside of historical reality.
It’s incredible that you can refute one of the greatest political theorist of all time with a mere three sentences, especially without a shred of historical evidence. Close economic relations between nations have failed to prevent war throughout history. Economics are a means to an end, not the the end itself.
So the civil power which exists to enforce contracts and the rule of law is the problem? How does the removal of the enforcement mechanism for free market capitalism provide an incentive for moral actors to be satisfied with their respective pieces of the economic pie? If I want what you have but I don’t have the means or desire to acquire it legitimately, what prevents me from resorting to physical violence? The world indeed becomes bellum omnium contra omnes.[/quote]
In response to your question (bolded), libertarian magic, apparently.
Good post generally, by the way.
Liberal economic trade theorists (“liberal” in the international, economic sense) hew to the idea that deeper economic relations between nations will cultivate peace between them because they will have to many mutual, interdependent economic interests to want to fight with one another.
In reality, that has never been the case. Nations are motivated by power, influence, desire to control and prestige. Politics routinely trump “rational” economics in this world. Our policy has to reflect that - we have to take the world as we find it, not as theorists would prefer it to be.
It’s incredible that you can refute one of the greatest political theorist of all time with a mere three sentences, especially without a shred of historical evidence. Close economic relations between nations have failed to prevent war throughout history. Economics are a means to an end, not the the end itself.
So the civil power which exists to enforce contracts and the rule of law is the problem? How does the removal of the enforcement mechanism for free market capitalism provide an incentive for moral actors to be satisfied with their respective pieces of the economic pie? If I want what you have but I don’t have the means or desire to acquire it legitimately, what prevents me from resorting to physical violence? The world indeed becomes bellum omnium contra omnes.[/quote]
In response to your question (bolded), libertarian magic, apparently.
Good post generally, by the way.
Liberal economic trade theorists (“liberal” in the international, economic sense) hew to the idea that deeper economic relations between nations will cultivate peace between them because they will have to many mutual, interdependent economic interests to want to fight with one another.
In reality, that has never been the case. Nations are motivated by power, influence, desire to control and prestige. Politics routinely trump “rational” economics in this world. Our policy has to reflect that - we have to take the world as we find it, not as theorists would prefer it to be.[/quote]
The thumbs up means a lot coming from such a politically acute poster as yourself TB. Your post is perhaps what I failed to elucidate adequately. As an International Relations realist, that’s exactly the argument I’m trying to make.
The thumbs up means a lot coming from such a politically acute poster as yourself TB. Your post is perhaps what I failed to elucidate adequately. As an International Relations realist, that’s exactly the argument I’m trying to make. [/quote]
Oh, I thought you made it well.
That is the problem, of course, with much of the “neo-liberal” and fair to say “libertarian” view - it assumes that all actors (and nations) agree and operate by the same principles at all times - pure economic interest and absolute respect for property rights and sovereignty at all times. In the “neo-liberal”, world economic theory, all you need is one country to decide that it no longer wants to operate by those assumptions and the theory is exploded.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Hahaha this is social and political philosophy 101 you dumb ape. I suggest you pick up a copy of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, although I’m not sure if the meager intellect you have displayed thus far would be able to make much use of it. You possess ZERO understanding of the United States’ place within the international system, much less the incredibly immense economic, political, and social benefits that its primacy yields. Your naive and simple minded views are simply laughable when viewed through the prism of history.[/quote]
Hobbes is wrong. He never understood that market makes the “jungle” obsolete.
The real jungle he never saw is comprised of the predators that make up government.[/quote]
It’s incredible that you can refute one of the greatest political theorist of all time with a mere three sentences, especially without a shred of historical evidence. Close economic relations between nations have failed to prevent war throughout history. Economics are a means to an end, not the the end itself.
[/quote]
“Greatest political theorist of all time” is a bit of a stretch me thinks.
I have all the historical evidence I need when I see that government is the greatest killer of all time…even greater than the plague.
Government is the plague.[/quote]
Government in a constitutional republic is a reflection of the people that comprise it.[/quote]
Government attracts power-hungry sociopaths to it or maybe government changes people once they get in.
There is no constitutional republic anymore.
The framers knew government was evil that is why they wanted to keep it small.
How can people believe that power will limit itself with merely “a piece of paper”?
It takes more than that. Who said otherwise?
[/quote]
I wasn’t going to try and untangle all the quotes so just take this as a response to all of what you have said.
I feel like I understand why people think government is a “necessary evil” but to me it does not make sense given the nature of libido dominandi. History proves that government (people in government) cannot be restrained. There are no real “checks and balances” on power.
People are evil or good or indifferent but that is not what matters.
What matters is the legitimacy they are given to dominate.
It takes more than that. Who said otherwise?
[/quote]
I wasn’t going to try and untangle all the quotes so just take this as a response to all of what you have said.
I feel like I understand why people think government is a “necessary evil” but to me it does not make sense given the nature of libido dominandi. History proves that government (people in government) cannot be restrained. There are no real “checks and balances” on power.
People are evil or good or indifferent but that is not what matters.
What matters is the legitimacy they are given to dominate.[/quote]
Your mistake is that you’re attacking the symptoms and not the disease. You say history proves that government cannot be restrained–true, to an extent, but true only because of a deeper problem [which, ironically, will be exacerbated a hundred-fold by your “solution”]–
History proves that people cannot be restrained. Or, more accurately, that restraint of man’s capacity for evil is hard-won, exhausting, and never failsafe.
Do you think men died of old age before the advent of government?
It takes more than that. Who said otherwise?
[/quote]
I wasn’t going to try and untangle all the quotes so just take this as a response to all of what you have said.
I feel like I understand why people think government is a “necessary evil” but to me it does not make sense given the nature of libido dominandi. History proves that government (people in government) cannot be restrained. There are no real “checks and balances” on power.
People are evil or good or indifferent but that is not what matters.
What matters is the legitimacy they are given to dominate.[/quote]
Your mistake is that you’re attacking the symptoms and not the disease. You say history proves that government cannot be restrained–true, to an extent, but true only because of a deeper problem [which, ironically, will be exacerbated a hundred-fold by your “solution”]–
History proves that people cannot be restrained. Or, more accurately, that restraint of man’s capacity to evil is hard-won, exhausting, and never failsafe.
Do you think men died of old age before the advent of government?[/quote]
The disease of immoral values cannot be eradicated by government. They are the source of immoral values.
Some men died of old age but they died without being led to believe they were better off for having their property stolen “for their own good”. And when someone tried to steal from him he he stopped it. For certainty, before government there was far less theft - and not just for the obvious reason that there was no government confiscation of property back then.
By definition would taxes be government confiscation of property? Not trying to be a Troll, but this question could sure start up a fire storm. I am not against taxes, I just think the government could be more accountable with the funds they get.
Since everyone is talking about the inherent evil of people and people in government and this is PWI I will put out another topic that is near and dear to my heart, and probably the only answer to our problems. We all need Jesus.
The disease of immoral values cannot be eradicated by government. They are the source of immoral values.
[/quote]
Nonsense. Murderers and rapists and slavers and conquerors don’t give a damn whether the White House is empty or occupied.
Actually, they do–they’re all hoping like hell that people like you win out in the end.
By the way, I don’t think you understood me when I asked if you thought that people died of old age before the advent of government. I was talking about prehistoric murder. Man has always been wolf to man.
The framers knew government was evil that is why they wanted to keep it small.[/quote]
The Framers most certainly did not think government was evil.
What they did know - and preached constantly - was that government is like water: it does not rise higher than its source.
Virtue is the ultimate check on overreaching government - the more virtuous the people, the less need for government - but you won’t find the kind of virtue the Framers thought important in the libertarian ethic of “if it feels good, I want to be able to do it withot anyone telling me its wrong!” Hedonism is not virtue, nor is avarice.
“License they mean when they cry, Liberty!” Indeed, when it comes to anarchists and libertarians.