actually you are allowed to have guns in norway, offcourse you must have license and I think you must
have a reason like hunting or sports etc, killing other people isnt a valid reason. but then again I am not shure about the details. My brother had guns and we went to a shooting range and fired them, so some gun use
must be allowed or we are criminals without knowing it LOL.
But the government are owned by the citizens, No privat individual have claims to it, not even our
king, but when it comes to real control over the government it is possible to argue that the masses doesnt
have any real power and that a political and economical elite have the real power without having a paper
that says they owns it.
On ownership of the government apparatus in a democracy versus monarchy.
"A government is a territorial monopolist of compulsion â?? an agency which may engage in continual, institutionalized property rights violations and the exploitation â?? in the form of expropriation, taxation and regulation â?? of private property owners. Assuming no more than self-interest on the part of government agents, all governments must be expected to make use of this monopoly and thus exhibit a tendency toward increased exploitation.[1]
However, not every form of government can be expected to be equally successful in this endeavor or to go about it in the same way. Rather, in light of elementary economic theory, the conduct of government and the effects of government policy on civil society can be expected to be systematically different, depending on whether the government apparatus is owned privately or publicly.[2]
The defining characteristic of private government ownership is that the expropriated resources and the monopoly privilege of future expropriation are individually owned. The appropriated resources are added to the ruler’s private estate and treated as if they were a part of it, and the monopoly privilege of future expropriation is attached as a title to this estate and leads to an instant increase in its present value (“capitalization” of monopoly profit).
Most importantly, as private owner of the government estate, the ruler is entitled to pass his possessions onto his personal heir; he may sell, rent, or give away part or all of his privileged estate and privately pocket the receipts from the sale or rental; and he may personally employ or dismiss every administrator and employee of his estate.
In contrast, in a publicly owned government the control over the government apparatus lies in the hands of a trustee, or caretaker. The caretaker may use the apparatus to his personal advantage, but he does not own it. He cannot sell government resources and privately pocket the receipts, nor can he pass government possessions onto his personal heir. He owns the current use of government resources, but not their capital value.
Moreover, while entrance into the position of a private owner of government is restricted by the owner’s personal discretion, entrance into the position of a caretaker-ruler is open. Anyone, in principle, can become the government’s caretaker.
From these assumptions two central, interrelated predictions can be deduced:
A private government owner will tend to have a systematically longer planning horizon, i.e., his degree of time preference will be lower, and accordingly, his degree of economic exploitation will tend to be less than that of a government caretaker; and
subject to a higher degree of exploitation, the nongovernmental public will also be comparatively more present oriented under a system of publicly owned government than under a regime of private government ownership. "
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. I made a side comment that I had changed from a libertarian (capitalist-anarchy) to a conservative. Well, it’s not just from one to the other because one is a mode, and the other is form. I have done a 180, I am now a full fledged American monarchist (and researching Distributism).
[/quote]
Sorry to hear that you’ve taken a step backward.[/quote]
Why is your assumption that I have taken a step backward?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The current system? Yes, the traditional system? No.
[/quote]
If this is a problem, why not change the system, so that it is impossible for individuals to
monopolize economic power.[/quote]
Already did that, didn’t work.
If that was the only thing that I have a problem with then, sure. However, it’s not and pragmatically it is not really possible.
Because the people would tolerate it a lot less with knowing who it is that allowed this.
Compared to our minor civil wars every 2-4 years, and the bloodiest Civil War we already had?
I doubt Aussies, Canadians have much trouble with this with the British Crown.
Who said it was my former love. I haven’t decided if distributism is logical and sound.
[quote]
And what should it be and who are you to make that call for everyone else.[/quote]
What?
[quote]
Well if there is someone who should have anything to say about have the school is run, its the people who run aka the people who work within the school system.[/quote]
So it doesn’t matter that the government forces children to go a school where they basically sit in an overcrowded room for 7 hours a day and not learn anything?
They don’t teach, and the children are forced to go. You don’t see the problem? It’s like me forcing you to go to a building for seven hours a day, and if you don’t you or your parents are thrown into prison. But, nothing really is taught and what is taught is usually not explained correctly, is completely incorrect, &c. And, I’m going to force you to pay for it.
Not talking about the teacher union, but our school system is 30th in the world…that is one of the highest 3rd-world education systems…however bottom of the barrel for everyone that doesn’t live in a 3rd-world country.
[quote]
An a king would change this how? Wouldt putting a system up that gave people more direct control be a better solution.[/quote]
A king wouldn’t be changing this because of succession and nullification.
Actually, looking at the Monarchies in the West this is incorrect.
This goes against nature though. As long as a man can gain the votes of another there will always be someone that has power over another.
Well, according to our current ‘democracy’ the masses have what they want. It doesn’t look so good.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Chris, sorry if I missed it, but what system would be in place for the redress of grievances?[/quote]
We already have a system in place for that. Basically what I’m advocating here is that we ditch the opinion man on capital hill, and have a Monarch who is still bound by the constitution and we resolve the power of the federal (monarch) government. See the problem now, is that our current Monarch gets released every 4-8 years so to point to one man and say, this is your fault. You have Bush people saying it’s not Bush it’s Clinton and Obama, you have Obama and Clinton people saying it’s not them it’s the Bush family. Back and forth and nothing gets done. So, obviously the past couple administrations haven’t been working out, so let’s roll back to 1774 and let’s have a constitutional Monarch. We can still have the same document, change it around a little. Heck maybe we can find a Washington or an Adams to be King.
As well, the monarch will be kept in check by the threat of succession and nullification. Just like America did with King George III. [/quote]
Well we were “that close” to having our own King George.
Anyway there have been somewhat serious discussions about having the president go for 1 term of 6 or 8 years only. Then again FDR was closest to being a Monarch.
[/quote]
FDR would have been a horrible Monarch, and even though the man has Family connections to the Setons, I am not a fan of him at all.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Chris, sorry if I missed it, but what system would be in place for the redress of grievances?[/quote]
We already have a system in place for that. Basically what I’m advocating here is that we ditch the opinion man on capital hill, and have a Monarch who is still bound by the constitution and we resolve the power of the federal (monarch) government. See the problem now, is that our current Monarch gets released every 4-8 years so to point to one man and say, this is your fault. You have Bush people saying it’s not Bush it’s Clinton and Obama, you have Obama and Clinton people saying it’s not them it’s the Bush family. Back and forth and nothing gets done. So, obviously the past couple administrations haven’t been working out, so let’s roll back to 1774 and let’s have a constitutional Monarch. We can still have the same document, change it around a little. Heck maybe we can find a Washington or an Adams to be King.
As well, the monarch will be kept in check by the threat of succession and nullification. Just like America did with King George III. [/quote]
Well we were “that close” to having our own King George.
Anyway there have been somewhat serious discussions about having the president go for 1 term of 6 or 8 years only. Then again FDR was closest to being a Monarch.
[/quote]
FDR would have been a horrible Monarch, and even though the man has Family connections to the Setons, I am not a fan of him at all.[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
FDR would have been a horrible Monarch, and even though the man has Family connections to the Setons, I am not a fan of him at all.[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. I made a side comment that I had changed from a libertarian (capitalist-anarchy) to a conservative. Well, it’s not just from one to the other because one is a mode, and the other is form. I have done a 180, I am now a full fledged American monarchist (and researching Distributism).
Now, before this discussion gets on way, I want to point out that this isn’t something were I just read an awesome book on monarchies (not sure there is one out there), and decided that it was for me. Looking back on this point, I can see this formation having its roots from about 5-6 years ago.
Discuss…and accuse.[/quote]
Anarchism is a make believe form of society where there is no government/monarchy therefore no leadership. It exists in the minds of naive idiots and nowhere else.
Capitalism is the basis of every great civilisation from Carthage to Britain and historically is necessary for advancement of culture, civilisation and standards of living.
Wealth redistribution(read Communism/Marxism) has been a rabble rousing ideology used by evreyone from the Grachhi to Robespierre, Lenin and Hitler. Every state that has ever had a form of revolution based around wealth redistribution has turned into a dictatorship and led to genocide/mass exiles(Cambodia, Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Vietnam etc).
If you want an ‘awesome book on monarchies’ read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. But remember that monarchies with political power are about as likely as tits on a bull in the 21st century. Better go with military dictatorship if you want to be a trendy pseudo-intellectual. People won’t laugh at you as much.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. I made a side comment that I had changed from a libertarian (capitalist-anarchy) to a conservative. Well, it’s not just from one to the other because one is a mode, and the other is form. I have done a 180, I am now a full fledged American monarchist (and researching Distributism).
Now, before this discussion gets on way, I want to point out that this isn’t something were I just read an awesome book on monarchies (not sure there is one out there), and decided that it was for me. Looking back on this point, I can see this formation having its roots from about 5-6 years ago.
Discuss…and accuse.[/quote]
Anarchism is a make believe form of society where there is no government/monarchy therefore no leadership. It exists in the minds of naive idiots and nowhere else.
Capitalism is the basis of every great civilisation from Carthage to Britain and historically is necessary for advancement of culture, civilisation and standards of living.
Wealth redistribution(read Communism/Marxism) has been a rabble rousing ideology used by evreyone from the Grachhi to Robespierre, Lenin and Hitler. Every state that has ever had a form of revolution based around wealth redistribution has turned into a dictatorship and led to genocide/mass exiles(Cambodia, Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Vietnam etc).
If you want an ‘awesome book on monarchies’ read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. But remember that monarchies with political power are about as likely as tits on a bull in the 21st century. Better go with military dictatorship if you want to be a trendy pseudo-intellectual. People won’t laugh at you as much.[/quote]
There is no purely capitalistic economy on earth. Western European countries, which operate under a more balanced economic system than for example the US or Singapore, are consistently found to be the most rewarding and happiest places to live.
A government bailout of an investment bank or insurance company is “wealth redistribution”. So is the fact that I just paid my taxes and GE is paying none.
Contrary to what the assholes in charge want you to believe, a healthy, market-driven economy does not necessarily require the little guy to get bent over and repeatedly fucked without mercy.
Anarchism is a make believe form of society where there is no government/monarchy therefore no leadership. It exists in the minds of naive idiots and nowhere else.
[/quote]
Wrong. Anarchism is not make believe. It exists everywhere around you – and even in the animal kingdom. There are always “leaders” in any society the difference is that in an anarchistic society they have no authority to steal from, murder or enslave anyone – i.e., they exist by voluntary mandate alone.
Anarchism is a make believe form of society where there is no government/monarchy therefore no leadership. It exists in the minds of naive idiots and nowhere else.
[/quote]
Wrong. Anarchism is not make believe. It exists everywhere around you – and even in the animal kingdom. There are always “leaders” in any society the difference is that in an anarchistic society they have no authority to steal from, murder or enslave anyone – i.e., they exist by voluntary mandate alone.[/quote]
you can add that humans have lived in an anarchistic society for 100-000 or 150-000 years
before the state came to be roughly 6000years ago. That is most of our existence. The most traditional form of society are anarchism. civilisation are a new phenomen.
Anarchism is a make believe form of society where there is no government/monarchy therefore no leadership. It exists in the minds of naive idiots and nowhere else.
[/quote]
Wrong. Anarchism is not make believe. It exists everywhere around you – and even in the animal kingdom. There are always “leaders” in any society the difference is that in an anarchistic society they have no authority to steal from, murder or enslave anyone – i.e., they exist by voluntary mandate alone.[/quote]
you can add that humans have lived in an anarchistic society for 100-000 or 150-000 years
before the state came to be roughly 6000years ago. That is most of our existence. The most traditional form of society are anarchism. civilisation are a new phenomen.[/quote]
Civilization must have existed before the State. It is not government that brought about civilization but rather the other way around. And even more distinctly it was only a small segment of civilization that desired the “legal authority” to steal from the productive members of society – and thus the state was born.
Anarchism is a make believe form of society where there is no government/monarchy therefore no leadership. It exists in the minds of naive idiots and nowhere else.
[/quote]
Wrong. Anarchism is not make believe. It exists everywhere around you – and even in the animal kingdom. There are always “leaders” in any society the difference is that in an anarchistic society they have no authority to steal from, murder or enslave anyone – i.e., they exist by voluntary mandate alone.[/quote]
you can add that humans have lived in an anarchistic society for 100-000 or 150-000 years
before the state came to be roughly 6000years ago. That is most of our existence. The most traditional form of society are anarchism. civilisation are a new phenomen.[/quote]
Cool, we can look to apes and ancient hunter-gatherers for shining examples of anarchy. Oh, and of course, the pillager has authority to steal and murder in anarcchistic societies. His people’s and his own. What, you thought everyone was going to cooperate with the utopian vision?
Anarchism is a make believe form of society where there is no government/monarchy therefore no leadership. It exists in the minds of naive idiots and nowhere else.
[/quote]
Wrong. Anarchism is not make believe. It exists everywhere around you – and even in the animal kingdom. There are always “leaders” in any society the difference is that in an anarchistic society they have no authority to steal from, murder or enslave anyone – i.e., they exist by voluntary mandate alone.[/quote]
you can add that humans have lived in an anarchistic society for 100-000 or 150-000 years
before the state came to be roughly 6000years ago. That is most of our existence. The most traditional form of society are anarchism. civilisation are a new phenomen.[/quote]
Civilization must have existed before the State. It is not government that brought about civilization but rather the other way around. And even more distinctly it was only a small segment of civilization that desired the “legal authority” to steal from the productive members of society – and thus the state was born.
[/quote]
In the field of history, civilization meens a culture with writings. writing came about the same time the state did, If you are thinking about agricultural society then yes they came before the state.
Anarchism is a make believe form of society where there is no government/monarchy therefore no leadership. It exists in the minds of naive idiots and nowhere else.
[/quote]
Wrong. Anarchism is not make believe. It exists everywhere around you – and even in the animal kingdom. There are always “leaders” in any society the difference is that in an anarchistic society they have no authority to steal from, murder or enslave anyone – i.e., they exist by voluntary mandate alone.[/quote]
you can add that humans have lived in an anarchistic society for 100-000 or 150-000 years
before the state came to be roughly 6000years ago. That is most of our existence. The most traditional form of society are anarchism. civilisation are a new phenomen.[/quote]
Cool, we can look to apes and ancient hunter-gatherers for shining examples of anarchy. Oh, and of course, the pillager has authority to steal and murder in anarcchistic societies. His people’s and his own. What, you thought everyone was going to cooperate with the utopian vision?[/quote]
Not only hunter and gatherers, the neolitic revolution came before the state, thousands of years before the state. I am not saying that anarchy is something that are likely to happen any time soon, but as a matter of fact humans have lived for the most part of theire history in anarchy.
[quote]florelius wrote:
I am not saying that anarchy is something that are likely to happen any time soon… [/quote]
Anarchy isn’t going to happen, period. Thankfully.[/quote]
But it already does happen all around you. The TNation forums are an anarchic society/[/quote]
Anarchy in the animal world and on an internet forum are completely irrelevant and in no way analogous to what we are talking about.
Political anarchy in its purest form doesn’t exist anywhere, but two systems come close: regions of Somalia (which no sane person would want to emulate), and the geopolitical landscape as a whole. World politics take place in a system that is close to anarchic, i.e. each nation governs its own but no government governs each nation. The UN and other conglomerate political bodies can try to arbitrate, but they are ultimately fairly powerless .
What has this anarchic system given us? War since the dawn of man. Genocide, colonialism, the invasion of sovereign states and subsequent plundering of their natural resources. Two world wars, ethnic cleansing, Vietnam, two wars in the Gulf, Afghanistan. The great nations of the world act in many of the same ways that individuals would if their respective governments were absolved. Government tempers the uglier side of human nature.
[quote]florelius wrote:
I am not saying that anarchy is something that are likely to happen any time soon… [/quote]
Anarchy isn’t going to happen, period. Thankfully.[/quote]
But it already does happen all around you. The TNation forums are an anarchic society/[/quote]
Anarchy in the animal world and on an internet forum are completely irrelevant and in no way analogous to what we are talking about.
Political anarchy in its purest form doesn’t exist anywhere, but two systems come close: regions of Somalia (which no sane person would want to emulate), and the geopolitical landscape as a whole. World politics take place in a system that is close to anarchic, i.e. each nation governs its own but no government governs each nation. The UN and other conglomerate political bodies can try to arbitrate, but they are ultimately fairly powerless .
What has this anarchic system given us? War since the dawn of man. Genocide, colonialism, the invasion of sovereign states and subsequent plundering of their natural resources. Two world wars, ethnic cleansing, Vietnam, two wars in the Gulf, Afghanistan. The great nations of the world act in many of the same ways that individuals would if their respective governments were absolved. Government tempers the uglier side of human nature.
[/quote]
Anarchy exist all around you. There is only one kind of anarchy. It is the natural way of the world sans aggression.
