Remember, Ya Gotta Earn It, Guys!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What you’re describing is a very barbaric society, essentially a society of cannibals. If all the cannibals vote that you are tomorrow’s lunch, then it is somehow your job to convince the cannibals to change the system or to flee.

Societies invent fiat money to transfer wealth from one group to another. Whether it be bankers or the swarming herds of unemployables makes no difference, except in which group of cannibals benefits.

Waht happens when you run out of victims?

Now another problem: The hidden premise in all this is the freedoms you grant in a civil society must spell its doom: what if I don’t want to produce anything for parasites? Well, according to you, I’ll be forced. You intend to hand a seedy little bureaucrat a gun, have him point it at me and scream, “Now produce!!” What if I don’t? Will I be sent to the Gulag?

The Soviet Ubion tried exactly what you propose. It failed. Despite your dreams of a peaceful industrial society with plenty for all, it can’t have cannibalism at it’s core. It self-destructs, just like the Soviet Union.
[/quote]

Now you’ve completely lost it. From fiat currency to cannibalism, the USSR, and a gun being put to your head and being thrown in a gulag.

Wow. That’s all I can say. Wow. The degree of black-and-white thinking is truly astonishing.

Tell me, would you like to see a private police force? Private road companies? Private… oh… military? Yes, let’s privatize the military, too! The nation will be defended by voluntary donations!

Yes, what a wonderful place. A place where everyone will poop fairy dust. Let’s call it “Freedom Land”, or “The Free Anarcho-Capitalist Territory of Free Freemen!”

Your argument is absolutely ridiculous. It’s not worthy of a serious response. A country like you advocate would fall to ruins and be crushed by a disciplined nation of “evil socialists” who believe in the simplest, most basic fundamentals of industrialized societies like public funding of the roads and military.

ElbowStrike

22

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
However, gold is finite where our money is printed on worhtless paper anytime they want to do so.[/quote]

So one day all the gold will be mined and in circulation. As the economy grows, there will be a constant decrease in total money supply.

Monetary contraction is generally bad for the economy.

ElbowStrike

23

[quote]orion wrote:
…
The question whether inflation means redistribution of wealth (upwards, almost always) is good economic policy is not related to the question if it is theft or not.

…
[/quote]

Actually inflation hurts those that have money because it reduces the purchasing power and deflation hurts those that don’t have money because it makes it harder for them to borrow.

24

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Now you’ve completely lost it. From fiat currency to cannibalism, the USSR, and a gun being put to your head and being thrown in a gulag.

Wow. That’s all I can say. Wow. The degree of black-and-white thinking is truly astonishing.

Tell me, would you like to see a private police force? Private road companies? Private… oh… military? Yes, let’s privatize the military, too! The nation will be defended by voluntary donations!

Yes, what a wonderful place. A place where everyone will poop fairy dust. Let’s call it “Freedom Land”, or “The Free Anarcho-Capitalist Territory of Free Freemen!”

Your argument is absolutely ridiculous. It’s not worthy of a serious response. A country like you advocate would fall to ruins and be crushed by a disciplined nation of “evil socialists” who believe in the simplest, most basic fundamentals of industrialized societies like public funding of the roads and military.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

How easily you denounce freedom…kind of sad.

Look, you’re either a free member of a society, voluntarily participating or you are not. You are a slave. Seems we fought a war because we tried to exist as half free and half slave.

Its interesting that you regard humans as cattle, to be robbed and plundered at your whim, in the alleged name of the ‘public good’. Your gov’t treats people in this way and then you are shocked that they resent it. You then admit that force against unarmed victims is acceptable, provided that a majority of voters chose to do so. No wonder you have to force people to pay — your society treats them like cattle.

That’s cannibalism.

25

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…
How easily you denounce freedom…kind of sad.

Look, you’re either a free member of a society, voluntarily participating or you are not. You are a slave. Seems we fought a war because we tried to exist as half free and half slave.

Its interesting that you regard humans as cattle, to be robbed and plundered at your whim, in the alleged name of the ‘public good’. Your gov’t treats people in this way and then you are shocked that they resent it. You then admit that force against unarmed victims is acceptable, provided that a majority of voters chose to do so. No wonder you have to force people to pay — your society treats them like cattle.

That’s cannibalism.

[/quote]

Total silliness. Freedom does not mean you can do whatever the fuck you want and shirk your duties.

26

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Total silliness. Freedom does not mean you can do whatever the fuck you want and shirk your duties.[/quote]

Actually it does. But it also means if you don’t work, you don’t eat.

Just give up a little of that freedom, and we will feed you. A little more and you can have a place to live. Your soul, and we will give you health care.

Now I can’t believe this gold discussion is still going on. There really is nothing to worry about. Just do not keep all your money in cash. Then it does not matter what happens.

In fact your money should never be kept as cash. (Beyond an emergency fund that is.)

Gold is going to take a big plunge fairly soon. (I would say within the next couple of years.) If we back our money with gold, it may delay a drop, but it will still drop.

And once money is backed by gold, what then? Those pieces of paper are still pieces of paper. Just because they say they are backed by gold doesn’t really mean anything.

Now you could go out and buy to $20 minted gold pieces. Legal tender, and gold at the same time. Then if the economy collapses, you can use 20 of them to buy a bottle of water. (Damn, should have invested in water instead.)

27

[quote]The Mage wrote:
…(Damn, should have invested in water instead.)[/quote]

Then you are pissing your money away.

28

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…
How easily you denounce freedom…kind of sad.

Look, you’re either a free member of a society, voluntarily participating or you are not. You are a slave. Seems we fought a war because we tried to exist as half free and half slave.

Its interesting that you regard humans as cattle, to be robbed and plundered at your whim, in the alleged name of the ‘public good’. Your gov’t treats people in this way and then you are shocked that they resent it. You then admit that force against unarmed victims is acceptable, provided that a majority of voters chose to do so. No wonder you have to force people to pay — your society treats them like cattle.

That’s cannibalism.

Total silliness. Freedom does not mean you can do whatever the fuck you want and shirk your duties.[/quote]

Who said anything of the sort? You’re assuming that only when someone is being forced to act against their own interest can they act in the ‘public’ interest. That is a false dichotomy.

People think. It is therefore not rational to have a society which makes them resentful of their fellows. Allowing one group to plunder another creates vast resentment. That society becomes a war of pressure groups all fighting for the government so they can club the others.

Is that what we want?

29

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…

Is that what we want?

[/quote]

I want a Randian society where nothing gets done because there is no cooperation. Just think how great it would be if we didn’t build our sewer systems and people were dying from dysentery.

I suppose we could build them with money voluntarily donated but then people that didn’t donate wouldn’t be allowed to use them or else they are making others their slaves.

We could drive out all the cheap bastards that refuse to pay their fair share. Since they would resist we could kill them.

Sounds like a paradise.

30

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Look, you’re either a free member of a society, voluntarily participating or you are not. You are a slave. Seems we fought a war because we tried to exist as half free and half slave.[/quote]

Freedom doesn’t mean you get to ignore your responsibility to the common good. The original Greek concept of freedom meant that a citizen had the right to participate in the decision-making process of your tribe’s territory.

If you’re able-bodied and Putin’s revived USSR lands troops on your nation’s doorstep, you don’t get to just sit there and say, “Nahhh… I don’t feel like fighting. You can’t make me. I have a right to abstain from participation.”

[quote]Its interesting that you regard humans as cattle, to be robbed and plundered at your whim, in the alleged name of the ‘public good’. Your gov’t treats people in this way and then you are shocked that they resent it. You then admit that force against unarmed victims is acceptable, provided that a majority of voters chose to do so. No wonder you have to force people to pay — your society treats them like cattle.

That’s cannibalism.[/quote]

That analysis is absolutely paranoid and delusional. Humans are tribal animals. Government is merely a reflection of that. The nation is the “super-tribe” and without it you’ll have gang-rule by local “tribes” who will charge you protection money for their “services”.

Yes, people are tribal creatures and there needs to be a degree of deference to the tribe in order for society to function.

If the State does not provide those basic aspects of tribalism, people will create their own tribes to fulfill their tribal instincts. Enter: the Bloods, the Crips, the Hell’s Angels, the TM Movement, Jonestown, and so on, and so forth.

In a totalitarian communist state, deference to the group is 100%.
In what you advocate, a complete deterioration of all society, that deference is 0%.

Inability to see any of the 99%'s between those two as valid options for civilization is sheer simple-mindedness.

If you think that any modern, industrial society would function without any form of public infrastructure, you’re dreaming.

You’re also setting yourself up for a lifetime of kicking and screaming against an “evil government”. Have fun with that.

ElbowStrike

31

[quote]The Mage wrote:

Now I can’t believe this gold discussion is still going on. There really is nothing to worry about. Just do not keep all your money in cash. Then it does not matter what happens.

In fact your money should never be kept as cash. (Beyond an emergency fund that is.)

…

And once money is backed by gold, what then? Those pieces of paper are still pieces of paper. Just because they say they are backed by gold doesn’t really mean anything.[/quote]

Exactly!

32

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I want a Randian society where nothing gets done because there is no cooperation. Just think how great it would be if we didn’t build our sewer systems and people were dying from dysentery.

I suppose we could build them with money voluntarily donated but then people that didn’t donate wouldn’t be allowed to use them or else they are making others their slaves.

We could drive out all the cheap bastards that refuse to pay their fair share. Since they would resist we could kill them.

Sounds like a paradise.[/quote]

Well said.

“Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

Freedom means that we have overthrown Caesar, cut off his head, and in his place we have elected representatives to govern what was “Caesar’s” in our society’s interests instead of his.

It doesn’t mean living as a Barbarian on the wild side of Hadrian’s Wall.

ElbowStrike

33

Zap: you know zip about the philosophy of Rand. It is not anarchism.

EB: The point I’m making, and which you fail to grasp, is that each person THINKS. You want to give tribal orders to highly intelligent individuals, and then expect them to comply w/o question. You expect them to give up their earnings without resentment.

The Soviets tried that. What happened to them? Point being: you cannot continue to use force against your betters. They will work harder and harder to avoid your depredations. You will have to borrow increasingly large sums of money to finance your pet projects…hmmmm…that sounds familiar…

You can even invent altruism to get them to feel guilty for not wanting to give away their wealth. You can invent theories of how the ‘tribe’ (a made up word) is more important than the individuals in the tribe (not logical). Then someone like Rand comes along and shows these things for what they are.

The world of violence, the world we have today, is a result of your way of thinking — a violent self-destructive world. “You wished for it, you prayed for it, you worked your heart out for it. Why do you shrink now in horror from the world YOU CREATED?” (Rand)

34

Well by that same reasoning, all road rage in the world is the fault of those gosh-darn TRAFFIC LIGHTS everywhere!

How DARE the government tell us when to stop and start? How DARE they!?

Once we abolish traffic lights, accidents will never happen, road rage will never occur, and cancer will be cured.

What you fail to grasp is that people ARE NOT RATIONAL. They only think they are. People are emotionally-driven. Anyone who has to do any marketing or advertising knows this. Anyone who’s studied any psychology knows this. Emotions drive and the intellect justifies.

A very small portion of anyone’s decisions are intellectually-driven, the rest of the time they’re using their intellect to satisfy emotional desires.

If everyone were rational, people would never do drugs, act out in violence, live in poverty, have unprotected sex, buy shit they don’t need, or any of the umpteen stupid things “intelligent” people do on a regular basis.

The “rationality assumption” is just that: an assumption. It does not hold true in the real world.

ElbowStrike

35

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
…
What you fail to grasp is that people ARE NOT RATIONAL. They only think they are. People are emotionally-driven. Anyone who has to do any marketing or advertising knows this. Anyone who’s studied any psychology knows this. Emotions drive and the intellect justifies.

A very small portion of anyone’s decisions are intellectually-driven, the rest of the time they’re using their intellect to satisfy emotional desires.

If everyone were rational, people would never do drugs, act out in violence, live in poverty, have unprotected sex, buy shit they don’t need, or any of the umpteen stupid things “intelligent” people do on a regular basis.

The “rationality assumption” is just that: an assumption. It does not hold true in the real world.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

Hobbes.
Locke.
Hume.
(But not Rand)
and, ElbowStrike.
(no sarcasm intended.)

36

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Hobbes.
Locke.
Hume.[/quote]
Eric Hoffer
John Forbes Nash[quote]
and, ElbowStrike.
(no sarcasm intended.)
[/quote]

37

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Well by that same reasoning, all road rage in the world is the fault of those gosh-darn TRAFFIC LIGHTS everywhere!

How DARE the government tell us when to stop and start? How DARE they!?

Once we abolish traffic lights, accidents will never happen, road rage will never occur, and cancer will be cured.

What you fail to grasp is that people ARE NOT RATIONAL. They only think they are. People are emotionally-driven. Anyone who has to do any marketing or advertising knows this. Anyone who’s studied any psychology knows this. Emotions drive and the intellect justifies.

A very small portion of anyone’s decisions are intellectually-driven, the rest of the time they’re using their intellect to satisfy emotional desires.

If everyone were rational, people would never do drugs, act out in violence, live in poverty, have unprotected sex, buy shit they don’t need, or any of the umpteen stupid things “intelligent” people do on a regular basis.

The “rationality assumption” is just that: an assumption. It does not hold true in the real world.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

If humans are not rational, then your judgment of that is irrational. You are human.

A system of violence keeps this irrationality in place and perpetuates it. How about a government that relies on user fees and voluntary participation? If humans are crazed animals, why perpetuate that?

38

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
…
What you fail to grasp is that people ARE NOT RATIONAL. They only think they are. People are emotionally-driven. Anyone who has to do any marketing or advertising knows this. Anyone who’s studied any psychology knows this. Emotions drive and the intellect justifies.

A very small portion of anyone’s decisions are intellectually-driven, the rest of the time they’re using their intellect to satisfy emotional desires.

If everyone were rational, people would never do drugs, act out in violence, live in poverty, have unprotected sex, buy shit they don’t need, or any of the umpteen stupid things “intelligent” people do on a regular basis.

The “rationality assumption” is just that: an assumption. It does not hold true in the real world.

ElbowStrike

Hobbes.
Locke.
Hume.
(But not Rand)
and, ElbowStrike.
(no sarcasm intended.)

[/quote]

Thomas Hobbes? You’re joking, right? You’ve obviously never read ‘Leviathan’. Hume? He’s the father of Positivism. How is that rarional?

Locke is the best of the lot.

39

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:

Hobbes.
Locke.
Hume.
(But not Rand)
and, ElbowStrike.
(no sarcasm intended.)

,

Thomas Hobbes? You’re joking, right? You’ve obviously never read ‘Leviathan’. …
[/quote]

Read it? Read it? I set it to music!
It didn’t play well off-Broadway: nasty, brutish and short.

40

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

Hobbes.
Locke.
Hume.
Eric Hoffer[/quote]

My brother!!! But I did not know that anyone read The True Believer anymore. Witness how many sleepwalkers-- true believers–there are in this forum.

A little schizophrenia probably improved the credibility of game theory.

So the truth will out: I rather like R Dahl (contra CW Mills), Nelson Polsby, S M Lipsett (of whom I have had a brief acquaintance; a real gentleman). Dinosaurs