The Nature of The State

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]kroby wrote:
I read some theory that stated eating meat brought on the development of the brain. Walking upright has nothing to do with it.
[/quote]
If your mom couldn’t walk upright your head wouldn’t have fit thru her hip structure–either that, or you would have had a smaller, less developed brain. However, there are many other factors that contribute to brain development. Early humans were opportunistic scavengers who ate mainly left-over fatty organ meats which we now understand as important to brain development (omega-3 fatty acids).

Being raised by your mother (social network) in stead of having to fend for yourself also allows you the ability to use excess energy for brain activities which are crucial to its development. There are many more reasons and not just one single reason–otherwise, all meat-eaters would be as smart as we are…?

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]pat36 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
While this thread makes for some interesting reading, I can’t help but recall that only a few months ago, Lifticus was rejecting “economic competitive man” in his defense of communism and his categorical rejection of capitalism not that long ago.

I was not rejecting competition I just happen to think that capitalism is flawed within the framework of fascism–which is what we live in currently. Fascism promotes special interest thru market manipulation with the help of gov’t regulation–thus it is anti-Free market. I have always believed in a free, unfettered market for the best and most fair productivity. Communism (communalism) fits within that framework as long as it stays out of the hands of the state.

Communism still doesn’t work. It ignores the basic pricipals of human behaviour that almost all environmentaly controled aspects of human behaviour function on the pricipals of Opperant Conditioning. Behaviour and reward go hand and hand. Very few get stisfaction by working really hard and seeing everybody else benefit. Most people are just not that altruistic by nature. Altruism is a self dicipline, no real altruism actually exisits. Humans can will themselves to wait for reward, but not forever. Reward must come or behaviour will cease, it is really that simple.

Communistic theory is flawed in that it only takes into account sociological pricipals and ignores psychological pricipals of the individual. Your sociological pricipals must take into account the individual or your principals are no good. It’s just like a football coach saying, “No matter what the play we’ll kick a hundred yard field goal at every 4rth down.” A fine theory if your kicker could do it, but none of them can. So it doesn’t work.

Also, you just aren’t going to have a communist style economy with out the state running it, I cannot envision a context where that would work. Ultiamtley, if you aren’t going to reward an individual for a desired behaviour, which in this case is work, your going to have to force them to work. You pretty much need a tyranical oppresive regime to get that kind of clout.

I understand your frusteration with capitolism. It isn’t perfect, some people get unjustly left out and it seems to cater to the greedy. But until somebody comes up with a functional economic motif that is neither capitolistic or communistic in nature; I’ll listen.
[/quote]
I am not arguing for communism except within the framework of self-rule. I think a while back Orion called it “communalism” that I am actually advocating and not communism. What ever it is called it must also fit within the framework of liberty and natural rights and be free and unfettered from state manipulation and be by voluntary association only (self-rule). I believe this to be the most natural social contract.

[nephorm]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Not in a rational sense…“nature” chooses it for them. How do you know that the choices you make are your own?
[/quote]

I don’t need to, to refute what you’re proposing. All I need to show is that two human beings choose two different paths to reach the same goal from the same starting point. I think that is a fact that is immediately obvious to the most casual observer. By making that observation, I refute your analogy.

Human beings are capable of calculating that one thing is worth more than another, and that a certain goal is or isn’t worth pursuing.

This is nonsense…value is always subjective which is the biggest argument for a free market. Value is not necessarily a rational measure. What one is willing to pay for a particular service may not be what another is willing to pay–i.e., what we value is different.

It is nonsense to say that human beings can calculate value? What is nonsense abut that? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
How can value be subjective and objective? Either everything resolves down to physical law that seeks efficiency or it doesn’t.

The “destination” is inconsequential to the facts of nature.

And, yet, we are compelled by nature to seek efficiency and to adapt.

[quote]
We could argue the same with purpose–physics doesn’t seek to answer questions of human behavior…it is only concerned with the “behavior” of nature in general. If the laws of physics are true for one entity then they are necessarily true for all entities.[/quote]

Really? So the laws of quantum mechanics can be used to make predictions about the behavior of a baseball? Photons always act like every other particle? Come on.

Nature doesn’t care about what humans think of purpose. It only acts in accordance with it’s laws-- and by extension all organisms are forced to act in accordance with them.
We can ignore all questions of purpose because it is a valuation and all valuation is subjective–read above.

Now, that is nonsense. Governments and political organizations are made up of men, not elementary particles. If you can’t come to grips with the fact that individual decisions, preferences, and psyches go into producing the end result of any social organization, then you have failed to grasp the problem in its most basic form.

Quite true! but if we are to take the laws of physics, et al, as universally true then they must all act in accordance with each other. In physics we call it a grand unified theory. I am applying that same logic to the argument of universal organic behavior and interaction.

Funny thing about science versus politics: when you make an error in science, your experiment just fails. You might lose some funding. When you make a mistake in politics, especially about fundamental issues, people die.

So while it may be poetic to assume that since there might be a GUT at some point in the future (which would have experiments that could potentially falsify it), we also might have a GUT of politics, you provide no evidence that proves it.

In fact, you are actually displaying the true meaning of begging the question. That is, your premises presume the conclusion. E.g., “a) physical laws are unified and knowable, b) social behavior is a type of physical law, c) therefore, social behavior is unified and knowable.”

It is because humans living in our current society do not have to “forage” that they can watch TV–why they do…? (again we can disregard questions of value) I am not interested in that. Individual behaviors is not what I am trying to explain–I think in more general terms. We will call it “A General Grand Unified Theory for Organic Behavior”.

Yet every single “law” you list has numerous exceptions. So what does this theory of yours actually predict? I get the feeling you are being very intellectually dishonest with me. And I can’t see any good reason why. What value does a theory of behavior or social organization have if it fails to account for the individuals, or the aggregate behavior of individuals? So human beings don’t have to “forage.” Does that mean that the physical imperative to become efficient no longer applies when foraging is taken out of the question?

Libertarianism is just an ideal. It does not seek perfection–it cannot attain that because it cannot be defined except on an individual level. It simply sets out the ideals that must be followed in order to maximize efficiency of economy via a recognition of “natural rights”.

Except you aren’t talking about natural rights. You’re talking about physical laws. And I can make that claim about any system - capitalism is “just an ideal.” So is communism. So was Plato’s Republic. So was Hobbes’ Leviathan. And if you accept the premises of each, the conclusions follow. So the point is: you must prove your premises.

Because it is just an ideal…like democracy or Christianity. There is still an element of uncertainty in any system–for example, there is an element in human behavior that seeks a disproportionate amount of power.

Look, either this system of government is either dictated by physical laws, or it isn’t. You can’t say “it’s just an ideal” in one paragraph, and then say “it is given to us by physics” in another.

[quote]
I don’t need proof to conjecture about theory…imagine if Einstein (not comparing myself to him) were told to stop wasting his time on the the photoelectric effect. Theory is the foundation of all academic pursuit–you can criticize it as you will.[/quote]

Einstein would’ve wasted his time on the photoelectric effect if he had not clearly articulated a theory that could be easily falsified via experiment. You are the one who decided to turn this into a debate about physical law, rather than natural law. You are assuming too much. You add too much description to your theory to shoehorn it into the facts. Simplicity is a virtue. Consistency is even better.

I don’t even get the sense that you really believe what you’re saying - perhaps if you took some time to collect your thoughts, and re-present them in a clearer, more unified manner, we could really debate this properly.

[Nominal_Prospect]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I am starting to understand this more and more from observation of both the present and past–which begs the question: is mankind capable of defying these “natural” tendencies?

I hate to be “that guy” on the internet forum, but it does not “beg the question.” It raises or prompts the question. To beg the question is a logical fallacy. [/quote]

I’ll be “that other guy” to your “guy” and point out that “begs the question” refers to a circular fallacy only when it is used as a figure of speech by the original poster. If it is not used within such a context, it should be interpreted literally, in which case the meaning of the phrase is near-identical to your suggested replacements.

Everybody patents their own language, just as everyone steals linguistic concepts from everyone else.

[quote]pookie wrote:
I think that in our Western societies, we tend to worry too much about the state, and not enough about large corporations.

Ultimately, most people involved in making decisions for “The State” are elected and can be replaced and/or dismissed when they overreach too badly.[/quote]

Hitler was also elected, but it took quite a lot to get him “replaced”. If politicians can be replaced, it is because the law states that they can. Now, who controls the law? The government. That’s an obvious conflict of interest.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Corporations, on the other hand, wield enormous power over populations and are directly accountable to no one; at the very least, not directly to the people over which they hold power. They often have far more influence over the elected officials, through various means, than any citizen group.[/quote]

Really? I’m not aware of any corporation which possesses a conventional military force or a single nuclear weapon. As a general rule, transactions within the free market operate by persuasion and mutual incentive to all involved parties. Government transactions, by their nature, are coercive. We only require laws to compel us to do that which we would not otherwise do, of our own volition.

The only power they wield is the power of setting standards in the general market. For example, the widespread availability of automobiles, indoor plumbing, refrigeration, and heating, are all innovations that were developed within the market and came to be adopted as standards in all of society. The free market is perhaps the most democratic institution there is, and it does wield tremendous influence over society. If there is a downside, it is the “tyranny of the majority” which results from all purely democratic systems. Yet, this is nothing more than a reflection of an immutable constant of human experience. Every human life is influenced in countless ways by the world into which it is born.

Very few people understand the true origin of the societal standards under which they live. People believe that, just because they happened to be born after the industrial revolution, they are entitled to all the fruits of modern capitalism. Furthermore, they think these things are available to them because of some government decree, written on a piece of paper.

The truth of the matter is that no one is “entitled” to anything. Not to cars, computers, running water, food or shelter.

The fact that all of these things are so widely available as to be considered “standards” is a genuine MIRACLE attributable wholly to the workings of CAPITALISM.

The general market comprises all human interactions, past and present. Government, in fact, operates within the market as a de facto monopoly on the use of force. It is not, as some libertarians mistakenly believe, an entity apart from the workings of the market. Even if formal “governments” did not exist, there would still be a market for force and the void would be filled by private security corporations.

Social contract theory is mostly valid but frequently misinterpreted and misused to “refute” libertarian ideas when, in fact, there is no fundamental quarrel between the two.

[kroby]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kroby wrote:
I read some theory that stated eating meat brought on the development of the brain. Walking upright has nothing to do with it.

There are many more reasons and not just one single reason–otherwise, all meat-eaters would be as smart as we are…?[/quote]

Ah, yes. The big difference is that our meat was cooked. I wish I could offer you a link to this hypothesis, but I couldn’t find it. It has something to do with how protein conformation was changed due to heat (a catalyst) that affected a different synaptic development. The time of human congregation, fire use, language and art (charcoal drawn representations) all converged at roughly the same time, observed through prehistoric records. Compelling empirical evidence, at the least.

[kroby]

[quote]pat36 wrote:
kroby wrote:
Did you know you were a republican?

So you resort to name calling do you!! I subscribe to no political party, none are good enough for me. Besides, in the last 20 years of the growth of the federal government, the last 6 has seen more growth of the federal government than the previous 14. If I am not mistaken the last six years have been primarily republican controled.

I do not think republicans are very interested in small government. Oh, they pay the notion the proper lip service, but actions speak louder than words and their actions grew the government and forced it’s encroachment in to our lives more than I have ever experienced previously.

I do, in the end, concider the republicans to traditionally be the lesser of two evils. But I don’t think they are the answer either, they are just less bad than the democrats.[/quote]

I meant no offense. Don’t confuse our current president Bush with republicans. He sold his republican soul to the warhawks and got caught up in things way over his head.

[nephorm]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I’ll be “that other guy” to your “guy” and point out that “begs the question” refers to a circular fallacy only when it is used as a figure of speech by the original poster. If it is not used within such a context, it should be interpreted literally, in which case the meaning of the phrase is near-identical to your suggested replacements.

Everybody patents their own language, just as everyone steals linguistic concepts from everyone else.
[/quote]

Yeah, yeah. Linguistic nihilism.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

Words and phrases have accepted meanings. Attempt to become your own lexicographer at your own peril.

[Nominal_Prospect]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
DeToqueville said, in describing Americans, that they want a powerful state but they want to vote for it. We’ve gotten exactly what we deserve, which is justice.

Now as Pookie points out, corporations have done an ‘end run’ around this and are extremely powerful. In fact, I just watched a documentary about how defense contractors make sure that they are present in all 50 states (which means jobs). This ensures that money for defense contracts will usually be forthcoming.

I would say they the inherent logic in this system is well-entrenched and there’s little we can do. Voting does not change corporate America; it simply changes who gets the $$$$ in Washington. So, buy defense stocks — loot or be looted. When the system collapses, like the old Roman Empire, you might be rich enough to help in the rebuilding.[/quote]

The large corporations you speak of attained their present power not through the free market, but due to government intervention in said market.

Laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism (fascism) are very different beasts.

Most large business owners are NOT libertarians, but statists (this was not always the case in the past, but is especially true today). They balk at the idea of unregulated competition in a truly free market. When the Objectivist movement was growing in the 50’s & 60’s, it’s members expected the business leaders of the day to emerge as their strongest allies. This belief proved to be unfounded, since the interests of big business were heavily tied up with the entire statist complex which the Randians wanted to eliminate.

So, the lesson is that Big Government works hand-in-hand with Big Business. They are part of the same system.

A self-evident rule is proposed: Old, rich, white men in business find a natural ally, not an enemy, in their counterparts in government.

That’s why governments shouldn’t be allowed to get anywhere near the free market.

It is the chief folly of liberals to blame the results of government intervention in the free market on the market (and capitalism) itself.

The saying goes, “A Republic, if you can keep it…”

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

Laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism (fascism) are very different beasts. [/quote]

But presumably corporatism/fascism is not a bad thing - since, of course, you described yourself as a “fascist”…?

[Nominal_Prospect]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Yeah, yeah. Linguistic nihilism.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

Words and phrases have accepted meanings. Attempt to become your own lexicographer at your own peril.[/quote]

Too late; I took that path long ago. There’s no turning back for me. Most everything I now write is predicated on metaphysical subjectivism. I think it must be very evident in my posts.

[Nominal_Prospect]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:

Laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism (fascism) are very different beasts.

But presumably corporatism/fascism is not a bad thing - since, of course, you described yourself as a “fascist”…?[/quote]

I don’t want to talk about it at the moment. It’s hard to explain - ask me later.

Edit - I just read the following article by Garth North. I think it is very applicable to the discussion on this thread. As I was reading, I was struck by the resemblance of the writing to that of some Westside articles that get posted here. While the subject matter is very different, it is presented in a similiarly bold, no-nonsense manner. Like Austrian economics, theories of weight training are pretty simple in conception but can become quite intricate in their details.

Take this quote:
The great mass of people are incapable of realizing that in economic life nothing is permanent except change. They regard the existing state of affairs as eternal; as it has been so shall it always be. . . . To see and to act in advance, to follow new ways, is always the concern only of the few, the leaders. Socialism is the economic policy of the crowd, of the masses, remote from insight into the nature of economic activity.

Socialized Wall Street - LewRockwell

In my interpretation, this paragraph directly echoes the sentiments that I wrote on the nature of standards in the general market and society. “Change”, in the above context, can be thought of as a “societal bias for the prevailing economic standards of it’s place and time”. What the piece is saying is that the majority of the people are chiefly concerned with maintaining their place in the status quo. This is particularly true of the middle class. This sentiment, manifested on a wide scale, results in the growth of government policies and central planning.

Some radical social theorists have suggested that little is going to change on this planet until we seriously address the spectres of human death, disease, and fear. Fear drives people to do irrational things. History gets stuck in repeating cycles, as every new generation is doomed to commit the same mistakes as it’s predecessors, only to end up learning the same lessons. We need a way to break past the age-old quandary of “security vs. liberty”, and that can only come about through radical advances in technology.

In other words, we need new standards.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I was not rejecting competition I just happen to think that capitalism is flawed within the framework of fascism–which is what we live in currently. Fascism promotes special interest thru market manipulation with the help of gov’t regulation–thus it is anti-Free market. I have always believed in a free, unfettered market for the best and most fair productivity. Communism (communalism) fits within that framework as long as it stays out of the hands of the state.[/quote]

You have complained openly about the unfair pricing mechanism of capitalism in its “inefficient pricing of value” - now, you are saying you don’t question the market setting prices?

Actually, the most efficient model of government is totalitarianism, yet it is the least fair. Libertarianism is the most fair and most efficient given the nature of all organisms. I believe natural selection will correct the flaws of the “nanny state” if it is allowed to take its course.

So which is the most efficient? You say both. Which is it?

And if libertarianism be so uber-efficient, how come it has never flourished in human society?

In a fascist government there is no free trade and thus capitalism cannot work.

Perhaps I will defer to Nominal Prospect - he is a fascist - for an explanation.

But you have absolutely no idea what a “fascist government” is - your definition of fascism seems to be “anything that isn’t libertarianism”, which is flatly silly, and the prescient Orwell was right on when he noted that “fascism” among the airhead class would be reduced to anything the airhead didn’t like.

No–you have it wrong. It is only a crime against natural rights when one’s actions are unfairly thwarted–for example, when I am told I cannot do something that does not interfere with an other’s liberty.

So, someone should be able to have sex on a public sidewalk in full view of your children? After all, what liberty interest of yours would be harmed under this model?

I have been consistent in my beliefs. I have been an atheist and an anarchist for the better part of my life–it is just recently that I have come to believe that physics, economics, psychology, sociology, and biology must be reconciled wholly within the entire framework of human behavior in order for it to be consistent as a law of nature.

No one mentioned atheism, so no one cares. As for your “anarchism”, that has been duly noted, but it remains amazing how much time you dither in “social theory” that completely ignores human nature while trying to decide the best model for human interaction. Your clumsy foray into communism - dressed down for its complete ignorance of the human nature that governs the actual humans in the “theory” - has merely been attached to your newfound devotion to “libertarian capitalism”, and remains an obvious flaw in your ideas.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

I don’t want to talk about it at the moment.[/quote]

I don’t blame you.

Can’t unring that bell, can you, child?

[Nominal_Prospect]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:

I don’t want to talk about it at the moment.

I don’t blame you.

Can’t unring that bell, can you, child?[/quote]

No, I can’t - nor would I want to.

I just don’t feel like taking such a radical context departure at this time. However, I can give you some clues about my meaning. Fascism is elitism, for the purpose of this discussion. It would be disingenuous of me to conceal my elitist sympathies. I am an intellectual, after all. That makes me an elitist, practically by definition.

I’m also an individualist and a relativist, with strong conservative tendencies. More or less. Don’t get too hung up on the terms.

I strongly reject the doctrine of egalitarianism in all it’s forms (racial, sexual, or class-oriented), which basically makes me a social darwinist.

I have come out in support of a structured, hierarchical society, believing that it is both the most natural and efficient form of social organization.

You can put the remaining pieces together. I imagine it shouldn’t be too hard. Any questions, just ask.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

No, I can’t - nor would I want to.

I just don’t feel like taking such a radical context departure at this time. However, I can give you some clues about my meaning. Fascism is elitism, for the purpose of this discussion. It would be disingenuous of me to conceal my elitist sympathies. I am an intellectual, after all. That makes me an elitist, practically by definition.

I’m also an individualist and a relativist, with strong conservative tendencies. More or less. Don’t get too hung up on the terms.

I strongly reject the doctrine of egalitarianism in all it’s forms (racial, sexual, or class-oriented), which basically makes me a social darwinist.

I have come out in support of a structured, hierarchical society, believing that it is both the most natural and efficient form of social organization.

You can put the remaining pieces together. I imagine it shouldn’t be too hard. Any questions, just ask.[/quote]

Outside of your usual nonsense, one things sticks out - you can’t be both an elitist and a relativist. If you think value is relative, especially in the arena of ideas, you can’t think that one is better than another, and therefore you can’t be an elitist, who definitionally thinks that one way of life or collection of ideas is superior to all other sets.

But then again, you are a libertarian fascist, so the duty to make sense is not something you are encumbered by.

And true intellectuals never label themselves as such - they let others do that for them. I suspect you wish you were one and wished we all thought you were one.

But then again, you don’t care for labels, right?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

Laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism (fascism) are very different beasts. [/quote]

And, I come back to this - if you are a libertarian and a fascist, which of these “two very different beasts” do you prefer?

[pat]

[quote]kroby wrote:
pat36 wrote:
kroby wrote:
Did you know you were a republican?

So you resort to name calling do you!! I subscribe to no political party, none are good enough for me. Besides, in the last 20 years of the growth of the federal government, the last 6 has seen more growth of the federal government than the previous 14. If I am not mistaken the last six years have been primarily republican controled.

I do not think republicans are very interested in small government. Oh, they pay the notion the proper lip service, but actions speak louder than words and their actions grew the government and forced it’s encroachment in to our lives more than I have ever experienced previously.

I do, in the end, concider the republicans to traditionally be the lesser of two evils. But I don’t think they are the answer either, they are just less bad than the democrats.

I meant no offense. Don’t confuse our current president Bush with republicans. He sold his republican soul to the warhawks and got caught up in things way over his head.[/quote]

I was kidding about the name calling thing. I know Bush is an asshat in special ways.

[pat]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
While this thread makes for some interesting reading, I can’t help but recall that only a few months ago, Lifticus was rejecting “economic competitive man” in his defense of communism and his categorical rejection of capitalism not that long ago.

I was not rejecting competition I just happen to think that capitalism is flawed within the framework of fascism–which is what we live in currently. Fascism promotes special interest thru market manipulation with the help of gov’t regulation–thus it is anti-Free market. I have always believed in a free, unfettered market for the best and most fair productivity. Communism (communalism) fits within that framework as long as it stays out of the hands of the state.

Communism still doesn’t work. It ignores the basic pricipals of human behaviour that almost all environmentaly controled aspects of human behaviour function on the pricipals of Opperant Conditioning. Behaviour and reward go hand and hand. Very few get stisfaction by working really hard and seeing everybody else benefit. Most people are just not that altruistic by nature. Altruism is a self dicipline, no real altruism actually exisits. Humans can will themselves to wait for reward, but not forever. Reward must come or behaviour will cease, it is really that simple.

Communistic theory is flawed in that it only takes into account sociological pricipals and ignores psychological pricipals of the individual. Your sociological pricipals must take into account the individual or your principals are no good. It’s just like a football coach saying, “No matter what the play we’ll kick a hundred yard field goal at every 4rth down.” A fine theory if your kicker could do it, but none of them can. So it doesn’t work.

Also, you just aren’t going to have a communist style economy with out the state running it, I cannot envision a context where that would work. Ultiamtley, if you aren’t going to reward an individual for a desired behaviour, which in this case is work, your going to have to force them to work. You pretty much need a tyranical oppresive regime to get that kind of clout.

I understand your frusteration with capitolism. It isn’t perfect, some people get unjustly left out and it seems to cater to the greedy. But until somebody comes up with a functional economic motif that is neither capitolistic or communistic in nature; I’ll listen.

I am not arguing for communism except within the framework of self-rule. I think a while back Orion called it “communalism” that I am actually advocating and not communism. What ever it is called it must also fit within the framework of liberty and natural rights and be free and unfettered from state manipulation and be by voluntary association only (self-rule). I believe this to be the most natural social contract.[/quote]

I suppose that can work in small groups, but for how long I don’t know. That was done in the '60s. Of course, everybody was high as shit all the time, but the communal thing had pockets of functionality. That whole motif launched with Monteray, culminated in Woodstock, and came flying apart at Altimont. In between, good times! I’d give my left nut to experience that scene while it was virginal and untainted. Well, maybe not the entire left nut, but some of it!

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
It is nonsense to say that human beings can calculate value? What is nonsense abut that? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
How can value be subjective and objective? Either everything resolves down to physical law that seeks efficiency or it doesn’t.
[/quote]
Value is always subjective and never objective. Price is always subjective and never objective. Labor cannot determine price because the value of labor is subjective. Real estate cannot determine price because it is subjective. The supply and demand theory of economics is inaccurate. Value is only determined by willingness to participate–the free market.

You use the word “seek” as if it were necessarily a “conscious” decision. It may or may not be. The results are all that matter and not the mediators.

The reason we see the results we do come down to fundamental laws of physics and economics–though they are not currently completely defined.

The “destination” is inconsequential to the facts of nature.

And, yet, we are compelled by nature to seek efficiency and to adapt.

Again, you make an assumption that it is always a conscious decision.

Really? So the laws of quantum mechanics can be used to make predictions about the behavior of a baseball? Photons always act like every other particle? Come on.

Yes. For the laws of physics to be valid it must be universally true. That is why no one wanted to accept quantum mechanics initially–we have come to recognize it as an incomplete theory. But one that works nonetheless.

Now, that is nonsense. Governments and political organizations are made up of men, not elementary particles. If you can’t come to grips with the fact that individual decisions, preferences, and psyches go into producing the end result of any social organization, then you have failed to grasp the problem in its most basic form.

It doesn’t matter. Men are guided by the same laws of the universe that guide elementary particles, et al. It all comes down to the end result. The fact of the matter is that the “intent” of any action is always to benefit the actor. That is one of the fundamental law of economics. The others being: nothing is free; and value is subjective.

[quote]
Yet every single “law” you list has numerous exceptions. [/quote]
But the exceptions themselves are bound to their own laws–which means we must generalize to make the laws all inclusive. That is what science seeks to do. In fact, that is all it can do.

[quote]
Except you aren’t talking about natural rights. You’re talking about physical laws. [/quote]

Natural laws bring about natural rights.

Look, either this system of government is either dictated by physical laws, or it isn’t. You can’t say “it’s just an ideal” in one paragraph, and then say “it is given to us by physics” in another.

It is both…why can’t I say that? Man made laws must act in accordance with natural law or they will not work.

[quote]
You are the one who decided to turn this into a debate about physical law, rather than natural law. [/quote]

Perhaps it is you that doesn’t understand…natural law is physics.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You have complained openly about the unfair pricing mechanism of capitalism in its “inefficient pricing of value” - now, you are saying you don’t question the market setting prices?
[/quote]
It is unfair because we currently do not live in a completely free market. Yes, I have also come to change my mind about “value”–because it is determined subjectively and not objectively

So which is the most efficient? You say both. Which is it?

Either extreme is the most efficient but one lacks fairness.

And if libertarianism be so uber-efficient, how come it has never flourished in human society?

Because it easier for one entity to assume control than to have a system of multiple checks and balances–the cost for this efficiency is that markets are not organic and thus will aggregate toward inflation and also people tend to be less happy.

The cost for the efficiency of the markets that can experienced with libertarianism is in the slowness of change. Nothing is free–while both systems can be efficient in one manner or other there will always be a cost incurred (a generalized law of the conservation of energy).

But you have absolutely no idea what a “fascist government” is - your definition of fascism seems to be “anything that isn’t libertarianism”, which is flatly silly, and the prescient Orwell was right on when he noted that “fascism” among the airhead class would be reduced to anything the airhead didn’t like.

A state controlled mixed economy is rightly defined as a fascist government because only certain groups and individuals benefit from written law. Fascism also assumes that the needs of the nation outweigh the needs of the citizen–without which there would be no nation.

So, someone should be able to have sex on a public sidewalk in full view of your children? After all, what liberty interest of yours would be harmed under this model?

Is sex wrong? Animals do it out in the open in front of their young. Humans are animals–no? Just because humans are capable of modesty doesn’t make it the de facto model for ethical behavior. Besides this it is quite relative. Sex is harmless and hurts no one. Maybe if we allowed it out in the open instead of shunning natural human behavior we wouldn’t have so many depraved idiots roaming the streets.