[quote]smh23 wrote:
There is no world without hierarchy. Predictably, Somalis fell into relationships of dominance and submission as soon as the government collapsed. The chief difference being that when power is conferred directly and indiscriminately by the gun and the machete, newsmen start having to come up with headlines like “Rape Victim, 13, Stoned to Death in Somalia” with more frequency.
But hey, at least they don’t have to endure the grotesque, mephistophelean soul-torture that is an income tax.[/quote]
Pure conjecture, think of all the violence and anal rapes they do not have, simply because they have no war on drugs.
There would be a hell of a lot going on, just to make up for that.
[/quote]
My opinion of the war on drugs is similar to yours.
But what I wrote wasn’t conjecture. As I suspect you know, that was a real headline I quoted. There are many like it. And, as I said, government fell and was replaced by a collection of warlords, jihadists, pirates, and highwaymen–as inconsiderate of your wants and needs as the tax collector, but their weapons of choice are larger, sharper, and significantly more capable of killing children than the IRS agent’s pen and paper. And they prefer summary execution to trial and incarceration.
I would rather surrender some of my money to pay for police and bridges and, yes, drone warfare than all of my money and possibly my life so that the kid with the Kalashnikov in my face–who, by the way, has little to lose given that he suspects he’s dying of AIDS–can get some heroin before sundown.[/quote]
But wouldn’t you rather have a small efficient government and exceptionally low taxes?
That however is a matter of preference, not one of magnitude of violence.
Then, ultimately the IRS use the very same means, because ultimately they will kill you if you do not pay up.
[/quote]
No, they won’t kill you.[/quote]
Yes, they will.
First, they will send you letters.
Then, they will try to get at your bank account.
Then, they will send men with guns to take your stuff.
Then, they will lock you up in a cage.
If you resist at any point with the exact same armed violence they threathen you with, you will be killed.
Those are the exact same rules a Somali highway robber lives by.
Maybe he skips the cage stuff.
Sorry to burst that bubble.
[/quote]
They’ll kill you if you shoot at them is not the same as they’ll kill you if you don’t pay them. Stop exaggerating.[/quote]
Ah, so the worst the IRS is going to do if you take it not quite up the ass like a good little sheeple by passively resisting is to throw you in a cage.
They only kill you if you actively protect what you worked for.
I am sorry, you are right, that is a very, very, significant difference.
You are totally not a serf now.
So, if a Somali highwayman lined up cages along his highway where he threw people in that did not pay him, as a warning to others, he would be totally ok, right?
Ah, so the worst the IRS is going to do if you take it not quite up the ass like a good little sheeple by passively resisting is to throw you in a cage.
They only kill you if you actively protect what you worked for.
I am sorry, you are right, that is a very, very, significant difference.
You are totally not a serf now.
So, if a Somali highwayman lined up cages along his highway where he threw people in that did not pay him, as a warning to others, he would be totally ok, right?
[/quote]
If I am a serf, then surely you are as well (Austria, no?). Why have you not moved to Somalia or Waziristan or some other place where men are free from all or most of government’s shackles and the sun shines upon liberty and righteousness?
If I thought of myself as a serf, I’d do anything to change that. Anything less would be cowardly, no?
Ah, so the worst the IRS is going to do if you take it not quite up the ass like a good little sheeple by passively resisting is to throw you in a cage.
They only kill you if you actively protect what you worked for.
I am sorry, you are right, that is a very, very, significant difference.
You are totally not a serf now.
So, if a Somali highwayman lined up cages along his highway where he threw people in that did not pay him, as a warning to others, he would be totally ok, right?
[/quote]
If I am a serf, then surely you are as well (Austria, no?). Why have you not moved to Somalia or Waziristan or some other place where men are free from all or most of government’s shackles and the sun shines upon liberty and righteousness?
If I thought of myself as a serf, I’d do anything to change that. Anything less would be cowardly, no?[/quote]
Careful, there, smh, you are asking of orion the question that I had asked, and you, too, may be put on ignore. He is too much of a coward to answer such questions.
Orion, you see, has been born under and lives under governments which have protected him, coddled him, educated him, and have even determined the radius of curvature for the bananas that he may eat. He plays at anarchy–tax avoidance is more a tradition in his neighborhood than an act of defiance, for example. But you won’t find him trotting off to a lawless region for his freedom; he is a “facultative libertarian,” using the term when it is to his advantage.
However you or I may disagree with policy, we can agree that government of the consenting is a necessity. The argument in theory may turn on “how little government” or “how much consent,” but not on necessity.
Ah, so the worst the IRS is going to do if you take it not quite up the ass like a good little sheeple by passively resisting is to throw you in a cage.
They only kill you if you actively protect what you worked for.
I am sorry, you are right, that is a very, very, significant difference.
You are totally not a serf now.
So, if a Somali highwayman lined up cages along his highway where he threw people in that did not pay him, as a warning to others, he would be totally ok, right?
[/quote]
If I am a serf, then surely you are as well (Austria, no?). Why have you not moved to Somalia or Waziristan or some other place where men are free from all or most of government’s shackles and the sun shines upon liberty and righteousness?
If I thought of myself as a serf, I’d do anything to change that. Anything less would be cowardly, no?[/quote]
Careful, there, smh, you are asking of orion the question that I had asked, and you, too, may be put on ignore. He is too much of a coward to answer such questions.
Orion, you see, has been born under and lives under governments which have protected him, coddled him, educated him, and have even determined the radius of curvature for the bananas that he may eat. He plays at anarchy–tax avoidance is more a tradition in his neighborhood than an act of defiance, for example. But you won’t find him trotting off to a lawless region for his freedom; he is a “facultative libertarian,” using the term when it is to his advantage.
However you or I may disagree with policy, we can agree that government of the consenting is a necessity. The argument in theory may turn on “how little government” or “how much consent,” but not on necessity.
[/quote]
Agreed, Dr. S. There is a serious and necessary debate to be had about government’s size and reach. But the argument over its existential legitimacy is the purview of (virgin) European adolescents with mohawks, black leather jackets covered in chains, and cans of spraypaint in their hands.
I would rather surrender some of my money to pay for police and bridges and, yes, drone warfare than all of my money and possibly my life so that the kid with the Kalashnikov in my face…
[/quote]
Sorry to dismantle your post but it doesn’t need to be a one or the other world.
It doesn’t HAVE to be Somalia OR US/Canada/Europe style mega-government.
For instance, if you read Wayne Root’s (Libertarian Party’s 2008 VP nominee) book, Conscience of a Libertarian, you will find nothing and I mean absolutely nothing in it where the anarchist branch of libertarianism is promoted. You WILL find a call for a return to basic, reasonable, limited federal government and…you’ll find that many people across this great land, not just “Pacific NW bozos,” think that’s an entirely appropriate political platform.
So quit with the I-Lovingly-Embrace-the-IRS-Because-I-Don’t-Want-to-Face-a-Teenager-With-an-AK-47-in-a-Street-Full-of-Goats blabber.
[/quote]
“Basic, reasonable, limited federal government” is fine with me. I don’t mean to disparage everyone who leans toward libertarianism–far from it. But the conversation between Orion and I was about Somalia, which is why I presented that dichotomy.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
you can still have a police force without huge, bloated, inefficient government bureaucracy so the Somalia argument is futile in that regard. [/quote]
Police force and fire brigade. They need roads to drive on, though, right? Otherwise how will they get to where they need to go? So add a Department of Transportation.
And, by the way, a police force cannot uphold the law if there is no law, so you will need a government and a legislative body to write and pass statutes. Otherwise, a police force cannot exist.
And after arrests are made, you’ll need a court system by which the accused are judged and sentenced. The guilty ones will need a prison system to go to, of course.
See where I’m going with this?
Even if you privatize half of the shit I’m talking about, government will and should survive.
The problem with TB’s post is that when he says, “Government is a good thing. I will repeat it - government is a good thing,” what he really means, or seems to when you read between the lines, is government is a good thing and more government is a better thing.[/quote]
No, I don’t, but that doesn’t keep you from making sloppy straw men. More government is certainly a better thing if society has new and troubling public policy problems - for example, an easy example, the use of radioactive chemicals. But not categorically. As we further read:
And how did you divine this conclusion? Especially since I made the direct point that society has other institutions that serve important roles, so ipso facto I can’t be taking the position that “all problems and concerns are open for governmental (especially federal) intervention.”
Here is your problem - you make shit up. I mean, it’s ok, I’m not offended, but crikey, you really, really like to just invent positions out of thin air. I suspect it is because you like convenient straw men to attack out of intellectual laziness, but it exposes your weak chin in these debates.
Heh - this attempt to pull rank on “knowing your country more” is hilarious as it is foolish - my list of traveling around, working with a variety of my “countrymen” and walking with people of varying walks of life would put your myopic list to shame. Yes, not kidding. Seriously, give it a rest.
And we see another straw man - the “true limited government philosophy” doesn’t belong to the libertarian bozos of the Pacific Northwest - it resides elsewhere, among smart realists whose version of civics doesn’t involve juvenile revenge fantasies against ATFers.
“True” conservatives aren’t libertarians, and they never have been.
“His ‘apparent’”…blah blah blah, all we get is assumptions and bluster. I don’t care for Nixon (and his biggest “success”, China, I think was one of America’s biggest mistakes in the latter part of the 20th century), the Bushes were ok (on the sliding scale of the alternatives), but all that is besides the point. Fact is, you barely knew a damn thing about Madison, et al. until I gave you my ongoing list of homework assignments trying to get you up to speed on the Founding thought.
Guess what, Push? When working on the Constitution, “Little Jimmy” proposed that the federal Congress be given the power to review and veto state laws. Bet you didn’t know that either? How is a “libertarian” to square the circle of loving “Little Jimmy” when he advocated federal veto over state laws and actually reinstated the national bank when he was in the Oval Office?
[quote]StevenF wrote:
you can still have a police force without huge, bloated, inefficient government bureaucracy so the Somalia argument is futile in that regard. [/quote]
Police force and fire brigade. They need roads to drive on, though, right? Otherwise how will they get to where they need to go? So add a Department of Transportation.
And, by the way, a police force cannot uphold the law if there is no law, so you will need a government and a legislative body to write and pass statutes. Otherwise, a police force cannot exist.
And after arrests are made, you’ll need a court system by which the accused are judged and sentenced. The guilty ones will need a prison system to go to, of course.
See where I’m going with this?
Even if you privatize half of the shit I’m talking about, government will and should survive.[/quote]
I’m not particularly arguing for no government whatsoever and should have made that more clear. In fact, I actually just became a state employee so if it weren’t for the state government I’d have no job. However, extremely limited(as it was supposed to be) to no federal government would not bother me one bit.
I thought he was stating that Government was a “neccesity”…BUT…
Bad (“evil”) in some respects…better in others…and that Anarchy (or even VERY “limited” Governmnent) was wrought with a LOT of problems. (History has, and still does, prove that).
So a “neccessary Evil” is the conclusion I drew from the post. (TB can certainly speak for himself in order to clarify!)[/quote]
Government is a good thing - it isn’t evil. It exists to serve a good and it provide a good, an indispensable one. Imperfect? Yes. Subject to abuse? Yes, of course. It is a human institution - and it suffers from every human flaw. That would be true of the institution of family, or church, or the market. Are any of these evil? Of course not - their evil exists onli in their abuses.
But that doesn’t mean its very existence does evil. That is preposterous, and the only way I can figure that would make sense is for a person who believes in basically absolute moral relativism (which a number of libertarians do).
Mostly for those who think it is “evil”, it emanates from some morally relativistic grudge that government won’t let people do whatever they want, whenever they want. Government imposes obligations on them they don’t want in the name of Freedom as an End.
Well, and I think this sums it up as clearly as it can be summed up in my view:
-libertarians think liberty is an End - a Good in and of itself.
-conservatives think liberty needs to be a Means - a means to some end that is Good, and if liberty serves as a Means to something Bad, it is not something we want around.
“True” conservatives don’t think government is evil because government can be (and has to be) part of helping people get to an end that is Good, as people - being flawed - do not always use their liberty toward a good end. Usually that is tough exercise - while government has its on due role in many aspects of life (making it something other than a necessary “evil”), many times if government is stepping in, it’s because the individual or some other institution has failed to course correct some problem, per Burke’s dictum:
"Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without."
This is absolutely true as a matter of practical, hard-earned experience, whether “libertarians” like it or not.
None of this, by the way, means we want an overintrusive government at any level.
Trust me, Little Jimmy had the T-Bolt’s of this world in mind when he penned those words 200 years ago.[/quote]
Let’s not “trust Push” on matters of the historical record and take a look at what “Little Jimmy” actually said and opined. In a letter from “Little Jimmy” to Thomas Jefferson in recommending powers to the federal government under the new Constitution:
2dly. Over and above the positive power of regulating trade and sundry other matters in which uniformity is proper, to arm the federal head with a negative in all cases whatsoever on the local Legislatures.[u] Without this defensive power, experience and reflection have satisfied me that, however ample the federal powers may be made, or however clearly their boundaries may be delineated on paper, they will be easily and continually baffled by the Legislative sovereignties of the States.[/u] The effects of this provision would be not only to guard the national rights and interests against invasion, but also to restrain the States from thwarting and molesting each other; and even from oppressing the minority within themselves by paper money and other unrighteous measures which favor the interest of the majority.
You forgot to read the last sentence, I think. His purposes for that provision were to:
1. Guard national rights and interests from invasion.
2. Keep states from dealing unjustly with each other.
3. Keep states from oppressing the minority by unrighteous measures in the interest of the majority.
It was not intended to justify ever-growing federal domination. It was to give the feds authority to strike down state laws that violate your God-given rights. To prevent the states from having too much power.
Mostly for those who think it is “evil”, it emanates from some morally relativistic grudge that government won’t let people do whatever they want, whenever they want. Government imposes obligations on them they don’t want in the name of Freedom as an End.[/quote]
The government is imposing obligations on others who don’t share their values in the name of Freedom/Equality for all as an end. Or Freedom of the government as a means to force the responsible, law abiding, strong citizens to pay for the weak so they can have the freedom to do whatever they want.[quote]
Well, and I think this sums it up as clearly as it can be summed up in my view:
-libertarians think liberty is an End - a Good in and of itself.
-conservatives think liberty needs to be a Means - a means to some end that is Good, and if liberty serves as a Means to something Bad, it is not something we want around.
[/quote]
Institutions are a means to an end.
Government is an institution.
Freedom/Liberty relative to the other person is an end that is Good.
When government serves as a means to something Bad, it is not something we want around.
[quote]"Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without."
This is absolutely true as a matter of practical, hard-earned experience, whether “libertarians” like it or not.[/quote]
I agree with this.
And the less controlling power there is within the will and appetite of the institution of Government the more there must be without in the will and the appetite of its people serving as the means for something Better.
-libertarians think liberty is an End - a Good in and of itself.
-conservatives think liberty needs to be a Means - a means to some end that is Good, and if liberty serves as a Means to something Bad, it is not something we want around.
[/quote]
Couldn’t we also say:
-conservatives think security is an End - a Good in and of itself.
-liberals think unconditional acceptance ( where everybody must pay for the weak unconditionally ) is an End - a Good in and of itself.
And a “free reigns” ( using liberty in the name of exerting power over minorities ) government needs to be a Means to the end that is Good ( Security and/or Unconditional Acceptance to Assist others ) in their eyes.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
You forgot to read the last sentence, I think. His purposes for that provision were to:
1. Guard national rights and interests from invasion.
2. Keep states from dealing unjustly with each other.
3. Keep states from oppressing the minority by unrighteous measures in the interest of the majority.
It was not intended to justify ever-growing federal domination. It was to give the feds authority to strike down state laws that violate your God-given rights. To prevent the states from having too much power.
~James Madison~[/quote]
Almost there, but some quotes fall out of context. May I refer you to Brookhiser’s biography, James Madison, pp 51-58?
Madison had directed Randolph to deliver the Virginia Plan, in which was proposed the national veto over state laws. The supremacy of the national government in this regard (consonant with your assertions, JP) was a necessity, to avert factionalism and the bullying of the majority. (Republican he may have been, but he still had a healthy dislike of mob rule.) Madison argued on June 6 that the Virginia plan "expanded the arena of political contention. " (Here, quoting Brookhiser.) The Plan would extend majority rule over the whole country or “as Madison said on June 6, ‘enlarge the sphere’ of government.'” The national government would be powerful enough to defend “the weaker party” within any state against persecution. Madison: “‘So great a number of interests and parties’ would ensure that a vicious majority could never coalesce nationwide.”
I find Madison an ambivalent figure; one can find states’ rights and small government arguments in him, but in his most developed initial contributions–here, at the Constitutional Convention, and later in the Federalist–he speaks clearly for a stronger central government, one whose constitution intentionally sought to “enlarge the sphere of government.”