9/11/01 and the Priesthood of Regression

I'm sure the nation of Greece will be very happy to hear that.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that a nation having Debt is not inherently bad. However, any financial body having debt rise at nearly exponential rates IS. While the US has had a better Debt-to-GNP rate than Greece so far, it is following the same pattern.

Of course, I will say that this doesn't mean "Government" as a concept is bad. Government can establish laws and regulations to help prevent theft, fraud, and other issues which pick apart a nations economy. However, Government can also exacerbate the problem as well, by establishing corruption, running up debts, and establishing a protected class where people are not all treated equally.

Government can also more easily pass the buck. For example, the recent FEMA thread I posted. If that operation had been carried out by a private corporation, it would have been fined. However, since it was carried out by a governmental corporation, it was able to claim immunity. Not only that, but the direct individuals responsible for the mess are also protected. Even if FEMA had been fined, the individuals could likely have "retired", still gaining pensions, and gotten little to no blame (let alone fines, prison time, etc.)

I don't have all the necessary figures to evaluate how much the Affordable Health Care Act has cost or saved, or, for that matter, which demographics it has impacted the most and in which manner. And thus cannot lend meaningful statements as to the validity of it as to why Government is "Good" or "Bad."

I will, however, point out that almost nothing about the Affordable Health Care Act impacts Health Care Costs. Rather, it deals with primarily Insurance, which is still handled by Private corporations, albeit under "guidance" and regulation from the government panels established by the Act.

In a broader sense, there have been many complaints about how the UK has handled Health Care. In general, there is no particular reason to believe that a Government is better at handling Health Care than Businesses.

That said, Government can be very useful for establishing regulations and restrictions to prevent fraud, abuse, murder, and unethical practices.

For example, it has become law in many places that human medical experiments require informed consent. This is in my view an net overall positive. Many other laws require a doctor or other medical professionals to render aid in case of emergencies, etc.

On the other hand, governments have also been known to involve themselves in unethical medical practice. Indeed, the convention of requiring informed consent to perform a medical procedure (barring an emergency) came about in large part in response to the tragedies involved in government-sponsored human experiments, in particular those carried out by Germany in the 1940's upon it's Minority populations.

The US itself has also conducted various (deadly) human experiments without knowledge or consent of those experimented upon. The Tuskegee Experiments being perhaps the most famous currently, though it's not an isolated incident.

The US has had such a strong interventionist policy, I don't think it's gotten involved in fighting anything they weren't at least partially responsible for setting up in the first place for the last 15+ years. Probably even longer.

I understand maintaining military alliances, to be sure, but the US and the Military Intelligence Industrial Complex has gone far beyond that, for decades.

Setting that aside. A given nation should not have the responsibility, let alone obligation, to control or intervene in the internal affairs of other nations. That is why we have different nations in the first place, so that each region can have it's own sovereign leadership, ideally (though usually not) reflecting the will of that region's citizens. While I understand some could say: "If you'd done something, you could have saved us!" Or "If you'd gotten involved sooner, it wouldn't be so bad!"

But, if nothing else, such interventions should be the will of an informed citezenry, and not the whim of the President, nor the proxy-wars of the Intelligence Complex, often carried out in secret and without the knowledge, let alone consent, of the Nation.

Of course, a Government regulating who goes to war with what and when is important. I would not be comfortable with entrusting a nation's military capacity to Blackwater for example (or whatever they've rebranded themselves as these days). That's not to say they aren't capable fighters necessarily, but a business outfit like that could be swayed by finances to fight for the other side, the corporation could go bankrupt without the economic tools available to a nation to maintain debt. And more importantly, whether or not it engages in a battle is dependent on what contracts it's willing to sign.

That said, I would say that, to an extent, the idea of local Militias has actually worked relatively well historically, but methods of warfare have also changed greatly, and I'm not sure what precisely that implies overall.

Just a reminder: The US Army has autonomous robots, including the potential to make AI-piloted Drones with extremely long battery-life/operational time.

In this case, I think it's a Central vs. Local issue. Prior to Federal mandates and programs taking over, the educational system was much more effective in MOST areas of the US. While there were exceptions, and places where Federal programs improved things, the general effectiveness of the US educational system has been overall drastically reduced.

Of course, personally, I don't know the full details of how educational systems are handled in other nations, so it might not even be a Central v Local issue so much as the specific US Federal government being incompetent and/or intentionally reducing the effectiveness of public education.

I do think that a less centralized education has it's own problems in some cases, however; I also think that it's easier to handle a problem locally than Centrally. But that is a different topic from Government Good/Bad.

Privatization of Prisons has absolutely nothing to do with the number of prisoners. At least so long as the Prisons themselves don't make the laws, run the police, and so on.

Though quite frankly I do agree that Prisons shouldn't be privatized. But I also fear that, in many cases, government-run prisons are actually worse than those privately run. In this case, it depends on the quality of laws, enforcement, etc... which again goes back to the usefulness of Government.


All in all, to sum up...

TL;DR: Government, as a concept is generally a good thing, provided it is not abused. However, many, many Governments, in practice, have carried out very bad things. Including the current Governments that many people live under today. In this sense, it's not that different from Corporation, or even Community.

Provided these things aren't abused, and the people are informed about all relevant topics and thus can act (or not) appropriately, there's no problems, and indeed an overall net benefit. However, when abused, they can make life much worse than they would have been even in relative "Anarchy."

There is also a great deal of debate about what form these things can or should take. Which, really, comes down to a mixture of Ethics, "Ease of Use", and Effectiveness. How easy is the system to abuse or become corrupt? How easy is it to control or modify the system for the People? How can the system be made to be most effective without risking the other considerations? And more broadly: "What should be limited to Government, and what should be limited to People or Business?"

For me, the US, most EU, and several other Governments have become incredibly corrupt and dangerous. This doesn't mean I'm against the concept of Government, or even the specific forms of Government as they are generally written down on (thus my general approval of the Constitution for example, or most of the UK's stuff, etc.) but rather with the abridgement of laws already existing, and/or the passing of new laws which abridge human rights (often in conflict with those aforementioned pre-existing laws).

No Really: TL;DR

Criticizing "a Government" is not the same as criticizing "Government." Though based on what I've seen and read, it does seem like Molyneux himslf may be anti-"Government" and not just against anti-"a Government" but I could be wrong.

 

you guys should watch the zeitgeist documentaries.

 

Pretty sure tax money often leads to corruption as well. Basically, any organization that handles money, private or public, will be at risk of corruption. Likewise, any organization which has control over a person's rights will risk corruption.

Agreed. Though there is also Status/Class-based corruption (different treatment based on laws), but it generally at least starts with money. But controlling other humans can also be an "in." Including blackmailing people, as alleged in this book for example: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1937584291?*Version*=1&*entries*=0

Or as the nominal "DC Madam" was hinting at before her alleged suicide.

And of course Blackmailing people over their financial decisions, etc.


The thing is, Government by it's very nature cannot be distanced from a Wallet. Even if you went full-on-Communism, the Government would still be handling all of the income and distribution, and very likely a lot of the permissions and privileges surrounding what people can and cannot do (what kind of work a person does, how much is allotted to travel expenses if anything, etc.) And it is inherently tied to laws (and thus people's rights, means of redress, etc.)

As such, Government is always at risk of corruption, along with any and all organizations which deal with similar matters.

Way ahead of ya.

 

Ohmin said:

"Government, as a concept is generally a good thing, provided it is not abused. However, many, many Governments, in practice, have carried out very bad things. Including the current Governments that many people live under today. In this sense, it's not that different from Corporation, or even Community.

Criticizing "a Government" is not the same as criticizing "Government." Though based on what I've seen and read, it does seem like Molyneux himslf may be anti-"Government" and not just against anti-"a Government" but I could be wrong."
----------------------------------------------------------------
(Emphasis above is my addition)

Glad that Ohmin gets it. Sadly, Sokolov consistently misses the political points I am making. America's government is HORRIFICALLY abusive and ineffecient right now. And, IMO, it has been trending this way for the last 50-100 years. I spend 5-6 days per week evaluating patients, and determining treatment and prognosis and such. The parallels between that and the health of a nation are legion. Often a patient will have stable vital signs, but a focused exam and testing/imaging will reveal that the person is barely compensating physiologically. This means a crash is coming, and it makes ZERO sense to delay life-saving interventions even one minute. The vast majority of financial indicators point to a reset, which is only logical as the shell games and ponzi schemes that dominate the "accounting" of the American gvt are finite. (Quantitative easing, bonds, debt, corporate inversion, etc). The inexorable decay of our culture, in conjunction with a more and more socialistic gvt and a more and more hampered economy, is the death knell of this once great nation. As bad as this government is to its citizens, it is many orders of magnitude worse to the citizens of other countries. (Mostly muslims that we have blown to bits and/or abandoned by the millions)!! It does not have to be this way. A revolution of one type or another is needed to clean the slate, so that we the people of earth have a chance of evolving instead of regressing further. Living off the fumes of the past while bankrupting the unborn is NOT progress. It is a LIE to say that governments can operate outside of reality, economic or otherwise. Mirages are cool to see, but contain no living waters.

Stefan Molyneux is an anarcho-capitalist and an atheist. I am a Libertarian, with traditional leanings. Some call me a classic liberal. My family ranges from hawkish democrats, to liberal republicans, to folks very similar to Molyneux. Most of my fam are conservatives, but even then there is WIDE disagreement about which specific candidates will be best at moving Murica away from centralized government and towards the true political center, which is much closer to no rulers (AKA anarchy). I view big gvt as the extreme Left, America's early days as somewhere near the center, and anarchy as the extreme Right. You say extremist, and I say freedom fighter. You say big gov fairly good, and I say it crushes and maims most folks in every way possible.

Stefan is outside of the matrix. He sees the game being played by most politicians, most big businesses, and most journalists. They truly are evil SOBs. And they win over and over and over, while the common folk get the shaft. They have most Republican and most Democrat politicians in their control. And they have bedazzled most voters, again R and D, with their virtual sorcery. So the game is rigged. And "the house" is bathing in the power and dough. But this edition of the game is coming to a close. Fundamental transformation is one possible path before us.

Beyond interesting times, to say the least.

 

This, SO HARD. Just because you do not know it, does not mean there is not loads of information out there. Like wise, just because their is information out there, does not mean you need to have it, and holding it back is not some huge evil plan but an unbelievable chore with having to explain everything/put people/operations at risk/reveal capabilities needed to be kept secret/etc. This does not mean I agree with half of what I know we can/do, or that I do not see huge issues with a lot of things the Gov has done. I just know what its like to have to walk that line and no, you really do not know a fraction of what you would need to have the whole picture or a part of it. Plus, I find it hilarious that you think the government could some how plan a huge cover up for a huge internal white flag operation 14 years ago that would require hundreds if not thousands of people to both be ok with it, and not somehow let information slip out/come forward. Before you say they are targeted with whatever black ops stereotypical whatever, keep in mind those are yte more people you would some how have to have total control over, and people/governments are just not that efficient.

DJ. you even stated that there was so many questions, some of which were answered but suppressed by the government from the public...then how did this guy or any other get them?!? Is it more likely that he has some how found a hidden secret that the government has been hiding for 14 years, with hundreds or thousands of witnesses to said secret not coming forward/letting it slip, requiring many more people to watch out for those who do...or that he is just making connections to try to answer questions he has and coming up a bit wrong?

That being said Patriots Act is an atrocity and so are a lot of other bills/laws/etc...war on drugs/private prisons,/minimum sentences are a huge pet peeve of mine. Not to mention the EC, and the lack of accountability for Clinton's security breach(s), Snowdens ostracizing, the TTP, and so on.

Sok: its not the the same with regards to the flag vs elected officials. The Flag is an idea, an idela the people want to aspire to not simply a representation of the constitutional republic ( we are NOT a Democracy). The elected officials ARE servents of the people, or suppose to be. That means there are a lot of unhappy employers not even counting the ones who didnt vote for them So bad mouthing or attacking them is rude, but different then attacking the ideal to which we bind ourselves. At least that's how I see it. You can hate the leader but not the cause.

 

meh, its perception bias imo. Using red/white/blue colors is really no different then having someone claim themselves to be a "True American" or defender of our "Freedom, something both parties have used in the past. There is no real way to explain why they got so angry other then simply bias as they didn't view him as American so they rationalized that he should not be able to use their iconography. It's Ironic since a lot of the ideals in the constitution lend themselves towards socialist ideas or values. Its a shame we have vilified whole concepts instead of aspects of them. Capitalism in and of itself is neither good nor evil, and in fact many reforms have happened do to the exploitation of the virtues of capitalism resulting in more populist or socialist changes such as minimum wage, no child labor, 8 hour work day, Heck LABOR DAY which we just celebrated came about because the people stood up to big business. FYI, I am neither republican or democrat and see value/fault in both parties. Which is why we need more options imo.

I think the best way to think about it, at least for me so I am sorry if it does not help you, is to think of the flag as a representation of the whole, while the people are kinda avatars for the individual people/ideas. You can find fault with the parts and how they work together or how they have interpreted the Constitution, etc but the whole is that over arching ideal that we all value. Disregarding or desecrating it is a rejection of the fundamental Americanishness so to speak. Not that they were right to think that he was mind you. Just how I see it. Its like not liking Corpse or You or Gedden is not the same thing as not liking Pox. IF I didnt like a developer I can still find value and goodness in the whole game of pox. If I Dislike the whole game, why am I even here playing it? Sorry if that doesn't help. Never had to really put it into words, its a concept more then a truth.

 

Please specify "results" in this context. For example, are you referring to election results? The results of the actions of specific elected individuals? The laws created by the system as a whole? The overall macro-results of the system as whole?

Any or all of those?


(Rambling: )

Spoiler

Personally, I have no problem with Obama using Flag colors/patterns on his election campaign, other than, perhaps, that I feel it is dishonest given his actions and efforts in many areas seeming (to my point of view of course, which is subjective) contrary to the best interests of the nation that Flag would represent. But that's more a problem with my perception of his honesty and goals, rather than with using the Flag as part of a campaign in general. Of course, there are likely many people which are much more uptight about how and when the Flag should be used. And very likely many people which are much less uptight than even I about it.

I also, personally, feel you're much too caught up in applying specifics to generalities. For example, Madof has essentially become a pariah, a symbol of corruption within capital finance. However, those that criticize him are not necessarily critical of capital finance in general (though given the other issues involved at present there may still be quite a bit of overlap). He had rose to a position within that system, and is thus a product of it; yet his actions, or at least those for which he is criticized for, are not necessarily endemic of that system.

It is true that there are those that are either unable to properly articulate their issues, or, lack the proper information to figure out the proper source of their distress. In general, most people feel like they can't have an impact on politics. I think that's less of an issue with the System and more with Corruption, and, as well, people being taught that they cannot have a large impact (even relatively speaking), or being too busy trying to keep food on the table and/or debt collectors away from their phone numbers and doors.

You mentioned a few times, that you view certain aspects as a "trade off" of pros and cons. Personally, while that's definitely true in some cases, I believe that a lot of the "cons" could be removed, with some difficulty, with active scouring of corruption. You can't keep parasites from existing, at least not without taking such measures that you render the host subject crippled or even destroyed, but you can minimize their impact with some additional effort. Though of course that effort is required for as long as the host subject exists.

Meh, I feel like I'm missing something, and probably could have said this more succinctly as well, unfortunately I've a bit more "stream of thought" than "edit and refine" as a writing style. Feel free to ignore all this in the spoilers.

 

Quick answer, since I shared 5 basic "exhibits" and u essentially rationalized each one. I mean, skyrocketing federal debt... As well as state, county, city, and personal. Tough to talk specifics if u do not see that massive mountain as an obstacle.

History is full to the brim of humans abusing power, so I believe the founders got the balance just about right. Local power has eroded for just about 100 yrs now, thus central gvt has gained tons of power and wealth. The scales are now heavily tilted to the left. Filthy rich love this environment, and all the radical and nifty tech has made bread and circuses easier than ever before.

I prescribe a few generations of steady progress back towards the true political center. Senators should be elected by state reps, as they used to be. Judicial activism needs to end. Scotus should not be for life. Term limits on house and senate. Voting is a huge responsibility and privilege, thus much stricter ID requirements are needed. Women should not be able to vote until 21-22, and men until at least 25.

The unholy/despotic trifecta (big gov politicians, big biz, and journalism) viciously opposes anything that moves power away from them and closer to we the people. For example, they are angry with Kim Davis for not giving out marriage licenses in 1 county in Kentucky but are apparently fine with more than 100 cities openly defying federal immigration law. How many 100s or 1000s of citizens have been beaten, robbed, raaped, or murdered because some cities don't feel like obeying the law?? Why has the trifecta done nothing but bully and shame the "racists" and "xenophobes" that argue for the law to be upheld?

Hoping at least some good will come from my reply. Ciao.

 

Government is broken because it is ruled by PRIVATE BANK. For starters, the people need an independent government that includes members who are loyal to country and people, not MONEY. The private bank (FED) is the epitome of anti-nationalism. It promotes corporate fascism. People shouldn't just criticize the duke, they should also criticize the king since the king is the one with actual power.

This is how it is

King (FED) --> duke (gov)

gov owes FED money

This is how it should be

King (gov)

Solution- remove the FED since it prevents the unity and disturbs harmony between people and government. This can be done by promoting independence under nationalism.

A government (with the help of the people) should

1) Increase awareness.

2) Remove/weaken the FED. Expel advocates of the FED. Repel foreign influence. Promote US government sovereignty. This means removing Federal tax. Keep state tax.

3) Remove un-backed federal reserve notes and replace with backed US treasury notes (similar to what JFK was going for -Dollar bill with a red stamp, not green.) What Lincoln was doing with the greenbacks. What early colonists did with the colonial scripts as they declared independence. Clear the US debt. Either way it is imaginary and does not exist. The state should be the highest entity and not victim of sharecropping.

4) Give everyone jobs and loosen social class tensions.

5) Use media to promote nationalism and make people happy.... not entertainment news and all that crap that distracts people from what is really important. Effective nationalism unites people. It can clear out civil unrest and the black/white/gay/etc tensions. Ultimately, people will see themselves as Americans.

6) Strengthen the Sherman Anti Trust Law. Any corporation that controls more than 25% of the market should be split up.

7) Control alien population.

8) Decrease dependance on external sources.

9) Promote peace. with the FED influence dissipating, there will be less reason to raid foreign countries.

People in society aren't inherently evil and corrupt, it is just that they are being influenced by evil ****** bags who are loyal to money. Influence flows from those with a lot of political power to those with not so much power. The FED negatively influences us because it is loyal to money - a tool for political power. An independent government that is ruled by the people will positively influence us since the members of the government are loyal to country.

TLDR

People need an independent government under nationalism ruled by members who are loyal to country and people, not tainted by foreign influence. Members should not be loyal to money. A government that does not function for the sake of capital.

 

Sounds like Cuba.

 

Cuba is horrible to most of its citizens. How many of them have died trying to get to America?

 

@Sokolov

Not what I mean. And sure, it could be a failure of my ability to interpret what you've written. I was less responding to how you replied to DJ than a general tone and comments at large.

What I mean, is that you SEEMED to be applying things like disrespecting an individual (Obama, the First Lady) as equivalent to disrespecting a symbol. From that perspective, people (or at least specific friends/acquaintances you have) look like hypocrites, criticizing, in your view, one symbol and lauding another without justification or equality.

It felt like you've focused on that narrative. Which would probably make more sense to me if you didn't come off as dismissive of the Constitution as well (a result of the system, and probably the most symbolic since it lays out how the dang thing is supposed to work in terms of laws and legalities). But that's likely me missing the point. That you're not so much defending Obama's record/results necessarily (though the First Lady stuff is stupid and for different reasons we both agree) so much as viewing the whole thing in a dismissive/contemptuous light?

But that's likely me misunderstanding again.

Dark Jello does have his own problems with some of the stuff he's writing too. Perhaps I should have been more picky with him as well so as to make it seem more "fair" to you? I'm not sure.

Please don't lump me together with those that think that "debunking" the immigration issue is a waste of time.

Perhaps this is a my own failure in reading, but it had SEEMED to me that you were largely supportive of almost all current 1st World Governments, and justifying the corruption in those systems as a "trade off" for all the benefits they also bestow.

If that's not the case, than I apologize for writing out of my assumptions.

Because it's interesting! The world we live in, with all it's diverse views (not all represented here in this forum, let alone thread), trivia, and useful bits of information. It's all interesting.

Or at least that's how I get sucked into it.

I'm sure there's also a "some of these people are 'reasonable', maybe I can properly express my viewpoint to them!" thing going on as well. Which is probably why it feels so bad/frustrating when people don't understand what you're really getting at. Something I've had to deal with often myself. Don't feel too bad though.

If this is aimed at me trying to mold the conversation a bit (the intention of the "Spoiler" was to have you focus on the question, in all likelihood I should have simply left it at the question and left my offensive personal thoughts aside for the time being.) I apologize. It is not in any way meant to be a means of censoring you or shaping the conversation purely to make my arguments look better. It is, rather, a desire to try and make sure we're all on the same page, so as to lesson misunderstandings.

Clearly, I seem to have failed at that at least on my own part.

You can talk about whatever you want, naturally, at least within the purview of what your employers allow on the forum (and same for the rest of us). And of course you're free to hold your thoughts to yourself as you wish.

My goal was to promote understanding (but not necessarily agreement) between people with different viewpoints, but it seems my own misconceptions have instead created frustration and set back that possibility.

To that end I apologize to all involved and whom were lurking, or reading through it at a later time.

I don't begrudge you leaving this thread Sok, but I do hope you'll at least have read this response.

 

Post #39 was superb @Ohmin , IMO. +17 points to you.

Things are getting heated, and I am glad you are a calming influence of logic and win.