Is Government Good?

[Stars]

It sure worked out well in America.

Have you considered this from this perspective -

Allowing people to carry guns means that the difference in force capability between people is much smaller (or at least much harder to gauge)

For instance, a woman walking alone at night is no longer an easy victim to a much physically stronger male.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Stars

[Injin]

You might get taken more seriously if you ever offered a viable alternative. So far you'd come up with everyone carrying guns as the solution to crime. A pretty inauspicious start I feel.

It's a perfectly viable alternative.

The chocie is between crime and war or just crime.

Not between no crime and crime.

[the_austrian]

Civilisation is made from weapons, the best one being, so far, gunpowder... then nuclear bombs made States civil to one-another. Guns are the best thing for humanity and cameras are pretty good too.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Have you considered this from this perspective -

Allowing people to carry guns means that the difference in force capability between people is much smaller (or at least much harder to gauge)

For instance, a woman walking alone at night is no longer an easy victim to a much physically stronger male.

And yet rape is a more common crime per capita in America than countries in which gun ownership is prohibited. So it clearly isn't acting as the deterrent you seem to think it is.

[Injin]

And yet rape is a more common crime per capita in America than countries in which gun ownership is prohibited. So it clearly isn't acting as the deterrent you seem to think it is.

This wouldn't be the US with the most powerful state on earth?

[Britney's Piers]

Faster than that.

The great British historian Nesta Webster is someone everyone should read.

British historian Nesta Webster, author of World Revolution, observed that Rousseau's writings embodied all of the principles that would later be known as Communism. In what is perhaps the most brilliant refutation ever devised of the Communist error in logic, Webster wrote:

"...ownership of property ... is not peculiar to the human race. The bird has its nest, the dog has its bone that it will savagely defend... if everything were divided up today all would be unequal again tomorrow. One man would fritter away his share, another would double it by turning it to good account, the practical and energetic would soon be more prosperous than the idler or the wastral. The parable of the ten talents perfectly illustrates the differing capacity of men to deal with money."

That was her justification for opposition to the communist notion of wealth redistribution.

Government is not in itself an inevitable conclusion to human greed. It's the way we humans try to keep things fair amongst ourselves. It's a gift, not a goblin. It's not human, it's a thing. It takes human interaction to keep the weeds out. If we ignore it because of our self indulgences, the bad guys will grab it. That's what's happened.

Hopefully in another century, history will write that this was the climax of the privately owned central bank era that enslaved most of the nations of the world without most of the population even knowing it. Hopefully, this will be seen as the first time humans saw how governments were taken over by the forces of evil and how -- just as President Jackson did in 1836 America -- the tide was turned.

Certainly our situation is very serious. Many have given up. Most don't even know why we are being robbed blind or by whom. I prefer not to give up. I prefer to go down trying to retake government for the benefit of the people in general, and I think most people on this Forum feel the same way.

That quote is interesting. Kind of a non sequitur though. Humans ownership doesn't work any differently from animal ownership. If the alpha male wolf has a bone he will defend it, but if he sees a younger adolescent wolf with a bone, he will take it from him no matter how practical and energetic the adolescent's effort were to get the bone in the first place. Bankers and statists have just sophisticated this process.

[Britney's Piers]

Have you considered this from this perspective -

Allowing people to carry guns means that the difference in force capability between people is much smaller (or at least much harder to gauge)

For instance, a woman walking alone at night is no longer an easy victim to a much physically stronger male.

Then justice is on the side of the person with the biggest gun and the quickest trigger finger.

A natural selection process takes place where the people with the biggest guns, confiscate the smaller guns, and then you know the rest...

[Injin]

Then justice is on the side of the person with the biggest gun and the quickest trigger finger.

A natural selection process takes place where the people with the biggest guns, confiscate the smaller guns, and then you know the rest...

The end point is where those with guns realise their own interests are best served by not using them, except in self defense.

Other people have feelings, wants and desires just like you do. If you leave them free to pursue their desires, they are more productive, happier and so on and this changes your world for the better.

[Goat]

Isn't the question easy?

Is the anachist utopia of Somalia a happier country than the UK?

[the_austrian]

Isn't the question easy?

Is the anachist utopia of Somalia a happier country than the UK?

Isn't there lots of violence in Somalia? Doesn't that suggest that it might not be an anarchist country?

[JustYield]

IIRC Mises favoured a free market in money; not a gold standard.

take another look at the Mises quote.

which part of it are you saying is factually incorrect?

Instead of banging on the same point (even if it had been accepted as evidence in the first place) like some autistic 6th form debater, you would do better to engage with Bill from other angles, you know like you would in a face to face conversation.

If there are holes in his logic and thinking I'm sure he wants to know about them, he seems to want an intellectual discussion to help him finesse his views, not rhetoric and out of context quotes.

And since you ask, just this part of von Mises quote is factually incorrect, by omission:

"And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. "

How does he know why taxes are paid? I pay taxes to benefit from a society I wish to live in.

[Stars]

Isn't there lots of violence in Somalia? Doesn't that suggest that it might not be an anarchist country?

It depends on your definition of a state

Does somalia have a state or states?

[Cogs]

"...ownership of property ... is not peculiar to the human race. The bird has its nest, the dog has its bone that it will savagely defend... if everything were divided up today all would be unequal again tomorrow. One man would fritter away his share, another would double it by turning it to good account, the practical and energetic would soon be more prosperous than the idler or the wastral. The parable of the ten talents perfectly illustrates the differing capacity of men to deal with money."

That was her justification for opposition to the communist notion of wealth redistribution.

Its actually a failure to understand the socialist project which has no interest in wealth redistribution, that would be the social democratic movement which is a different thing. Socialism is concerned with the distribution of capital, not the distribution of wealth. The distinction between these things matter immensely. By analogy, it is a bit like failing to appreciate the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

Although for the millionth time, I am far from a socialist so none of the usual ad hom attacks, but lets represent these things correctly if we are going to talk about them.

[Stars]

And since you ask, just this part of von Mises quote is factually incorrect, by omission:

"And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. "

How does he know why taxes are paid? I pay taxes to benefit from a society I wish to live in.

If you think that is the real reason people pay taxes, then there is no need to enforce payment.

Simply ask for voluntary contributions

[Stars]

Its actually a failure to understand the socialist project which has no interest in wealth redistribution, that would be the social democratic movement which is a different thing. Socialism is concerned with the distribution of capital, not the distribution of wealth. The distinction between these things matter immensely. By analogy, it is a bit like failing to appreciate the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

Although for the millionth time, I am far from a socialist so none of the usual ad hom attacks, but lets represent these things correctly if we are going to talk about them.

Because capital is created by human effort, there is no way to redistribute capital without either ending up with no capital or forcing people to create it.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Stars

[the_austrian]

It depends on your definition of a state

Does somalia have a state or states?

It has a State if you get punished for failing to do what they tell you. I'm sure lots of people get bossed about in Somalia, but I could be wrong.

[Cogs]

Because capital is created by human effort, there is no way to redistribute capital without either ending up with no capital or forcing people to create it.

You don't have to force anyone to do anything, you pay them and they make tools, buildings, vehicles etc.

The more tools, buildings, vehicles etc. they make, the more you pay them. I don't see the problem.

[enrieb]

The end point is where those with guns realise their own interests are best served by not using them, except in self defense.

Other people have feelings, wants and desires just like you do. If you leave them free to pursue their desires, they are more productive, happier and so on and this changes your world for the better.

This is the flaw in your system, you do not recognize that a small minority of people will realize that their best interests are served by forming gangs and using guns against others for their own personal gain, secure in the knowledge that the majority will cling to the delusion that somehow the people using guns to gain advantage will eventually awake to the revelation that their best interests are also served by not using them, when clearly the opposite is true.

There is a Coen Brothers film called Oh Brother Where Art Thou and in one scene Big Dan Teague(John Goodman) teaches Everret(George Cloony) a lesson in advanced psychology by beating him unconscious and stealing all his money, all Everret can say is 'I don't get it Big Dan', while big dan replys 'Its all about the money boys'

You have good intentions Injin, but I just don't think you get it.

[Stars]

You don't have to force anyone to do anything, you pay them and they make tools, buildings, vehicles etc.

The more tools, buildings, vehicles etc. they make, the more you pay them. I don't see the problem.

...and if they don't want to give it to you, what happens?

"We don't want to work for you, we reckon it would be better if we made the capital for ourselves and sold it."

Edited August 11, 2009 by Stars

[Stars]

It has a State if you get punished for failing to do what they tell you. I'm sure lots of people get bossed about in Somalia, but I could be wrong.

I'm sure you do (get bossed around in somalia)

I think we need a more precise definition of a state

Edited August 11, 2009 by Stars

[Cogs]

and if they want to make capital for themselves what happens?

and if they don't want to give it to you, what happens?

They are giving to themselves and they'd also be wealthier into the bargain.

Thats the argument, make of it what you will.

You might just as well ask why so many people make capital and wealth only to give it to shareholders.

As a shareholder myself, my experience is that they are only too willing, funny really.

Perhaps people prefer to be poor and masochistic.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Cogs

[Stars]

They are giving to themselves and they'd also be wealthier into the bargain.

Thats the argument, make of it what you will.

Well, it's false isn't it?

You might just as well ask why so many people make capital and wealth only to give it to shareholders.

As a shareholder myself, my experience is that they are only too willing, funny really.

Perhaps people prefer to be poor and masochistic.

The shareholder thing works through a mutual benefit - workers get a boost in terms of capital by agreeing to pay shareholders in the future.

I don't see what benefit the people you describe in a communist system are getting from giving their efforts to you, rather than simply keeping them.

[JustYield]

If you think that is the real reason people pay taxes, then there is no need to enforce payment.

Simply ask for voluntary contributions

That's not what I said.

It is one of the reasons some people pay their taxes. Von Mises says everyone pays because of the threat of violence if they don't. This is not true of everyone.

Expected better from you Stars.

[Cogs]

Well, it's false isn't it?

The shareholder thing works through a mutual benefit - workers get a boost in terms of capital by agreeing to pay shareholders in the future.

I don't see what benefit the people you describe in a communist system are getting from giving their efforts to you, rather than simply keeping them.

Edit: Blah blah blah.

No, the worker doesn't benefit from the capital beyond waged employment which is determined by the market for labour rather than the value of the labour in the context of the deployment of capital (unless you are a banker, they have a very Marxist remuneration system; the scale of their bonuses relates to their deployment of capital, if they were trading a total of 10p a day they wouldn't get those bonuses even if they pressed the same number of buttons on a computer, made the same number of phonecalls and whatever; the implication is that the typical worker is paid in terms of buttons pressed, phonecalls made without regard to the wealth they generate for someone else). People called capitalists benefit from owning capital, thats the point, thats how capitalism works, thats why its called capitalism.

I didn't describe anyone in a communist system giving anyone their efforts, they retain them. Although that misses the bulk of the argument which is that social relations inform the structure of consciousness. It all gets a bit weird at that point, but the suggestion is that you wouldn't care much about most of your "what ifs" anyway. Which is hard to imagine when of course we all care about the things capitalism makes us care about. I dunno, its a bit strange really but on the other hand it probably is true that 'consumerism' affects a lot of the choices people make about things other than pure economic activity in their lives.

Its all a load of rubbish of course. Don't think for a second I believe any of it myself.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Cogs

[MarkG]

There are a lot of problems with socialism and communism by a flaw in the logic in that area isn't one of them.

Socialism and communism are based on the belief that the smart, productive people will choose to work as slaves to the stupid and unproductive. If you don't see this as a logical flaw, there's little hope for you... this is the very flaw which has destroyed every major communist nation on the planet and is currently taking down the socialist nations of Europe.