What Single Issue Would Prevent You From Voting for the Next Prez?

Started by Yawn, January 31, 2013, 05:39:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TowardLiberty

Quote from: kramarat on February 02, 2013, 08:48:36 AM
Interesting........

Kind of like using nonparticipation to fight a cause that has no clear objective, and can never be won, or even gain traction.

Cool! :wink:

http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_anarchismandpoliticsinhistory.htm

Something like that.

The idea being that the fight between the parties is itself a rouse and that only by seeing it for what it is, and rejecting them both, can we hope to achieve real freedom.

I would be from the camp that is referred to as the individualist anarchist, by the article.

We do not see eye to eye, not even a little bit, with the collectivist anarchist.

Here is a Mises article by Robert Murphy on just what we mean by the term.

http://mises.org/daily/1778

TowardLiberty

Quote from: kramarat on February 02, 2013, 09:09:53 AM
I wouldn't be surprised to find constitutional conservatives there.

Maybe it's my imagination, but there seems to be a substantial amount of overlapping principles with, say..........The Heritage Foundation.

Oh, there are.

Judge Napolitano is a regular speaker and supporter.

(He is also an anarchist- but that was something said in private)

Yes, there is a lot of overlap. But Heritage and Cato are more in the world of politics. They do policy research.

The Mises folks are in the world of economic theory, ethics and philosophy. They are more scholars than technocrats.

kramarat

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 02, 2013, 09:09:28 AM
Well, lets be very clear about what I am saying.

I never claimed to disengage from society or from the exchange of ideas.

I am just not going to participate in the political system- no voting, no campaigning, no political donations, and generally, no support for the government at all.

Rather, I say, "burn the whole thing down."

And I say this with the goal of having a more rational, peaceful and ultimately, social, pattern of living together.

This is all about how to best live together, as free individuals.

That is completely naive.

Just to start, it would have to assume that millions of individuals that have come to fully depend on government; could just stop.

I saw a documentary, where a film crew was allowed into North Korea, and could interview people. The degree to which these people had been conditioned by government, and their absolute devotion to the same, was astounding. We see that here also.

As bad as a lot of aspects of it are, to burn it down would result in complete mayhem.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: kramarat on February 02, 2013, 09:26:29 AM
That is completely naive.

Well, we can characterize it anyway you want, but just be clear on what I am saying and what I am not.

I am not talking about disengaging from society, just from the state.

Quote

Just to start, it would have to assume that millions of individuals that have come to fully depend on government; could just stop.

Well, they could.

Just like people used to living large just stop when the money runs out.

If the check doesn't come in the mail they dont eat.

A hungry belly is a powerful motivator.

Dont ever discount the power of the urge to survive.

People are lazy and spoiled. They are entitled.

But that is because they can be.

It is not a permanently fixed dynamic.

A starving welfare queen will find the strength to get a job. It will come from inside, deep down.
Quote

I saw a documentary, where a film crew was allowed into North Korea, and could interview people. The degree to which these people had been conditioned by government, and their absolute devotion to the same, was astounding. We see that here also.

Certainly.

It exists most clearly in partisan politics- where people are conditioned to root for one side and hate the other, oblivious to the fact that they are nearly the same teams.
Quote

As bad as a lot of aspects of it are, to burn it down would result in complete mayhem.

I disagree.

To refuse to burn it down will result in complete mayhem.


kramarat

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 02, 2013, 09:36:43 AM
Well, we can characterize it anyway you want, but just be clear on what I am saying and what I am not.

I am not talking about disengaging from society, just from the state.

Well, they could.

Just like people used to living large just stop when the money runs out.

If the check doesn't come in the mail they dont eat.

A hungry belly is a powerful motivator.

Dont ever discount the power of the urge to survive.

People are lazy and spoiled. They are entitled.

But that is because they can be.

It is not a permanently fixed dynamic.

A starving welfare queen will find the strength to get a job. It will come from inside, deep down.
Certainly.

It exists most clearly in partisan politics- where people are conditioned to root for one side and hate the other, oblivious to the fact that they are nearly the same teams.
I disagree.

To refuse to burn it down will result in complete mayhem.

Mayhem is coming regardless, it's just a matter of when.

You have a lot more faith in the people that rely on government, than I do. They already firmly believe that they have a right to other people's money. If the inflow is suddenly stopped, they will attempt to get it by force, not go get a job.

Solar

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 02, 2013, 09:13:20 AM
I have no desire to institute any changes, at any level.

In a free society, we make decisions only for ourselves.
Even free societies have Govt. Like it or not, not everyone agrees on what is right and what is wrong.
What you are striving for is what extreme libs strive for, Utopia, and the very concept is unachievable.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

TowardLiberty

Quote from: kramarat on February 02, 2013, 09:48:05 AM
Mayhem is coming regardless, it's just a matter of when.

You have a lot more faith in the people that rely on government, than I do. They already firmly believe that they have a right to other people's money. If the inflow is suddenly stopped, they will attempt to get it by force, not go get a job.

If they attempt to get it by force they will have more stress, labor, pain and sacrifice in store for them than anything found in a job.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Solar on February 02, 2013, 09:55:08 AM
Even free societies have Govt. Like it or not, not everyone agrees on what is right and what is wrong.
What you are striving for is what extreme libs strive for, Utopia, and the very concept is unachievable.

I would argue government is incompatible with freedom- in an elementary way.

I am striving for utopia?

That is news to me..

That doesn't hold any water for me. It is just words.

No logic behind it.

Though, belief in the possibility of limited government is utopian, as history shows.

kramarat

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 02, 2013, 09:59:57 AM
If they attempt to get it by force they will have more stress, labor, pain and sacrifice in store for them than anything found in a job.

It would be fun to run a hypothetical scenario, in which all government was eliminated, as per your dream.

Personally, I believe we would quickly descend into warring tribes. Human history pretty much bears this out.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: kramarat on February 02, 2013, 10:12:44 AM


Personally, I believe we would quickly descend into warring tribes. Human history pretty much bears this out.

Must be a history I am unfamiliar with.

The existence of law, money, language and society itself implies the opposite. These were not the creations of any authority.

Rather, they come from voluntary associations and an invisible hand.

Indeed, your point of view leaves us without an explanation for society at all.

I will side with Mises. Society is what happens when people realize that they are better off producing in cooperation, under a division of labor, than in social isolation.

Society is rational.

It does not need to be forced on to us.

Solar

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 02, 2013, 10:01:26 AM
I would argue government is incompatible with freedom- in an elementary way.

I am striving for utopia?

That is news to me..

That doesn't hold any water for me. It is just words.

No logic behind it.

Though, belief in the possibility of limited government is utopian, as history shows.
It sounded like you were arguing against any Govt. to me.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Solar on February 02, 2013, 10:26:44 AM
It sounded like you were arguing against any Govt. to me.

Well, I am.

And in this way- I am arguing against a utopia, not for it.

It is my contention that Hobbes was wrong.

He had it completely backward.

kramarat

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 02, 2013, 10:26:26 AM
Must be a history I am unfamiliar with.

The existence of law, money, language and society itself implies the opposite. These were not the creations of any authority.

Rather, they come from voluntary associations and an invisible hand.

Indeed, your point of view leaves us without an explanation for society at all.

I will side with Mises. Society is what happens when people realize that they are better off producing in cooperation, under a division of labor, than in social isolation.

Society is rational.

It does not need to be forced on to us.

Sounds similar to Marxism:

There's another reason why Marxism has something to teach us as we struggle through economic depression, other than its analysis of class struggle. It is in its analysis of economic crisis. In his formidable new tome Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism, Slavoj Žižek tries to apply Marxist thought on economic crises to what we're enduring right now. Žižek considers the fundamental class antagonism to be between "use value" and "exchange value".

What's the difference between the two? Each commodity has a use value, he explains, measured by its usefulness in satisfying needs and wants. The exchange value of a commodity, by contrast, is traditionally measured by the amount of labour that goes into making it. Under current capitalism, Žižek argues, exchange value becomes autonomous. "It is transformed into a spectre of self-propelling capital which uses the productive capacities and needs of actual people only as its temporary disposable embodiment. Marx derived his notion of economic crisis from this very gap: a crisis occurs when reality catches up with the illusory self-generating mirage of money begetting more money – this speculative madness cannot go on indefinitely, it has to explode in even more serious crises. The ultimate root of the crisis for Marx is the gap between use and exchange value: the logic of exchange-value follows its own path, its own made dance, irrespective of the real needs of real people."


Solar

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 02, 2013, 10:29:50 AM
Well, I am.

And in this way- I am arguing against a utopia, not for it.

It is my contention that Hobbes was wrong.

He had it completely backward.
Then you are hoping for a Utopia, for without govt, even the smallest agreed upon Govt, you have democracy, "Mob Rule", whatever the opinion is of the majority, is the current law of the land, of course that would change as does the opinion of man, and a different set of rules would ensue.

Without a defined set of laws/rules agreed upon, you have pure anarchy.
If you decide upon basic rules, then you have formed a rudimentary Govt.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

supsalemgr

After reading all these posts it seems to me that TL is looking for a world that does not, or will ever, exist. Totally being free is only available for one who can find a place with no organized structure. Even if one buys 250,000 acres in MT and is self sufficient to the point of never having leave the property he would still be subject to laws of MT. Dropping out means giving up the opportunity to work for realistic freedom as the founding fathers envisioned.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"