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

kramarat

Quote from: supsalemgr on February 02, 2013, 11:10:45 AM
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.

But he also wants society.

When I pointed out human history, it shows that a lack of cohesive government will never last long. The strong will simply overpower the weak, and implement whatever government and rules that they please. The weak can comply or die.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: kramarat on February 02, 2013, 10:37:48 AM
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."


In what way?

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Solar on February 02, 2013, 10:46:00 AM

Without a defined set of laws/rules agreed upon, you have pure anarchy.

True.

I do not support pure anarchy.

Quote
If you decide upon basic rules, then you have formed a rudimentary Govt.

Obviously, that is not true, as we know from history itself, let alone modern institutions, such as international commercial law.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: kramarat on February 02, 2013, 11:23:22 AM
But he also wants society.

When I pointed out human history, it shows that a lack of cohesive government will never last long. The strong will simply overpower the weak, and implement whatever government and rules that they please. The weak can comply or die.

It lasted a long time in Ireland- which is probably how they resisted British colonial aggression for so long.


TowardLiberty

Quote from: supsalemgr on February 02, 2013, 11:10:45 AM
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.

Disagree completely.

People can form laws and institutions voluntarily and still be free.

Quote

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.


This is not about self sufficient.

If anything, it is about a more richer and peaceful society and getting closer to the vision of the founders.

supsalemgr

"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

TowardLiberty

Quote from: supsalemgr on February 02, 2013, 01:13:03 PM
In all due respect, I think TL is going in circles.

Add it to the list!  :cool:

It has been said I am a utopian, a hypocrite and that I think like a Marxist.

So why not say I am going in circles, too?

At some point, there comes the business of actually trying to understand what it is I am saying- if only for the purpose of defeating it.

But I really doubt that anyone here, other than myself, actually understands what I am meaning by the term ordered anarchy, customary law or anarcho-capitalism.

These might as well be words from a foreign language.

Yawn

TL, explain how your society would function without any form of government. How would you function without police (as much as I despise most of them).  Vigilantism?

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Yawn on February 02, 2013, 04:35:46 PM
TL, explain how your society would function without any form of government. How would you function without police (as much as I despise most of them).  Vigilantism?

The same way international commercial law is enforced today- reciprocal relationships, insurance and ostracism.

We are talking some pretty heady stuff, here.

Rather than clumsily stumble through this argument myself, I would rather point you to an already written and well thought out essay on the matter.

www.mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

This is the routine introduction point for explaining how society works without a state.

Judicial functions, police, insurance and national defense are considered.

Yawn

I will read it a little later. I think you're advocating Anarchy because you grew up under a very oppressive form of Godvernment the Founders never intended. They did intend government though. George Washington warned that government was like a "beast" or a "fire." It is a useful and necessary tool, but if you overfeed it, it will quickly get out of control and DEMAND even more until it consumes all. We're at that point now. We also need a military, but NOT as it is today.

Solar

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 02, 2013, 12:23:08 PM
True.

I do not support pure anarchy.

Obviously, that is not true, as we know from history itself, let alone modern institutions, such as international commercial law.
Pure semantics! The rule of law is a form of Govt, you may call it anything you like, but when you set rules, you are establishing govt.
I know we've beaten this horse into the ground, but setting rules is merely governing by another name.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Reality

TL said "In a free society, we make decisions only for ourselves."

Good luck!


Reality

.. added, Tl, since your version of the way it should be relies solely on total agreement, I take it we all go to the ice cream store and accept the only flavor available; vanilla.  Utopia, yes!  Real world, no!

walkstall

Quote from: Reality on February 02, 2013, 05:53:34 PM
TL said "In a free society, we make decisions only for ourselves."

Good luck!

Even in a free society. I would not let a kid play with a loaded gun.   But that's just me. 
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Solar on February 02, 2013, 05:02:24 PM
Pure semantics! The rule of law is a form of Govt, you may call it anything you like, but when you set rules, you are establishing govt.
I know we've beaten this horse into the ground, but setting rules is merely governing by another name.
I will never cease to claim you are dead wrong on this issue.

A government is a very specific relationship.

The word doesn't just mean whatever we want it to.

If there is no coercive authority, then there is no government. Pure and simple.