Sweet Freedom

Muirgeo,

Any guess why that doesn't exist in any of the approximately 200 countries of the world?

Because central authority grows like a parasite until its host reacts violently against it, just as you describe above. Like a man with bad case of the flu, we must explosively shit the poison out of our system.

Why guys... why if what you want is SO SUCCESSFUL does it not exist in a country to which you could emigrate to? Jez...

A century or two ago, the U.S. was this country, and it grew rapidly to become the wealthiest nation on Earth. Now, it's on the verge of imperial collapse, after the fashion of the Soviet Union. Good riddance to it.

... long ago I figured out as a child that maybe god never replied because he didn't exist.

God is existence itself. His traditional "replies" are allegories, like His anthropomorphic personality. For example, He visits the sins of fathers on their children, because bad fathers harm their children. We capitalize His name, because He's an abstraction. Abstract nouns (and pronouns) are conventionally capitalized.

Seriously Martin you want the Andy Fastows, the Bernie Ebbers and the Bernard Madoff to be the authorities.

First, they didn't last long. Second, they wouldn't have lasted as long as they did without various statutory rules protecting them. Finally, I didn't lose a dime to Madoff, and I'm not heartbroken that others did. That's their problem. Not a one of them ever offered me a dime of the 10% annual yields they thought they were earning. I don't expect investment to be a sure thing.

Madoff apparently lost $50 billion for a lot of wealthy individuals and organizations over a decade or two. That's a shame. I sympathize even though I don't accept any responsibility for their loss.

By contrast, the Bushniks squandered trillions on the Orwellian War on Terror and countless other "initiatives" in less than eight years. In the last few months of their regime alone, they handed out many more trillions to their friends in the financial sector, allegedly to avoid the depression they spent a few years engineering.

Seriously, you want them to be the authorities?

Seriously, you imagine Obama and his partisans so much more virtuous, so much wiser, so much more omniscient and omnibenevolent? Why?

Think about corporate structure. It's one of the most authoritarian forms of governance possible.

I think about the market. It's one of the most democratic forms. The form you advocate is precisely a huge, hierarchical, corporatist authority, larger by orders of magnitude than any for profit corporation on Earth, the largest authoritarian hierarchy on Earth period. You think these biannual plebiscites somehow tame it, but you're delusional. It's already clear enough that Obama et al. are only more of the same.

And actually I'd argue authority organized more by market does exist in some of the most wretched places in the world one could choose to live. Like Djibouti or Ethiopia or Chad.

No. These places don't have mature, orderly markets, and they do have authoritarian rulers of various sorts. I'm not an anarchist. Markets require order, but they don't require a central authority hundreds or thousands of times larger than any other organization. A progressive consumption tax could limit both central authority and the wealthy lords you distrust. I wish I could interest you in the idea.

Merge,

The free market implies the freedom to opt out of it, to choose the rule of the Barney Franks and Chris Dodds for yourself, just not to force it on others.

Have the socialist, interventionist, or sado-masochist paradise of your dreams, but leave me out.

Submit to bondage, plunder, and rape, but don't force it on others.

"Seriously Martin you want the Andy Fastows, the Bernie Ebbers and the Bernard Madoff to be the authorities."

Muirgeo,

You forgot to mention Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, & Franklin Raines.

What our side is saying is that we don't need the state. The state "...and the government are two different and opposing things. For the free market is a self-governing process,..."

Posted by: dg lesvic

"No. The modern day libertarian wants less centralized authority. We want authority organized more by markets..."

Martin Brock

Any guess why that doesn't exist in any of the approximately 200 countries of the world? Why guys... why if what you want is SO SUCCESSFUL does it not exist in a country to which you could emigrate to? Jez... long ago I figured out as a child that maybe god never replied because he didn't exist.

Seriously Martin you want the Andy Fastows, the Bernie Ebbers and the Bernard Madoff to be the authorities. Think about corporate structure. It's one of the most authoritarian forms of governance possible.

And actually I'd argue authority organized more by market does exist in some of the most wretched places in the world one could choose to live. Like Djibouti or Ethiopia or Chad.

She is properly entitled to force her will on the rapist.

Posted by: | Jan 4, 2009 7:49:48 AM

That was me by the way.

Posted by: Martin Brock

No it wasn't. You NEVER write a post that short. Really who wrote it?

Muirgeo, do you ever wonder why you have a knee jerk reaction of hostility to any expression of a desire for freedom? What are we to make of that? What should we think of you? - and of your handlers?

Posted by: Randy

I LOVE the idea of absolute freedom. I love the idea of heaven and hell. I love the idea of utopia with unicorns included....BUT I live in the real world. You think you stand for freedom but I suggest you aren't thinking realistically. People while often good have a tendency to suck, be greedy and cheat... therefore we need society to set the rules and yes enforce them. Since the social democracies have flourished after the years of revolution against the capitalistic oppressive societies freedom has never been more obtained. You live in one of the most free societies ever Randy and all you do is complain about it. I simply want to make it better. Of course there is room for improvement but the way forward is not to go back to free market capitalism of the 18th and 19th centuries. It doesn't maximize freedom as we see today in the modern social democracies. In fact it is the "capitalist run amuck"" who are the villains of our free and modern society that are the ones tearing it down and making it harder for the average person to get by and enjoy their freedom (i.e. millions now have to put their retirement on hold because of the theft from their retirement funs by useless hedge fund managers and the like on Wall Street. Likewise many have lost their homes from far to great of rewards going into the predatory financial sector and not into the productive sector as it should have. ) I'm simply asking for more rules on crooks, thieves and rapist that shouldn't effect the average honest hard working individual.

If this woman really wants no community, she obviously doesn't want a market either, so her statement seems less libertarian than extremely antisocial. That's okay with me. I'm quite antisocial myself; otherwise, I don't post so much here. There's no sense in pretending that this woman is libertarian though. If she expects total social isolation and also expects anything like a modern living standard, she'll get it only by commanding others to provide her their goods.

It was catapulted by the new idea of communism in which the peasantry, as he explains, saw a world WITH OUT rulers and a more equitable society.

Right... We know where that got us.

It struck me that what he was describing, what all the revolutions were about, was similar to what the modern day libertarian wants. A world with no leaders.

No. The modern day libertarian wants less centralized authority. We want authority organized more by markets and less by biannual plebiscites electing a small committee of men with incredibly vast powers.

You libertarians need to realize that the capitalistic unregulated ideal leads simply back to other forms of rule and tyranny.

I don't want any unregulated capitalistic ideal. I want property. Property is regulation.

And will always result in revolt by the large under-privileged classes it produces.

Powerful central authorities have this effect.

There can be no world without leaders or with out a state so the logical best system is to diffuse power amongst the people in a government of the people.

Property holders are people exercising diffuse power.

To deny the evidence for this in favor of socialism or free-market capitalism or anarchy is to choose one for of dictatorship or another over an imperfect but liberty maximizing system of self -rule.

Free market capitalism is not dictatorship, because rights of property holders limit rights of other property holders. Obviously, this assertion begs the question, "What is property?" What are the rights and obligations of a property holder? It's a fair question, and I'm willing to discuss it frankly. I'm not interested in any vaguely partisan bickering between champions of "Capitalism" or "Socialism" or "Social Democracy" or similar political labels.

Bottom line for me is democracy is less oppressive then communism or unregulated capitalism.

"Democracy" is an incredibly vague term that is practically meaningless; however, insofar as the word means the rule of people by themselves, I suppose markets are far more democratic than majoritarian plebiscites electing powerful central committees.

That was me by the way.

So Merge is still accusing the woman defending herself against rape of forcing her will on the rapist.

She is properly entitled to force her will on the rapist.

Yeah right dgl! Poor people are poor because they're marginally productive hence you can find geniunely poor people in rich countries. You're presuming all poor people are because some are holding them down. Yes, it does happen but not everywhere. There are plenty of places where people are poor but there's no one in particular they can blame. They just don't any skills whereby they can leave poverty.

Likewise what muirgeo originally said, and what I agree with, is the woman in the story is waiting for freedom to be granted to her from the skies. She does nothing to bring about her personal but hopes those who are eroding her freedom will stop or someone else with arrive on a white horse and save her.

Murg,

Not having seen any further from you on that other discussion of ours, I assume that you still want to make the poor poorer. And, from the discussions here, that you want women raped, and workers unemployed. Is there any segment of the population, besides the parasites and predators, that you don't want harmed?

Muirego is evidence of my belief that there are two types of people on this planet: (1) people who want to control other people, and (2) the rest of us.

Brotio,

maybe his mom made him go clean up his room, or pickup the dogcrap...

Sorry, Gil, but even matching muirgeo would be a step up the logic ladder for you.

dg,

When Mierduck suddenly leaves a 'debate' it usually means you've taxed his mind and he's frantically cutting and pasting over at Kos or HuffPo for rebuttals.

If his next reply is something akin to, "Because Paul Krugman says so, you poo-poo head." then you'll know he found something at Kos. If he says, "Because St Franklin of Roosevelt said so, you poo-poo head." then you know he was at Huffington Post.

Piffle, dgl! I'll do a 'vidyohs' and argue you're playing wordsies. Besides the 'government' you seem to want is what other Libertarians don't want - a system of arbitrary power and forced payments. They argue for some sort of 'self-rule'.

Having barely skimmed through this debate, I may have things wrong, but it seemed to me that Mr Murge et al were saying that we needed an organized society, with a government, leaders, laws, policemen, and funds for paying them.

Agreed. Who would say otherwise? What our side is saying is that we don't need the state. The state and the government are two different and opposing things. For the free market is a self-governing process, and, interference with it, with government, and not itself government but anti-government. The call for the end of the state is for the beginning of government.

By the way, Mr Merge, are you simply walking away from that debate we were having over at the Mencken thread just below. I thought you were going to give me a fight.

I'd have no idea I was an anarchist if it weren't for Gil and muirgeo.

Thanks guys!!

Of course you know you're right Muirgeo. In a true Libertarian a woman would have to figure out how to fend off rapists or somehow bargain with burly men to help defend her (if it mean payment in sex it'd defeat the purpose!). However she can't expect others to create laws against rape and expect forced payments called taxes for the enforcement because that'd be theft and thuggery. Likewise if the woman in the book wants the freedom she seeks, she has to flee or fight. I'd be a first to see a regime to disband because they'd all of sudden feel bad about what they're doing.

That was just plain beautiful, Don.

Muirgeo, do you ever wonder why you have a knee jerk reaction of hostility to any expression of a desire for freedom? What are we to make of that? What should we think of you? - and of your handlers?

"Democracy is a politcal system. Capitalism is not."

vidyohs

"


Agreed. But my argument would be that the purest form of free market capitalism is the political system of Feudalism.


Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 3, 2009 4:37:57 PM"

This is why I can never take you serious.

You state agreement that capitalism is not a political system.

Then you state, no it's a political system

of Feudalism.

Capitalism is no political system under any circumstance, it is strictly a term applied to the principle of private ownership and investment of private property esp. money.

You can't make that into a poltical system no matter how hard you try.

My first impression of you holds true today, you no freaking clue as to what you think, how to think it, and especially how to express that non-thought.

crooks, thieves, killers, dictators and greed-mongerer's

You are supposing that such individuals can be kept out of political power.

If you kill enough people, you'll be called a great leader.

Mierduck,

It's been explained to you by hundreds of people over the years of you trolling this bridge that Wall Street, Main Street, and every street in between is heavily regulated by government.

My first instinct in dealing with a thief is to shoot them. You, as a thief, recognize this and have hired the government to do your thieving for you, knowing that they have far more arms to bear than I.

Our solution is to limit the power of the political caste. Your solution is to entrust your life, health, and prosperity to the political caste. It is an irreconcilable difference.

"She seems to be asking all the crooks, thieves, killers, dictators and greed-mongerer's of the world to shed their evil ways so she can be rightfully "free" because that's what she wants so they should listen and respect her will."

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 3, 2009 2:20:44 PM

This is the worst case of bad reading I've seen in quite some time.

Muirgeo,

What is that 'Hmmm!' chart say about success of affirmative action? Please explain to us.

Merge:

Here, again, the woman's wish:

"you have to love, think, live with other people...Oh, my God! I don't want to!"

She's not keeping you out of the love-in. She just doesn't want to be a part of it.

Forcing a woman into your love-in may be freedom for you, but certainly not for her.

As for redistribution, India practices its form of affirmative action. ........... and 50 years later, it has achieved nothing.

Oil Shock

Hmmm!

BTW, Slumdog Millionaire is a well made entertaining love story. I would definitely recommend it.

Here is Senator Harry Reid, in a moment of honesty, admitting that Welfare has been an abject failure

See Slumdog Millionaire.

I spent every moment of my first 24 years in India. I don't need to watch a movie to keep me informed about India. If you think, I come from an uppercaste family, don't entertain it for too long - I grew up in a catholic family.

ARGG YOU re-distributionist

It is fun to destroy strawmen, is it not?

As for redistribution, India practices its form of affirmative action. About 22% of all government jobs at all levels, and 22% of admissions to all government run educational institutions ( which is most of it ) is reserved for lowest castes - Scheduled Castes and Tribes as they are called in India, which is proportional to their population, and 50 years later, it has achieved nothing.

I know of a social system that survived for over 4000 years. It is casteism as practiced in India. It was so stable, muirgeo may want to try it here.

Posted by: Oil Shock

That's just a form of capitalism as far as I'm concerned. The rules made by those with money to keep the slumdogs in their place. See Slumdog Millionaire.

Why are you arguing those people in the upper caste should share their hard earned wealth with the untouchables....ARGG YOU re-distributionist!!

"I've got a new name for your ideology.

Rapism."

Bravo!

Posted by: brotio

You guys are the ones defending the board room rapist and the Wall Street rapist to do what they just did to us and this country and it's government when we gave them their "freedom" you claim they need.

I want rues for the sexual predators and the Wall Street predators. You guys for some reason think the market keeps rapist in check... reality shows us otherwise.

Democratic party was bought and paid off by Madoff. Ponzi scheme democrats are coming to power, and muirgeo is has voted them to power. They started such schemes as Fractional reserve banking ponzi backed by Pseudo government agency called the Fed. They also started other giant ponzies like SS and Medicare.

I know of a social system that survived for over 4000 years. It is casteism as practiced in India. It was so stable, muirgeo may want to try it here.

Sure Brotio... I include political opportunist and ponzi scheme wall streeters in there as well. The question is what are you going to do about it? The obvious answer to me is to set up rules and a state run by the people to enforce the rules on these schemers.

What are YOU going to do about them? Recognize them and hope they go away? Not buy their products... boycott them? Good luck with that!

"Democracy is a politcal system. Capitalism is not."

vidyohs

Agreed. But my argument would be that the purest form of free market capitalism is the political system of Feudalism. Strict and personal protection of property rights... assuming you are one of the few who owns property.

"She seems to be asking all the crooks, thieves, killers, dictators and greed-mongerer's of the world to shed their evil ways so she can be rightfully 'free'" - Mierduck

No, she's asking that we recognize thieves, killers, dictators and greed-mongers (whatever that is) for what they are. Senator Thief is no different than any other thief - except to socialists like Mierduck.

"It All Began, as Usual, With the Greeks." - Murray Rothbard

"I've got a new name for your ideology.

Rapism."

Bravo!

So Merge is still accusing the woman defending herself against rape of forcing her will on the rapist.

Posted by: dg lesvic

Sure! The rapist wants to have the freedom to do as he pleases as well. No rules means NO RULES! But of course I'm not the one arguing for no rules. As soon as you cross the line and argue for a rule then IMO you are arguing for a state. And I'm all for states but Ms. Lucile Angellier doesn't want a rule or a state. She wants to be free. Good luck explaining that to Mr. Rapesalot.

Mr Merge,

I've got a new name for your ideology.

Rapism.

Your long post seems sincere, muirduck, but you tilt against windmills in that you misunderstand the difference between democracy, and capitalism. Democracy is a politcal system. Capitalism is not.

Capitalism is extremely individual, from its roots to its fruits.

How do you test that statement?

Capitalism can, and has, flourish(ed) under a Monarchy, Fascism, anarchy, and even brutal dictatorships.

Capitalism goes underground or flees communism and even socialism.

Democracy does not exist under a dictatorship, is a farce under a Monarchy or fascism, and is irrelevant in an anarchy.

Democracy is theoretically the soul of communism and socialism.

Get that straight in your head muirduck and you'll take a long stride towards intelligent and rational thought regarding individual freedom and the human spirit's yearning for it.

A very existentialist excerpt; reminds me of Jean Paul Sartre or Albert Camus.

Muirgeo:

Perhaps I misunderstand you, and if so please clarify, but do you take democracy, communism, and "unregulated capitalism" to be three distinct and mutually exclusive systems? What is "unregulated capitalism"? Capitalism is regulated by the freedom to break contact or disassociate with others, and when explicit or implicit contracts are broken a neutral court system handles the case. I see no reason to see this as being in conflict with democracy per se, but only a form of democracy that we already have a bill of rights to protect us from.

I guess I just don't understand what it is that you are advocating, but I would recommend more time thinking about the implications of private property rights and competition, and less time thinking about ways in which historical revolutions serve as evidence against one system or another.

It's this deeper sense, or realization, of freedom that makes the difference between those who would trade freedom for security and those who would risk their lives to live free.

Thanks for the recommendation.

I just listened to a great lecture from the World History lectures from The Teaching Company. The professor, Peter N Stearns Provost and Professor of History at George Mason University, was discussing the period from the second decade of the 20th century to about 1980 in which the title of his lecture is The Age of Revolutions. It was clear there were world wide revolutions involving the peasantry revolting against the landlords of capitalism. It was catapulted by the new idea of communism in which the peasantry, as he explains, saw a world WITH OUT rulers and a more equitable society. It struck me that what he was describing, what all the revolutions were about, was similar to what the modern day libertarian wants. A world with no leaders. But back then they wanted to escape the rule of capitalism and landlords. You libertarians need to realize that the capitalistic unregulated ideal leads simply back to other forms of rule and tyranny. And will always result in revolt by the large under-privileged classes it produces.

The over reach of the revolutions resulted in communism and its dictators and now it is clear governments of social democracies are the most successful at improving the human condition. There can be no world without leaders or with out a state so the logical best system is to diffuse power amongst the people in a government of the people. To deny the evidence for this in favor of socialism or free-market capitalism or anarchy is to choose one for of dictatorship or another over an imperfect but liberty maximizing system of self -rule. Bottom line for me is democracy is less oppressive then communism or unregulated capitalism.

So be clear that at least in my mind I'm convinced I am pulling for a system that maximizes liberty and the economy of man while I see the libertarian way and of course communism as both routes to greater oppression and stagnation.

Sure I could be wrong but at least I have a reason that is well intended in it's beliefs and not diabolical as people who disagree would like to paint it.

So Merge is still accusing the woman defending herself against rape of forcing her will on the rapist.

"It's like a bee wanting to leave the 'hive-life' so it can be 'free.'"

Analogy (Simile?) fail.

Her description of freedom is simply asking for humanity to shed 5,000,000 years of evolution and become something it is not. It's like a bee wanting to leave "hive-life" so it can be "free".

She seems to be asking all the crooks, thieves, killers, dictators and greed-mongerer's of the world to shed their evil ways so she can be rightfully "free" because that's what she wants so they should listen and respect her will.

Well I'd like to have an inter-galactic traveling unicorn and until I have it I'll never feel free either... if only.