Comments on: Partisan Politics is Foolish (I Hate It)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:35:00 +0000

trc,

You posted a reply to me with a video, to which I responded. Now those posts seem to have disappeared. Do you know why?

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:37:00 +0000

I don’t suggest that’s the intention of the pirates, but I do think that’s the reason so many misplace so much hope in democracy

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:31:00 +0000

I think I see the problem here. You don’t know what Higgs has done. He’s a prolific writer, but here’s a good taste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzbEkXGd7Ms

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:26:00 +0000

“making the political agency serve the general good”

“General good” in the CotUS sense means that nobody is sacrificed for it. I wish I too could believe that was the intention of the pirates. But I see too little evidence for it. To the pirates, “general good” is at best a collective notion where internal sacrifices are always justified in the pursuit of some net improvement.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:20:00 +0000

People choose a spectrum corresponding to what variable is important to them. To me it isn’t “amount of government” per se, but amount of individual liberty–freedom from the unprovoked willful coercion of others. If individual liberty is one’s goal, then democracy is a frightening prospect, and constitutional government is one attempt to restrain democracy from threatening liberty. It is certainly is not unimaginable, however, that one might find more liberty (temporarily) under a monarchy than a democracy. The goal for me is to find a social structure which advances liberty, whatever that structure may be.

The video equates “anarchy” with “chaos”. They aren’t synonyms, and needn’t coincide. That’s the Rothbard program.

The video equates a ‘hired defense’ with a ‘state’. By definition, a hired defense is always a choice for those doing the hiring. States have always been characterized by their authority to exact protection money from unwilling participants. And the example of history is that a state does not stay restrained for long.

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:30:00 +0000

I found the link and added it to the previous post.

By: J Cortez

J Cortez — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:50:00 +0000

Higgs is awesome and speaks the truth, as always.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:45:00 +0000

On her behalf, thanks. But, honestly I am the lucky one.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:38:00 +0000

The natural inequality I speak of extends not just to ability but to every facet of natural life. I say again, nature does not create nor recognize equality, fairness, evenness, nor even balance. Yes we have natural rights, those are the only rights we have. Everything else is privilege.I am privileged to be stronger than that guy so I can beat the crap out of him and take what he has, and you are not strong enough to stop me. That is privilege, not a right. I am privileged to possess great powers of persuasion and have great audacity in ambition, so I am privileged to gather believers and take even more of what others have, I then extend privileges to my followers so that they may eat from the leavings of my table.There is no natural right to a government of any nature, you are privileged to find others who agree with you on the framework of cooperation and on that agreement you hang the label government. The government you create through your agreement has no rights, can not create rights, can not take rights away. That government can only dispense or deny privilege. Now, you and others agree on a framework of cooperation and organization and call it government which derives its authority and power from the consent of the people. What people? Only those who agree could be considered bound by that agreement, otherwise the government is imposed and that is not in accordance with natural rights nor aligned with any concept of freedom. What do you plan on doing with those who don’t agree that your framework and organization is beneficial to them? They are born here, natural to this soil as were you, so have as much right to be here, and have a natural right of self determination as do you, yet they reject your government and do not agree. It is your government, does their refusal to recognize it and agree make them criminal in any way? Aren’t those who don’t agree simply exercising their natural right of self determination?Self governing does not mean a nation independent of other nations in governing, self governing means I govern myself and see to it that I act in accordance with natural law, and expect you to do the same. As to the civic lesson in that clip, mostly it was good for what it was attempting, but it was geared for the absolutely ignorant. Therefore it presents assumptions as fact, which in the long run can be just as misleading as pure ignorance. One of those assumptions I addressed above, the assumption that some people can form an organization that becomes the “rightful” authority and jurisdiction for all peoples in a specific area and for all succeeding generations, regardless of individual preference on life, and thus never needs individual affirmation ever again.I certainly agree with the placement of governments on the scale that was presented, I had that one figured out on my own by the early 1980s…..yeah I know, I am a little slow.For one thing a monarchy or dictatorship is not necessarily always an oligarchy. Stalin was a dictator who may have seized power, upon the death of Lennin, with the support of other strong men, but he quickly established his word as law, had many of those strong men who supported him killed, and then created enough separation between the men who were left alive that they then became subordinate in every way and did not dare trust anyone for fear that they would turn on them for Stalin’s favor. No oligarchy there.I see no difference between socialism and democracy, to me they are one and the same and have the same sad end results. A nation moving from republicanism to socialism is going to become democratic at least in its facade.”Without law there can be no freedom”, excellent; but it screams out for exploration. What law? Whose law? Who makes the law? Who obeys the law? Is it good law? Is it bad law? What responsibility do we have to recognize and obey bad law? Who decides what is bad law or good law? How is bad law changed in the concepts of the Founding Fathers? Can that law apply justly to everyone in all situations? What is the jurisdiction of the law? Who enforces the law? Are there standards for enforcement or is that enforcement arbitrary?

Yes once we chose or hired men to enforce our laws, and those men were close and manageable by we who hired them. Now with population growth we no longer have close observations of our police forces, much less manage them. Therefore enforcement has become increasingly arbitrary, with injustice the result. A blind repetition of “respect for the law” or a blind devotion to “the rule of law” is just another road to hell, unless the above questions are applied every single day to every single law that intrudes into every single human’s life.

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:54:00 +0000

I assume nothing of the kind. By improvement, I mean making the political agency serve the general good. That doesn’t happen because general good is kinda fuzzy, while special benefits tend to be pretty clear to those seeking them.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:48:00 +0000

Comparing Higgs to Jordan… Jordan actually got out there and did something. Higgs is clearly on the sideline telling us all how good he is. I’m sure you and Bob will enjoy floating above socialized health care and cap and trade and a VAT when it’s crammed down our throats.

By: Methinks

Methinks — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:29:00 +0000

Happy Birthday to the lucky lady!

By: Methinks

Methinks — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:28:00 +0000

Fair enough, Sam.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:06:00 +0000

On her behalf, thank you.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:35:00 +0000

Man you care way too much. You sound like someone who came up short on a wits-matching contest with Higgs and now carry a personal grudge. What you describe does not remotely resemble him–at least not his academic work.

But while you’re at it, why don’t you also hurl a similar contentless tirade condemning Michael Jordan’s basketball skills, or Feynman for his understanding of physics. It’s always amusing to watch midgets vent their Napoleon complexes.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:25:00 +0000

“substantive improvement”

Improvement implies a direction. You’re assuming you have the same goals as the pirates. They don’t care about liberty, only amassing power and loot.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:18:00 +0000

The solution is to move toward individual power and independence. The wealthier and more capable individuals are to live their lives amongst others independent of the support of other powers, the less desire and more contempt there is for anything resembling a state.

Which is why the state always moves to make people powerless and dependent.

By: Gil

Gil — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:37:00 +0000

What ‘Democracies’ were ‘tried’ prior the late 1700′s? In fact, a democracy – where the majority of the population have the vote only started to appear in the 1800s. Athenian Democracy was much closer to the Republican model of the U.S. where only free men of notable worth had the vote.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:17:00 +0000

He seems like a whiny, carping dork who specializes in non sequiturs and strawmen. He’s herpes on the body politic. I’m surprised the Boo-man prostrates himself in front of such an illogician. Barf. Who needs another self-styled, self-righteous iconoclast?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:09:00 +0000

Prof. Higgs has skyrocketed to my list of most respected living intellects in recent months. A few years ago, I had never heard of him. What a world where Krugman is practically a household name, and the few laymen who have ever heard of Higgs think he’s a boson.