May 2011 Election

[renton]

Problem?

People not constrained by the law have no incentive not to do nasty things to those who do.

The free market IS a great enabler. I am not turning back the clock. This is a world beyond the nation state, where all aspects of human life are influenced by choice and freedom rather than allegiance, imposed obligations, coercion and dictation.

No, it's the world before the antion state. You hope we can go back to individuals and small proto communities minding their own business can do so with different results, yet with all the same stimulus. If I have a big stick and have the freedom and choice to wield that big stick on my lesser neighbour, the staying of which will cost him some of his income a month, then I have the beginning of the fuedal nation. Not everyone is reasonalbe, not everyone is prepared to respect others freedoms.

It doesn't "promote" the idea of a collective defence. It allows communities to CHOOSE whether or not to have it. It wouldn't be done by "paying protection money" - this is caricature. Individuals would choose to contribute to a collective defence or to prepare their own, or if they were so inclined, could do both. No one, however, would be forced to contribute to a collective defence force, and there would be no obligation for such a force to protect those who did not contribute to it unless it so desired and self-imposed by the providers out of mutual interest.

The point you keep missing is that the discriminant feature is the nature of the levy. In an opt-in system, those who do not contribute simply don't get the benefit, rather than are expressly punished for non-conformity as happens with the state. That is what distinguishes taxation (which is theft) from voluntary financial co-operation.

yes, but as previously noted, if they choose not to pay for collective defence they surely won't be covered by it, it is after all, an opt in system. At which point they get a big stick with a nail in it shoved through their head. So long as there exists an outside coercive force, there will be an absence of choice about whether or not to pay the levy (unless you consider a big stick wiht a nail in it through the head a perfectly reasonable outcome).

No doubt, your system would work fine if imposed on a community of care bears operating in a completely sealed vacuum. Otherwise it will end up producing a collective and centralised state, as history has shown.

[drs]

I've always wondered after an election why the first person elected doesnt declare martial law and declare themself President.

[Granny Danger]

No. Without the STATE there would be no vested interest. I am at pains to make that distinction as it is always institutions that create vested interest, and as such institutions should be as restricted in their scope as possible.

In every example of a state where the vast majority have been pulled out of poverty and destitution, the market has been freer than it has been managed. It is not about protection of the vulnerable and the poor, but about what is the most effective. Artificial redistribution of wealth doesn't solve the problem, but the symptoms of poverty. Absolute individual responsibility is not only fair, but it is also necessary if people are to liberate themselves from the problems of material deficiency.

With regards to your first point - farmers are a vested interest and collectively have benefitted far more than many others in recent years. Do you ban the NFU in your wourld?

With regards to the second point - still looking for an example!

[Ad Lib]

People not constrained by the law have no incentive not to do nasty things to those who do.

Except, you know, their conscience. You clearly don't trust humanity to look after itself and that's incredibly sad.

No, it's the world before the nation state. You hope we can go back to individuals and small proto communities minding their own business can do so with different results, yet with all the same stimulus. If I have a big stick and have the freedom and choice to wield that big stick on my lesser neighbour, the staying of which will cost him some of his income a month, then I have the beginning of the feudal nation. Not everyone is reasonable, not everyone is prepared to respect others freedoms.

Not at all. The point is that when no one is coerced, it ceases to be in the interests of the possessor of the big stick to wield it like a madman. His individual interests will, in certain areas, coalesce with those of others, and as such the big stick will cease to be a weapon at all.

yes, but as previously noted, if they choose not to pay for collective defence they surely won't be covered by it, it is after all, an opt in system.

Not necessarily (as I pointed out in my previous post). Those who have provided it may CHOOSE to extend its protection to others because it serves their interests to extend that unilateral obligation to persuade them not to coalesce with others. In effect, it actually countermands proliferation of weaponry and strengthens the cause for multi-lateral disarmament.

At which point they get a big stick with a nail in it shoved through their head. So long as there exists an outside coercive force, there will be an absence of choice about whether or not to pay the levy (unless you consider a big stick with a nail in it through the head a perfectly reasonable outcome).

No doubt, your system would work fine if imposed on a community of care bears operating in a completely sealed vacuum. Otherwise it will end up producing a collective and centralised state, as history has shown.

Again, your disturbing comfort for coercion: it's not "imposed" on a community. It is made available to a community, from which they can choose from the ground up to alter by unanimous agreement the standards by which they wish to bind themselves. Those who do not agree should have the absolute freedom to exercise dominion over themselves, and be subjected to the will of no other. Nomadic existence should be the presumption in the absence of express intent to exercise common interest.

[Ad Lib]

With regards to your first point - farmers are a vested interest and collectively have benefitted far more than many others in recent years. Do you ban the NFU in your wourld?

Unions would have no force of law unless a group of persons agreed expressly to be bound by it, and even then its force of law would only be to the express unanimous consent of that community.

With regards to the second point - still looking for an example!

Compare and contrast the Soviet Union and China with the majority of post WW2 Western Europe and Canada. I exclude quite specifically the United States of America because it is a complete and utter sham of a so-called free market and one of the most protectionist and statist entities of the C20th/21st

[renton]

Except, you know, their conscience. You clearly don't trust humanity to look after itself and that's incredibly sad.

Don't be so fucking naive. Their conscience, really? That has, so far proved very effective in stemming the tide of human suffering. Particularly when it sin't backed up by large material compuslions not to.

Not at all. The point is that when no one is coerced, it ceases to be in the interests of the possessor of the big stick to wield it like a madman. His individual interests will, in certain areas, coalesce with those of others, and as such the big stick will cease to be a weapon at all.

Fantasy land. His indivdual interests may coalesce with others in certain areas, but he can quite happily coalesce them by force if he has to.

Not necessarily (as I pointed out in my previous post). Those who have provided it may CHOOSE to extend its protection to others because it serves their interests to extend that unilateral obligation to persuade them not to coalesce with others. In effect, it actually countermands proliferation of weaponry and strengthens the cause for multi-lateral disarmament.

May choose is hardly the kind of cast iron gaurentee that would make me happy to resest societal relations on. It's far more likely that the 'I'm ok, Jack' mentality will win out and some poor bugger get's clobbered unless he buys in to someone elses' protection. This has all been played out before, this is where we ahve come from to get to, today. The nation state is the expression of people's collective protection.

Again, your disturbing comfort for coercion: it's not "imposed" on a community. It is made available to a community, from which they can choose from the ground up to alter by unanimous agreement the standards by which they wish to bind themselves. Those who do not agree should have the absolute freedom to exercise dominion over themselves, and be subjected to the will of no other. Nomadic existence should be the presumption in the absence of express intent to exercise common interest.

and when pushed, nomadic existance forms into collective defence. As I've said, any outside force ruins your paradise. Or rather any force within your paradise that chooses not to live by the unwritten rule of leaving everyone else alone ruins your paradise.

You haver ecently migrated to the luntic fringe of your already lunatic party beliefs

[Ad Lib]

Don't be so fucking naive. Their conscience, really? That has, so far proved very effective in stemming the tide of human suffering. Particularly when it isn't backed up by large material compulsions not to.

It's proved ineffective because the presence of the state has fostered distrust among individuals. If you want to refer to the hunter-gatherer society, the one thing we can say about it is that people voluntarily associated and dissociated with it, and cooperation happened by desire rather than suppression. Where the state doesn't exist, humans are more trusting.

Fantasy land. His individual interests may coalesce with others in certain areas, but he can quite happily coalesce them by force if he has to.

Interests do not coalesce by force. Interests coalesce by mutual dependency. Coercion, quite contrarily, is inherently against the interests of both the perpetrator and the victim.

May choose is hardly the kind of cast iron guarantee that would make me happy to resest societal relations on. It's far more likely that the 'I'm ok, Jack' mentality will win out and some poor bugger get's clobbered unless he buys in to someone elses' protection. This has all been played out before, this is where we have come from to get to, today. The nation state is the expression of people's collective protection.

You don't need cast iron guarantees for anything at all. That's the point. If, without state coercion, society adopts universally the "I'm ok Jack" attitude, then that it is human-kind's prerogative. If the human race wants to be scum, then it should be allowed to.

and when pushed, nomadic existence forms into collective defence. As I've said, any outside force ruins your paradise. Or rather any force within your paradise that chooses not to live by the unwritten rule of leaving everyone else alone ruins your paradise.

The point is it will never and should never be pushed anywhere. This utopia deliberately weakens the prospect of force existing. At all.

Libertarianism rejects ALL coercion. Any efforts at coercion would inevitably fail because the will of individuals would be contrary to it.

You have recently migrated to the lunatic fringe of your already lunatic party beliefs

I don't associate with a single political party. Would you please stop defaming me in that manner?

[renton]

It's proved ineffective because the presence of the state has fostered distrust among individuals. If you want to refer to the hunter-gatherer society, the one thing we can say about it is that people voluntarily associated and dissociated with it, and cooperation happened by desire rather than suppression. Where the state doesn't exist, humans are more trusting.

Especially when one tribe would slaughter the other tribe out of hand. The coalescing towards larger groups, more cnetralised interests and finally the state is the story of man's brutality towards each other. That's why your belief is based on a false assumption. It assumes that everyone is nice. Everyone isn't nice. Even today in a relatively civilised and peaceful state. Those with power try to coerce those that don't. That's not the government, that's primarily the interests of big business, of a few very power hungry people who trnascend antional boundaries, and thereofre laws, and see only markets, who care nothing for the rights and dignity of those they crush.

Your beloved free market is a highly optimal breeding ground for the very people who would wreck your utopian society.

Interests do not coalesce by force. Interests coalesce by mutual dependency. Coercion, quite contrarily, is inherently against the interests of both the perpetrator and the victim.

And it exists, and it's not the state making us do it, and if it ultimately hurts the perpetrator, it tends not to stop them.

You don't need cast iron guarantees for anything at all. That's the point. If, without state coercion, society adopts universally the "I'm ok Jack" attitude, then that it is human-kind's prerogative. If the human race wants to be scum, then it should be allowed to.

Well that's just fucking delightful, absolutely stupid. I can see everyone signing up for that, Mad Max, loved it - can't wait for that to be real!

The point is it will never and should never be pushed anywhere. This utopia deliberately weakens the prospect of force existing. At all.

Libertarianism rejects ALL coercion. Any efforts at coercion would inevitably fail because the will of individuals would be contrary to it.

When in fact it is the breeding ground of coercian, becuase there is no real inbuilt protection. People start off as care bear type people existing peacefully picking berrys in the valley. All it takes is for one small group to adopt aggresive tendencies, arm themselves and push on, picking off weaker and smaller neighbours, evne if you stop them, it's only by uniting agianst it in such a way as to render the notion of rugged individualism moot in the long run. This is simply the history of what has gone before.

As it is, we live in a global society, more interconnected now than at any point in history. We need better ways, more flexible ways of enacting our will, but that will only come through collective effort, not by some reset to year zero.

I don't associate with a single political party. Would you please stop defaming me in that manner?

Sorry, your just a generalised right wing nut job who's apparanty serious poltiical and economic beliefs have no semblence left to reality, let alone sanity.

[capybara]

Is Ad Lib mixing with the wrong sort at Uni? I think we should be told.

[Reynard]

Especially when one tribe would slaughter the other tribe out of hand. The coalescing towards larger groups, more cnetralised interests and finally the state is the story of man's brutality towards each other. That's why your belief is based on a false assumption. It assumes that everyone is nice. Everyone isn't nice. Even today in a relatively civilised and peaceful state. Those with power try to coerce those that don't. That's not the government, that's primarily the interests of big business, of a few very power hungry people who trnascend antional boundaries, and thereofre laws, and see only markets, who care nothing for the rights and dignity of those they crush.

Your beloved free market is a highly optimal breeding ground for the very people who would wreck your utopian society.

And it exists, and it's not the state making us do it, and if it ultimately hurts the perpetrator, it tends not to stop them.

Well that's just fucking delightful, absolutely stupid. I can see everyone signing up for that, Mad Max, loved it - can't wait for that to be real!

When in fact it is the breeding ground of coercian, becuase there is no real inbuilt protection. People start off as care bear type people existing peacefully picking berrys in the valley. All it takes is for one small group to adopt aggresive tendencies, arm themselves and push on, picking off weaker and smaller neighbours, evne if you stop them, it's only by uniting agianst it in such a way as to render the notion of rugged individualism moot in the long run. This is simply the history of what has gone before.

As it is, we live in a global society, more interconnected now than at any point in history. We need better ways, more flexible ways of enacting our will, but that will only come through collective effort, not by some reset to year zero.

Sorry, your just a generalised right wing nut job who's apparanty serious poltiical and economic beliefs have no semblence left to reality, let alone sanity.

And yet elements of it are emerging as a force in US politics just now. People really questioning the role of the state in their lives and wanting politicians to have less say. You can't say that it isn't on the agenda just now. Whether it remains or not is another matter.

The left, with its politicians know what we want better than we do ourselves, are having to resort to their "extremists!" finger pointing pish because they are running out of steam. The left as an argument is slowly getting unpicked bit by bit. It has failed us for well over 100 years now and it will continue to fail.

[Ad Lib]

Is Ad Lib mixing with the wrong sort at Uni? I think we should be told.

I'm a Law student. Of course I'm mixing with the wrong sort! But it's not coerced; rather my own choice.

And yet elements of it are emerging as a force in US politics just now. People really questioning the role of the state in their lives and wanting politicians to have less say. You can't say that it isn't on the agenda just now. Whether it remains or not is another matter.

The left, with its politicians know what we want better than we do ourselves, are having to resort to their "extremists!" finger pointing pish because they are running out of steam. The left as an argument is slowly getting unpicked bit by bit. It has failed us for well over 100 years now and it will continue to fail.

Exactly. Now whereas I've argued here for the extreme form of non-state market-anarchism, I'm enough of a realist to know that it's as achievable as the communist dystopia at the other end. Where we draw the line at exactly what we trust the state with, however, needs radically overhauled. It has failed the people it purports to protect, by collecting up all the big sticks and whacking everyone with them. It's time to give the sticks back to the people and let them decide to use them to build a wig-wam or to hit each other.

[capybara]

I'm a Law student. Of course I'm mixing with the wrong sort! But it's not coerced; rather my own choice.

Are you going to work for the good guys or the state?

[Ad Lib]

Are you going to work for the good guys or the state?

The state. I plan to dismantle it from within.

[capybara]

The state. I plan to dismantle it from within.

Ok mind and PM me if you ever become a Sheriff.

[Ad Lib]

Ok mind and PM me if you ever become a Sheriff.

Not the legal profession might I add... I'm going to try to get into the civil service*

*irony overload

[renton]

And yet elements of it are emerging as a force in US politics just now. People really questioning the role of the state in their lives and wanting politicians to have less say. You can't say that it isn't on the agenda just now. Whether it remains or not is another matter.

The left, with its politicians know what we want better than we do ourselves, are having to resort to their "extremists!" finger pointing pish because they are running out of steam. The left as an argument is slowly getting unpicked bit by bit. It has failed us for well over 100 years now and it will continue to fail.

Just as the right has been so marvelous for the human condition. What certain elements in US politics ar enow arituclating is extremist by quite a few metrics, I think finger pointing is the least that should be expected. Indeed, for the most part these individuals are backed by big money and big business, not so much interested in people's inate freedom as it is with making sure nothing impedes the bottom line.

The left, outisde of the extreme communist regimes hasn't had a chance to fail, we've been living with the neo-liberal reality for years in the west, totally right wing.

[capybara]

Just as the right has been so marvelous for the human condition. What certain elements in US politics ar enow arituclating is extremist by quite a few metrics, I think finger pointing is the least that should be expected. Indeed, for the most part these individuals are backed by big money and big business, not so much interested in people's inate freedom as it is with making sure nothing impedes the bottom line.

The left, outisde of the extreme communist regimes hasn't had a chance to fail, we've been living with the neo-liberal reality for years in the west, totally right wing.

And lets remember when the big guys,the banks imploded it was us, the wee guys that bailed them out. Only for them to on to stick to fingers up to us.

[Ad Lib]

The left, outisde of the extreme communist regimes hasn't had a chance to fail, we've been living with the neo-liberal reality for years in the west, totally right wing.

Now this is incorrect. The left has failed by virtue of the prevalence of market economics. The collapse of post War consensus, and the expansion of the liberal free market (especially in Eastern Europe) is testament.

[Ad Lib]

And lets remember when the big guys,the banks imploded it was us, the wee guys that bailed them out. Only for them to on to stick to fingers up to us.

Government regulation of markets was so shabbily dealt with that they allowed (through vested interest) the whole economy to become horrifically overdependent on debt, and often encouraged debt as a facilitator of growth beyond healthy levels. In the truly free market, we'd have allowed the banks to fail, and only banks which operated sustainably would command the faith of their customers to survive over the longer term.

[renton]

Now this is incorrect. The left has failed by virtue of the prevalence of market economics. The collapse of post War consensus, and the expansion of the liberal free market (especially in Eastern Europe) is testament.

It's not that simple, major factors including the right ward shift of US economic theory, and it's application, the requirement to exist as something not communist(or the undesirability of being too radical or non mainstream with the US going to the right and the flag bearer for the left pointing thermonuclear weapons at you) kind of meant the suppresion of mainstream tendencies.

As for the postwar concensus, the combination of unions imperfect understanding of political fights and Thatcher also contributed to a right wing shift, which becuase of Thatcher, came at a high human cost.

Fukuyama implied that history was over, that what we had then, was all we'd ever have. Neo-liberalism to the end. I disagree, and I don't think the left has failed yet.

The biggest setback I think was in the ultimately statist way of controlling capital. As it stands, we have fought for our democratic rights, our human dignities and equalities, but to a large extent we abandon them when we go to work every monday. We surrender our control over our own rights. The left's attempt to protect the workers was to either nationalise everything, or to form strong unions. The problem being that unions are ultimately only a negative control, i.e. they can stop things happening - or try, but have no real other influence.

My own preference is for the wider scaled implementation of mutuals and co-ops. Worker controlled, but private enterprises. I feel that it is absurd that capital has all the control, I would reverse that - workers should hire capital to work for them, not the other way about. The market still exists and competition can still exist, but the whole workforce can exert positive influence, and share more euqally in the profits, instead of a few fuedal directors at the top. People, I think, if they have proper control over what they do, if they can feel like they own what they produce rather than simply doing something for someone else will react more positively, to know that what you do, that what you decide matters, is important to giving back dignity to workers.

It's been pretty stop/start, but there have been succesful companies operating on this basis. I actually feel it lends itself better to so called knowledge based economies, where smaller firms can make decision making truly democratic. We have to stop or limit transnationalism as much as possible as it erodes the basic dignities of the people it employes, it is blase about the laws of the states it operates in and are not exactly that ethical. Work should be more than simply a pay check at the end of the month, it should be about the ability to control that aspect of life, to enjopy what you do and take a joy in creating.

That's my big fluffy idea. Public franchise for functions requiring universal coverage, mutual co-ops for private business. If we are to give the majority of our life spans to work, we should have more democratic control of that work, and own that work and what we do.

Feel free to rip that apart ad lib, I've been pretty snappy with you today (hangover) for which I apologise.