Yes, I could and it would be legitimate, however I won’t as I do recognise that though a choice, it is not a pleasant or easy one. So let’s just look where the unfairness lies and investigate if it could be improved somehow?
OK…so who’s fault is it that you were born in the USA? Where would you have liked to have been born and why weren’t you? Who’s fault is it you weren’t born in your country of choice? Can you see how you have exactly the same issue as every other living creature on the planet?
Just like other mammals we are territorial and squabble over territory. To avoid wars between small groups, over time we have as groups populated various lands that together we have agreed to work together to protect and help the population flourish.This is how property rights have been established by an agreed law. This is why free movement will not work,90 odd percent of the population will not agree with an open door policy. It sounds nice in theory but definitely won’t fly.
The only legitimacy here is the state’s authority to herd it’s cattle with laws and guns. I am still failing to see why restricting free movement is necessary, except to keep the poor out and the productive in. It would be a terrible loss to a state’s revenue if it’s tax base moved to a competing state that was providing a better/more desirable service.
Your point being? Yes parties A and B would obviously be in conflict. So what?
Are you daft? We never left fiefdoms and kingdoms. We still go to war over oil and drugs for crying out loud. War in Afganastan, war in Iraq, war in Lybia or Syria, have you heard of them. They’re over oil, gold, drugs regardless of what the media would have you believe about terrorists. America is located on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONTINENT! They DO NOT have to fear invasion. Which means any long standing war or occupation is about resource gathering because that’s the only way to pay for a bloody war. The U.S. uses the conquest model of the bloody Roman Empire. On top of it our bloody legal system is built on the premise that our very legal persons to which we ascribe all our legal property rights are creations of the state and therefore property of the state and therefore CANNOT OWN ANYTHING but merely HOLD PROPERTY belonging to the state. From a legal perspective YOU ARE A SLAVE and CANNOT OWN ANYTHING!!! So do not tell me we are not still operating as fiefdoms and kingdoms because we still bloody are it’s just a whole lot more pretty now and hidden away behind a lot of legalese that most people don’t bother reading. Wake up.
When you look at the planet do you see lines on it? No. Borders are a fictional construct. YES I bloody well do advocate the free movement between and utter eradication of borders. So what if poorer people want to move to a more prosperous area? That should be their choice. And don’t talk to me about “free trade” I utterly despise that term. Ever since NAFTA was introduced it’s been hell. Any “free trade” agreement is anything but. It’s just another excuse for the government to regulate, restrict and spy on it’s citizens and for corporations to rake in more money at the expense of everyone else’s freedom. There’s no free trade at all in “free trade” agreements. Also consider that open borders work BOTH ways. You could go to that poorer country, buy a bunch of stuff and go home. Or maybe find a nice beautiful spot there and set up a summer home. Just because it’s a third world country doesn’t mean the land sucks.
You seem to think the only way to function is to use a law and coercion. Why not, as we are suggestion, decentralize the territories and use a voluntary approach? If you run into someone’s territory you ask permission to enter/cross it or you go around. Some would of course say no, some would want you to pay a fee, some would have no issue, some wouldn’t even be home and some areas would be completely vacant. You’ll have a hard time selling to me the idea that in order to avoid a war we need state border laws. Human beings are naturally territoral yes but they are also naturally adverse o war. So why should I care if someone crosses someone’s lawn across town? The only thing I care about is if they try to enter my home.
So,you recognise the legitimacy of the authority then?:
I would say the Corporations/Banks are doing this, by re-shaping Govt as a tool for their own ends, rather than the population’s.
You need no other reason. Why not start a political party in your country with a manifesto to import the third world into the first, - I reckon you’d be able to count your supporters on one hand. The answer is to spread the wealth and help the third world populations develop in situ - not move the populations to the West.
If one is well off enough to pay tax and afford to move to greener pastures, then I don’t see what’s stopping one. The only hurdles would be A) finding a greener pasture,and B) meeting whatever requirements the inhabitants of the greener pasture have in order to join their society.
Seriously,there are basically two realms being conflated here. Cyberspace and the real world are different in nature. One has borders and one doesn’t. We would have to create a working cross border cyber socio-economic model first that would over time effect change in the real world. This would need a sort of Universal tax functionality built in,otherwise we’re back to being reliant on charity for supporting the vulnerable.
TBH, I think starting a political party based on de-centralising Govt decision making and functionality would be the way to go. As @Traktion mentioned there is very low turn-out for elections…let’s say 50% - to my mind this means the system’s"Blockchain" is open to a 51% attack metaphorically speaking. I say let’s start orchestrating such an attack
It matters not whether you are from the Left or Right, there would be no ideological manifesto in this regard- only to devolve and de-centralise powers and agree ways forward on an issue by issue basis as far as possible - rather than voting for a job lot of one particular set of policies.
The first action of such an elected party would be to list the various policies of the other parties and people could take them as a pick and mix buffet. I often find myself liking some aspect of a party’s policies, but preferring another’s in another area.
Basically,the de-centralise party would then employ politicians etc to enact the agreed policies in a very transparent way using blockchain etc. Basically we would want to create a society whereby the more power/authority vested in you, the more transparent you are. Power becomes synonymous with transparency, whereas lack of “power” becomes synonymous with privacy.
OK, that’s my madcap plan off the top of my head,so please feel free to rip it apart mercilessly…as I’m sure you all will…lol…
I’m not saying I agree with that viewpoint, but in a certain framework it could be a legitimate argument. How about claiming discrimination against gay people? I believe that would count as aggression, right? In the end though it was just an example that though liberty is a simple word, it can be a complicated concept.
An especially interesting aspect of liberty on a not-just-us-who-kinda-already-have-it scale is whether we are willing to pay the price of the freedom of others, e.g. start owning up to the hidden costs of our cheep gadgets and clothes and coffee and chocolate and toxic waste: pollution, literal or virtual (e.g. economic) slavery, on the other side of the globe (or in our neighborhood, for that matter.)
Borders are just one way to tell you what’s not yours.
I would say the cause of war is usually greed, sometimes survival necessities. If there’s somebody with greed and enough power to impede on someone else’s right, there will be a war. If there’s somebody who’s not willing to die because they have not what they need to survive, and can’t get it any other way, there will be a war.
As for borders, they are not made, they emerge. You’ll find them between street gangs, crime organizations, wolf packs, etc. just as between countries and states and counties, you and your street neighbor, one apartment and the next door, your desk and your collage’s desk, or your beer and your buddy’s on the counter. Some are more formal, some are less, but borders are everywhere, and we like them. Or, we just hate others interfering with our life more than we are willing to allow them.
When the fight is for territories (or resources that an area holds) the subject of the war will be the border; it does not make it the cause, however, and getting rid of the concept (if you could!) would not solve anything.
[Edit: it seems to me that the whole SAFE thing is about making a specific kind of border (“I will not show you this” a.k.a. privacy) stronger against those who have a track record of violating it, may they be governmental (e.g. NSA), commercial (e.g. Sony), or personal entities.]
I personally don’t think refusing to provide a service can be aggression or denying freedom, for whatever reason. It may not be a nice thing to do, but the alternative, forcing someone to provide a service he or she doesn’t want to, that is without a doubt aggression.
This is the fundamental difference between @Al_Kafir / @Tim87 and the liberty view point. They think force is OK as long as the means justify the ends.
I don’t., but nor do I see this “force” either - it appears to be that you and others (let’s affectionately refer to this free market, no borders, no tax group as the “Ant Hill Mob” henceforth shall we?)
Your main objections seem to revolve around the alleged coercive nature of either Democracy or the Tax system, whatever, it is a highly arguable technical point and coercion cannot be avoided in life - it is a matter of degrees and we would want the least coercive system possible - not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Massive harm is not caused from this esoteric interpretation of a coercive nature, whereas massive harm, disputes and wars would automatically arise from the chaos created by alternative systems proposed here.
The alleged coercion does not risk the planet being raped and plundered and polluted by the fat cat 1% in the way your “free market” ideologies do, nor does a tax system risk the lives of the vulnerable in the way a no tax system would.
I don’t agree with your ideology, but at least we understand each others view points.
Coercion is a choice and can be avoided if liberty is made a priority. If coercion is used by others, then self defense is needed to preserve liberty. If liberty is to be preserved the default cannot be aggression.
Edit: with a decentralized society with free movement, both sides can have their way.
Just intended as jovial banter really rather than making fun. It’s enjoyable,like a game of Pool (for me anyway) - come on I take as much as I give in the same spirit and appreciate when I get brought down a peg or two…its funny. (again to me anyway).
I would also describe myself as Libertarian and see no contradiction with anything I’ve said. Even Libertarians have to be pragmatic.
I would say Liberty is still a priority,but we can’t go directly to a Libertarian Society working within the current paradigm - I would say we have to be pragmatic and look at a realistic workable road-map to it. I suggested one way.
Lol…I dispute that there is coercion, or more precisely that it appears to be near the minimum possible for a Society to function cohesively. Self -defence is indeed necessary against aggressors but it is far from clear how the level of coercion is ridiculously high or constitutes an act of aggression that would warrant self-defence in the way I think you mean it.
How would you realistically make such a huge Societal shift/evolutionary leap overnight/in one bound,given the environment you are working within. What are the steps you would take -what would the roadmap be?
Lol…how can somebody advocating the de-centralising of the state, it’s powers and functions - and giving consensus back to the electorate be a “Statist”?
Edit: I’m a de-centralised statist - or in other words, a Libertarian…
I agree with you one hundred percent. This will not happen over night and probably not in my life time. The only way the transition will happen is to change the mind set of the people. In order to do this we must educate the masses and stick firmly to our message of liberty.
I just don’t believe aggression is the way to accomplish this goal.
I’m not sure where you got that from. On another note, I wouldn’t want to blur the line between “they think force is okay” and “the means justify the ends.” Using reasonable force is okay (even necessary) in many cases, but it’s very different from saying the means (“everything goes”) justify the ends (“it’s for a good reason”).
But I wasn’t talking about that anyway. I was simply trying to show that, depending on one’s point of view, the same situation can be interpreted in multiple ways, of which some might be universally “more correct” than some others, but it’s not necessary: two views can be equally valid within their own framework, while being invalid in the other party’s framework. In other words, what considered aggression by one party might be thought of as reasonable measures (e.g. self defense) by the other. Try to “stand your ground” Texas-style in Daegu, South-Korea with righteous indignation, and you might end up in jail for life.
So yes, definitions are important. However, whose definition is the right one? Whose job would it be to decide? I believe most cases are simple, but it doesn’t matter because most conflicts aren’t about the simple cases. It’s usually when somebody’s idea of what’s right contradicts somebody else’s in some edge-case scenario, when both parties feel offended, when they both cry “but I’m right!” We’re talking about global, right? Then it is crucial to realize this.
(random musing: why do we expect everybody to be so happy about democracy? who are we to force freedom (or, our definition thereof) on anybody?)
Let me politely disagree:
Then, let’s say, “orange is the new black.”
I added a video with the title “The Pitchforks Are Coming” yesterday. It’s a TED talk by an obscenely rich person who argues that the wage gap situation, caused, ironically, by the state’s not taxing the obscenely rich well enough, is around to the point where things like the French revolution happened. I find it interesting that Mr. Plutarch doesn’t differentiate much between a state-sponsored inequality (France back then) and a free market based inequality (today). I believe it’s because there’s no meaningful difference.
Progressive taxation may sound unjust, because why should somebody pay a higher portion of his income (or, heavens forbid, pay taxes after his property) just because he has more. However, having more is in and of itself an enormous advantage, because one can survive virtually anything (save his own stupidity) that would drive someone much poorer bankrupt. That’s why casinos are a good business even if the odds are even: the bank always win.
I was thinking a lot about the role of state and all. I never really worried much about it, so thanks for the inspiration My conclusion is that it is extremely important to have the state (or something else inherently non-commercial) with authority over commercial entities.
People organize into groups, then groups organize into greater group, and so on. It seems to be happening in all levels: families, circles of friends, businesses, states, nations, alliances, etc.
The reason I find this important is because each layer is that of protection: not only does it protects itself (its members) against other similar groups (e.g. a country against aggression from another country) but it also protects each of its own members from the rest of the members. I argue that, in order to be able to fulfill this role, each layer of organization structure (e.g. the state above the business) must have significantly different priorities than the one below it, to avoid a conflict of interests.
If we consider nation states as the level above commercial entities as well as individuals, then its clear that, apart from defending itself from other nation states, it’s primary role is to defend its members from other members. Removing such a layer from the cake saying “businesses will regulate themselves” sounds like wishful thinking to me: why on earth would they want to do something that contradicts their interests? Call it “state” or idk what, there needs something above the commercial layer that is not commercial by nature.
I do agree that the state does a really bad job, that it gets corrupt, that it’s a huge mess, etc. What I don’t agree with is that the problem is with the structure. I believe the problem is with the powerful, state or business, grabbing onto more and more power, and abusing it. For which I can’t see a solution, because the one who could solve it is the one who is doing it, the one who has no interest in solving it.
I think it’s stupid and insulting, but not aggression or denying freedom, considering it likely was a private building. The owner misses potential customers so he punishes himself for his own stupidity.
