Government / policing app thoughts


#21

Maybe so! However if you consider the party that’s rejecting the nation state jurisdiction as an invisible guerrilla, the whole game-plan changes. The nation state is now fighting its subject who has become an invisible shadow, well partly so. It’s near impossible for even a powerful invader to defeat a nation which adopts guerrilla warfare as a defense; reference Vietnam. Such a defense was a “just” resistance to aggression. A nation state that is seen by its citizens as protecting their rights, liberty and property is unlikely to be resisted by secession of its citizens but when that changes to a government of oppression the subject has a right to secede to another (cyber) jurisdiction, that of natural law. The present balance of global powers is multi polar but when that is challenged by notions of “full spectrum dominance” to attain a one world government of unelected bankers and intellectuals, as is presently the case, we’re facing an existential and exceptional circumstance - that of the high risk of thermo nuclear war where everyone on the planet is a loser. Alternatively if the aggressor’s financial means to wage war is removed by secession of its citizens to another (cyber) jurisdiction then perhaps all governments will learn that only principle on which they have a right to exist is to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people.


#22

I think this is a very reasonable and balanced view.

There are lots of smaller steps which can be made before we even have to consider the question of removing borders. There are many positive changes, which can provide more freedom of association.

IMO, people still default to the position of forcing others to do stuff to make their own lives better. It is essentially what democracy boils down to in most cases. Deciding that this isn’t really very civilised is the first step towards something more amiable.


#23

On right left divide as culture at least in the US it seems to break down as follows on the issue that drives power apportionment and pie slicing:

The Right: projective persecution of the poor, the poor are guilty and non virtious, “the problem.”

The center left: Believes in the contribution of the rich, supports trickle down, sees the rich as benefactors who support and uphold society with their charity. Has a leader fetish.

The left: Sees the rich as a tax on the poor and middle class, a drain on the quality of life and standard of living.

In my opion the right view is pathological and leads to poverty and instability. The center left view is deluded as it generalizes off a few loss leaders propped up by propaganda. The left view is accurate, the rich don’t contribute much and when their gain and power run away you get civil war or even global war and they don’t always survive as the populations may target them. The solution is powersharing without gross differences in wealth or power with wide spread action taken slowly based on reasoned transparent consensus where available or in inaction until it is.


#24

The problem is that to a certain extent their all right and all wrong.

  1. Many of these attitudes are based on ideologies rooted on an economy based on the gold standard not on debt based currency. Fiat currency means constantly expanding debt, growing inflation and devaluing money. You can work hard all your life and STILL lose money due to inflation. Or there’s the problem of how a debt that could have been easily paid during one generation is impossible during the next or the one after that. Food prices have gone up as has student debt.

  2. The idea of “the poor are guilty and non virtuous” is based on “might makes right”. If one has power one is blessed by God and deserves power. If one is suffering one must have been cursed by God and deserves to be suffering. Ironically this is actually the opposite of what Christianity teaches. And for a “Christian nation” or the “Christian” right to adopt this viewpoint is highly hypocritical. I would actually recommend learning the scriptures so next time you run across a Christian zealot touting the philosophy of “the poor are guilty and non virtuous” you can slap them with their own scripture. It’s not 100% but it’s always amusing. In some ways I agree, might makes right, but not in a moral sense but rather in the way Roosevelt mentioned it “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” You can’t carry out your moral imperatives whatever they may be without sufficient power to back them up and defend them.

  3. I don’t see the rich as a ax on the poor per se. I see the rich as having far too much influence on society. The ironic thing is they get that power over society through taxation and political power which the poor clamor for because they want more government hand outs and a bigger social safety net. But it’s that safety net that allows the rich to have such a hold over them in the first place! The thing is the poor should not need to be dependent on the rich in order to survive via taxation. Taxation is often a problem for the rich because they lose profits but it’s a problem for the poor because they are left at the mercy of the rich. I’m much more bothered by regulations limiting self sufficiency and decentralization or outright harmful policies like Agenda 21 than I am about whether one is a billionaire or not. The fact that Bill Gates is rich doesn’t concern me. The fact Bill Gates is a eugenacist and actively supporting global depopulation agendas concerns me.

My issue with the left is often that they feel justified in using force to carry out their agenda.

My issue with the right is they often see any collaborative effort as “group think” and shun it entirely.

My problem with BOTH is they seem to form into tribes, more so in the states, but even to some degree up here. Partisan politics is nonsense but it happens. Neither side can seem to conceive of true freedom. The notion of economic, sexual, medical, intellectual, religious, and associative freedom all existing in the same place seems to blow people’s minds. Every group seems to want to enhance some freedoms and curtail others in order to further their agenda which is why I say to hell with both the left and the right.

Those touting religion in politics are often those seeking absolute power. There is no easier way to gain absolute power than to create a God King and have the people worship him. It’s been that way since the Pharohs. You don’t need the state to practice your religion and help the people no matter what that religion might be. You only need politics if you want to compel people and have them worship you.


#25

The idea of a government hand out is the idea that the rich earned what they have, when I think we know it was poor and the middle class who did the earning. Not always but usually. And if it is a power sharing society there won’t be much concern sharing the wealth because it wont be a problem.

But I think we have had a petrol based currency in the US since we went off the gold standard and its had a lot of the same problems, it is constantly failing even without climate or peak oil concerns. We’ve had 50 years of petrol failures and increasingly extreme austerity bailouts. It wasn’t housing that caused the 08 collapse or the current push for protectionism in the US, it was petrol it is horribly economicallt in efficient.

Very, very very telling statistic petrol stations in the US declined by 16% between 1994 and 2004- that wasn’t fuel economie standards! And now petrol will be dead before 2022 when the cost of battery backed solar will be cheaper than the cost of transmission even over almost lossless superconducting lines.


#26

See this is where I struggle with the left position. How do you prove the rich haven’t earned their money? There seem to be a couple big objections to big money.

  1. Corporate welfare where businesses are granted subsidies by the government. But any libertarian or anarchist will tell you that there shouldn’t be any subsidies of any kind because that interferes with the free market. It also means taxation which is coercive.

  2. Inherited wealth. Well technically they didn’t earn it BUT the wealth was in fact earned at some point. And it is one’s right to pass on one’s wealth to one’s children otherwise what’s the point of working and gaining a fortune in the first place? You want to create a better world for future generations and increase wealth for your children if not for yourself. No one’s consent was violated. Inheriance is essentially a gift.

But what I don’t get is the argument about earning your wealth coming from a standpoint of someone arguing for social benefits derived from taxation.

If wealth is justified only if one earns it oneself then how does that work out for the welfare recipient?

If wealth can be granted as a gift or government ocial benefit then why do you have an issue with the rich?

If it’s a matter of coercion again doesn’t that affect all tax funded programs not just corporate subsidies?

What I don’t get is saying it’s okay to have a small business subsidy but going crazy over a big corporate subsidy. Or getting an inheritance from grandma after she dies and leaving her recipient $100 and then getting upset about a billionaire passing their wealth onto their kids.

In essence I don’t see how one can argue the rich haven’t earned their wealth without also attacking the current social safety net paradigm. Now I’m straight up against taxation. I believe social safety nets can and should be funded using voluntary means or made obsolete by promoting self sufficiency. And I do not support government manipulations of the market on a small or large scale. But then I don’t have an issue with someone being rich either. I have more of an issue with money in politics than I do with whether one has money or not. I have issues with the use of coercision.


#27

I think its like this, if one captured money as a slave master that shouldn’t be inheritable. As for welfare its the collective inheritance. As for small business subsidizing it puts pressure on monopoly, fosters competition and spreads opportunity- its a playing field levelor…


#28
  1. If one’s ancestor was a slave master that is irrelevant because being a slave master was culturally acceptable during the time they would have owned slaves. Forbidding one from inheriting because one’s ancestor profited from something that was at the time culturally acceptable, and now is not, is essentially propagating the ideology of being damned for the sins of the father. We don’t lock people up for the things their parents did so it’s irrelevant how the money was earned beyond the fact that it was aquired in free trade. Let’s even go farther and say you had an ancestor that was a pirate and left you his treasure. The treasure was stolen, literally, from raids on ships. But the inheritor has no control over that and gained the wealth consentually. Is the son responsible for the crimes of his father? Is there any way for the son to know how his father, great grandfather, or ancient ancestor, made their fortune, from whom they got it, and somehow make recompense for any misdeeds? No. What if a woman works illegally as a hooker. Does that mean she should have to forfeit her profits that she would otherwise give to her child, either while she is alive or dead?

  2. Please define “collective inheritence”. Inherited by whom and from whom? Welfare is derived from taxation which is a form of theft. If you find one should not be allowed to inherit from slavery how can one inherit from theft?

  3. You postulate subsidization is a playing field leveler? Ah well I’m sure big corporations really need their corporate welfare then and need the playing field leveled in their favor. See you can’t argue for subsidies for small business and then argue against subsidies for big business. If the government can interfere in the economy it set a precedent to give out funds to ANY business big or small. A business that cannot support itself should be allowed to fail and be replaced by a competitor. We don’t want to have government handing out favors because there are businesses that are “too big to fail” now do we? What do you think all those trade deals are about?


#29

There is no gov like no gov.


#30

No finders keepers doesn’t work. Should the relatives of dead Nazis be able to keep the gold their dead relatives literally extracted from the bodies of dead jews (about 1oz gold per 1000 creamated people) ? And because of finders keepers no less?

The rich are a tax on the poor and middle class. And advantage for small business is called equal opportunity and speaks to the value we place on human development. If the rich had to pay the person doing the work the greater sum in every transaction and if it were balanced equally skillful contracting behind each tranransaction on both sides then fine, but probably wouldn’t be wealth inequity very long, but the rich don’t pay people enough to become competitors. That is to say they don’t pay the fair rate. The rich can fend for themselves.

Finders keepers arguements are might makes right arguements. He found the loaded gun first and now he is pointing it at as and its his right now to be a psychopath and no one better interfere with him now because if we found the gun first we wouldn’t want anyone to question our right to be a psychopath. Do you see the issue?


#31

In a word, YES! Finders keepers, also called homesteading when it comes to land. I found this spot of unused land so I’m keeping it. You might have had a case back during the war when the Nazi’s picked the gold out of the ashes of the Jews BUT not after they passed on the wealth to their kids. Again that’s promoting the idea the children are responsible for the sins of their parents. Not to mention who would you reimburse? Even during the war HOW would you identify whose gold teeth belonged to which pile of ash or what family they belonged to? They weren’t tracking family lines, they were lining them up like cattle for slaughter. Moo. You don’t track if that there cow has a fowl that might inherit her cowbell. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m saying how would you go about the logistics of it even if you wanted to? And it’s definitely no right to blame the kids for what their parents did. I had a friend who was actually the great niece of Hitler himself who had no clue about anything that happened in WWII. Nothing. Total ignorance. She was also Metis! Hatred is a LEARNED behavior, it is not GENETIC and therefore just because one’s grandfather or father is a bigoted asshole doesn’t make oneself a bigoted asshole nor does that mean one’s children will be either. So where do you get off citing Nazies as an example of why one generation should pass liability onto the next?

And by that definition the middle class are a tax on the lower class. Tell me if Jack has $100 and Jill has $50 and John has $20 what compels John to give a percentage to Jill or Jill to give a percentage to Jack? Is Jack holding a gun to Jill’s head? Is Jill threatening to lock John in a cage? Simply having more money than someone else is not a tax. A tax is when the state uses violence to compel you to give up a percentage of your wealth to them.

" If the rich had to pay the person doing the work the greater sum in every transaction and if it were balanced equally skillful contracting behind each tranransaction on both sides then fine, but probably wouldn’t be wealth inequity very long, but the rich don’t pay people enough to become competitors. That is to say they don’t pay the fair rate. The rich can fend for themselves." What if you were compelled to buy locally handcrafted goods instead of shopping at Walmart or Cosco or whatever store you prefer. What right do you have to dictate what either the buyer or the seller charge for their product? You’re putting all this liability on the rich but the rich don’t get rich on their own. People have to AGREE to work or sell to them at that price. I’m more opposed to incorporation and limited liability than I am to people having more money than me because limited liability means that one isn’t personally held accountable for one’s own actions. Even on the SAFE network one’s account would gain and lose reputaton based on one’s actions.

“Finders keepers arguements are might makes right arguements. He found the loaded gun first and now he is pointing it at as and its his right now to be a psychopath and no one better interfere with him now because if we found the gun first we wouldn’t want anyone to question our right to be a psychopath. Do you see the issue?” No since might makes right requires a victim to have had their stuff taken from. Now if he STOLE the gun from someone or bashed them over the head to get it you might have a case. But if he found it lying on the ground? That’s abandoned wealth and he has the right to claim it. He’s not doing violence to anyone by taking it. Same as if he found a patch of unowned land and decided to build a house and farm on it. That’s called homesteading and is another valid form of gaining ownership of wealth. He who creates owns. If you find unowned stuff it’s yours. You can’t argue it’s might makes right because there is no one to assert might over as the stuff was unowned therefore there was no owner to assert might against.


#32

The logistics was very easy, it wasn’t gold teeth but the gold element assimilated in food. And just as you wouldn’t allow the Nazi the unjust enrichment in the first instance you also wouldn’t allow them it in the second instance where they sought to benefit from passing on what was not theirs to take in the first place. If someone robs you house and well still living tries to give the stolen property to their children its still stolen property. So clearly its not finders keepers. There is no right to exploitation or to take advantage of others, its low EQ stuff and its a kind if violence that leads to physical violence.

With the gun example the value in the gun is not the point. its the resultant coercive power. And there is no winning by dice role. Although ancient Greek democracy would pick the next limited term leader by casting lots (transparent dice role.) I think you might be missing the enclosure aspect that money leverage affords which is really related to the extent of limited liability (a risk exchange for the public good in potential- which can be overcome by design,) point you were raising- its a version of although less passive. To get this think of a bunch of wealthy thug land owners with the following argument “yep your teenage sister is destined to work in our whore house and service us because after all she is poor and it is our right to pay off everyone who she might otherwise work with, its not our fault its her looks that are to blame, we’re just exercising our rights and no one has a right to look into it or stop it, he who has the gold makes the rules and we have it and these are our rules.” Now given these guys, because this is where it goes, how much do you think they actually contribute to the transactions they are involved with? I think the rich are a vice, a tax on society, which cannot generally be afforded and a huge liability. Societes oriented to the rich are impoverished disempowered societies subject to violent revolutions.

When Torvalds was asked why he didn’t cash in he said it was essentially because he came from a society where people had enough- he wasn’t like someone who spent their childhood with a swollen stomach for lack of food so he didn’t grow up to have it always on his mind. To have the comparatively rich I think you need the poor, much better to have everyone with what they need and most people with everything they want they a minority who impoverish everyone else. In a totally voluntary society especially in the face of automation there won’t be much wealth disparity although everyone might be quite well off. The wealthy are too often like raising the price of everything with no value added. Whatever power money is allowed to afford needs to be used wisely and justly. You can’t have people saying I own all the land under this town I am the law because people say easy we will collectively get rid of you to solve the problem.


#33

How do they benefit, they’re dead?! That’s how inheritance works. Someone dies and passes on their property to their successor. So how does the person that died benefit if they’re dead? Second yes I would allow it because I wouldn’t hold the successor liable for the acts of the benefactor.

Point of order. If someone robs my house while I’m still alive then I’m alive to press charges and lay claim to the stolen property. If I’m dead on the other hand I’m not alive and cannot claim it nor can I press charges. And if I’m alive I would be charging the guy that robbed me not his children. It doesn’t really matter if he gives my property to his children or takes it to a chop shop and resells it. He’s still liable for the value. But say he stole my car or tv and took it to a chop shop, sold it for scrap car parts or electronic componants. The guy that buys the parts wouldn’t know the parts originated from hot merchandise so wouldn’t be liable. The owner of the chop shop maybe, maybe not depending on their relationship but at the end of the day it’s the thief that’s liable for the value of my property. Not his children, not the potential buyer of the parts, just him.

So to get back to the original scenario you’re proposing the children, who were not responsible for the death of the jews or the method of the aquisition of the gold thereof, be held liable for wealth that was passed onto them. Even though there is no direct claimant or living heir, or even a way to track the identity of who the gold was stolen from specifically. In essence you want to hold the guy who buys scrap metal at a chop shop responsible for the original robbery even through he has no clue about or involvement with the original theft.

Low EQ my ass you’re suggesting blaming an innocent party for the crimes of another. The benefactor of an inheritance is not responsible for how the wealth was aquired. Not to mention the fact the entire holocaust was entirely legal so at the time none of the Nazies were committing any crimes by taking the gold in the first place! It might have been immoral but it wasn’t illegal! So you have no grounds to deprive someone now of their wealth based on a legal act that took place several generations ago.

Of course the value of the gun is the point as we’re discussing property rights and the right of one to keep their property. One is not taxed based on one’s violence potential but rather one’s monetary income. Besides it’s up to the individual how they wish to employ their own stuff. A gun by itself doesn’t do anything. You can use it as an elaborate paperweight or stick it in a display case. You can use a computer to break into a bank or you can use it to play starcraft. You can use your hands to caress or punch someone in the face. Simply because one owns a gun does not mean they will do violence. Simply because one does not own a gun does not mean they are peaceful. There are many ways to kill without employing firearms.

Let’s be frank here. You see having money and the freedom to act as being inherently coercive because if one has freedom and someone else does not then that means one has power to act while the other does not. But an inequity of power is not in itself compulsion. A bear has far more raw physical power than i do and could kill me in a heartbeat but there is nothing compelling the bear to do so, especially if i act non threatening. Likewise if I have a gun I could shoot the bear from a distance but thee is again nothing compelling me to do that. Having the power to do something doesn’t mean you are compelled or are compelling someone to do something. People don’t all use their power in the same way.

Well given they are providing the whorehouse and dishing out all those bribes, which everyone is accepting, they are contributing quite a lot of lucre. And given the populace is accepting of their money they are in fact endorsing such behavior. But of course they’re overlooking one obvious loophole: Self employment and entrepeneurship. The sister could screw the entire system by being a freelance whore and going directly to people’s homes, thus not working for anyone but herself. Also one could start bribing the populace themselves or threatening those that take said bribes thus increasing the cost to the land lords by increasing the amount needed to bribe people. Or you could simply leave town. Or gain your own bit of land and compete with the land lords. But in no way have they actually compelled anyone so the people who chose to take the bribes are still liable for the society they’ve opted to create.


#34

Sorry, can’t enable theiving or even Nazi thieving and clearly you can see being able to pass on a stolen good could be a substantial motivator in a theft. You don’t want to encourage that. And regardless of whether the property is fungible or not the children will have to return stolen property, and cannot be enriched by it. It would be the same if the thief donated the goods to the general public. It would have to be returned.
Motive and means matter, means are ends in themselves. It also matters not whether the thief can be identified- it goes to impound if not.

“The Holocaust was perfectly legal…” to be charitable I know you hate the idea of “the law,” but the Nazi system was no model even for “the law.” Even Der Furor had problems with some of it (apparently not with mining jews themselves for their minerals) but with practices like this: Sorry, Johnny Aunt Ruth was put down last week at an out patient proceedure because the Dr. deemed her a burden on society. But I do see the similarities between teaparty type Libertarianism and Nazism so the concern is not lost on me. “Holocaust totally legal” to be fair is still laughable beyond belief, even if someone thinks the victims got what they deserved, legal and Holocaust in the same sentence is a no go to say the least. I think it is fair to say that nothing is legal under a dictatorship except its destruction by the most expedient but peaceable means available.

As for property rights, property is never central but secondary at best. This property centrality crap is brainwashing from rich oppressors.

But lets also be frank “and someone else does not have freedom,” that is acceptable? “If one of us is not free none of use are free” is my opinion to quote Soloman Burke. But as for the arguement of power not corrupting on its own, do we give five year olds nukes?

As for the sex slave, there are no negative contributions. And the typical serf under these economic tyrants would have no more ability to oppose the afforded non opportunities tthe thugs allow than the
girl who would rather die than hook and being property could never cut out the usurper middle men thugs. And part of enclosure has always meant property can’t leave the jurisdiction if tyrrany.

Part of the problem (nothing wrong here) with the low EQ perspective is its hard for people to see that they are stuck in it. But reality tends to abridge the rights of those glued to this type of perspective, which provides a learning curve. Life seems to be about the subjection of maturity to immaturity. First we experience immaturity from the inside out through our own youth and at some point if we find ourselves in a mature state we experience youth from the seeming outside in and recapitulate it from that state. Id say the silliness of IQ is almost inversely proportional to EQ to the extent that IQ is almost surperflouse relative to the full development of the human condition. IQ is like spare compute cycles or visual acuity, its cheap, instrumental and caught up with notions of necessity arising from chance, its circular. Its besides the point, a distraction from the issue, but people initially take this distraction (calculator approach) as everything. Life is not a puzzle to be solved, its really just remembering the truth about yourself. Its inevitable. Don’t do things to people they don’t want, and don’t do things to people you wouldn’t want for yourself unless they want it and ask for it. Be kind to yourself, and don’t judge yourself or others, be humble enough to admit you don’t know in a way that allows judging.


#35

So when are you going to start deporting the descendents of European colonists of North America back to Europe? Or Asians back to Asia or Africans back to Africa? By your logic pretty much anyone who isn’t First Nations or explicitly signed a treaty and is abiding with the spirit therein (which is to say no modern government) should have their assets seized and be kicked off the continent. Same with Australia for that matter or many areas in South America.

I see punishing an innocent party as a greater evil than trying to punish a corpse. So Yes I CAN let the thief get away with passing on his goods to his children. And yes it DOES matter very much if the thief can be identified. If it goes to the impound you’re basically transferring ownership to the state. If the impound sells it then you are actually letting the state make a profit on the theft instead of letting the children keep it so there goes your moral high ground. If someone steals food to feed their children you aren’t going to take the food from the children in order to punish the parent unless you’re some kind of sadistic bastard psychopath. If the thief is dead then that’s the end of the case as far as I’m concerned. You don’t carry on and punish his kids.

“But I do see the similarities between teaparty type Libertarianism and Nazism so the concern is not lost on me.” U.S. Tea Party types often strike me as too theocratic to be true libertarians. But Libertarianism has nothing in common with the fascism of the Nazis. The former is based on voluntary interaction, the latter is riddled with coercion and state control.

One moment you’re talking about law and justice and the next you’re saying that it doesn’t matter the holocaust was legal. Seems the law only matters to you when it suits your philosophical position. I never said the law during the Nazi era was what should be the law. I said that it WAS the law and that even if you didn’t have to worry about things like a statute of limitations expiring you couldn’t prosecute someone under the law, at that time, for something that was legal. Your premise is to prosecute someone using current law for actions in the past that were legal under a different set of laws which is entirely nonsense. Now if you were going to try and prosecute someone today under current law that would make sense but trying to say that a Nazi’s children should be prosecuted for something that was done all legal and proper at the time is complete bunk! No I’m not a fan of the law but I’m also not a fan of illogic and inconsistency.

"I think it is fair to say that nothing is legal under a dictatorship except its destruction by the most expedient but peaceable means available. "

Ah so I take it you think all classrooms should be democratized or something? Warren I think you’ll soon find power concedes nothing.

Here we completely disagree. Property is the central issue. What you do with it is secondary and up to the individual.

I was speaking in your metaphor. But yes since they have not yet EARNED that power, that freedom. And to use your comment about the 5 year old with nukes that’s precisely WHY people have to earn their power through trade and competition. To keep the 5 year olds armed with simple pocket knives until they can handle something stronger. The simple fact is that we live in a universe with limited resources which means in order to have higher quality of goods we need a meritocracy. That means competing for resources. So while everyone is equal in value and everyone has the same inherant rights and ability to choose they do not all have the same power afforded to them. I don’t care if someone has more money than me so long as I’m free to utilize whatever resources I do have with my own discretion and am not subject to government regulations and artificial limitations.

Yes but if the thus are known and treating the populace badly the serfs may rise up with their torches and pitchforks and burn them at the stake which is what has happened in the past. That’s why reputation is important. And clearly since we have overcome tyrants and economic monopolies before we know that they can in fact be overcome.

You started this post by proposing to use force by the state to punish the innocent for the crimes of their ancestors. You then went on to talk about prosecuting people in todays systems for their ancestor’s legal actions. You then went on to suggest that ownership of property wasn’t the core issue at all, which it is. If ownership of property isn’t the core issue then what is it? How people feel? But that implies that ownership of property should be dictated on the collective moral compass than on individual rights of ownership. Which I totally disagree with, if you own something it’s your right to do with what you will so long as you aren’t hurting anyone. If you hurt someone THEN it becomes their business but not before. You then went on to say a dictator has no legal rights but should be eradicated using peaceful means. But our society is filled with dictatorships. But even so if you’re facing a true dictator you don’t try peaceful means you just shoot the bastard. And finally you think it’s acceptable to use violence because not everyone has the same amount of power when you started this whole post criticizing theft which is utter hypocrosy!


#36

What right of ownership (?) there is no such thing. If there are such things as rights property dispite the inequity justifying stupidity that Locke brought in about intermingling comes way later and is utterly derivative of other concerns or rights. I don’t give a damn about morals but I do belive ethics exists and is obvious and binding to those with sufficient maturation and insisted on by them. It is not a matter of a moral compass.

I think if it came down to it, it would be better to wipe out a person’s physical existence than to allow them to abuse others with money or wipe out the existence of money. I’d rather have the state and all that that implies than have wealth makes right even if the state has been a prime enabler of that type of abuse. This idea of I have more money than you so I get to tell you what to do should be met with death.

A system where wealth implies no political or coercive power is the only system worth having even at the cost of the imposition of harsh equality along the dimension of wealth.I don’t have any problem with the wealthy forfeiting the vote and being barred from polutical influence. Want your voice back- toss your wealth or seal it away in a true blind trust.

No you don’t earn power through trade and competition, that would be the height of stupidity. You say Monsanto and IG Farben have earned their power? Skill at trade or even competition is not proof of virtue that qualifies for power.

As for punishing Nazi’s grandchildren, although I don’t have too much of a problem with class reparations , in that case its just denying the use of stolen property, if its a problem, then work or rely on welfare or charity.

I also don’r care about how much wealth people have, Id actually like them to have as much as they need to be happy. But in a scarcity situation like we have on the planet right now there has to be vigelence. No creating artificial scarcity or settling for it.


#37

Yes there is a right to ownership. It’s simple. He who creates owns. You can also gain ownership by homesteading, finding abandoned wealth, or by engaging in voluntary trade. That’s how one aquires wealth in a voluntary society.

Money = power = might. I find it ironic you are proposing a system of might makes right in an attempt to abolish might makes right. You propose to use violence and might in order to force your ideology on others in protest of how you see them “forcing” themselves on others. Even if one was to play into your viewpoint for a moment the irony is quite clear. You’re no different than the thug buying out his competition, except you want to kill your competition.

Again this is an oxymoronic statement as the state is a prime example of might makes right. Might makes right has been how the state has functioned since the beginning of time and still functions till this very day. And having more money than someone else DOESN’T give them a right to tell you what to do nor does it give them a right to tell you how to spend your money. Having wealth gives you more options but it DOESN’T give one the right to compel another.

Well I agree with you that we need to get money out of politics banning them from voting seems rather futile. An easy way to get around your little “imposition of harsh equality” would be for the rich to defund all businesses and institutions that were unfavorable to them and donate heavily to those that were thus creating cats paws out of the lower classes. But essentially what you would be proposing would be to create political second class citizens out of the rich. Why would such a system be advantageous for the rich? Why would they go along with it and not have their political rivals assassinated?

Actually yes you DO earn power through trade and competition. Anything else is violence and/or mediocrity. Take away voluntary exchange and you get theft. Take away competition and a meritocracy and you get a much lower standard in quality. I dispise Monsanto but I’ll say this no one is forcing anyone to buy their GMO food. People are doing that all on their own. I have more of a problem with the fact there are laws against urban agriculture thus creating competition with Monsanto. Or that there aren’t the same regulations on labeling GM food that there are on labeling the components in your mattress. We have regulations for listing the ingredients in a mattress, or soap, or cosmetics but not our food? Strange isn’t it? If there are no regulations for food why are there regulations for all those other industries? It wouldn’t be imposible to create a decentralized voluntary reputation system to review products and vendors. Also worth noting what with all the boycotting of Monsanto their stock is falling. Yet another example of the power of being responsible with your money and voting with your wallet. People aren’t seeing value in Monsanto and so aren’t buying their stuff.

You have a problem if someone robs someone’s house to pass the money to heir children but you don’t have a problem if the government points a gun at someone or threatens to lock them in a cage to extort money out of them to give to those same children. Yeah something wrong with that picture. Keep in mind your impound is also funded by such extortion and theft, and anyone working is subjected to it. And the money for charity has to come from somewhere.

Here we can agree to a good extent. I find artificial scarcity to be completely ludicrous. We have enough real scarcity to deal with without creating artificial scarcity using the legal system. But that does NOT negate the value of voluntary interaction or voluntary exchange. It simply emphaszes the need for adaptation and creativity. Honestly we don’t really have a scarcity issue on the planet right now. What we have is a resource management problem. There’s plenty of energy, food and materials but they are often not in the right place at the right time.


#38

To be fair Warren I agree that if you have power you should use it to help others but that ultimately is one’s choice. And we must remember that what people are honored for in our culture is HAVING rather than GIVING wealth. Laws can be broken and really mean nothing at the end of the day. I don’t think it should be a question of how to compel people how to behave in any given fashion but how to motivate them so they want to behave in any given fashion of their own accord. If you believe the rich should share their wealth then take the emphasis off having wealth from the get go and honor those for giving wealth. That way one gains more honor and power by distributing wealth rather than hoarding it. And at the same time no one’s consent gets violated in the process.


#39

I agree substantially. It is in giving that we receive, especially where there are no strings. To try to control another is to enslave the self. Friendship is the only viable option or workable framework.


#40

Instead of socialism you might look into gift economies. Changing the motivational emphasis of wealth aquisition rather than the distribution method might make all the difference. If people want to give away wealth rather than hoard it then it doesn’t matter if they give it away evenly or in big lump sums because everyone else will also want to distribute it too in order to gain their own measure of honor. Socialism and capitalism are actually two horns on the same goat, like love and hate. What really is the opposite of capitalism is a gift economy, which is why societies that promoted it were targetted for destruction by capitalist societies.