Anyone interested in philosophy/politics/psychology?

[jetpack42]

When people talk about an Utopian non-violent society and say that that is
impossible they aren't telling the complete story. It is true that with current
rules and social constructions violence is a necessity.

An Utopian non-violent society is impossible because the social constructions
we have put our faith in and trust as true need it to exist. I think that if
you do dream of a non-violent society you should put your efforts in deconstructing or
radical complicating these social constructions.

I think that the question that spur this discussion is wrong in the first place.
'What do you want to replace it with' should have been 'what will it be replaced with
and can we influence this process?'
I don't think that current society's are or ever will be the end of history.

(responded by paragraph quoted)

1- The initiation of violence is only necessary to continue the exploitation of most of the people on the planet. You can't force people into ponzi-schemes like Social Security or the US Dollar and then let them opt-out... that's bad for business.

2- That's why I've written the book.

3- I addressed that above in saying it's not so much a replacing of one system with another, as the dissolution of monopolies, without which, more natural and peaceful methods of living together would arise. Nothing about my ideas is Utopian, even though you have referenced it as such, because I don't believe there will be NO violence. There will always be evil people. The argument isn't that people are perfect (from my point of view). Evil people have a tendency toward state power. As displayed comically in this brilliant movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mugRSdjdMi4

Americans imagine that the State provides security, but it only does so at the expense of a lot of other people; most of whom are innocent. If the corruption and oppression were removed, so would be the illusion of security; then people could get about creating lives for themselves, instead of the lives the state allows them to have (on both sides).

[jetpack42]

For those of you who are of the opinion that monopolized governments must exist for social order, to prevent against evil and it's associates...

Funny, I was just doing dishes, listening to a podcast, and this was the next one up. Stefan Molyneux does a good job of cheekily revealing the flaws in the argument (first 15 minutes or so) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BqA1aBk-qA&feature=plcp

[jetpack42]

And for those who think monopolized violence in the form of police is no big deal, I present to you a piece of evidence that I'd like to call "the violence you never see, but exists none the less"... http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/3...while-bullying

[Harmageddon]

I'm sorry I did not read the entire thread, but I'm definately interested in politics/philosohy/psychology.
Of course, since I used to run a role playing game (D&D) it helps to create a believable world for the players
if you have some kind of basic understanding of these elements of human life.

I believe people should know it's there, so they can choose to ignore it if they want.
Then again, most people are too dumb to realize they are being imprisoned in a Jersey Shore like reality.
(or some other superficial, hollow, degrading lifestyle) and they actually stay there voluntarily.
The movie the Matrix kind of touches this idea in an epic way.

Anyway. I'll drop by later when I have more time.

[D.Labruyere]

I think your error, here, is this-- societies "in nature" are NOT "completely violent." Rather, society/government exists to mitigate the inherently violent tendencies of humankind so that the greatest amount of peace and good may exist for the greatest number of people in those societies/governments.

Thought Experiment: If D.Labruyere is a peaceful farmer eking out a living in the Hobbesian State Of Nature-- a place where there are no courts or Deputies to drag malefactors to court-- he becomes a law unto himself-- the Glock .40 on his hip is all that stands between himself and those other denizens of the State Of Nature who might steal his crops, rape his woman, murder his children, and set him to a state of chattel bondage.

In Social Contract Theory, those residing in the State Of Nature relinquish the ability to deal out violence to the violent-- one on one-- for the greater security of a civil State that promises to maintain order so that the citizenry might go about its business of making a living without each citizen having to constantly look over his shoulder to stave off the onset of evil.

I have some problems with Social Contract Theory. There have been quite a lot of feminist arguments against the reliance of social contract theory on this economic man. This liberal person, that is a rational individual before he even enters society. He is gendered and seems to portrait a rather specific person in history.
Also, this economic man fails to give us any meaningful moral relation between people. Seeing human relations as a simple cost-benefit contract between two people who can identify themselves only as one type of person is an impoverished view of our complexity .

Because a social contract is so reliant on both people entering the contract being this economic man its main purpose is not to include people into society but to exclude those who are the other. It excludes women, children and people with another race, essentially preventing pluralism, one of the key factors for a good and healthy democracy.

[Kamber Parrk]

* * *

I addressed that above in saying it's not so much a replacing of one system with another, as the dissolution of monopolies, without which, more natural and peaceful methods of living together would arise. Nothing about my ideas is Utopian, even though you have referenced it as such, because I don't believe there will be NO violence. There will always be evil people. . ."

jetpack: No offense taken.

I do believe you are confusing/conflating "violence" with "force." Violence-- "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence. . ." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence

We can't "throw the baby out with the bath water"-- yes there are corrupt and/or violent cops-- but, overall, I think our system of laws works pretty well here in the States. (We certainly have nowhere near the level of corruption and violence of Mexico or Columbia.) Re abuses by American law enforcement, I see no justification for scrapping a couple hundred years of some of the most humane and effective government on the face of the planet.

D.Labruyere: Yes, Social Contract Theory has its problems. But, it's generally considered an underlying principle upon which the legitimacy of Western democracy is built-- voluntary consent of the governed.

The cops and the courts-- controlled by statutes passed by the legislature which is elected by the people-- ARE creatures of voluntary consent in our Western democracies.

If we take Thomas Hobbes' theory as a controlling aspect of human nature, jetpack's goal will fail. If the existing institutions were somehow undermined to his satisfaction, Hobbes tells us that human nature is to fill the void by cedeing some amount of control to some mutually agreed upon "sovereign" so that force may be effectively brought to bear against enemies both "foreign and domestic."

[bill618]

Also, this economic man fails to give us any meaningful moral relation between people. Seeing human relations as a simple cost-benefit contract between two people who can identify themselves only as one type of person is an impoverished view of our complexity .

Because a social contract is so reliant on both people entering the contract being this economic man its main purpose is not to include people into society but to exclude those who are the other. It excludes women, children and people with another race, essentially preventing pluralism, one of the key factors for a good and healthy democracy.

Just to add--a quote from E. O. Wilson’s book ‘The Social Conquest of Earth’, from the chapter ‘The Origins of Morality and Honor’:

“Our species is not Homo economicus. At the end of the day, it emerges as something more complicated and interesting. We are Homo sapiens, imperfect beings, soldiering on with conflicted impulses through an unpredictable, implacably threatening world, doing our best with what we have.”

“In a constantly changing world, we need the flexibility that only imperfection provides.”

[Kolbenito]

Not looking to start a flame war, but this man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxXy7n8CVAM) is the only guy making sense to me any more.

[JFierce]

Just going to reply to my little bit on the topic of police since no way I'm reading all that's in this thread right now no time lol. Either way I'm enjoying the discussion.

I also have lived all over the country, and having had this experience, it is clear to me how absurd it is to imagine all people following the same laws, as they do now. The same is exhibited in countries that fracture along ethnic lines despite being straight bordered leftovers of colonialism.

So you're saying that since you haven't encountered police brutality, it's not a significant problem? Or you're saying that this is no big deal? http://www.policemisconduct.net/ This whole concept is allowable because of the monopoly of violence, which is the point of the argument. A monopoly of violence is evil.

Oh no police brutality is certainly bad and steps need to be taken with it, but your still putting it in a way where it seems like A) it's rampant and still portraying cops in general as mindless zombies of the state and B) making it seem like "because police brutality happens in areas in this country, then therefore the government is bad". When I still could probably type in any country. Any country on this planet in simply google which surely doesn't have every news article or source and there would be links to articles and reports on police brutality. Every country has this issue.

Like I've said before all society has two universal points, these are the most simplistic ways I put society it's an immensely complex topic but all societies have protection and service which as Kamber pointed out I believe if there is no sort of law enforcement or government to stop violence then it's up to the farmer and his gun to protect his family while on the other side if those same people abuse their power then it's oppressive. and communal law being the other point which is pretty obvious.

If anyone with power can abuse it (and history shows that almost everyone with power has) then why would anyone with a working brain agree to giving people in power MORE POWER? Doesn't that defy common sense? And that's the point.

Well I typed something but then I realized there's two sides to this. The physical side aka weapons and the political side aka the laws. I typed long paragraphs but then I also realized that for every long paragraph you get two long paragraphs in return. I'll just state it as it's a viscous cycle no matter what. On the physical side if local government only has pistols and someone comes in with machine guns they're either usurped or get away and then get machine guns themselves so something bad doesn't happen again. Societies have done that locally and even on the grand scale until we're at the point where we could blow each other up. Law wise it's similar, there's an issue in an area where a school shooting or something happens the public freaks, suddenly these schools over here have metal detectors or camera's. Many laws happen in reaction which is an issue with corruption or setting up an incident to sway public opinion into changing a law etc or slipping a law in. But that's another topic entirely past where I wanna debate lol.

This is a forum, and the argument is very simple, but can get quite complex. Slavery is wrong. If using force against other people is wrong, then it needs to be stopped. Who is going to enforce all that stuff you mentioned? Each person will decide how to enforce it. There's plenty of theory available on decentralized systems, but before we can discuss it seriously, we'd have to agree that centralization is wrong. For example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw

Of course slavery is wrong though it's a bit of an exaggeration imo using that term, since slavery by definition is people being bought and sold for work while there are variations it usually deals with forced labor or being treated as property which I simply just don't agree.

But my whole spiel is since your suggesting new types of society or how it should change. How is society B) going to prevent problems A through J while also dealing with problems K through Z that society A) deals with already. Since most of these problems your bringing up aren't just in centralized governments they're in human society/nature as a whole.

Edit: Didn't see the part about every one will decide how to enforce it. I'm sorry but that just sounds like chaos, unless someone expands on it.

[jetpack42]

Of course slavery is wrong though it's a bit of an exaggeration imo using that term, since slavery by definition is people being bought and sold for work while there are variations it usually deals with forced labor or being treated as property which I simply just don't agree.

But my whole spiel is since your suggesting new types of society or how it should change. How is society B) going to prevent problems A through J while also dealing with problems K through Z that society A) deals with already. Since most of these problems your bringing up aren't just in centralized governments they're in human society/nature as a whole.

Edit: Didn't see the part about every one will decide how to enforce it. I'm sorry but that just sounds like chaos, unless someone expands on it.

I've already made the point that maybe society has dealt with these problems....for you. Who is endless monetary inflation serving? Who is the drug war serving? Who is the endless foreign entanglements serving? Who is the Patriot Act serving? Who is the mainstream media serving? Who is the housing collapse serving? Who is the crappy economy serving?

As you answer those questions, (if you're remotely honest) you'll see there is a consistent few who continually benefit from the vast mechanisms of "society". Why? Because they maintain monopolies and everything funnels upward.

As for your comment on "that sounds like chaos until somebody expands on it", I already posted a link to one theoretical discussion if you are interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw This deals with how law and law enforcement would be not-centralized.

Of course, the first thing anyone says is "Well, without the current system everyone would just be throwing molotov cocktails at each other!" which is absurd. When the tsunami wiped out sections of Japan, were people running around throwing molotov cocktails at each other? The structures in society broke down. No, they started working together as efficiently as they could, and they would continue to do so if centralized governments didnt step in and play sides against each other, as always happens in the modern world now.

One man's chaos is another man's freedom. Believing that people are so horrible that they need to be managed by the same horrible people that need to be managed....is nonsensical.

[jetpack42]

We can't "throw the baby out with the bath water"-- yes there are corrupt and/or violent cops-- but, overall, I think our system of laws works pretty well here in the States. (We certainly have nowhere near the level of corruption and violence of Mexico or Columbia.) Re abuses by American law enforcement, I see no justification for scrapping a couple hundred years of some of the most humane and effective government on the face of the planet.

Relative to whom? Compared with whom? You should read "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn, and it'll disabuse you of the mainstream media notion that our government rules by holy, divine right (and better than so many, in such a righteous way compared with others). If you're going to use Mexico and Columbia as examples of horrible places, you might as well toss in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. Many central/south American countries have been crushed by the United States opening up foreign markets and exploiting local populaces for OUR benefit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_...change_actions to pretend otherwise is either ignorant (literally, not knowing) or dishonest. Che Guevara wrote about the crushing hand of the United States in his motorcycle diaries, back in the 50s.

You're right to say one of the most humane and effective... for the top 20% of United States citizens. And much of the rest of the planet (Africa, parts of asia, the middle east, much of the american continents) have been despoiled and crushed under the weight of empire, to allow (20% of) 3% of the population to use 40% of the world's energy, enjoying lifestyles of luxury. If you don't SEE the empire that the basis of your comfortable lifestyle is built upon, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it exists. Why do we have bases and troops in over...120 other countries? Would we tolerate foreign bases here? Why are we launching drone assassinations in other countries, would we tolerate other countries drone assassinating our citizens here?

If you don't believe in the empire now, you will in 1-3 years when the currency collapses, the emperor is revealed as naked, and the country is plunged into real chaos.

Yes, Social Contract Theory has its problems. But, it's generally considered an underlying principle upon which the legitimacy of Western democracy is built-- voluntary consent of the governed.

Social Contract Theory is sophism at it's best. The man credited with the term (Rousseau) even said, in his book (The Social Contract) on the matter:

"This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution.

The clauses of this contract are so determined by the nature of the act that the slightest modification would make them vain and ineffective; so that, although they have perhaps never been formally set forth, they are everywhere the same and everywhere tacitly admitted and recognised, until, on the violation of the social compact, each regains his original rights and resumes his natural liberty, while losing the conventional liberty in favour of which he renounced it."

Strangely, I never hear that quoted. Instead, people take "social contract theory" as you're using it to mean, quite literally, anything and everything. Born into slavery? Too bad, that's your social contract. Born on the wrong end of empire? Social contract, bro, it could be worse. Born into a family being crushed by poverty? You signed the social contract.

The "social contract" is simply flaccid logic that ruling powers promote in order to justify anything. It's quite ridiculous.

[jetpack42]

Then again, most people are too dumb to realize they are being imprisoned in a Jersey Shore like reality.
(or some other superficial, hollow, degrading lifestyle) and they actually stay there voluntarily.
The movie the Matrix kind of touches this idea in an epic way.

The Matrix (the first movie) is perhaps the greatest documentary I have ever seen.

[jetpack42]

Not looking to start a flame war, but this man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxXy7n8CVAM) is the only guy making sense to me any more.

That's because he's one of a few people willing to discuss actual issues. Most politicians talk about broad emotional topics, but Dr. Paul is a scholar, and willing to discuss something real, instead of emotional platitudes of "change" and "recovery".

[Velocity Kendall]

I like living in the UK, we dont have a constitution, yet so long as I dont hurt anyone or kill a swan Im pretty much free to do persue my interests, sleep with whomever lets me, and live my life free from interference. Its alright. Its not perfect, we have to tow the insane War on Drugs line the US insists on with all its allies, but meh. The superb near future thriller and political allegory Children of Men was intensely frightening exactly because this unspoken traditional code of decency and freedom had been destroyed by desperate men in power.

"The Matrix (the first movie) is perhaps the greatest documentary I have ever seen."

Your tone isnt that of the professor of modern history well versed in Toynbee and Taylor, more the internet chatboard polemicist whos watched Loose Change and Zeitguised one too many times and thought "I can do that!"
Get with the fucking program: this is perhaps the greatest documentary ever made The World At War


If thats too heavy I recommend the Democratic Statecraft lectures Yale has kindly uploaded to Youtube.

[JFierce]

Tsunami /=/ Changing government. A natural disaster people come together, everyone was hit hard by something completely out of their control. Not the same at all.

Edit: And the irony of that comparison is in many other places for minor disasters where the police or anything is gone what does the public do also at times? Loot and pillage the shit out of everything in the area. Because they can get away with it.

[Kolbenito]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8TkmE5t1Pk I feel like that summarizes what a growing number of people love him and his message for, and why the media avoids him.

I don't think any party or government actually sets out to be evil. That doesn't make any sense to me. The way that governments become evil is in efforts to protect the people and live up to the demands of the most hardline supporters. The Nazi party is the most extreme example of this and is pretty terrifying to realize these people did not start out as stone cold killers with a list of atrocities on their agenda. Giving up a few freedoms to protect all of the others is necessary for any society; we can't allow things like Drunk Driving for example. The danger is that something is always happening in the world, and if we give up something every time to protect us the balance of freedoms can shrink out of existence

The U.S. gets itself in trouble continuously with policies intended to protect the people that end up doing damage for generations. Whoever came up with the idea of selling $5 magnets for cars and implying that you can't support the troops and disagree with the way they are being used was an evil genius. Sadly the only people who seem to get this are veterans and active duty military and their families.

Some day I'm going to head to the UK and take a lengthy painting and pub crawl vacation. I'm sure it seems silly to someone who lives there but that history and landscape is just amazing to me. I don't think the U.S. and U.K. are too different in a macro way. Our Constitution is an interpretation of the Magna Carta and our legal system is heavily influenced by English courts. We don't have Jeremy Clarkson and we can't make decent cheese or beer though.

[Velocity Kendall]

But at least you dont have Jeremy Clarkson.

I love America, I think my tally is 25 states so Ive seen about half the country, and have a deep affection for it and its peoples. But I always come back to England, its expensive and rains a lot, but its safe, boring, pretty, occaisionally sunny.
I live in Cambridge. Come visit! Got some great pubs!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eagle_(pub)

[Kolbenito]

But at least you dont have Jeremy Clarkson.

I love America, I think my tally is 25 states so Ive seen about half the country, and have a deep affection for it and its peoples. But I always come back to England, its expensive and rains a lot, but its safe, boring, pretty, occaisionally sunny.
I live in Cambridge. Come visit! Got some great pubs!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eagle_(pub)

Exactly the kind of place I have to see and loiter over a pint or two

[jetpack42]

I like living in the UK, we dont have a constitution, yet so long as I dont hurt anyone or kill a swan Im pretty much free to do persue my interests, sleep with whomever lets me, and live my life free from interference. Its alright. Its not perfect, we have to tow the insane War on Drugs line the US insists on with all its allies, but meh. The superb near future thriller and political allegory Children of Men was intensely frightening exactly because this unspoken traditional code of decency and freedom had been destroyed by desperate men in power.

"The Matrix (the first movie) is perhaps the greatest documentary I have ever seen."

Your tone isnt that of the professor of modern history well versed in Toynbee and Taylor, more the internet chatboard polemicist whos watched Loose Change and Zeitguised one too many times and thought "I can do that!"
Get with the fucking program: this is perhaps the greatest documentary ever made The World At War


If thats too heavy I recommend the Democratic Statecraft lectures Yale has kindly uploaded to Youtube.

I loled.

[jetpack42]

Tsunami /=/ Changing government. A natural disaster people come together, everyone was hit hard by something completely out of their control. Not the same at all.

Edit: And the irony of that comparison is in many other places for minor disasters where the police or anything is gone what does the public do also at times? Loot and pillage the shit out of everything in the area. Because they can get away with it.

I used it as an example where "order" was disrupted amongst relatively orderly people, and chaos didn't ensue, because the automatic assumption is that chaos will just break out any time the benevolent overlords are keeping people from each others throats. The ultimate point isn't the system, it's the people. But this cannot be addressed without also addressing the system.

You're right. Common examples are Somalia or other African countries. There's reasons for this, however. If we had a place that was ruled by gangs, and we just eliminated the leaders, or changed the "system", you still have a bunch of gangsters who are STILL operating as gangsters IN THEIR MIND.

I addressed this in the book. Wait, I addressed this in the dedication, before the book even started, and in the introduction, AND in the conclusion, and throughout. It's not JUST about the system, but about the people in the system, and the way the system affects the people (and the other way around).

But, as I was accused of demonstrating earlier (and did), and you've repeated my mistake, it's simple to take something grandly out of context.

Cheers to our imperfections.

[Velocity Kendall]

I loled.

Why??

[jetpack42]

I don't think any party or government actually sets out to be evil. That doesn't make any sense to me. The way that governments become evil is in efforts to protect the people and live up to the demands of the most hardline supporters. The Nazi party is the most extreme example of this and is pretty terrifying to realize these people did not start out as stone cold killers with a list of atrocities on their agenda. Giving up a few freedoms to protect all of the others is necessary for any society; we can't allow things like Drunk Driving for example. The danger is that something is always happening in the world, and if we give up something every time to protect us the balance of freedoms can shrink out of existence

If you prefer to watch a comedic interpretation of how governments are designed around evil intentions, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mugR...feature=relmfu

Or Socrates discussed "governments setting out to be evil" at the end of The Republic. Essentially, it boils down to this: What do you get from going into politics? Money and power. What kind of person desires only money and power? Generally, an evil person, since good people don't set out to control others. So the kind of person you'll have in governments, so long as the rewards are money and power, are evil people. And so the fictional, nebulous entity of "government" may not set out to be evil, but by design, it attracts evil followers, turning itself evil.

All of human history since the book was written attests to the accuracy of his observation.

[jetpack42]

Whyy?

Why not? You presented superficialities of your life as evidence of...comfort? Freedom? Threw in a few ad hominem attacks, and maybe a useful link (which I'm interested in checking out)... I'm looking forward to listening to a couple lectures, but there's not really anywhere else to go with that.

[Velocity Kendall]

"What kind of person desires only money and power? Generally, an evil person, since good people don't set out to control others. "

Ha ha?
Oh wait you're serious. Using words like evil without even a hint of irony... Ive read more nuanced political analysis in the Bronze Age philosophy of the Bible.

Ive a question, are you in any way qualified in psychology, or political history, or is this just soapboxing based on your time on the internet?

[Kamber Parrk]

Relative to whom? Compared with whom? You should read "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn, and it'll disabuse you of the mainstream media notion that our government rules by holy, divine right (and better than so many, in such a righteous way compared with others). If you're going to use Mexico and Columbia as examples of horrible places, you might as well toss in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. Many central/south American countries have been crushed by the United States opening up foreign markets and exploiting local populaces for OUR benefit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_...change_actions to pretend otherwise is either ignorant (literally, not knowing) or dishonest. Che Guevara wrote about the crushing hand of the United States in his motorcycle diaries, back in the 50s.

You're right to say one of the most humane and effective... for the top 20% of United States citizens. And much of the rest of the planet (Africa, parts of asia, the middle east, much of the american continents) have been despoiled and crushed under the weight of empire, to allow (20% of) 3% of the population to use 40% of the world's energy, enjoying lifestyles of luxury. If you don't SEE the empire that the basis of your comfortable lifestyle is built upon, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it exists. Why do we have bases and troops in over...120 other countries? Would we tolerate foreign bases here? Why are we launching drone assassinations in other countries, would we tolerate other countries drone assassinating our citizens here?

If you don't believe in the empire now, you will in 1-3 years when the currency collapses, the emperor is revealed as naked, and the country is plunged into real chaos.



Social Contract Theory is sophism at it's best. The man credited with the term (Rousseau) even said, in his book (The Social Contract) on the matter:

"This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution.

The clauses of this contract are so determined by the nature of the act that the slightest modification would make them vain and ineffective; so that, although they have perhaps never been formally set forth, they are everywhere the same and everywhere tacitly admitted and recognised, until, on the violation of the social compact, each regains his original rights and resumes his natural liberty, while losing the conventional liberty in favour of which he renounced it."

Strangely, I never hear that quoted. Instead, people take "social contract theory" as you're using it to mean, quite literally, anything and everything. Born into slavery? Too bad, that's your social contract. Born on the wrong end of empire? Social contract, bro, it could be worse. Born into a family being crushed by poverty? You signed the social contract.

The "social contract" is simply flaccid logic that ruling powers promote in order to justify anything. It's quite ridiculous.

Zinn's book is a horrid piece of Blame America First twaddle.

America's real or imagined sins against other nations, e.g. Cuba, don't refute the fact that the USA is one of the safest countries in the world with one of the highest standards of living. 20%? Good Lord! One of the downsides of being poor in America is suffering from obesity!

Post WWII, America's huge military presence in other nations served as a check against the U.S.S.R. I'd be perfectly happy if the British, Germans, Turks and other people of the world just asked us to leave. (They wont.)

What evidence is there that the currency is going to collapse within 3 years?

S.C.T. is a theory of how and why governments arise. But, you have no use for Government! But, a recent real world "experiment" in voluntary anarchy failed-- Occupy Wall Street. It "voluntarily" disintegrated into irrelevance after people got tired of standing around in public parks in the same underwear for several days while utterly failing to even articulate a coherent message. If a few hundred stinky neo-hippies in West Lake Center can't even intelligently communicate what it is that they're belly-aching about, how are you going to use the same methods of "organization" to run a country of 315 million Americans?

[jetpack42]

"What kind of person desires only money and power? Generally, an evil person, since good people don't set out to control others. "

Ha ha?
Oh wait you're serious. Using words like evil without even a hint of irony... Ive read more nuanced political analysis in the Bronze Age philosophy of the Bible.

Ive a question, are you in any way qualified in psychology, or political history, or is this just soapboxing based on your time on the internet?

Well, you've certainly debunked all of my points by dismissal based on a random personal opinion (your preference for something else), and then saying "papers, please?"

Textbook avoidance. What qualifications would satisfy you, professor? You're welcome to discuss ideas, if you have any, or keep up with the feeble attempts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[jetpack42]

What evidence is there that the currency is going to collapse within 3 years?

1- Occupy is nothing more than a bunch of kids getting together to complain the park, instead of sit on the couch at home. I was at Occupy Seattle a dozen times from when it first started. Your comparison to any voluntaryist society is nonsense in almost every sense, except in the sense that they organized themselves in ways that ended up working fairly well. Or you're saying that police (a monopoly of violence) coming in and beating non-violent, peaceful people demonstrates the failure of voluntary principles? This is baffling.

2- So you've read Zinn's book? It's historically inaccurate? Or you didn't like his tone? You prefer a much gentler version of history? Do you have a logical complaint with it? Or you just want to call it names?

3- I've left as quote a great question, one that more people should be researching. As a start, I will suggest this http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=40366

In short: debts are mounting. Debt is being downgraded. The FED has become the buyer or last resort, meaning, the lending from other countries is slowing. And it will continue to slow as the economy slows. This means that the dollar is coming to the cliff. More dollars will have to be borrowed to pay for all the unfunded liabilites; soon they will not be able to be kicked down the road. Once the govt cannot borrow, the FED will have to print money like crazy to cover what used to be borrowing, or they will have to default (on the military budget, on social security, on medicare, medicaid).

When a ponzi scheme comes to an end, it implodes. This is the essence of the housing collapse of 4 years ago, only this time it is going to be the currency.

If you'd really like more info, I can present plenty of links to economist sites and so forth, but I'm not going to bother finding them all if you don't want to read them. Come back in 3 years and tell me what you see, no joke.

[Kolbenito]

If you prefer to watch a comedic interpretation of how governments are designed around evil intentions, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mugR...feature=relmfu

Or Socrates discussed "governments setting out to be evil" at the end of The Republic. Essentially, it boils down to this: What do you get from going into politics? Money and power. What kind of person desires only money and power? Generally, an evil person, since good people don't set out to control others. So the kind of person you'll have in governments, so long as the rewards are money and power, are evil people. And so the fictional, nebulous entity of "government" may not set out to be evil, but by design, it attracts evil followers, turning itself evil.

All of human history since the book was written attests to the accuracy of his observation.

I think there are two types, thankfully. Those who desire power (majority) and those who want a better society/world (minority). As long as there is some kind of balance it works. Money I'm not sure I agree with as much. People in some position to assume power/office usually have the money. At least in the U.S. a lot of them are already pretty well off if not millionaires before even running for office. Being Senator so-and-so doesn't hurt their opportunities to get richer though I'm sure.

In my view a small clunky government where nobody agrees and hardly anything gets done is just fine and how democracy should work even if it is frustrating to listen to. It's the super organized well oiled machines where everyone falls in line that you have to watch out for. Get one of the "evil bastards" running the show and that is when it hits the fan.

[JFierce]

I used it as an example where "order" was disrupted amongst relatively orderly people, and chaos didn't ensue, because the automatic assumption is that chaos will just break out any time the benevolent overlords are keeping people from each others throats. The ultimate point isn't the system, it's the people. But this cannot be addressed without also addressing the system.

You're right. Common examples are Somalia or other African countries. There's reasons for this, however. If we had a place that was ruled by gangs, and we just eliminated the leaders, or changed the "system", you still have a bunch of gangsters who are STILL operating as gangsters IN THEIR MIND.

I addressed this in the book. Wait, I addressed this in the dedication, before the book even started, and in the introduction, AND in the conclusion, and throughout. It's not JUST about the system, but about the people in the system, and the way the system affects the people (and the other way around).

But, as I was accused of demonstrating earlier (and did), and you've repeated my mistake, it's simple to take something grandly out of context.

Cheers to our imperfections.

Yes and I pointed out it's a flawed example simply. Your example was that without 'the system' chaos wouldn't ensue 'here look at japan' was your example no? Except that nothing happened to these "overlords" as you call them. The government was pretty much in tact and helping with relief. Actually it's funny because when the earthquake in japan happened I remember every news article, every status update and comparison was about how odd Japan was for the lack of looting. People were actually analyzing it. Many say it's just japanese culture.

If anything that's a testament to Japans society which is parliamentary democracy I think or something along those lines. It's certainly not a normal societal reaction.

----------------------------
This is going to be long..... video was long so ya know can't help it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw

Youtube wasn't working for me. So I'm watching this video of The Market for Security. It's long I don't know if I'm going to watch it all. I'll watch as much as I can have time for or if it covers all the points I've asked.

Probably just going to type as it goes along. So far he's talking the actual defense and how the law is the hard part. I already disagree with him and his suggestion for how defense contracting would be the easy part. Seriously? Hiring out defense contracts from individual groups? How is that not going to be chaotic are you kidding me? This type of enforcement would just be like hiring a gang of mercenaries. Who's going to even look over that type of enforcement and make sure they don't just grow in power behind closed doors? Who would really think a large bunch of private defense corps would not get out of hand? He hasn't gone into the law part but especially going to be terrible since there is no form of perfect law. What about all the issues that happen off the record. What if the defense contracted people use excessive force? We think police are bad with a bit of power who's going to stop abuse from a 3rd party? Another 3rd party? Yeah that will work..... Oh don't worry the market will regulate it people will stop going to those people for business. Orrr.... people WILL go to them because they use excessive force. Sure hope these type of people don't bust into my house from an arbitrators decision that this guy got without my knowing. What are you going to go to another arbitrator for a case against the defense contractors? How fun. Better hope you have irrefutable evidence.


Next is the part of law I suppose. He's talking about 3rd party arbitration instead of courts. What about when the people refuse to go to a 3rd party. Most people never agree to go to court, they're dragged to it. In fact in all the times I've seen people going to court it's almost never mutual. He went into a section where "Oh then I'll just go to a judge then myself". What about forged evidence, or skewed cases. Guess I'll go to a judge that will favor me and get that decision. Then there's the issue of who's going to trust a 3rd party from being incorruptible? Someone says 'hey we're going to this arbitrator', pst.. oh yeah by the way he bought him out under the table. But don't worry his decision is law since you've agreed to it. The market wouldn't regulate which arbitrators are good and not. People would go do judges they think would rule in their favor so then people would rarely ever decide on an arbitrator unanimously. This system wouldn't lead to an impartial justice system. It would lead to a backdoor private market with corrupted arbitrators. Especially on a grand scale. He keeps saying "Oh well this reputable judge, who's renown blah blah blah oh yeah he's never made a bad ruling". Bullshit. No such thing. Not for when your deciding on law or justice. Who's going to decide if he's reputable the customers or his colleagues and other arbitrators. Not like there are people in the private market that behind closed doors network to do illegal things legally. The concept in general feels ridiculous. An economy for justice. Yes because the market and economy are so just and fair...... He has yet to get into detailed responses to actual serious issues like Murder. Rape or things that actually plague people instead of ridiculous examples of TV thiefs.


Now he's getting into 3rd party prisons. Once again... ridiculous..... Yes I want to trust a corporation with murders and rapists. Oh don't worry they won't let anyone escape these people are on the line, their reputation is at stake............ ..... ........ Yeah.............. .................. Unless they were bought out and this murderer conveniently escaped and got away with murder. Seems like a fun little way for people to assassinate others with money and if they get caught get out of it with more money.

Now he's getting into foreign defense, missiles etc...... .. I'm done at this point...... Oh don't worry you won't have huge standing armies. Just a shit ton of smaller groups with access to missiles and devastating weapons but don't worry they may be on hook for a billion dollars. Oh whats that another country bought them out for 5 billion came in and took over our entire society.... .. oh.... ... fuck..... Sure hope these companies with all this fire power are incorruptible or hope they don't get the scientific knowledge to build a fucking nuke. Oh don't worry you'll buy another 3rd party to fight them. The world will be a fun place with a bunch of mercenaries fighting proxy battles.




This is just sounding ridiculous and full of "what if's" or "this may work in this situation if everyone does this". Problem is everyone won't do that. and things may not work like that and things are never as black and white as he's putting it. These are based in it may work situations and based on "the market will work it out".

[Kamber Parrk]

Calling Zinn's book a "piece of horrid Blame America First twaddle" is "name calling" like calling grass "green vegatative material," or perhaps, more aptly, like calling Dianetics a "bunch of huckster con-man gibberish!"

But, I am cursorily familiar with it in the way I am with, say, The Satanic Bible or perhaps The Protocols Of the Elders Of Zion. . .