Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
How Capitalism Help Build Socialism or..........
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 808905" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Stop doing it yourself first. Don't do it to other people, don't use force, aggression of fraud. Not a easy task but if people stop doing all 3, tell me what then is the purpose of the state?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>In one sense, there are none. Even self organizing groups and societies form some manner of centralization but it comes down to a matter of scale and being voluntary. Think in one sense about gov't if you will as you do about the various private businesses you deal with. One day you may shop for goods at store A, the next day at store B and the next day at store C. Your decison is based on a variety of reasons from price, quality, selection or just convience. But what would you say if you were told that from now on you were forbidden to shop at Stores B and C and that Store A now held exclusive monopoly? Would we hear the old cries of Robber Barons and Monopolists and the need for Anti Trust but in the case of Gov't we hear not a peep. What if gov't had to actually compete in an open market to get your business, to pay taxes and to support various general services? </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Last question first. I know of no "non-corrupt centralized gov't" at all. Lord Acton principle (Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely) as I see it is empirical in the human experience. The only chance a smaller scale central gov't might have in avoiding a lot of this would be complete and total transparency and IMO it would be the only way for all people to see and know who is doing what. There are no shadows, no back rooms, no nefarious plots if all "The Commons" were in complete sunlight at all times. You want to take my arguement away and I mean this seriously, make everything in gov't, all things in the common completely and openly transparent. Yet do I see those who advocate centralizing of the commons out hard fisted and demanding this as a "won't bend" first principle? Nope! Even when Ron Paul, who does want to abolish the Fed and I completely agree, just demands a complete and transparent audit, both sides block him at all levels. IMO that speaks volumes.</p><p> </p><p>As to a non-centralized gov't existing, the only thing close that you might find of some ideal to follow is the Swiss Canton system. Not without their warts I'm sure but all in all they IMO do a pretty good job based on the basic working model they have. I'm often amazed more folks in America don't consider this system as an option from a number of standpoints. It's not perfect as for one I consider any complusory service to the state as slavery and they have complusory military service but to their credit, they also uphold a doctrine against foreign interventions of any type. Admiral lesson we should learn IMO. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I don't believe that is an empirical point although it may seem so from historical evidence. What you have to look at is under the surface of scale and see what people do at local levels over time and then what seems impossible begins to become possible. You have to consider over time many <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchist_communities" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">anarchistic communities</span></a> and where they succeeded and failed and then learn from that. Some of these communities lasted many years and others only a few but taking you above statement as empirical, these communities should not even be around at all. It also IMO would mean that when a traffic light fails, massive wrecks and fatalities should take place but oddly enough the opposite tends to be the case. People self-organize, adapt to the risks and even the worse risk takers are considered and when they blow through the intersection like mad beasts, all others are on guard for such sudden occurances and the worst is avoided. Again, taking your position as empirical, this could not be the case and in fact utterly impossible.</p><p> </p><p>Now one has to ask you, what is you ulterior motive to use force and aggression against other human beings in order to force them into a society in which you are comfortable? If this world is so good and even accomplishes it's stated goals, why has it failed to not only accomplish it's intent but in fact all manner of evils are increasing at ever greater scale? Why are people not clamouring to join it and more important, why for example in certain areas of the Middle East they fight to the death not to join it? If it's so good as you would seem to suggest, human self interests alone would at least say a majority of people would want this and yet they don't. Why?</p><p> </p><p>The natural desire of man is to self organize, local autonomy and local self directing. Man has been around in various stripe for a couple 100k years but it's only in the last several thousand that we've tired to organize on a large, centralized scale. The fact is, we are not hardwired to do this and thus at least until some evolutionary event takes place, we will continue to fight it causing conflict after conflict.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 808905, member: 2189"] Stop doing it yourself first. Don't do it to other people, don't use force, aggression of fraud. Not a easy task but if people stop doing all 3, tell me what then is the purpose of the state? In one sense, there are none. Even self organizing groups and societies form some manner of centralization but it comes down to a matter of scale and being voluntary. Think in one sense about gov't if you will as you do about the various private businesses you deal with. One day you may shop for goods at store A, the next day at store B and the next day at store C. Your decison is based on a variety of reasons from price, quality, selection or just convience. But what would you say if you were told that from now on you were forbidden to shop at Stores B and C and that Store A now held exclusive monopoly? Would we hear the old cries of Robber Barons and Monopolists and the need for Anti Trust but in the case of Gov't we hear not a peep. What if gov't had to actually compete in an open market to get your business, to pay taxes and to support various general services? Last question first. I know of no "non-corrupt centralized gov't" at all. Lord Acton principle (Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely) as I see it is empirical in the human experience. The only chance a smaller scale central gov't might have in avoiding a lot of this would be complete and total transparency and IMO it would be the only way for all people to see and know who is doing what. There are no shadows, no back rooms, no nefarious plots if all "The Commons" were in complete sunlight at all times. You want to take my arguement away and I mean this seriously, make everything in gov't, all things in the common completely and openly transparent. Yet do I see those who advocate centralizing of the commons out hard fisted and demanding this as a "won't bend" first principle? Nope! Even when Ron Paul, who does want to abolish the Fed and I completely agree, just demands a complete and transparent audit, both sides block him at all levels. IMO that speaks volumes. As to a non-centralized gov't existing, the only thing close that you might find of some ideal to follow is the Swiss Canton system. Not without their warts I'm sure but all in all they IMO do a pretty good job based on the basic working model they have. I'm often amazed more folks in America don't consider this system as an option from a number of standpoints. It's not perfect as for one I consider any complusory service to the state as slavery and they have complusory military service but to their credit, they also uphold a doctrine against foreign interventions of any type. Admiral lesson we should learn IMO. I don't believe that is an empirical point although it may seem so from historical evidence. What you have to look at is under the surface of scale and see what people do at local levels over time and then what seems impossible begins to become possible. You have to consider over time many [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchist_communities"][COLOR=red]anarchistic communities[/COLOR][/URL] and where they succeeded and failed and then learn from that. Some of these communities lasted many years and others only a few but taking you above statement as empirical, these communities should not even be around at all. It also IMO would mean that when a traffic light fails, massive wrecks and fatalities should take place but oddly enough the opposite tends to be the case. People self-organize, adapt to the risks and even the worse risk takers are considered and when they blow through the intersection like mad beasts, all others are on guard for such sudden occurances and the worst is avoided. Again, taking your position as empirical, this could not be the case and in fact utterly impossible. Now one has to ask you, what is you ulterior motive to use force and aggression against other human beings in order to force them into a society in which you are comfortable? If this world is so good and even accomplishes it's stated goals, why has it failed to not only accomplish it's intent but in fact all manner of evils are increasing at ever greater scale? Why are people not clamouring to join it and more important, why for example in certain areas of the Middle East they fight to the death not to join it? If it's so good as you would seem to suggest, human self interests alone would at least say a majority of people would want this and yet they don't. Why? The natural desire of man is to self organize, local autonomy and local self directing. Man has been around in various stripe for a couple 100k years but it's only in the last several thousand that we've tired to organize on a large, centralized scale. The fact is, we are not hardwired to do this and thus at least until some evolutionary event takes place, we will continue to fight it causing conflict after conflict. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
How Capitalism Help Build Socialism or..........
Top