Semantics, Monopolies, Greed

My friend continued his argument in favor of using government power to better our world:

Whether one labels it a "government," or a "committee" or a "neighborhood watchdog group," doesn't matter.

Much the same as tagging a group of people a "jury," or a "neighborhood group," doesn't matter either. The name is not important when their intended function is the same. This is semantics, not ideas.

Who's arguing semantics? "Intended function" is not what I'm worried about. As I said earlier, intent means very little. It is the method of operation that matters. Actions not words. Means not ends. We all want the same end, we disagree on what means to get to that end.

What matters is whether we're talking about free individuals getting together and acting as an association, or a monopoly of power controlling every human being within the monopoly's claimed territory. That is all government is. "We will be the judge, policeman, and soldier. And you will pay us. And you will not set up your own competing system of courts or protection."

Your left-leaning way of thinking can clearly see that monopolies are dangerous and damaging in the business world, but you think that government MUST BE a monopoly.

There are three important (and non-semantical) differences between "government agents" and a "neighborhood group". First of all, the neighborhood watch organization must respect your property; it can claim no right to trespass on or take possession of your property. Secondly, the neighborhood group does not force you to pay for their "service" if you don't want to participate. Thirdly, the neighborhood watch does not forcefully prevent you from setting up an alternative watch group.

The core evil of government is that one not allowed to opt out. We are told "well, you can move out of the country". That's bullcrap. YOU move out; you're the one who wants to use force on me to monopolize courts and protection "services". You lack imagination, so you want ME to leave the country?

The pet statist arguments are all about force. "Our system won't work if people can opt out". "Our system won't work if there are free-riders". "Our system won't work if there are competing systems". "Our system won't work if people aren't obligated to pay". . .

I agree with all those, only let's shorten it: "Our system won't work".

History proves that the statist system doesn't work. Look around the world. How is government power making things better for everyone? How's that working out for the world?

Your daily life proves that voluntary interaction is what works best for people.

Because there are problems with many marriages, you don't expect the government to regulate your choice of partners. Because there are problems with people eating healthy, you don't expect the government to tell you what to have for lunch. Because people fret over religion, you don't expect the government to assign churches for everyone. There are zillions of choice that you make in your life, completely without reference to government's mandates and regulations.

I know that the pat statist answer is that we can only have freedom in our daily lives because government provides the "framework" of security. That's what Ayn Rand tried to argue. I never bought her "small government" ideas. The "framework" cannot be a monopoly of gun-enforced power. The lunatic fantasy is that we can prevent coercive bullies by creating the biggest coercive "bully of all bullies", the state.

The framework that moves society along is free cooperation and free competition, with most brutish behavior prevented by cultural taboos and norms. Government has all these pompous ceremonies, pronouncements, uniforms, badges, and fancy paperwork... It's all a facade to pretend that the state is what provides for "the public good" and "public safety". But it's political theater for the sheep. The truth doesn't need theaters or churches, uniforms or badges.

Greed, sir. My basic, core belief about all of this is that Greed is the root cause of all problems. (well, that and overpopulation.....) There will always be those who think they "need" more, and more, and more.......... but it's just Greed. And I do not believe that greedy thinking can ever be stopped.

Greed can never be eliminated. It can only be re-channeled by changing individual motivations and social pressures. Greed is an animal instinct, and it's basically a good thing that runs amuck, like any healthy appetite that can slip into gluttony. So the question is "how to control greed and make it as harmless as possible"? The genius of voluntaryism is to let natural greed control over-blown greed. When greed competes, it is self-limiting. Competition is what works wonders, not monopoly.

I know it is a popular idea that competition is nasty and brutish, "red in tooth and claw", but that's wrong. The way of Nature is more about cooperation than it is about competition. There are some undeniably nasty competitive incidents in Nature, but incidents of cooperation outnumber incidents of competition at least one-hundred-to-one.

Greed is minimized and even turned to good use when individuals are left free to pursue their own choices. You and I would not do business with Haliburton or Lear Siegler in a voluntary marketplace, but our money is going into their pockets as we speak. Thanks to the state power that, by statist theory, is supposed to protect me from greedy corporations.

In fact, "corporate law" could not exist without government. Under the current idiotic system, if you make a dangerous product, you can file bankruptcy and close your company, but keep your mansion and Mercedes. That's all because of government interference with voluntary action. Without the stupidity of government, Private courts would easily keep greedy business owners from acting like parasites. Under government, businesses are encouraged to be unscrupulous, through all the laws that protect the politically well-connected greed-mongers from true competition and litigation.

Can you say "Limited Liability"? No private court would ever allow "limited liability" to protect a criminal business, the way it is commonly used in today's government courts. And yes, there are private courts in history to prove that this idea is worth looking into as a non-monopoly alternative to government courts whose rulings are determined more by political whim than by justice.

Greed is a favorite bugaboo of left-leaners who argue the necessity of a state monopoly on force. This is the mirror image of the right-leaners who are not afraid of greed, but instead their bugaboo is foreigners and/or sinners. I suggest you read a few articles about Greed. There are people who are smarter than the two of us, and they write articles about these things.

Below are a few short and delightful articles about government and greed.

Where Does Speculation Come From?

http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/lafave/lafave1.html

Seven Sins of Highly Ineffective Government

http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/das/das1.html

Beliefs and Memes

My friend brought up the ubiquitous belief that society can't work well in the absence of government.

I will say without reservation that I believe there are certain functions that a government can carry out a lot more efficiently than the absence of government can.

You can't reasonably believe that statement, because you have never seen what an "absence of government" looks like, or what it can or cannot do. So where are the tests for such a theory? You can only believe that statement if you mean "believe" in a religious sense, i.e., "believe with no proof". There is no empirical evidence for the idea that we need a the monopolized guns of government to fill certain social needs, like courts, utilities, and protection.

When you say "I believe", it is your cultural brain-washing speaking. The people of every time period hold back progress* by believing "without reservation" that the current way of doing things is the best way. The relatively new concept of the "meme" **, coined by Richard Dawkins in 1976, is helping us to study the way knowledge and errors are passed from generation to generation. For what a meme is, start here, and here.

* By "progress" I don't mean economic progress necessarily. I mean overall human progress in the ideas of fairness, justice, peaceful coexistence, health, science, education, and all that good stuff. Economic progress is a good means to these ends, but most of our thinking on economics is severely clouded by our mercantilist / statist culture.

Talking about economics is a lot like fish talking about water - if fish could talk, they wouldn't have a word for "swim" because you take your milieu for granted. We have no word for "walk around on dry land while breathing air". Economics is like that for us. That's why misconceptions abound in the field of economics. Without one-size-fits-all government economic solutions, the damage caused by these errors would be easily-contained local problems, not severe world-wide carnage

** Some bloggers, in an attempt to appear more intelligent than nature intended, are using the word "meme" synonymously with the word "rumor" or "gossip". People! The word "meme" was coined in order to discuss the long-term evolution of ideas, not celebrity gossip or petty political battles.

My beliefs would start from the basis that America's Declaration of Independence and Constitution are basically sound. At their core is the basis for all people to live their lives without coercion and/or exploitation. And sadly, all those good ideas have been exploited, coerced, twisted, perverted, mangled, and corrupted beyond recognition.

I'm not gonna disagree with that too much. Dang it!

The only thing I would add is that every attempt at "good government" has ended up poorly. And, since the best advances in humanity have come from outside, and often directly opposed by, the purview of church and government, ... I conclude that you can't very well defend people from a system of exploitation and coercion by setting up another monopoly of exploitation and coercion. That kind of protection must be set up on the smallest, most local scale, by free individuals who are not hamstrung by government's "protection racket" monopoly.

In a State where the citizens have some voice, it is not the fault of the State when things get perverted and corrupted. It is the fault of the citizens for allowing it.

"Some" voice is right. I'm for 100% democracy - where I get 100% voice in how my life is managed. I get to decide without deference to the ignorant "majority". I decide where I want to compete, and where I want to cooperate. I decide when I need a "neighborhood group" and when I want to go it alone. Government takes this away from everyone, even the so-called "majority". Why do you disparage herd mentality but insist that it's the only way to get certain things done? That seems to be doublethink. Cognitive dissonance.

You agree that most states were conceived for evil purposes, but not here in the good old USA. At the same time, you are telling me that you aren't guided by emotions when you reason this out for yourself. Do you think in Saudi Arabia, in China, in Cuba, in Japan, in Israel, you pick a country, ... that "reasonable" people think that most other governments are bad, but theirs is pretty good? After all, their state has been fine-tuned by people with "good intentions" and "ideals".

You don't see any bias that you might have picked up from American schools and American culture? My "bias detector" is going off. It's a tricky thing to disregard bias, prejudice and conditioning while searching for reasonable and fair solutions.

I don't claim to be free from bias - Thinking back to my early teens, I may not have had these exact words in my head, but I have always had some basic assumptions that I start from:

that there is a fundamental "wrongness" to war even if you're the "good guys",

that stealing is wrong no matter how rich your victim is,

that fairness needs to be applied to creepy people as well as attractive people,

that force used in self-defense should be the minimum necessary to repel an attack,

that religion gives people excuses to hate strangers,

that the majority doesn't usually know what is right,

that we lose much in the long-term by compromising for the short-term, ...

I'm sure that I have general concepts in my head that are hardened by time and habit, not necessarily by logic and reasoning. The best I can do is examine these premises and throw away the small errors. I don't think I can throw away big chunks of my "attitude" all in one fell swoop. I "unlearn" things in small bites.

I've always been skeptical and inquisitive, wanting to turn rocks over to see what's underneath. I've always wanted to pull the curtain back to see the man operating the puppet strings. I'm not content until I find out how a magic trick is performed. I want to see past the illusions. But, I know that my understanding of the illusion might contain further illusions. I am skeptical of my skepticism. I think it's a blessing and a curse, and not always a good thing. But that's how I am, and I don't deny the assumptions that are contained in my reasoning.

All reasoning starts with assumptions, but anyone who claims to be reasonable needs to keep returning to examine their core assumptions (which mainly come from the culture that we grow up in). So we keep critically examining our culture; even if we can't change the mistakes immediately, we can point out the defective meme.

Another deeply held belief of mine is that most people are, at their core, sheep. They want to be told what to do, and what to think. They want to be led somewhere and don't care where as long as it's not "ere.

Amen to that. We evolved as "herd" critters. "Going against the group" got weeded out because those going against the group didn't take to the trees when someone yelled "Tiger"! Non-conformists died if they were too radical. We have lots of good reasons for going along to get along; it's called "culture". Culture is how we transfer lots of information from one generation to the next, without having to re-learn and re-invent everything.

There's nothing wrong with this "sheep" mentality, as long as we occasionally check the core premises to see if we're passing along outdated information to subsequent generations. Cultural information can be adjusted and corrected, but it takes several generations for corrections to take hold. That's where long-term commitment to principles trumps short-term compromise "to go along to get along".

"I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time."

-H. L. Mencken

http://theanarchistalternative.info/

US Founders and "Original Intent"

On Dec 13, 2009, my friend wrote a reply to my signature quote: "No State known to history originated for any other purpose than to enable the continuous economic exploitation of one class by another" - Albert Jay Nock:

Yes, there were those who wished to create yet another State to exploit the masses for their own good. (Sadly, this is how America turned out to be,) but the original intent is clear to any who read and understand ALL of the discussions from that time and place.

I think you're going by what was written, and not by what actually happened. Governments are always as big as they can get away with. At the time of "the founding", Americans were sick of government interference in their daily affairs, so the constitution had to be kept very modest. Politicians' words also had to be kept quite moderate, as far as any call for state power. But we shouldn't judge government by what politicians say openly or what politicians write, we should judge government by what politicians do. Actions not words.

The very first US government immediately twisted the constitution to its needs. The Whiskey Rebellion illustrates this perfectly. Politicians interfered with local commerce, taxed one group unequally (the tax rate was lower for big producers), used martial law and federal troops on civilians during peacetime, - that adds up to at least 4 violations of the constitution by my accounting.

In promoting the taxes and urging Washington to lead troops to put down the insurrection, Hamilton admitted that he wanted this tax "more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue." Hamilton also admitted that he "wanted the tax imposed to advance and secure the power of the new federal government." So much for that "original intent" of which you speak so glowingly. Their words were one thing; their "intent" was another. And even when politicians' intent is honorable and fair, they throw away honor and fairness by their compromises. And why do they feel compelled to compromise? Like all politicians, they don't want to lose the upper hand, so they have to compromise.

If you ever have been on a committee, you'll recognize this as a universal principle of human "group behavior". The loudest, often the most ignorant voices get heard, while there is no time or patience for the quiet, more contemplative suggestions. At the rock and roll show, when you say "what do you want, a slow one or a fast one?" - who do you think always wins? The ones who want "loud and fast". People who want slow and quiet might even be in the majority, but they're not the ones shouting out. This is politics 101 in action. Every defect of the "big organization" is multiplied up the ladder of political power. It reaches it's zenith in Washington D.C., where no one knows what the hell is going on, but everyone pretends to have "the" answer. And, they will compromise that "answer" in order to maintain their position of power.

I was always a closet anarchist (though the word has horrible baggage, and I prefer "voluntaryist", or the adjective "a-political"). But, I didn't get radically and openly anarchistic until I read a couple little books (1 2) about the history of the US Constitution and its Amendments, and the court decisions that twisted the meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments. I also read this small book, twice in a row. That was only about 10 years ago.

The "founders" of the USA did not have consent from any kind of majority. It was mostly "greedy" businessmen. The "patriot" founders were some of the biggest property owners, bankers, and businessmen of the time. As far as the fraction of the populace who were politically involved; it was white protestant males over 21. There was no popular mandate or consent, much less agreement on the details.

Morality doesn't look at intentions, morality looks at actions. Hitler wanted to make a better world for the "best of the best". His ends did not justify his means. Lots of the most evil geniuses in history had great ideals and intentions. Everyone can get behind "good intentions" and "ideals"; I'm sure we have very little disagreement over that. Our disagreement is in the methods that ought to be used to implement those ideals. I also think we probably disagree on some word definitions. And, we probably disagree to what degree long-term ideals should be compromised in defending ourselves from short-term effects.

And that is what is wrong with ALL politics; people justify their brutal methods by holding up their "intentions". That's a road to hell I don't want to continue on. If there were no better ways to interact socially, there might be some sense to arguing that intentions are the primary "good" that we should consider in making our future choices, but I doubt it.

There ARE better ways. We find examples in our daily lives, in other cultures, and in history. We can use persuasion, the scientific method, education, fairness, free association, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, property rights, and civil rights to interact. We don't need to add "taxes", "government mandates", "wars", "more prisons for potheads", "more barbed wire at the borders", ... as if those things are a "last resort" because we've exhausted our attempts at using those non-government means. We've barely started using those things, and we can't claim to need "lifeboat scenario" measures.

I won't quote or give links here- you've heard all the words before. I will say that I see very little difference between current Anarchist thought and the original American Ideals. Point out the differences to me, Sir?

It doesn't matter what the "ideals" were. It matters what actions were taken to compromise those ideals.

The bigger question for me is "how did all these 'original American ideals' work out for us"? It has grown into a state whose brutality towers above every other brutal regime in history. So we have it good here in our little lives? - Teetering on the lower edge of the middle class; so what? What is the cost? Millions dead overseas, millions displaced by wars under both Republican and Democrat administrations, hundreds of thousands of wounded, hundreds of thousands of families torn apart by US wars, millions languishing in US prisons because they did "politically incorrect" drugs, gambled, or paid for sex. And on and on.

The part of the cost that we don't see is all of the lost opportunities from the heavy burden of taxes, regulations, licensing, silly laws, quotas, mandates, tariffs, fees, and paperwork, that the state puts on each individual and every business. I can't hold these lost opportunities in front of you to show you that part of the cost. Every time the state adds an expense to the cost of business, all in the name of "controlling" greed, those costs are passed on to customers, tenants, and employees. Much of the cost of using state power to "do good things" is hidden and unable to be tallied.

This is what it boils down to: You can't do long-term good with violent force, so statism is impractical and inefficient. You can justify the means by the ends, so statism is morally wrong.

"Government doesn't create order out of chaos. The order of social life is already here."

-- Michael Coughlin

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/object_i.shtml

Costs of the Warfare / Welfare State

I had to reply when a friend sent me this video about the multiplying cost of war.

The main thing that comes into my head when I read about how US war adventures are costing trillions of dollars (beside visions of dollars with wings flying into the sunset): War is just another socialist wealth - redistribution scheme (see "Karl Marx" or this article).

1. Where does the money come from? - Our pockets, our families, our businesses, our safety, our property, our stability of life!

2. Where does that money end up? - Bank accounts of the politically well-connected; politicians and their friends - bankers, foreign agents and officials, war-industry businesses.

The Pentagon is the biggest pork-packed-corrupt-centralized-socialist-government program of all time.

Conservatives have their eyes shut when they look at the Pentagon - they believe their government-school brainwashing.

But, ...

• With welfare socialist programs, at least families end up getting a place to live, some food, some healthcare, or a satellite dish, while government-friendly businesses get rich when those welfare dollars get spent. And politicians get more power.

• With warfare socialist programs, innocent families get bombed out of their homes, the healthcare and infrastructure of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, ... are destroyed, the world gets more unstable and dangerous, young American soldiers are killed and maimed for life, ... fat cats who manufacture war equipment get rich. And politicians get more power.

Stupid comparison; my bad. It's called a "false dichotomy" - meaning that there is a choice of two separate answers to two separate problems. That's an illusion and a distraction from real answers. It's just as bad as the false dichotomy of the "Left vs. Right" fighting that I always bitch about. Wasted Time and Energy!

• Take your pick; the Welfare / Warfare state comes in one package - you rarely have one without the other. As far as I can tell, we rarely see a government that is a big Welfare State without also being a big Warfare State. And we rarely see a government that is a big Warfare State without also being a big Welfare State. Sweden might be the exception that proves the rule.

Conservatives claim to HATE welfare programs and LOVE war programs, because the costs of WAR programs are not as easy to see. They claim to love the Free Market, but they don't trust trade and commerce to keep the peace (No one attacks their favorite trading partners - actually a strategy being used by China to "take over" the world without violence). Conservatives don't see that the guns pointing outward will always be pointing inward as well. War destroys the winners as much as it destroys the losers, in the long run.

Liberals are so "highly educated" by the socialist colleges, they claim to HATE warfare programs, but they LOVE welfare programs. They are so smart that they think only smart bureaucrat politicians can run people's lives efficiently and fairly - people can't just do it themselves because they're too dumb. Liberals don't want to look at the fact that welfare programs are always used as a distraction so governments can carry on their war programs. Liberals don't see that welfare costs trickle back down to the very poor people that welfare programs claim to be helping. "Government aid" keeps poor families at a lowest common level, and the middle class is pushed down to the poverty level, in the long run.

And, both liberals and conservatives get burned by the dollar-destroying inflation blow-back from their most-loved programs. Not to mention getting burned by government inefficiency, fraud, waste, red-tape, corruption, and all that good stuff.

That's what I think.

Rick Doogie

"It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood...War is hell." ~ General William T. Sherman

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm

Alex Jones and 9/11 Truthers

There is nothing new in what Aaron Russo or Alex Jones says to get excited about. I get that same feeling every time I watch any Alex Jones. He just doesn't go far enough for me. Everyone thinks Alex and 9/11 Truthers are so radical, but they still think in terms of collectivism - God bless America and all that constitution stuff.

Alex and Aaron are a good first step. But, I think that long-time followers of Alex Jones and the 9/11 Truth movement are way overdue in taking the next logical step; learning more about the history and philosophy of Voluntaryism (anarchism) and the Free Market. Because when the system collapses (which we can't stop but who knows when?) only one thing will matter: What Next?

And "what's next" will be determined by what is in people's heads. So, the only thing important to me is learning the philosophy of freedom and applying it to my life and helping others to learn the importance of liberty. That doesn't mean getting "mad as hell" and blaming others; it means doing the hard work of learning about history and economics. That's what matters, not the plans of the boogie men in the Trilateral Commission, Rosicrucians, Bilderbergers, or whatever. They can do nothing without soldiers and cops to carry out their bidding.

We need to teach the next generation of kids not to be sheeple, and not to look to the iron fist of government to solve problems and give hand-outs.

I'm trying to say that I know Aaron Russo from way back, and I know the conspiracy crowd from way back. And, in my view, it's not enough to look for corruption, crimes, and conspiracies in government. I know the intrigue of it all is fascinating. But nothing is going to come from any exposure of plots and crimes if we don't look at ideas for changing the entire system - the system which is a breeding ground for power-monger schemes. That means changing people's heads and the way they raise their children to love power and worship authority.

Aaron keeps talking about "the America I thought I knew" and there is lots of talk about what is "legal" under the constitution, the Bill of Rights and Amendments, and court rulings. Aaron says "The 16th Amendment does not give the IRS the authority to tax your labor and your wages".

Do you guys understand the history of what Aaron is referring to there? The 16th amendment had procedural problems, and so it "isn't legal".

But the root problem is not where does the Fed or IRS get so-called "authority" as found somewhere in the constitution. The root problem is "where does the Constitution get authority"? Read some Lysander Spooner. That's not as easy as watching hours of Alex Jones videos, but it's a lot more educational. An old saying goes: "great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people".

I'm interested in ideas, not events and people so much... Not because I think I have a great mind, but because ideas are what molds people and events. Change ideas and you change people and events in the long run. Change people and events, and you don't change a thing in the big picture. Changing people and events is merely defensive and reactive - wheel-spinning activities.

Aaron says "The Supreme Court is the law of the land". That is bull. We are playing the game of those in political power if we think that we can "take back the republic" by forcing politicians to play by their rule-book, The US Constitution. It doesn't matter what is or isn't "an inside job". It doesn't matter what is a "false flag operation" or not. It doesn't matter that, as Aaraon says "the war on terror is a phony". Aaron says "9/11 is the root cause of everything". I don't give a crap what someone predicted or what some UN asshole wrote on a piece of paper. I've been reading about the UN agenda for a one-world government since the early 70's. I've been reading about the UN's desire for world-wide population reduction since the 70's. I've heard about FEMA camps since they invented FEMA back in 1979. None of this is new, none of this is the root problem.

I saw "Mad As Hell" at a libertarian meeting in Grand Rapids back in the mid 90's. At the very beginning of "Mad As Hell", Aaron says "the most fundamental problem that we have in America, is that it is no longer a free country". That's all well and good, but America NEVER WAS a free country. Even at the very beginning the government was too big, too centralized, too easily used by evil men for corrupt purposes

The constitution was a perfect example of creating bigger government to solve problems created by government in the first place.

Aaron and Alex, and that whole crowd of fear-mongers don't ever point out that we can't go back to some dreamy world where there was freedom and all the politicians played by the rule-book. There never was such a world. We have to look for ways to get completely rid of politicians running our lives. My big problem with Alex and Aaron is that they stir up all these fears of a "totalitarian state", but they never show the one way to avoid a totalitarian state - that is to get rid of all government and all states. And - "The only way to unseat tyranny is to unseat tyranny in people's minds".

They make this big deal of America being a "Constitutional Republic". Does anyone read enough to understand what that means, and the history of Constitutional Republics? The idea of a Constitutional Republic goes back to Aristotle, not the US founding fathers. All Constitutional Republics in history have evolved into totalitarian and/or socialist states.

A Constitution is nothing but paper. Here is a list of countries that have constitutions. I think there are almost 200 countries that call themselves a "republic". It means nothing. There is virtually no difference between the word "democracy" and the word "republic". Those two words are just words. I used to think that the difference between "a republic" and "a democracy" mattered, but I was wrong to think that way. Governments give themselves these labels for the sake of political theater.

Labels and words on paper don't matter. What matters is ACTIONS. For example; If you give money to someone else under fear of being kidnapped or worse, that is called "theft". It doesn't matter that government calls it "taxation". A "republic" is a mafia. A "democracy" is a mafia. Like Aaron rightly pointed out - government is no different than the mafia. The most important point that Aaron misses is that people know the mafia is evil, but people are taught that government is good. Government is an "Evil" that everyone is taught to see as "good". There's the Root. Education of young minds.

All of this is an endless recurring cycle, which will not end until people decide that they don't need a congress, a president, a constitution, a supreme court, or even a county commission to run their lives efficiently and fairly. It's not hard to make predictions, and I'm not impressed by Aaron's or Alex's predictions.

It's a distraction to think that "exposing" evil plots will help. What will help is changing people's minds by helping them to learn that their faith in government is what is empowering the people in the UN and elsewhere who have all the evil plots. Take away their power, and their plots won't matter.

Excuses for Obama's war, Pt II

I had a prolonged discussion with a friend who still wants to make excuses for Obama's expansion of wars that the Bush administration started; wars that were the reason why many Obama voters went to the polls wearing peace signs and expecting "change".

I'm just saying that Obama inherited a mess.

That's what is said by each administration, and they use it as an excuse.

It's called "politics" and that's the game that they play with our dollars and our lives.

But I'd say that excuse doesn't fly when it's innocent people getting incinerated, maimed, and displaced by the millions.

Who expands government more, Liberals or Conservatives? Look at the facts- they both do about the same in that area.

No argument there. And that wasn't my point.

Obama has the power to stop the carnage now - no he doesn't. He has the power to stop only America's military part of the carnage. The rest would continue.

Another empty excuse - the same one that the conservatives were using to back Bush in Iraq. Step back from the left / right mirage and see the real problem. In addition, America is the biggest arms dealer in the world, by far. Most conflicts would remain small without American funds and arms.

withdrawing is the only compassionate thing to do. Perhaps....... but only if we convert the military spending to humanitarian aid

It sounds like you're saying, "if we can't send medical supplies and food, let's keep sending bullets and bombs". It sounds like a plea to keep up the facade of "doing something".

When humanitarian aid is directed by politics, it causes more conflict and harm than good. Private charities are not directed by power politics. They aren't perfect, but they don't magnify a small local conflict into a disaster that displaces millions and kills and maims hundreds of thousands.

We'd still be in Vietnam today if everyone followed that line of irrational thinking. Of course I see that.

Then how is this different in Afghanistan and Iraq? There will always be local conflicts and criminal gangs as long as government is there providing motivation. Most terrorists and warlords get recruits because of some perceived imbalance of government favors. The bigger picture is the fact that small governments create small conflicts, and then the big governments from Europe and US, etc., come in with their "aid" and magnify the problems by 1000% or more.

But given the choice between him and Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin etc's war-mongering loose-canon cowboy bullshit,

The difference is in words, not action.

Bush smirks while he bombs the crap out of innocents, and Obama furrows his brow while he bombs the crap out of innocents.

Window dressing does not change what is right and wrong.

Obama only keeps warmongering because HE CAN.

Because of people who defend him and buy his excuses.

Obama was elected because the popular perception was that he was the peace candidate.

And now, anyone who tries to hold Obama's feet to the fire gets the "well, he's a lot better than Bush" justification.

On what planet would that be called "compassionate"?

Building true change involves discarding the existing paradigm.

Hearts and minds need to change, and they will change.

The evolution of mankind shows that we are in the process of learning to discard the notion that one human can own another human, that women are subservient creatures, that the weak and powerless are irrelevant pawns in the pursuit of money and power, that children can ground into the dirt because they are "owned" by parents, that we need popes to guide our moral decisions, that we need kings and princes to guide our commerce, that ends can justify means, ... these things are not perfectly realized, but, in general, they have lost the backing of intellectuals and pundits. And this relates to the fact that - once the human pool of intelligence (we call it "culture") corrects a mistake in thinking, there can be no "Unlearning" of the truth.

We know the world is round, not because everyone did the calculations to prove it, but because human culture knows this. We know that diet matters to health, not just from our own experience, but because our culture has learned that fact. In the same way, human culture is learning that the biggest exploiter of the weak is what we call "government".

Mankind will learn to discard coercive government, and there will be no going back. This idea is being pushed forward by radical thinkers, not by those making excuses for the present paradigm. We must and we will throw out the whole distraction that is the Left / Right debate. And the next step will be to throw out politics altogether. Without politics, there can be no wars that kill thousands and displace millions. You can't have war without taxation.

Consider a serious heroin addict, and the effects of "Cold Turkey" withdrawl.

That is a myth; Cold Turkey withdrawal is what people do every day to quit their cigarette addiction, cocaine addiction, heroine addiction.

And the truth is that we can stop any addiction cold turkey, and that also applies to any government program, including war.

Medical professionals like to scaremonger against quitting narcotics cold turkey, because they wouldn't make any money off that. Likewise, the politicians, the military-industrial establishment, and the statist intellectuals warn against stopping a war cold-turkey, because they would lose billions of dollars.

When government failure becomes obvious, individuals rush in to help. And free individuals can always help more quickly and more efficiently than any politically-hamstrung government program. Katrina is a good example. Too bad the government makes outlaws of anyone or any group that tries to supplant their botched-up government assistance programs.

Arguing on the side of government beneficence is arguing that committees can do better than individuals. Most of the good things that happen in this world happen because of individual intelligence, creativity, and morality. Committees are good at finding excuses for bypassing intelligence, creativity, and morality. Committees are more worried about appearances, and that's what Obama is worried about primarily. He talks a good talk, to keep up the political theater.

(if war is so good for business, why is our economy such a mess?)

I said that war is good for Obama's political friends and big corporate donors.

The economy is a mess because the guns of government try to control all the details of trading, banking, industry and so on.

Guns are not a good way to organize society, and that includes the economy. My point exactly.

Liberals love a war when it's started by a liberal, conservatives love a war that's started by a conservative. Yup. But don't lump me in with The Liberals.

Gladly. But I will lump you in with the statists. And, if you see government as a solution to problems that government got us into in the first place, why linger over labels of "leftest", "rightist", and "centrist"?

My point is that all this arguing among left, right, and center about where to aim the government guns is a huge distraction over the real debate that matters: should we organize our social life according to the dictates of power and privilege or according to freedom of association and human rights?

(Note that politicians always make a big fancy show of being all about freedom and human rights. And then, after they destroy thousands of lives, they cry out that their "intentions were good", or that they "inherited a mess" from the previous political leader. I'm interested in examining actions, not words.)

"I'm ALREADY against the next war.

Then don't look for excuses to support war.

The "inherited a mess" excuse is classic.

They've been using that one for thousands of years, and it is nothing but words.

Obama has managed to destroy the peace movement with his talk, much to the delight of the military industrial complex and the billionaires who feed at the Pentagon trough.

Also that Cold Turkey withdrawl will not help. Let's find the way that leads to permanent peace.

As long as you hesitate to advocate cold turkey withdrawal, you are playing into the hands of the warmongers.

he's fighting against a lot of very ingrained and inbred thinking. He can't change the world right this minute any more than you or I can?

It's this type of thinking that stops good things from happening. "We can't simply end slavery willy nilly, it would wreck the economy".

The excuse is classic. Of course I sound utopian, because everyone is taught that discarding government programs and relying on "people" is utopian. This argument forgets that the government is simply a big group of "people".

Hhmmm........ that's rather a Fascist argument, isn't it? "I'm right and you may not disagree?"

2 plus 2 is not 5. It's not authoritarian to say that. You forget that I don't believe in relative morality. Your argument in support of keeping war going for the sake of "compassion" is worse than saying 2 plus 2 is 5, It's more like saying 2 plus 2 equals "green". If killing is wrong for the thug on the corner, it can't be right for someone with a uniform and medals on his chest.

Morality is very simple and easily defined. It doesn't change because you make some elaborate argument and excuses. If it is indeed wrong for one human to kill another human who has not threatened anyone, then it's wrong for any human to kill another who has not threatened anyone. Of course, we will occasionally need a court (non-government, of course) to define whether someone was truly threatened or not, but the conclusion will be obvious when we have some evidence presented to us.

There is no evidence that extending the occupation of one country by another is some kind of moral good. Show me evidence to the contrary. An occupation always involves bloodshed and imprisonment, not to mention the fact that it is involuntarily funded by taxpayers back in the fatherland. (or is it "motherland"?)

He loves his political career more than he hates innocent bloodshed. I've never met him, so I don't feel qualified to make a judgement one way or the other on that one.............

You don't need to meet someone to judge them. Just look at their actions. Don't listen to their words - a good idea when judging politicians. Jefferson spoke great elaborate words human freedom, while he owned, tortured (of course they called it "discipline"), and had sex with his slaves back at Monticello. There are arguments raised that "he lived in a different time period", but the fact is that many people in that time period got along fine without owning slaves.

Have you found God, and now believe in The Universal Truth? Sorry but I just had to poke a hole in that balloon...........

Funny, but not funny. Sorry to pick apart something said in jest, but, ... People have been taught that you must "find god" to pursue a definition of moral behavior. But that's another roadblock put up by priests and politicians. There is definable right and definable wrong. Morality can be scientifically and intellectually defined without gods or governments. That's part of the evolution of human knowledge that our culture is going through (painfully, like childbirth).

I simply can't believe that anyone, anywhere, has a lock on Truth and Right.

There certainly is never a conclusion to the pursuit of truth and right. We can never have 100% certainty. But we CAN have enough certainty to act. We CAN have enough certainty to say "this is right". We might only have 95% certainty, but if we waited to take action before 100% certainty, we would die in our beds. What we can be certain of is the method of searching for truth and right. That method is called empirical reasoning or, more grandiosely, The Scientific Method.

Quite simply, and I don't presume to teach you anything; we construct theories and then test them with evidence. We throw out our made-up answers if there is no evidence for them. But, we don't wait to boldly state our theory until we are 100% certain, or until we have verified every prediction that our theory entails. We act on our principles.

There is no "lock on Truth and Right", but there is action based on principle. I am for acting, not constantly hesitating in stating my convictions because there may be unanswered elaborate lifeboat scenarios where my moral principles fall apart. Moral principles are tools for living in society in everyday scenarios. There is nothing made-up or magic about morality. It's a science, a branch of philosophy that most philosophers have garbled with elaborate and confusing rubbish, all in the name of defending the horrors of church and state.

"Changing patterns of thoughts is the only way to change patterns of behavior." Dalai Lama

My point exactly, Making excuses for leaders is not conducive to changing anyone's patterns of behavior.

"There has never been an idea in human history that has retarded progress more than the idea that the way something was being done at any given time was the best way that it could be done."

Brett Veinotte

Money is You

I like this YouTube video from Stefan Molyneux.

I'm sure there are more elaborate definitions of "money", but it boils down to this: Money is a tool for trading your productivity for goods and services. Your productivity is your time and energy.

The money in your wallet, the money in your bank accounts, the money in your stock or bond portfolio,...

all of this money represents your past and future productivity, your time, your decisions, your sacrifices, and your energy.

Your money is you.

YouTube - Money is You - Freedomain Radio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd-SLRyuRq0

"It is not dollars, treasuries, bonds and debt that is being sold by your government. It is you." Stefan Molyneux

Left vs. Right, redux

A friend of a friend took issue with my short comment about Left / Right politics being a big waste of time, money, and energy.

Conservative means to conserve what we have, and yet be productive, and innovative, all the while replacing what we used.

Hmm, "conserve what we have". So, you're all for the Tory loyalist position? That's where conservatives came from; they wanted to "conserve" the old ways of British rule. And I'm not saying they were entirely wrong for that. I'm all for conserving the relative freedom that Americans had before big government set up house in D.C.

Conservation also brings a sense of morality towards mankind, and yes many get this from religion.

"Conservation" is not what "conservative" means.

I've never heard any conservative talk about "conservation" in this context.

That's a new one on me.

And, as far as a so-called "sense of morality" - one of my biggest problems with conservatives is that they think they can force their relative morality on the world, just like the liberals think they can force their version of relative morality on the world. This illustrates my point (and Shaun's, though I don't presume to speak for him) that there is about a dime's worth of difference between left and right politics. That's all I was pointing out. Neither left nor right grasp the simple fact that you can't have morality or charity through force.

Force is a good tool for self-defense. Force is not a good tool for creating a better world. We have other tools for that, as you alluded to; productivity, innovation, science, creativity, industry, education, charity, free association, . . . all the good things that government mucks up on a daily basis.

Republicans want to take us to their socialist future at 80mph, Democrats want to take us to their socialist future at 100mph. Arguing between left socialism and right socialism is like arguing what kind of hood ornament you would like on the truck that is 20 feet away from running you down in the street.

I hate it when people try to divide this county up into categories, it’s the same as White, Black, Latino, and Asian. We should all just be American.

I'm with you on that. It is politics that makes two people hate each other, who might otherwise be good friends, in the absence of political fighting. If you take away all that wasted energy that goes into political fighting, we would all still be Americans. Conservatives mistakenly equate love of country with love of government.

People become political radicals because they aren't getting their piece of the government pie. When pie is lacking in a free market, no one turns into a bitter radical full of hatred; you can go make your own pie. But, that becomes difficult or impossible when government has monopoly control over everything they broadly define as "commerce".

This country was built by, and still contains free people

As a student of history, I'm here to tell you that just ain't so. The leaders of the Revolutionary War did not fight to be free - they fought so they could have a local government telling them what to do, instead of a government 3,000 miles across the ocean.

I have to agree that most of the farmers and ranchers had no need for any government at all, so you're right about those folks.

The sentiment of the country-folk, put into words by Ben Franklin, was "why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?".

But, and this is a big BUT; the constitution wasn't written by freedom-loving country folks, it was written by some of the biggest property owners, big businessmen, and bankers of the day. And the freedom lovers, who had somewhat of a voice in Thomas Jefferson, lost out to the Federalists who were headed by Alexander Hamilton, a big-government lover who argued for a strong, ever-expanding central government and eventually got it.

if you want your side to count, you better make it one of the big boys, cause the rest can’t do shit. There’s your reality, whether you like it or not.

That has always been the argument of people who want to preserve the status quo. If you study history, you find that quite the opposite is the truth of the matter; Revolutions in thinking are always started by a tiny minority. Progress happens from the bottom up, while the "big boys" are stuck in the mud of their habitual mindset.

Those trying to overthrow the monarchy were told that the odds were against them. But they went ahead and overthrew the monarchy. Those trying to abolish chattel slavery were told that the odds were against them. But they went ahead and abolished slavery.

And, those of us who see the next step in the evolution of human social structure are being told that we can't abolish the idea of big government, because the odds are against us. We should "work within the established system". But, the left / right ball-game is on its way out, because big government is on its way out, whether you like it or not.

Freedom works.

We punctured the power of witch doctors, of emperors, of kings, of popes, ... and now we will puncture the power of legislatures.

Best regards,

Rick Doogie

"The history of government intervention is the correcting of the ill effects of earlier interventionism"

- - Ludwig von Mises