07-30-2016, 01:39 PM
(07-30-2016, 02:30 AM)Galen Wrote:I'm not the biggest fan of centralization, being a green, but in some matters it's necessary.(07-30-2016, 12:20 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: Not much to add. The enlightenment pushed individual rights. Libertarians push the individual as all important to the point of blaming government for most problems because it restricts the individual. All government action they say violates the non-violence principle. But the enlightenment never said we don't need laws and government. It said we needed government by consent of the governed.
You clearly have not read much of the works of the because if you had you would know that they believed in a limited government. They also maintained that government should be as decentralized as possible. Even Alexander Hamilton, which is the only founder the lefties like, would be appalled at the size an scope of the Federal Government now.
Quote:As for how a minarchist libertarian sees the role of government I give you this from Mises:Oh gee, what would I do without you having "given" Meece some Mises!
As the liberal sees it, the task of the state consists solely and exclusively in guaranteeing the protection of life, health, liberty, and private property against violent attacks. Everything that goes beyond this is an evil. A government that, instead of fulfilling its task, sought to go so far as actually to infringe on personal security of life and health, freedom, and property would, of course, be altogether bad.
"Private property" today is a government program enforced by violence. Therefore "violent attacks" includes activities by business and corporations that harm the environment, workers, consumers or the economy in general. Concentration of wealth is the biggest threat to freedom, because wealth is power backed by the state. Therefore, the state must do all that it can to mitigate the effects of concentrated wealth and to redistribute that power. Most wealth is expropriated and not earned.
Quote:Indeed Mises described you and the others like you:
In fact, however, the supporters of the welfare state are utterly anti-social and intolerant zealots. For their ideology tacitly implies that the government will exactly execute what they themselves deem right and beneficial. They entirely disregard the possibility that there could arise disagreement with regard to the question of what is right and expedient and what is not. They advocate enlightened despotism, but they are convinced that the enlightened despot will in every detail comply with their own opinion concerning the measures to be adopted. They favour planning, but what they have in mind is exclusively their own plan, not those of other people. They want to exterminate all opponents, that is, all those who disagree with them. They are utterly intolerant and are not prepared to allow any discussion. Every advocate of the welfare state and of planning is a potential dictator. What he plans is to deprive all other men of all their rights, and to establish his own and his friends' unrestricted omnipotence. He refuses to convince his fellow-citizens. He prefers to "liquidate" them. He scorns the "bourgeois" society that worships law and legal procedure. He himself worships violence and bloodshed.
It's getting to the point that the opposition to progress in this society is so "obtuse," so intractible, that it may come to this. Obviously the same words apply to zealots among libertarians and conservatives as well. It would be good if we could work together. It takes a bit more than politics; it takes recognizing that we are the stars. Bringing it back to topic! The moral and spiritual awareness of our interdependence needs to become the ground of our political life. Then respect for those with whom we disagree becomes more natural. At least Democrats today have voiced some recognition of this moral reality and imperative at their convention, while the Republicans are consumed by hero worship.
Quote:As for what government is:
Government is beating into submission, imprisoning, and killing...The authority of man-made law is entirely due to weapons of the constables who enforce obedience to its provisions.
Ideally though, it can be based on consensus, and it needs this to actually work. Obedience to the laws is a value in a civilized society that mitigates the need for state violence.
Quote:This last what the Boomers worship of government, from both the left and right, along with their need make the rest of us conform to their wish has brought to the US. This is why we currently live in a functionally bankrupt police state.Where we have arrived is oligarchy, developed and maintained by those of all generations who adhere to your laissez-faire philosophy.
Quote:As the kiwi has noted the US is really a collection of separate societies. She referred to Americans as tribal which not a bad observation from someone who doesn't live here. The only solution is to put the Federal government back into the bounds of the Constitution but that is an anathema to Eric the Obtuse and the modern liberal.
Maybe we'll need to split up. Right now we have 40%+ of the voting population who are so wedded to the "red" team that they will vote for anyone, no matter how unfit, as long as (s)he wears the Republican label. The purpose of the "red tribe" is to preserve the power of the wealthy at all costs, and to keep us within the veil of traditional authority. It cannot continue to rule us or have any power if we are to live sustainably in our country and our world. If it can't be defeated, separation will be needed so at least half of us can move forward, instead of having their backward ways imposed on the rest of us. Republicans today are not even the party of Nixon; let alone the party of Eisenhower, or TR, or Lincoln. They are the party of Bush and Trump, and as such the only use for them is to drive them out of power and out of business, so that a true opposition party can replace it; or preferably, a parliamentary, multi-party system with ranked-choice voting where all can be represented.