Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
I think thats what I was getting at. 
Peace
Peace
Corruption.
- Thread starter Dolce Vita
- Start date
ancap
Active Member
The force that is attacking the mind and nervous system of society would be the first logical choice for me.
It's interesting that you speak in such a collective sense ("we" did this, "we" did that)? No one I know did any of those things. Regardless, did these people give their freedoms away because they naturally enjoy doing that or did they lose their freedoms because the state manipulated and frightened them into thinking that giving them authority would preserve their freedom? So far in this conversation, you've stared straight past the man dangling the crack in the addicts face to chastise the addict for buying crack. You don't think something is missing there? If not, please explain to me so I can understand.
When a vile of HIV cells are injected into a healthy body, the body becomes infected. When the state is introduced to society, society becomes infected. Society has very little chance of NOT being infected by propaganda after exposure to the state in the same way that the human body has very little chance of blocking the spread of HIV after that kind of exposure to the virus. Blaming society for falling prey to the state is like blaming the human body for falling prey to a virus. Doing the latter would make no sense, be unproductive, and would indicate that the person has a lack of fundamental understanding between the relationship of a virus and a body. A person that blames their body for contracting a virus (as if their body could have chosen not to contract the virus), to me, is maintaining an illusion that they have control over the situation when in reality they are helpless and at the mercy of the virus. I do understand why someone might want to maintain that illusion (most people do when it comes to the state) as the alternative seems very painful. We have no fundamental control over our government. We can trim back the leaves, but the tree is growing.
So what is your answer to the problem of government, human nature and society? How do you characterize the government?
abe23
Active Member
Corruption is a pretty broad concept....basically the abuse of public powers/funds for personal gain.
In rich countries, most of this is bribery in public contracts and embezzlement of public funds. With the internet and the right transparency laws, this will become less and less of a problem frankly. Our institutions like the courts, the FBI or the office of the inspector general are pretty good at dealing with grand and petty corruption. In a legal sense there isn't really that much corruption in our government compared to the rest of the world. That doesn't mean that people don't do their darnedest to find legal ways of doing unethical things. A lot of us would argue that certain forms of lobbying and PACs are corruption, but they aren't illegal...
In poor countries where they have shitty justice systems and civil servants are systematically underpaid, corruption becomes a big problem at all levels. Doctors, teachers, cops, civil servants etc. don't do their job without some sort of bribe and it's kind of hard to blame someone for doing that if they haven't been paid their already very low salaries in years because someone further up the food chain is stealing the money. And in many cases, those people had to pay bribes to get those jobs to begin with. It's a huge problem and really hard to know where to start.
It also makes other problems much worse. In afghanistan, it's probably as big of a challenge to what we're trying to do than the taliban or al quaeda. I think nigeria has lost as much money to corruption over the last 30 years as all the aid money received by all of africa during that same time.
In rich countries, most of this is bribery in public contracts and embezzlement of public funds. With the internet and the right transparency laws, this will become less and less of a problem frankly. Our institutions like the courts, the FBI or the office of the inspector general are pretty good at dealing with grand and petty corruption. In a legal sense there isn't really that much corruption in our government compared to the rest of the world. That doesn't mean that people don't do their darnedest to find legal ways of doing unethical things. A lot of us would argue that certain forms of lobbying and PACs are corruption, but they aren't illegal...
In poor countries where they have shitty justice systems and civil servants are systematically underpaid, corruption becomes a big problem at all levels. Doctors, teachers, cops, civil servants etc. don't do their job without some sort of bribe and it's kind of hard to blame someone for doing that if they haven't been paid their already very low salaries in years because someone further up the food chain is stealing the money. And in many cases, those people had to pay bribes to get those jobs to begin with. It's a huge problem and really hard to know where to start.
It also makes other problems much worse. In afghanistan, it's probably as big of a challenge to what we're trying to do than the taliban or al quaeda. I think nigeria has lost as much money to corruption over the last 30 years as all the aid money received by all of africa during that same time.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
each of the above statements is an example of our attempt to escape the responsibilities of our actions. you have characterized government as a foreign body (do you prefer i blame you directly, instead of accepting my own portion of the responsibility?), beyond humanity. you have distanced yourself from this disease and defined it as alien. this is not the case. government is the creation of humanity and what we create we can destroy or limit. the first step in doing so is to admit our own part in the birth of this monster and accept responsibility for its present state.
i really didn't think it was necessary to state that a part of the fault lies with the denizens of government who daily abuse their constituents. that the abusers are guilty seems self-evident. what is important is to remember that there is plenty of blame to go around and that it belongs to all of us. we can create this shadowy enemy, the state, and cower in helplessness or we can realize that we are an integral part of that power structure, a part of the problem and a part of the solution. it is our own weaknesses that have allowed the servant to become the master. it must be our strengths that put that creature back in its place.
there is no answer, there is only a path. the path we were set on nearly two-hundred fifty years ago is a difficult one, but it is one that allows the best chance of fulfilling the potentials of humanity. the simple rules for following that path were laid out in the constitution and all that was needed was to adhere to those rules. instead we have done our best to complicate the rules and escape the difficulties of freedom. true liberty was hardly given a chance. at each bump in the road, the people have denied responsibility and demanded the state take over where it was never meant to tread.
you want an answer? look to yourself and spend less time concerning yourself with how to change your neighbor.
ancap
Active Member
Ok... so given that the servant has become the master, can we both agree that the state that was designed to serve us has overgrown us and is mastering us? Do we both see the creation of a parasitical class that feeds off the government through state jobs, welfare, and cronyism/corporatism? Do you recognize that the free market players, including all that derive thier income primarily from the free market are the healthy cells of society? Do you see like I do that the healthy cells are disappearing one by one as more people are sucked into state addiction? I think one only needs to look at the facts and numbers to verify this, instead of just theorizing...
In 2007, 52.6% of Americans received a significant percentage of income from government programs. This is up from 49.4% in 2000, and 28.3% in 1950 (according to an analysis by Gary Shilling, an economist in Springfield, N.J.).
-1 in 5 Americans hold a government job or a job reliant on federal spending
-A similar number receive Social Security or a government pension
-About 19 million others get food stamps
-2 million get subsidized housing
-5 million get education grants
-All Americans with kids get access to free daycare through public education
(source)
Brilliant classical liberals like Adam Smith, Jean-Baptist Say, Thomas Malthus, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and many others have desperately struggled to limit the size and scope of the government... and all these brilliant people have failed miserably! I mean, they didn't even make a dent if you look at the growth chart of the state. I understand and empathize with your desire to "put the creature back in its place", but what will it take for you to look at the facts of government growth and the failures of genius libertarians and come to the honest conclusion that political action is not working. All you have to do is look at the chart above and ask yourself, "If brilliant libertarians couldn't awaken people to slow down government growth in 1968 when govt spending was 0.2 trillion, how are you going to stop the entrenched interests today when govt spending is over 3 trillion?? Try asking one person to give up their govt pension and see what happens? Ask 100 people to give up their pensions and see if you can find one!
So how is it exactly that you think the people are going to restrain the government? This feeling that libertarians have (and I am a libertarian) that given all the data, we can still reverse the trends, is a sort of denial that is staggering. It's akin to the belief that continuing to prosecute the drug war will one day become effective at its stated goals and reverse all trends... denial, denial, denial. The govt's size and scope will not be reduced through the vote. It will never happen... never, never, never. Never has and never will. Governments grow until they collapse, hopefully sparing the host society. When one approach fails, it is time to try something different and preferably something proven effective. Yelling at the masses from afar to will themselves to become unaddicted to the state is as ridiculous and ineffective as shouting at a distant group of cigarette smokers warning that they are killing themselves and should stop being addicted. When you can't find ONE person who is willing to give up their govt pension or govt job or subsidy or tax credit, you know that you will never convince a majority of them. The faith and/or hope in political action is nothing more to me than blind and desperate denial. I understand the sense of despair one might feel when recognizing that political action has a 0% chance of working, especially when that person is convinced that that method carries the only hope. You don't have to have all the answers right away. It is a huge step just to admit that educating people to vote better is futile.
Btw... I believe such things precisely because it is impossible to change your neighbor.
Please show me where I am wrong or where my logical consistency has failed and I will be happy to reexamine my thinking.
Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
Well one could argue that the free market is the cause of all of this. The free market allows the federal reserve the maintain power, the free market allows giant corporations to force government in ways that are desirable for them but not the people, the free market makes people work when they don't have the ability, it allows schools to become functionally inept at educating and create huge debts for the public.
If you just stopped circulating money, people would still work, subsidies wouldn't matter, pension wouldn't matter. Food would arrive to where it was going anyway, water would still be pumped and filtered, and the governments size would diminish greatly merely because they don't need to oversee so much.
To think that people should consolidate everything and work hopelessly against each other by trying to force more money and thus power out of each potential situation is the practice of fear. I won't have enough tomorrow, so build it all today is the exact opposite of anarchism, so why don't we just go half way and say this moment is all that matters, can I survive? Also the corporate dictatorship would end, who needs a CEO stealing huge portions of the income when routes, routines and transport are all set up to go. What does the CEO do? Play golf, and make more money for investors by allowing researchers to implement quicker although not necessarily safer production methods and fire people to make a quick return. Well the people interested in researching will do that, and the ones that want to fly a plane or drive a truck across the country could, or maybe set up automated systems that could transport, or create local infrastructures at all levels to retain stability.
"There are none more hopelessly enslaved than those who believe they are free."
Peace
If you just stopped circulating money, people would still work, subsidies wouldn't matter, pension wouldn't matter. Food would arrive to where it was going anyway, water would still be pumped and filtered, and the governments size would diminish greatly merely because they don't need to oversee so much.
To think that people should consolidate everything and work hopelessly against each other by trying to force more money and thus power out of each potential situation is the practice of fear. I won't have enough tomorrow, so build it all today is the exact opposite of anarchism, so why don't we just go half way and say this moment is all that matters, can I survive? Also the corporate dictatorship would end, who needs a CEO stealing huge portions of the income when routes, routines and transport are all set up to go. What does the CEO do? Play golf, and make more money for investors by allowing researchers to implement quicker although not necessarily safer production methods and fire people to make a quick return. Well the people interested in researching will do that, and the ones that want to fly a plane or drive a truck across the country could, or maybe set up automated systems that could transport, or create local infrastructures at all levels to retain stability.
"There are none more hopelessly enslaved than those who believe they are free."
Peace
ancap
Active Member
Dude... what are you talking about???
Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
In the capitalist mode of production, that result is more subtly achieved; because the worker does not own the means of production, he or she must voluntarily enter into an exploitive work relationship with a capitalist in order to earn the necessities of life. The worker's entry into such employment is voluntary in that he or she chooses which capitalist to work for. However, the worker must work or starve. Thus, exploitation is inevitable, and the voluntarism of capitalist exploitation is illusory.
Classical Marxism distinguishes between “Marxism” as broadly perceived, and “what Marx believed”; thus, in 1883, Marx wrote to the French labour leader Jules Guesde and to Paul Lafargue (Marx’s son-in-law) — both of whom claimed to represent Marxist principles — accusing them of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggle; from which derives the paraphrase: “If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist” To wit, the US Marx scholar Hal Draper remarked, “there are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike”.
--Source Wikipedia
Just read some stuff in your spare time, other than science articles and drug forums.
Peace
Classical Marxism distinguishes between “Marxism” as broadly perceived, and “what Marx believed”; thus, in 1883, Marx wrote to the French labour leader Jules Guesde and to Paul Lafargue (Marx’s son-in-law) — both of whom claimed to represent Marxist principles — accusing them of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggle; from which derives the paraphrase: “If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist” To wit, the US Marx scholar Hal Draper remarked, “there are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike”.
--Source Wikipedia
Just read some stuff in your spare time, other than science articles and drug forums.
Peace
ancap
Active Member
In a free market, a business hiring an employee through a mutually beneficial voluntary contract is not an unethical form of exploitation. Peaceful, voluntary transactions by willing and stable individuals are more acurately defined as a symbiosis. The employee wants $10 more than he wants 60 minutes of his time, and the employer wants 60 minutes of labor more than he wants $10. The employer is exploiting the worker for labor and the worker is exploiting the employer for money. Putting that aside, you really don't need to agree with me. In a free society, you are welcome to have your Marxist system if enough people agree with that system and choose to live in your commune, district, or land area that you've purchased or settled. Given a preference of systems, or no system at all, people would be able to choose freely which social contracts to enter into. The question is, would you jail or kill everyone who disagrees with you and wants to live outside your system?
undertheice
Well-Known Member
these things are self-evident to anyone but those who refuse to see. my only argument is that each of those that have been sucked into an addiction to the state, each one that has handed government the power to control the private sector and all those who have justified governmental intrusion with the fantasy that it is all for the good of society have had the freedom of choice to put the brakes on at any time. even those of us who have chosen to influence society through example rather than by the force of referendum and those that attempted to stem the tide from within the system are to blame for not having gone far enough. the state does not exist in a vacuum, its power does not come for nothing.
Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
Clearly you didn't read what Marx wrote about it; he doesn't agree with those tactics and divorced himself from the forms of social-systems that accept coercion.
I won't do this anymore as you aren't really debating, rather just justifying your position. To answer your question, no. As Marx wrote in the manifesto the dialectic will solves itself.
Peace
Airwave
Well-Known Member
Five year mandatory sentence, without the possibility of parole, for any public official convicted of taking a bribe or working in the interests of anybody besides the people he's meant to be working for. ie Joe Public. After his five years he should be banned for life from holding any public office.
Not that any of this will ever happen of course. Greed, ego and such things are a part of human nature.
Not that any of this will ever happen of course. Greed, ego and such things are a part of human nature.
roachwagon
Well-Known Member
I also they they should be expunged from office if they are caught in affairs.
ancap
Active Member
I wasn't asking what Marx believed with the assumption that you believed the same thing; I was asking what you believe. Are you saying that I would have to read every argument on a position in order to debate that position? I ask because I'm not sure why you seem so passive aggressive about me not reading Marx's writings.
Wonderful, then we are advocating the same thing: a completely voluntaristic society free of violent, monopolistic coercion. Your preference for a true Marxist system is just that, only a preference, much like my desire for a true capitalist system is my preference. There are no moral imperatives that say one should participate in either, though there is a moral imperative that says those peaceful preferences should not be limited by force.
Agree, or am I off base?
Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
ancap
Active Member
Just for the record... My question was, does one need to read every existing argument on a position (for and against) before engaging in a debate, and your answer was "I would say to passively accept what you were born into is an odd position in my mind". That does not seem to answer the question I asked, even a little. However, the literal answer to that question is not as important to me as understanding your frustration that manifested itself in what seemed like a passive aggressive attack. "Clearly you didn't read what Marx wrote about it" sounds a lot like, "You fundamentally don't care about truly informing yourself on a position. You only care about winning an argument". These are conclusions that you made about me that are impossible to construct given what has been said on this thread... that is if I interpreted correctly the message you sent. Assuming that I only believe what I was culturally indoctrinated to believe is a major leap that seems quite silly given that I would classify myself as an anarcho-capitalist (ancap) or anarchist/voluntarist. I can assure you, I've only actually met maybe two people in person that believe what I believe. This is precisely because I don't believe in cultural gospel.
Futhermore, I am not debating systems with you, I am fundamentally debating violent coercion vs no coercion, to be clear. The tenets of your system are irrelevant to me beyond the question, "does it involve coersion". I really don't care who you associate with and how you associate with them. Certainly if I wanted to engage in a debate about the tenets of Marxism, I would bury my nose in Marxist literature first.
Would you jail or kill someone who wanted to start a private business? Would you prevent them from starting a business using violent coercive force? How do you intend to implement the plan called "there will be no private businesses" without using such force?
ancap
Active Member
I think we are seeing the same thing for the most part, which is why I stated that we are mostly in agreement. Unless I misunderstand your full position, where I think we disagree is the extent to which society could have prevented such state expansion, in reality not in theory. This is why I analogized the state to HIV. Once it is introduced into the human body and fools the healthy cells (which are highly susceptible to such attack), the human body has very little chance of beating the virus, even if in theory it can counter-attack and defeat the virus. Such is the nature and deceptive power of HIV.
This is why I don't think we should have even a little government, in the same way that we should not have even a little HIV. Brilliant Libertarians constructed the smallest government the world has ever seen in the late 1700's and it turned into the largest government the world has ever seen. The question of whether a small government is sustainable given the nature of human beings has already been answered.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If a person MUST participate in a system against his will, all the while harming nobody, the system IS corrupt. It's not mutually exclusive that a system AND the main actors in the system are both corrupt. Replacing the bad players with better ones is a band aid, better than nothing, but ultimately if a system relies upon forced participation it will fail. My advise is not to enable a corrupt system any more than you must to get by. Your tax dollars today = Sombody getting busted for owning themself tomorrow. Think about it.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
the power that government wields to expand itself and control its constituents did not come to exist in a vacuum. it is the product of the people ceding their power to the state, of our careless indolence and inability or unwillingness to accept responsibility.
the older i get, the less inclined i am to accept the phrase "it's not my fault" as an excuse. i firmly believe that our situation can never be rectified until we are willing to accept that it is the people who have done this to themselves. we have to understand that life must be lived by our ideologies, that theory must be made to work in reality. justifying our failures by claiming that that's just how the real world works is the cop out that allows us to abide corruption.
ancap
Active Member
I believe the only way the system will change is when everyone can clearly see the gun in the relationship between people and the government. This is why slavery will never return to our society. It was only sustainable because most people did not see the inherent violence in the system, shockingly. Saving the blacks from themselves was the "white man's burden".
"Play with fire and you'll get burned" is not a justification of failures... it is an acknowledgement of factual cause and effect. When you introduce a monopolistic system to a society that enforces it's will through brutal violence and is fundementally incentivized to lie and bribe... I mean, come on... what do you expect to come of that?! The kind of society responsible and virtuous enough to maintain a limited government that monopolizes power would never accept such a system to begin with. Therefore, the mere fact that a society accepted the placement of a US government in the late 1700's tells you all you need to know about their ability to handle this government. The people who believe violence is necessary for peace will never have peace. We don't need to pass blame to the addicted people, which is a tiring, useless waste of energy regardless if they deserve it or not... we need to show them that the government they think is benevolent, actually has a gun to their head. Then we need to stop participating in the system that empirically we will never be able to change (for reasons I mentioned prior), because it is only serving as giving sanction to evil and perpetuating the belief that violence will solve our problems.
Similar threads
