This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Capitalism-Socialism-Communism: "A Republic Always Devolves Into An Oligarchy"

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics blog,

 

The business cycle is critical to understand.

The difference between Capitalism and Socialism is simple. Capitalism is where you are free to decide what you do with your money, and Socialism is where government orders you what to do with their money, which you earn.

The difference between Communism and Socialism is clever. The former “owns” everything and the latter you own it but they tax it and if you cannot pay the tax they take it.

Socialism/Communists try desperately to paint capitalism as the benefit of the greedy rich. People see the bankers as manipulating government but this is not inherent in capitalism, that is the corruption that infects all republics. A republic ALWAYS devolves into an oligarchy, which is not freedom and is not capitalism. Russia moved from communism to oligarchy and that is why it did not really boom as did China, which moved to capitalism.

For capitalism to work historically, it must embrace freedom and that can ONLY be accomplished by a true democratic system. Once you have career politicians who are elected perpetually, that opens the door to oligarchy. If China has a political class of professional politicians  who do not need money to get reelected, then this defeats the oligarchy evolution for they do not require money to maintain power.

The elections of 53BC in the Roman Republic saw interest rates double because corrupt politicians had borrowed so much money for bribing votes. This is the oligarchy tendency that destroyed the Roman Republic.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:03 | 5646046 Duc888
Duc888's picture

 

 

Parasites vote themselves raises and skim off of the productive classes of people.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:18 | 5646088 Manthong
Manthong's picture

The United States government, as originally designed, mitigated the trend towards tyranny with a layered construction of representation that allowed for checks and balances.

That was pretty much destroyed with the 17th Amendment and here we are today.

Money controls and corrupts the Senate, and subsequently the Judiciary and the Executive.

The only thing close to a check left nowadays is the House but big money still has a significant corrupting influence.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:31 | 5646113 Stackers
Stackers's picture

Frank Herbert did an excellent job of explaining this conumdrum in the Dune series of books. Democracies are inherently self destructive due to the the bureaucracy neccessary to run it. This bureaucracy does not corrupt, but attract corruptible power hungry individuals that over time build the oligarchy that turns into tyranny.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:57 | 5646201 Paveway IV
Paveway IV's picture

I don't mean to take any wind out of the sails of Frank Herbert's legacy, but some old dead guys *also* did a good job of explaining that danger two hundred years before Frank was around. The stakes were considerably higher for them because they were drafting a constitution for a new democratic republic. They tried to put in safeguards for preventing their democracy from devolving into an oligarchy and repeatedly warned future generations that the government would always be a target.

Ultimately their scheme failed - it required the participation of an intelligent and aware population to keep one step ahead of the oligarchs and userpers by maintaining the constitution. Turns out the intelligent and aware were nowhere to be found. Some say they were sleeping, some say the fluoride and Kardashians turned them into sheep, some say they were a myth and never really existed.

Personally, I think it was lack of a thirst mutilator that had what plants crave.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 17:57 | 5646572 Self-enslavement
Self-enslavement's picture

Capitalism = Capitalizing on people, murduring them, imprisoning them, taking their resources and keeping them as human livestock, slaves.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 20:06 | 5646851 Paveway IV
Paveway IV's picture

Psychopathy = Capitalizing on people, murdering them, imprisioning them, taking their resources and keeping them as human livestock, slaves

Capitalism, communism, socialism, anarchy, Shriners = excuses du jour

 

Just kidding about the Shriners - they're cool.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 00:25 | 5647508 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

"For capitalism to work historically, it must embrace freedom and that can ONLY be accomplished by a true democratic system."

Bullshit. Democracy is tyranny of the majority and free-market capitalism cannot exist under it.

With government you can have some form of regulatory crony capitalism: socialism for the rich.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 21:28 | 5647127 TrustbutVerify
TrustbutVerify's picture

Victimhood rocks!

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 21:58 | 5647207 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Those dead guys, having recognized the dangers of government, still violated the CONstitution before the ink was even dry.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:04 | 5646219 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

IMO, any system devolves towards oligarchy.  It's just a matter of how fast.  You think government is evil?  I do to.  I just think that, if there are enough people to form a government, one will be formed.  I think that a state of having a government is inevitable.  If you want to keep tyranny at bay, one of the few solutions that has potential comes from one of Mao Zedong's famous quotes:

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

This is only true to a point, but it is worth pondering.  Who should have the political power?  The people.  I'm not saying that having them wield that power is going to be a good thing.  Mob violence is ugly and useless.  But to have that potential power as an ultimate check is a good thing none the less.  It needs to be even more explicit that one of the reasons for having an armed populace is a check on domestic tyranny though.  The other thing to worry about is critical thinking skills and propaganda.  Even an armed population is susceptible to that. 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 17:58 | 5646575 Self-enslavement
Self-enslavement's picture

Nothing wrong with a socialist government free of parasites. Good luck getting rid of the parasites though. If Hitler couldn't do it, no one can.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 22:03 | 5647214 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

All government attracts parasites. Period.

You are 100% free to have socialism, so long as you do not force others to participate.

 

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 09:32 | 5647979 brucyy
brucyy's picture

Of course he couldnt , getting rid of parasites and getting rid of socialists is exactly the same thing

Mon, 01/12/2015 - 00:16 | 5650317 roddy6667
roddy6667's picture

What about Canada and the Scandinavian countries?

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 21:04 | 5647076 Which is worse ...
Which is worse - bankers or terrorists's picture

The problem is that no one really talks about the Mad Max alternative. If you have lived in Syria during the civil war, I don't think you would want that. 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:43 | 5646323 Eyeroller
Eyeroller's picture

Fear is the mind killer...

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:11 | 5646242 Groundhog Day
Groundhog Day's picture

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the oligarchs of america

and to the oligarchs for which it stands

one corporation, under the fed, indivisable

for tyranny, and subjugation for all (serfs)

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 17:03 | 5646392 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

The only way a republic, or any other form of democracy can succeed and not have the majority screw the minority constantly, is to have a constitution that is actually enforced and if modified is modifed using the amendatory process instead of the judiciary. Once we went down the judical legislation road it goes downhill.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 18:40 | 5646666 Uranus Hertz
Uranus Hertz's picture

The constitution can only be enforced by the enthusiastic sacrifice of its adherents. Sport.

Look at what they make you do.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 23:52 | 5647448 Chuck Walla
Chuck Walla's picture

 The State will always find a way to transcend its limits.

 

~ Murray Rothbard

 

Now FORWARD SOVIET!

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:30 | 5646112 Mister Ponzi
Mister Ponzi's picture

Armstrong writes nonsense. Democracy and capitalism are incompatible as in a democracy - even in a "true" one (whatever that means) - the principle applies that a majority decides what a minority has to do. Therefore, the door is always open to looting and the incentives are perverse in the sense that a majority of unproductive people can always take what others produce. Second, the most productive era in Europe was the 19th century when the continent was dominated by monarchies. Countries like Austria and Germany had their productive and cultural climax before Woodrow Wilson destroyed our monarchies. Look at the number of Nobel prizes won by German and Austrian scientists and artists in the early years of the twentieth century and compare them with their achievements after World War II.

This was best summarized by Orson Wells: "You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Democracy has always been the problem and never the solution.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:33 | 5646122 Philo Beddoe
Philo Beddoe's picture

The iCuckoo is just around the corner. At midnight it will blow you 12 times....assuming you have a small dick and a big ladder. 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:23 | 5646265 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

You also need to be a 12 or less pump chump. 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:05 | 5646054 KnuckleDragger-X
KnuckleDragger-X's picture

Everything eventually devolves into an oligarchy with the only difference is the exact kind of oligarchy.....

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 22:03 | 5647221 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

No devolution needed. All government is oligarchy. It starts that way, and remains so, until it eats itself.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:10 | 5646070 Fun Facts
Fun Facts's picture

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - Orwell

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:17 | 5646080 Philo Beddoe
Philo Beddoe's picture

Martin, the key to terse prose is to have a fucking point. 

I shall defer you to the master....

Everybody knows by now, all businessmen are completely full of shit; just the worst kind of low-life, criminal, cocksuckers you could ever wanna' run into – a fuckin' piece of shit businessman. And the proof of it, the proof of it is, they don't even trust each other. They don't trust one another. When a business man sits down to negotiate a deal, the first thing he does is to automatically assume that the other guy is a complete lying prick who's trying to fuck him outta his money. So he's gotta do everything he can to fuck the other guy a little bit faster and a little bit harder. And he's gotta do it with a big smile on his face. You know that big, bullshit businessman smile? And if you're a customer – Whoah! – that's when you get the really big smile. Customer always gets that really big smile, as the businessman carefully positions himself directly behind the customer, and unzips his pants, and proceeds to service...the...account. I am servicing this account. This customer needs service. Now you know what they mean. Now you know what they mean when they say, "We specialize in customer service." Whoever coined the phrase "let the buyer beware" was probably bleeding from the asshole. That's business.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:36 | 5646130 IRC162
IRC162's picture

Not bad, Philo, but it transcends livelihood and is measurable across humankind: the oversimplified statement is that 'Those who are trusting are usually trustworthy themselves',  and of course the corollary is also true (or even moreso).  If someone questions the trustworthiness of another,  they are not trustworthy themselves. 

Why? Because each being is more in tune with their own moral code that they are with other people's.   It is human nature to apply what you know to others,  thus the conniving,  backstabbing prick knows what he is capable of in the depths of his own psyche and thus aware of what perils are out there.  He then protects himself by projecting his own psychological /moral attributes to others as a form of Defense.   It keeps him from being blindsided.  

It seems most apparent when meeting someone new... if someone makes outlandish claims against you as if to say 'don't fuck me',  watch your own ass.   

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:51 | 5646176 Philo Beddoe
Philo Beddoe's picture

Bobby tries to order breakfast in a diner:

Bobby: I’d like a plain omelet no potatoes tomatoes instead, a cuppa coffee and wheat toast

Waitress: No substitutions

Bob: What do you mean? You don’t have any tomatoes?

Waitress: Only what’s on the menu. You can have a #2, plain omelet, comes with cottage fries and rolls.

Bobby: I know what it comes with but it’s not what I want.

Waitress: I’ll come back when you make up your mind.

Bobby: Wait a minute, I have made up my mind. I’d like an plain omelet, no potatoes on the plate, a cuppa coffee and a side order of wheat toast.

Waitress: I’m sorry, we don’t have any side orders of toast. It’s a muffin or a coffee roll.

Bobby: What do you mean you don’t make side orders of toast. You make sandwiches don’t you?

Waitress: Would you like to talk to the manager?

Bobby: You’ve got bread and a toaster of some kind?

Waitress: I don’t make the rules.

Bobby: Okay, I’ll make it as easy for you as I can. I’d like an omelet plain and a chicken salad sandwich on wheat toast, no mayonnaise, no butter, no lettuce. And a cup of coffee.

Waitress : A #2, chicken sal sand. Hold the butter, the lettuce, the mayonnaise, and a cup of coffee. Anything else?

Bobby: Yeah, now all you have to do is hold the chicken, bring me the toast, give me a check for the chicken salad sandwich, and you haven’t broken any rules.

Waitress: You want me to hold the chicken, huh?

Bobby: I want you to hold it between your knees.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 17:43 | 5646515 IRC162
IRC162's picture

Would you like cheese on that chicken sir? 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 17:46 | 5646524 IRC162
IRC162's picture

Looks more like a great example of how regulations destroy a self-correcting market,  or a dumbass employee who is unable to problem-solve, which as an accountant,  I see in many clients' businesses on the daily.   Someone wants a 10x20 rental space, but the business is out of 10x20, but flush with 10x10's.  'sorry,  we don't have any' are the only words from the counter.   Good fucking grief if I hadn't witnessed it myself I wouldn't believe it.  Majority of employees are simple order takers and don't even fathom creative thought.   Even business managers and some owners are too stupid to effectively serve their clients,  but honestly,  most are unaware of the lost sale and poor goodwill created when that client leaves their property underserved.   They just can't see it. 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:43 | 5646322 Duc888
Duc888's picture

Wow...as a "businessman" for over 25 years, most of my customers are repeat customers.  I provide a service for a fair price.  I guess that's why I've been sucessful in spite of overbearing government rules / regulations / fees / charges...etc.

 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:25 | 5646107 Oswald did it
Oswald did it's picture

Dinosaurs go extinct

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 18:59 | 5646710 bonin006
bonin006's picture

true, but I don't have 100,000,000 years to wait.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:33 | 5646123 smacker
smacker's picture

"Capitalism is where you are free to decide what you do with your money, and Socialism is where government orders you what to do with their money"

No, that's not quite right. This is better:

"Capitalism is where you are free to decide what you do with your money, and Socialism is where the government is free to decide what to do with your money."

______________________________________________________

"For capitalism to work historically, it must embrace freedom and that can ONLY be accomplished by a true democratic system."

Nope. A proper Constitutional Republic is far better with controlled democracy operating under its auspices. But the Constitution has to be actively supervised to prevent abuse.


Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:41 | 5646141 Philo Beddoe
Philo Beddoe's picture

But the Constitution has to be actively supervised to prevent abuse.

There it is....proof positive that shitting unicorns exist in the eyes of the voter. 


Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:42 | 5646150 Unstable Condition
Unstable Condition's picture

Exactly right.

The 17th amendment destroyed state sovereignty/rights in the U.S.

Couple that with the Federal Reserve act and the 16th amendment it becomes obvious that 1913 was the year our Constitutional republic died.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:35 | 5646127 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

Reform is a process and repeal is one of the cures.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:44 | 5646149 Batman11
Batman11's picture

In the UK the richest person is The Duke of Westminster, an old aristocrat. Once he had navigated his way through the birth canal his lifes work was done.

No earned wealth there.

Let's explore Hayek following his own self interest.

He was born into the European Aristocracy, so no earned wealth there.

He didn't like Governments trying to take away his inherited wealth and position.

He didn't mind too much when the Euopean aristocarcy took wealth and power away from absolute monarchs.

Hayek developed theories based on his own self interest.

 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:54 | 5646350 XitSam
XitSam's picture

It doesn't matter if someone inheritied their wealth.  As long as force or fraud was not used to obtain it. 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:47 | 5646163 wmbz
wmbz's picture

There are only two types of people.

Those that work/produce and live off of the fruits of their labor, and those that live off of those that produce.

It's not complicated but it sure is twisted in so many directions that it appears that it is.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 23:19 | 5647386 TrueWho
TrueWho's picture

"There are only two types of people.

Those that work/produce and live off of the fruits of their labor, and those that live off of those that produce."

So summed up in Layman's terms: There are two types of people... Hard working taxpayers and non-working welfare leeches.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 11:12 | 5648002 itstippy
itstippy's picture

Somewhere a brilliant aerospace engineer is working his ass off refining the latest drone, smart bomb, and cruise missle technology.  Two blocks away a computing whiz is pouring his heart into integrating the NSA's vast database of information on American citizens.  Their hard work ethic enables them to live in an upscale neighborhood, next to the lobbiest for the payday loan industry, the dirivatives trader, and the food additives expert.  Hardworking taxpayers all, contributing more than their share to the betterment of society.

A pretty good argument could be made that we'd all be better off if these fucksticks would just quit what they're doing and go on welfare.  But who am I to judge?

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:51 | 5646175 Hail Spode
Hail Spode's picture

A Republic always devolves into an oligarchy because power tends to centralize over time, but it does not HAVE to be this way.  If you want to understand the pathways centralizers use to take away freedom and know how to organize a republic so that this does not happen, read Localism, a philosophy of governmenthttp://www.amazon.com/Localism-Philosophy-Government-Mark-Moore/dp/0692257101/ref=tmm_pap_title_0/178-8150350-9642704

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:16 | 5646184 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Well  if you believe that a Republic ALWAYS devolves into an Oligarchy you are not a son of Jefferson and G Washington.

You've become a totalitarian denier under the skepticism of a libertarian. 

Some regression Mr Armstrong.

You've lost the flame of Tom Paine that instilled  his "Common Sense" and "Rights of Man".

Even the french republic survived THREE regressions : First EMpire, Restoration, Second Empire. But the truth always survives lies. 

Time is what Man does not control...and Time takes its own time to find the Lies. 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:56 | 5646188 Batman11
Batman11's picture

For everyone to suceed based on their own hard work, drive and ambition you must live in a meritocracy.

In a meritocracy you must have a uniform school system for everyone with no private schools.

There can be no inherited wealth.

 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:55 | 5646195 Barnaby
Barnaby's picture

Payback, 1999. Mel "Sugar Tits" Gibson plays Porter. Carter's firm owns all of Chicago.

Porter: Who makes the decisions?
Carter: Well, a committee would make the decision in this case...
Porter: One man... you go high enough you always come to one man... who?

This predates Khodorkovsky's de-pantsing and Romney's rout by an otherwise unqualified black man.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 15:59 | 5646207 Money Boo Boo
Money Boo Boo's picture

all the 'isms' are dead, they never really happened to begin with. It was all a hoax, it's always been oligarchy and always will, even after the next revolution. Just a new set of actors will rise from the ashes and erect a new narrative to either cow the masses or dupe the masses but the real narrative will never change, just its camoflage will alter.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:03 | 5646208 ghostofgo
ghostofgo's picture

The history here is pretty bad.  Rome went from a kingdom to an aristocratic republic with two classes of citizens to an empire ruled by a single man.  In the 6th century BC, the first of these transitions was under way.  The fall of the republic was 500 years later.  lol.

Please, don't use Rome for window dressing unless you actually have studied it.  You look ridiculous.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:12 | 5646241 Barnaby
Barnaby's picture

Do you include twins Romulus and Remus nursing a bitch's teats on the banks of the Tiber?

In other words, where do you get your history?

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:17 | 5646251 ghostofgo
ghostofgo's picture

Mommsen mostly.  History of the kings is partly mythical no doubt. 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:26 | 5646273 Barnaby
Barnaby's picture

Do you exclude all metaphor and Phoenician/mystical* precedents? If so, it's a matter of context. Brother, be gentle to our friends, as they consume what they're told and taught.

* I call it mystical because there is no clear understanding of the time before this time.**
** This explanation is not for you, but for others.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:36 | 5646302 ghostofgo
ghostofgo's picture

Exclude from what?

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:47 | 5646330 Barnaby
Barnaby's picture

My ass. History, what else are you deriding folks about?

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 20:18 | 5646936 Seer
Seer's picture

In a way we can tie our modern failings to the very notion of "interest," which was "invented" by the Phoenicians.  Back when this concept appeared it was based on something totally tangible (calves born during transit), but today it's based on nothing by virtual make-believe shit, shit that assumes that all we need to do is to ship cattle and that automatically creates calves: that is, if you want calves just move cattle around, and that we can just create more and more calves (out of thin air) because that's what we predicate our "wealth" on.

Perpetual growth on a finite planet.  It's not just a BAD idea, it's against THE LAW (of physics).  And here we are suggesting that some better "governing" arrangement can allow us to properly continue with the very violation of physics (some other form of ruling will still magically allows us to "grow" without constraint).

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:04 | 5646211 freedom123
freedom123's picture

When Putin regime & Venezuela set prices for products - is it capitalism?

http://www.dw.de/russia-to-raise-vodka-prices-to-fight-excessive-drinkin...

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:28 | 5646279 edotabin
edotabin's picture

It is Putinism and it is automatically excluded from any criticism here.

The place is a frozen shithole with a bunch of unemployed, depressed drunks and we have to somehow aspire to be like them.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:01 | 5646215 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

this from a man with his nose firmly up the elitist ass

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:10 | 5646235 JR
JR's picture

Thanks for your unique and excellent definitions of capitalism, socialism and communism. I've never heard anything like them. Obviously, the American Republic exploded in growth, progress and justice because of freedom, and a contract society that supported Hamilton’s observation: “Here, the people rule.”

But the Republic began to strain under the Robber Barons and America’s wealth and open society tempted a world criminal class represented by the Rothschilds to come to our shores to lead a conspiracy of competitors in seizing the riches for themselves. Their plan was secret, devious, Satanic and its special feature was to make government officials their junior partners and puppets.

It was 1913, the end of the American Republic.

Bankers did not manipulate capitalism but instead these international criminals instantly formed an oligarchy which has now evolved into a dictatorship with the control in the hands of a handful of men. A dictatorship describes a more severe  form of government whereby wars can be fought against sovereign nations without consent of the people and whereby individual citizens can be detained without charges, and whereby subjects can be tortured and killed and opposition silenced by dictatorial control of communications.

In this season there can be no greater example of the power of the dictatorship than the political success of John Boehner. For it is the control of both political parties and the endless supply of fiat money from the Federal Reserve that can swamp any competitor to a politician or reward any faithful servant to the dictator.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 20:33 | 5646983 Seer
Seer's picture

"the American Republic exploded in growth, progress and justice because of freedom, and a contract society that supported Hamilton’s observation"

Unfortunately thiss appear to be conflating cause and effect.  I would argue that this is more about effect than the cause.  The "cause" has everything to do with the abundance of raw/natural resources that were extremely ready for exploitation (one can then refer to Jevons Paradox to understand how technology/process improvements only ensure more rapid exploitation and, therefore, faster exhaustion).

Consider that ALL wars are about resources: many create complex arguments to deceive that this is not the case, as awareness of such would only ensure that the controllers would be smashed in an instance.  Peace, then, is the presence of "plenty."  When resources become scarcer we humans then look to assert ourselves over them.  Not saying any of this is bad, it's just what it is...

"exploded in growth" - and on a finite planet.  How do you think that would end?  Look at China, look at their growth patterns (the entire scale of which is unprecedented): we now can watch them collapse.

Again, read that Glubb book (it's short- I provided a link either above this or below this).  You will find that what style of authority exists does not matter to the fact that ALL empires collapse.  We're doing ourselves a great disservice if we fail to understand this: or, one can continue to look foolish making claims that can be clearly disputed based on human history (of a larger time frame- as I always say, given a short enough time frame ANYTHING can be made to look successful).

BTW - I always look forward to your postings (they always have actual thought behind them).

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:11 | 5646237 Seer
Seer's picture

We're fucking doomed.  Everyone is stupid as fuck! (and those professing to be "smart" are dooming us to fail as a species)  And note that what many pass off as being "stupid" has to do with intentional misdirection, deception: nature is VERY deceiving, and humans are at the top of mastering deception (think "Edward Bernays").

All "isms" are destined to this very outcome.  They are ALL based on "growth-ism,"  Wake the fuck up, this is a finite planet.  No matter how great some "ism" is, as long as it's predicated on continual growth then it IS but a PONZI, it's going to run into the finite limits of the planet.

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmp...

Althuogh Glubb missed the notion of growth being the underlying driver of the growth/collapse cycle, his observations, which cover thousands of years of history, are quite telling of the signs along the path to eventual collapse.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 07:33 | 5647853 Element
Element's picture

 

 

"All "isms" are destined to this very outcome.  They are ALL based on "growth-ism,"  Wake the fuck up, this is a finite planet."

 

ah-huh, so peddling a shallow mantra of planetary finite-ism isn't equally tedious and bereft of merit?

When it rains the particles fall from the sky in the rain drops, the air is self-cleaned, the ground is washed, the leaves glisten and respire more readily, the plants grow, the ground water recharges and is turned over and flushed out. The corals repair themselves from cyclones at the same rate as the rainforest regrows after said cyclone, and both come back with greater species diversity in the worst disturbed zones, and far higher percentage of cover, as well as higher biomass with time, prior to the alleged "environmental catastrophe". The rivers flush themselves and the soil is cleaned and regenerates more soil as the animals thrive and re-populate the land again.

But oh noes! Tis all a 'finite', tis a one-way street, it only depletes and degrades!!

i.e. this pet finite-ism mantra is fucking vacuous narrow-minded blind nonsense that anyone with eyes to see and an adequately functioning brain could reality-check and reject as absurd twaddle in about 5 seconds flat.

Get a grip.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 13:56 | 5648589 Seer
Seer's picture

"ah-huh, so peddling a shallow mantra of planetary finite-ism isn't equally tedious and bereft of merit?"

MATH FAIL!

You can come up with all kinds of stories you wish to dismiss the FACTS, you can even spend precious energy trying to lambast me, but you cannot recreate the laws of physics.

Now go crawl back into your cornucopian corner...

Mon, 01/12/2015 - 02:15 | 5650479 Element
Element's picture

No need to badger you, your assumptive theoretical starting point is innately ridiculous, illogical and in contravention of natural observation. It's a math quiz in your head only, the natural world repairs and regenerates itself constantly. Damage is repaired, resources regrow, the planet cleans itself continuously. The British Isles are finite, over 60 million very healthy long-lived people, and somehow the island keeps cleaning and repairing itself and providing people a wonderful life.

If you want to pretend it's a one way street to certain doom due to a finite bound, which is a completely asinine and unmerited proposition from what we observe, then don't be surprised to be called an extremist doomer lunatic.

Not only do you have no solution for your alleged problem, you also don't appear to have any identifiable problem for the non-solutions you don't have!

hahaha!

 

No more need be said really.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:11 | 5646240 Silver Bullet
Silver Bullet's picture

Without good checks and balances Ina a system, it will always end with with a controlling oligarchy. Always. It's human nature.
Quixotic libertarianism does not and cannot be maintained in a vacuum as it always ends in elitist rule and totalitarian communism is necessarily ruled by a group of "superior people" (effective oligarchs).

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:23 | 5646261 honestann
honestann's picture

True capiltalism == NO GOVERNMENT.
True liberty == NO GOVERNMENT.
GOVERNMENT is always BAD.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:40 | 5646308 Seer
Seer's picture

What are your expectations?  Pretty sure that somewhere in any dissertation that you'd deliver that it includes the word "growth."  Feel free to then reconcile that with the FACT that we live on a finite planet.

And no, I'm not a proponent of govt: actually, I don't strap myself to any "solution," as there is no such thing as a "solution" as long as time marches forward: the very word "solution" represents permanence, and, again, feel free to demonstrate how this would be reconciled in the real world (in which time exists).

Bottom line: perpetual growth on a finite planet is ALWAYS a BAD idea.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 20:26 | 5646650 honestann
honestann's picture

While humans have barely scratched the energy and resources available in the volume of planet earth, you are technically correct (eventually).  Nonetheless, folks like you who realize (or honestly believe) "we have a problem here" should be huge advocates of tapping into the rest of the universe... at least the nearby universe for starters.

You are also correct that "solutions" are always temporary.  Though... once you have developed the ability and skills to wander (and tap) the universe, you can stop worrying for the next trillion years or so.

As an aside, I always feel uncomfortable pointing out these "inconvenient facts", because personally I value quality over quantity enormously.  If I have to live on a planet at all, I'd much rather live where planetary population is a few thousand or million, not a few billion (one-thousand to one-million times lower population density).  So while I can't agree (that's what honesty does to us sometimes), I sure feel your pain, and totally agree with your premise of responsiblity.  Which is why I gave you an uparrow.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 20:47 | 5647028 Seer
Seer's picture

"Nonetheless, folks like you who realize (or honestly believe) "we have a problem here" should be huge advocates of tapping into the rest of the universe... at least the nearby universe for starters."

And this does what for increasing our needs for more real estate?

Your "solution" is based on hope and feeds into the ruling elites' game plan quite well.

"So while I can't agree (that's what honesty does to us sometimes), I sure feel your pain, and totally agree with your premise of responsiblity.  Which is why I gave you an uparrow."

I don't have any fucking "pain" over this!  I'm NOT a victim.  I'm one of the top 10%-ers of the world, and I make no pretences that I'm being abused or am in any way a "victim," or that I am in anyway responsible for applying any "solution."   I'm married to someone who has lived as much of humanity does and always has lived: dirt-fucking-poor (did you have toilet paper growing up?).  I'm a pure realist who is sick and tired of the nutjob extremists who profess to know the "solution."

There are two main sources of tricksters in the world:

1) Religions, rather, promoters of "organized" religions that tell us we're going to get off this planet by way of some invisible hand (and while here we're best to observe some hierarchy of elitists who are only here to spread "the word" for the common person's interest);

2) "Technology" promoters, who make promises of salvation from this planet -getting off of it- by way of rocket ship (and if we observe what the elitists of this camp say then we work toward this so that everyone, all "commoners," can "some day" benefit [just march on comrade] .

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 03:14 | 5647707 honestann
honestann's picture

Right.  Technology has no benefit, and humans are worse off because some of us jerks worked to understand reality (science), develop ways to apply science (engineering), and implemented what we thought would make life more pleasant for humans.

And since that's true, all future science and technology is inherently futile, so we should stop trying to learn about reality, we should stop developing ways to apply our knowledge, and we should return to sticks, stones, caves and mud pies.

Got it.

</sarcasm>

Nowhere do I advocate global solutions.  You should know that from reading my posts over the past 5 years.  And I don't sell or promote religion, and I don't sell or promote technology either.  And as you read, I sure as hell don't promote growth... at least not growth in population or wasteful consumption.

I just go about my business of developing new science, engineering and technologies... for my own benefit (and not to sell or promote).

I also have no illusion how much effort is required to tap the earth, or move into outer space in a major way (lots of people).  But compared to what the military industrial complex spends on blowing up people and buildings, such efforts are within reach (especially the former).

As a personal note, until I left home after high school, if we had to get up to pee or poo in the middle of the night (or day), we had to go outside to our outhouse.  But we did have something to wipe with, albeit not exactly toilet paper.  I like toilet paper, and I like indoor plumbing, and I like quality and comfort... but not waste.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 14:20 | 5648623 Seer
Seer's picture

Technology is a PROCESS!

Technology does NOT create matter.  It only recombines it.  And, yes, I'm well aware of humans' brilliance (? human hubris?) in rearranging the furniture, but, again, we are NOT able to create matter: our utilization tends to disperse it, meaning that it only becomes harder, more energy intensive, to re-gather (and recombine/process).

Process (technology) + matter + energy (which is also matter, just a special kind) = "results" (human brilliance/whatever)

From a couple posts above you state:

"While humans have barely scratched the energy and resources available in the volume of planet earth,"

How do YOU know?  Are YOU the sole keeper of this?  Where is the DATA?  Where is the proof?  Are you willing to go all or nothing on this as fact?  And what about the air and water (which we tend to muck up as our consumption of resources increases)?

"As a personal note, until I left home after high school, if we had to get up to pee or poo in the middle of the night (or day), we had to go outside to our outhouse.  But we did have something to wipe with, albeit not exactly toilet paper.  I like toilet paper, and I like indoor plumbing, and I like quality and comfort... but not waste."

Outhouses are fine if you have the real estate.  The Chinese would collect up "night soils" and deliver them to the fields: yeah, raw sewage on your food! (which is how stir-fry came to be- heat the hell out of things to kill bacteria).

The ruling elite, who are dividing us all up in order to distract us from themselves (they use religion and technology to do so), also want all the great technological stuff, and they're using a lot of that great technology to ensure that they stay on top: drones; mass "communication" (propaganda- programming), control of resources etc..

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 19:27 | 5649525 Harry Balzak
Harry Balzak's picture

"While humans have barely scratched the energy and resources available in the volume of planet earth,"

How do YOU know?  Are YOU the sole keeper of this?  Where is the DATA?  Where is the proof?  Are you willing to go all or nothing on this as fact?  And what about the air and water (which we tend to muck up as our consumption of resources increases)?

LOL!  I guess this makes you the sole keeper?

It's an inductive arguement, but quite definitive none-the-less.  If you look at history, humans have identified and utilized energy sources that have outpaced demand, in spite of huge population growth.  Humans have only penetrated the surface of earth a few miles and only in limited geographic locations.  Most of the volume of earth is completely unexplored by all but the most rudimentary methods.  

We already know of an energy source, solar,  that is thousands of times greater than all energy consumed by all of humanity.  We haven't mastered it's capture and storage but that'll come if people are free to leverage their intellect (which they aren't, and that's a problem).  

The earth is full of other resources, like metals, that humans haven't needed to tap because they are freely available near the surface.  Someday, iron or aluminum may be in short supply and it might make sense to go deeper.  

As for 'muck'ing up air and water, economies grew beyond their ability to clean up after themselves because of government subsidies to encourage growth.  Govts struggled for 50+ years to fix the problem they encouraged, and now they use it as justification to involve themselves in everything.  

 

 

Mon, 01/12/2015 - 03:56 | 5650574 honestann
honestann's picture

Nothing like astronomically huge unshielded (woops) nuclear fusion reactors when you're in the mood for energy, eh?  Just watch out for sunburn!

Mon, 01/12/2015 - 03:53 | 5649962 honestann
honestann's picture

Technology is a PROCESS!

Correct.

-----

Technology does NOT create matter.

Correct.  And consumption does not destroy matter.  But sometimes it does leave matter in states that are harmful to various lifeforms, including humans, as well as harmful to the sense of aesthetics that "delude" some of us.

-----

... we are NOT able to create matter: our utilization tends to disperse matter.

Correct, which is why we should practice sensible ("responsible") science, engineering, technological implementation, and... shudder... common sense and behavior.  Which some of us actually do (or try to the best of our judgement and abilities).

However, as to the "entropy" argument that this line of reasoning leads to... that is blatantly false in the universal scientific sense... as a matter of fact.  However, I also freely admit that the so-called process or tendency people with your viewpoint tend to ascribe to "entropy" is largely correct in a limited environment like "earth", so I will let this issue pass with only a warning: don't elevate "entropy" to the level of religion, because the universe is a grand example of anti-entropy on an astronomical scale.  Which is one tiny reason we consider tapping into that fact.

-----

"While humans have barely scratched the energy and resources available in the volume of planet earth,"

How do YOU know?  Are YOU the sole keeper of this?  Where is the DATA?  Where is the proof?

I've said this many time, but it bears repeating again given you forgot I've said this many times.  I only KNOW three or four things (meaning without any possibility of error whatsoever).  Everything else I "know" (which means "infer that I know, that is, am highly confident I know") is a provisional inference.

Honest and thoughtful sentient beings understand and accept that everything they "know", and everything they "think they know", and everything they "strongly suspect", are provisional inferences (call them honest "best guesses if you like")... and due to the limited nature of observation, experience, experiment and intellectual skills we have as limited beings in an e-freaking-normous universe, that's the best we can do.

And so, beyond me saying "reality exits" and "reality is not 100% static (unchanging) in every respect" and a couple other fundamentals... the rest is provisional inference, even in those cases where I figure my chance of being wrong are vastly less than one in a zillion.

And so, while I can't be 100% certain how far and wide humans have probed the volume of earth, I am probably about 99.999999999% confident they have not thoroughly probed more than 1% of the volume... and even that is a massive, massive, massive stretch to imagine.  But no, I don't "know" in the sense of omniscience.  And you don't know anything you say to that level of certainty either.  So why post at all if that is your standard of certainty?

-----

Are you willing to go all or nothing on this as fact?

If you mean what I think you mean by that question, my answer is that I do not trust any scientist or engineer or other worker who gets his paycheck from predators posing as "government" or predators posing as "corporation".  Which means, I don't trust anything any of those millions of people do.  And since they enslave the entire population of man to fund those efforts, they should do none of what they do, most certainly including the promotion of population growth and turning wilderness into cities and suburbs, and humans shouldn't stand for any of that (as I say repeatedly in ZH).

I think you might be blown away at how intolerant I am of actions that pollute.

-----

Just because someone appreciates what responsible humans can do with an understanding of reality/nature (science) and engineering techniques DOES NOT mean they approve of what most "scientists" and "engineers" and "technologists" actually DO.

You appear to bundle the two and assume all scientists and engineers approve of the endless atrocities scientists and engineers do and further (usually in the name of "government" or "corporation" or "religion"... and most important, their paycheck).

WE DO NOT.  By way of analogy, though I am confident "god is fiction" and "religion is massive fraud and psychosis", that doesn't change the fact that a few religious people who actually take their beliefs seriously, and behave responsibly, can and do good things (like help people when they are down).  I can still honor and respect those people for their benevolence, even as I understand most others in "their line of work" are disingenuous predator scumbags.  You might want to try this attitude out someday... don't automatically lump everyone and everything together, just because it is somehow convenient to do so, or somehow gives you a feeling of superiority.

For the record, as far as I am concerned, any human being who takes any action that causes pollution (material or conditions measurably harmful to human life and property), is assaulting other humans, and that is cause for extermination (assuming they know and refuse to stop and compensate for damage caused).

So believe me, chances are very likely that I have much less tolerance for abuse of the environment (or whatever you call it) than you do.  Can I claim most scientists and engineers feel this way... and would act accordingly with a big recurring paycheck to harm the environment?  NO WAY.  And so I don't.  And so, I have just about as close to "zero tolerance" for air and water pollution as any human on the planet.  If you are indeed part of the top 1% or 10% as you claimed somewhere, my guess is, you have more tolerance for air and water pollution than I do... though perhaps not much more (I just don't know, cuz your posts are all over the place).

-----

Chinese are not the only people on planet earth who put animal waste in the soil before they plant their crops.  I believe this is called "peat moss" or "organic fertilizer"... though I'm not an expert in such things.

-----

I agree with your last paragraph, and you should know that if you read my posts.  They do indeed want the "good life", in a pristine clean environment in fact, and they don't want any pollution generated to produce their "clean, pristine, super-luxury lives" getting anywhere close to them.  From what I know, from people who used to work in the "full spectrum dominance" military-government-corporate-complex, their plans are to exterminate 98% to 99% or more of those filthy human beings you mention... as soon as their "robotic slaves" are capable of doing any productive grunt work they want, and of course, be their butlers and maids.  I imagine they might keep a few young slave girls around too, but I'm not sure about that.  I completely reject the fictions called "government" and "corporation" (as I'm sure you know), and regularly call the humans who pretend they are those fictions "human predators".  So it is a bit odd that you seem to attempt to lump me and our entirely benevolent and 100% private endeavors with the slime we criticize endlessly.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:48 | 5646331 Batman11
Batman11's picture

When the Government has gone you will be ruled over by Wall Street with no elections to get them out.

 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 20:49 | 5647042 Seer
Seer's picture

Wall Street collapses along with the government.  However, unlike others (the ones down-voting you), I don't believe that with government out of the picture (and Wall Street too) everything automatically comes up roses.  Simple analysis of human history informs us that the bulk of humanity has been organized via "tribe" type groups, and such groups have generally been tightly controlled.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 17:31 | 5646505 falak pema
falak pema's picture

robinson crusoe's daughter; you can only thrive in Utopia. 

Thomas More wrote that book before he was beheaded; not for writing it but for defending the Pope against King's desire to change religion. 

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 18:27 | 5646633 honestann
honestann's picture

I suspect you meant your first sentence differently than I take it, because I agree.  The closer the environment is to utopia (liberty, honesty, ethics, productivity, benevolence), the more any good individual thrives.

Which is why I live in a place that is close to utopia (for someone with my tastes and inclinations), and why I work 80+ hours per week to create a vastly superior utopia for myself and those who also collaborate on our project.

Yes, pure, total, ultimate utopia is impossible... assuming you need the nature of reality to bend to your whims.  But that doesn't mean close-to practical utopia is impossible... it isn't impossible, as hopefully we shall demonstrate (to ourselves).

I'd like to see humans enjoy a better existence, and I try to help by pointing in the appropriate directions.  But, at the end of the day, I'm an individualist, so... humans are not my problem.

Understanding consciousness as thoroughly as I do given the project I collaborate on, I always marvel at how astronomically unskilled humans are at operating their consciousness.  To be sure, human brains don't come with operating instructions, much less a theory of operation chapter, but geez!  The typical (and usually intended) response to "utopia is impossible" is... to accept horrific states of existence, and not even try to move closer to a state of "utopia".

These kinds of malfunctions of consciousness make it so easy for human predators to enslave and abuse human beings.  All they need is a few crafty soundbites backed up by threats of violence.  And whamo... willing prey.  What a lame species humans are.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 20:57 | 5647058 Seer
Seer's picture

"I suspect you meant your first sentence differently than I take it, because I agree.  The closer the environment is to utopia (liberty, honesty, ethics, productivity, benevolence), the more any good individual thrives."

So, just dream it all and it happens?

Sorry, as much as I detest Dick Cheney I learned through him the true value of oil/energy and of it's importances to "the American Way of Life."  Lose oil/energy and we're going to be chucking rocks at one another; but, since it's finite anyway, it's not a question of IF but of WHEN.

"What a lame species humans are."

Judgemental, aren't we?

Humans are OF nature, humans are animals.  We can no more separate ourselves from our animal instincts than say a leopard can.  If you're starving and have a strong desire to live (think of Dick Cheney here) you're likely going to run over someone else to get that single serving of sustenance.  Or, you can step aside and die of starvation: or sit there, as some do, and pray/hope that "god" or technology delivers it...

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 03:38 | 5647718 honestann
honestann's picture

Yes, humans are most definitely animals... as my posts repeat endlessly.  And "dreaming stuff up" is only the first of many steps to achieve real, beneficial results.  Which I know, because I've spent my entire adult life (starting in my teens) developing and implementing new technologies.  And for the past few years, and for the next many years, I devote 80+ hours per week developing and implementing new technologies... unpaid I might add.

So no, I'm not just a dreamer.  I'm a doer too.  But yes, a great many people are just dreamers and advocates (and lobbyists), so I understand the problem with that.

Yes, I am judgemental.  Reading your posts in and around this one, I sorta detect an massive quantity of judements on your part too, I believe.

You claim, "humans can mo more separate ourselves from our animal instincts than a leopard can".  Well, there you are wrong, at least if I understand what you intend to mean.  The FACT is, humans CAN modify their conscious processes in ways other animals apparently cannot.  I'll grant you that too few do.

The rest of your post is very wrong, probably because you are wrong about humans versus leopards.  Humans CAN BE producers.  What do I mean by that?  I mean humans can produce massive quantities of goods and goodies that would not have come to exist by natural processes [absent human thought and productive actions].

Therefore us producers DO NOT NEED to RUN OVER ANYONE to survive... and prosper... and be happy... and progress substantially further every lifetime.

I have no need to "step aside and die of starvation".  I grow and raise almost everything I eat.  And I definitely could survive quite comfortably for the rest of my natural lifespan if every other human being on the planet vanished.  Which means, I don't need to steal anything from anyone.  Hell, being that I'm 125km from the nearest human being, I'm not sure who the hell I would steal from if I needed to.

To be sure, I didn't produce the fab lines that make the ICs that make my electronic devices work (or are my solar cells).  And I didn't mine the metals in many of the goods and goodies that I depend upon and enjoy.

But I did produce the value equivalent, and did NOT cheat anyone... ever.  And so, you are just plain wrong to assume humans cannot survive without "running over others".  The fact of the matter is, we survive EVEN THOUGH a huge number of predators and parasites are NOT productive, and steal much of what us producers produce.  So it is precisely we who are being run over, not we who are running over others.

We do not benefit from predators... they destroy.  They need what we produce just as much as we do.  They depend upon us, which is why their entire lives are devoted to enslaving us and controlling us and stealing from us.

Humans are quite fit to survive on planet earth, but since most humans reject their ability to comprehend reality, advance further than the previous generation, and become more productive and less destructive (polluting, etc)... they lead people like you to assume the good life is impossible.  It isn't impossible, not by a long shot, but most humans today refuse to step up to the plate, get real, get honest, get smarter, get productive, and life that better life.

Not my problem.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 14:53 | 5648703 Seer
Seer's picture

"Humans are quite fit to survive on planet earth, but since most humans reject their ability to comprehend reality, advance further than the previous generation, and become more productive and less destructive (polluting, etc)... they lead people like you to assume the good life is impossible.  It isn't impossible, not by a long shot, but most humans today refuse to step up to the plate, get real, get honest, get smarter, get productive, and life that better life."

There's no debating with cornucopians!

"Humans are quite fit to survive on planet earth"

"Humans" as in how many?  Two?  5 million?  1 billion?  Why let's just say that if we all could just think and behave like you (no "doomers" like me) that we could have 500 trillion humans able to survive on planet earth!

Your point fails to establish SCALE.

"since most humans reject their ability to comprehend reality"

Most humans?  Is that 1/2 of the world's 7+ billion (roughly) plus ONE?  Is it those in tribes other than yours?  And, just what IS "reality?"  You provide no basis for establish just what that is.  Reality is subjective: take a trip to India and talk to one of the 750 million folks who live on $0.50/day and tell me that you UNDERSTAND "reality."  Now then, if you want to talk about comprehending things that are more tightly coupled to fact then I'd suggest judging comprehension though the lens of things more concrete, like the laws of physics.

"advance further than the previous generation"

Another warm and fuzzy word, "advance."  Advance FROM what?  Advance TOWARD what?  Do you realize that the major political constructs, as well as religions, tend to work on the basis of promises of things in the FUTURE?  Carrot-and-stick sound familiar?  TPTB love it!

"become more productive and less destructive"

Again, what is "productive" is highly subjective.  And what is "destructive" is also highly subjective.  There is no content or basis laid here.

"they lead people like you to assume the good life is impossible"

Personal attack.  Of no relevance to facts.  If I didn't believe that the "good life" was possible then I suppose that I wouldn't be living it, which I am.  Fuck me, I'm confused!  You see, using another subjective word such as "good" does NOT define fact.

"most humans today refuse to step up to the plate, get real, get honest, get smarter, get productive, and life that better life."

Could you present your polling methods and data?

Further, are you asking people to all "pitch in," enjoining what YOU want to (attempt to) establish?  One-world-order (religion or govt)?  And, would you, if you could, establish laws requiring people to do so?  How much separation is this from slavery?

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 19:51 | 5649620 Harry Balzak
Harry Balzak's picture

There's enough red herring in this post to feed a man for a week!

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 21:03 | 5649838 honestann
honestann's picture

Wow!  I think maybe (but not really) this guy is inciting my replies, then taking them to write a book in which he will take my positions.  Pretty crafty if you ask me.  Smart guy!  Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know whether he honestly believes the nonsense he says, and honestly forgets he has read my explanations of these points before.  Because that's the difference between being brilliant and diabolical... and just plain nuts.  BTW, thanks for your often insightful or humorous comments scattered here and there on ZH.

Tue, 01/13/2015 - 20:14 | 5657877 Harry Balzak
Harry Balzak's picture

Our perspectives are similar but I'm new to the site and have limited exposure to your comments.  I definitely appreciate the integrity of your intellect and precision of your writing.  

I like the presence of a catalyst goading you into re-posting your past pontifications.  Hopefully he'll keep taunting you.  :)

 

Mon, 01/12/2015 - 05:48 | 5650560 honestann
honestann's picture

"Humans" as in how many?  Two?  5 million?  1 billion?  Why let's just say that if we all could just think and behave like you (no "doomers" like me) that we could have 500 trillion humans able to survive on planet earth!  Your point fails to establish SCALE.

I said, and you seem to always ignore, my personal answer is somewhere between 7-thousand and 7-million (not 7-billion+).  However, though I don't personally enjoy the thought at all, quite a few more than 7-billion human beings could live on planet earth IF they became honest, thoughtful and responsible... and not dominated by ultra-powerful predators-that-be who render honesty, thoughtfulness and responsibility largely beside the point (except on a personal level).

However, I don't want to live on any such planet, and it doesn't sound like you want to live on such a planet either.  And neither do the predators-that-be, which is why they intend to exterminate somewhere between 95% and 99.9% of the human population in the not-that-distant medium-term.

I am not one of those utopian futurists who seem to think "if it can be done, it should be done".  No freaking way!  I value quality over quantity enormously... and the term "enormously" seems entirely too weak.  So again, I think you're trying to bundle me in with people I fundamentally and massively disagree with, and greatly dislike.

-----

Your next comment is a bit long to quote, so let me answer by saying this.  Very few people who think of themselves as "sophisticated" or "intellectual" comprehend reality very well (and/or sorta do, but blatantly ignore what they comprehend, and don't look deeper because they sorta know they won't like where their comprehension leads).

However, I'd agree with what (I think) is an implicit point you were trying to make (maybe), that a great deal of people who do not think of themselves as "sophisticated" or "intellectual", and spend almost all their time grappling and grubbing directly with physical reality (to grow food and provide for the survival of themselves and family) fairly well comprehend those limited aspects of reality that they deal with many hours every day.  They tend to be less inclined to pretend contradictions can exist, because every time they try that with their tractor or farm equipment, they nearly loose a limb, or destroy the equipment that makes their lives feasible.

-----

Reality is subjective.

Absolutely, positively NOT.  Reality is real.  I would say reality is objective, except reality is more real and direct than the term "objective".  To be sure, for anyone to imagine that reality everywhere is like their local neighborhood or town is massive delusion and self deception.

If fred lives in some dirt poor corner of the world, and digs grooves in the ground with an old screwdriver to direct water to the seeds he buried in the ground with that same old screwdriver, he does indeed deal with a portion of reality that is different than me, and deals with the issue of planting and watering seeds differently than I do (now).  However, he lives in a portion of reality, I live in a portion of reality, and 7-billion other human beings live in portions of reality that vary from fred and me and you to various degrees, and in various ways.  Your experiences of reality of subjective, because you REALLY ARE the subject of that observation.  But the reality is not subjective in any way.

So you can say "our individual interactions with reality vary quite a bit", but every single one of those interactions are 100% real.  That I may not appreciate (meaning "be clearly aware of") the difficulties many other people on this planet face is certainly true.  But that doesn't make their experience, or my experience, or your experience, or 7-billion other experiences any less real.

As someone who got hooked on astronomy at age 4, and thought long and hard about the universe between 4 and 8, that made me very aware that somewhere around 99.9999999999999999% of reality is very, extremely different from that tiny bit that I occupy and interact with.  That is implicit (and rarely but sometimes explicit) in everything I think and say (I hope).

-----

Now then, if you want to talk about comprehending things that are more tightly coupled to fact then I'd suggest judging comprehension though the lens of things more concrete, like the laws of physics.

At the risk of being picky and making you angry, "laws of physics" are... at best... human descriptions (and very much shorthand at that), and often too abstract and limited for the purposes they are applied.  The "laws of physics" do not "control reality".  At best, each of them describes some limited aspect of reality, often in "very" limited contexts, and often not very precisely (though the "math" looks rather precise).

However, at the risk of being silly, consider this one:

e = m * c^2

One of the most famous formulas and "laws of physics".  I have to say, given that I've asked many physicists this same question, almost nobody thinks very carefully and precisely about what simple "laws of physics" really mean... or even the simple math that describes them.

So let's look at this simple equation (and "law" if you consider this one).

c^2 is a constant... that is presumed by the dude who formulated this, and by virtually every one of his followers and "physicists" today.  Therefore, the c^2 simply "makes the units work out", and has no significance of its own in this context.

Which leaves:

e = m

Energy equals mass.  What does this mean?  That energy IS mass?  Well, that's interesting.  Because we (and physicists) sorta understand what we mean by "mass" and "energy" (somewhat less so), we don't feel right saying "energy is mass".

What many of us supposedly more sophisticated and intellectual people might say to address this issue is something like, "well, energy and mass are two configurations of the same fundamental stuff".  Assuming that "stuff" is a "field", I tend to agree with that.

However, this whole thought process leads an honest and thoughtful human to question how clearly and precisely he even comprehends how to understand what "math" and "his formulations of physics" mean.

Because sometimes when he ends up with an "=", it does mean "same".  But obviously sometimes it doesn't mean "same"... certainly not as directly so, as in this case.  Probably almost nobody thinks "carry around a pocket full of mass" is identical to "carry around a pocket full of energy"... unless they happen to have some antimatter in the other pocket, perhaps.

Anyway, so yeah, let's talk "[laws of] physics" if you want, though I prefer to talk "reality".

-----

Another warm and fuzzy word, "advance."  Advance FROM what?  Advance TOWARD what?

Advance from not understanding much and living a crude, rough, tough, dangerous, uncomfortable life [sometimes in an ugly environment]... to understanding more and living a relatively less crude, less rough, less tough, less dangerous and more comfortable life... in more attractive environments.

-----

Do you realize that the major political constructs, as well as religions, tend to work on the basis of promises of things in the FUTURE?  Carrot-and-stick sound familiar?  TPTB love it!

Yes they do, and most humans are suckers.  However, I reject ALL political constructs, I reject ALL religions, I reject ALL ways to force people to accept sacrifice today in order to enjoy utopia (or just "more stuff") in the future.  And yes, the carrot-and-stick scam is popular with predators, from the predators-that-be on down.  I reject it all.

However, I do not throw out the baby with the bathwater like you seem to want me to do.  Almost EVERY action I take is to enjoy something now, or to enjoy something in the future.  And believe me, while I enjoy enjoying now, I am not so limited in my thinking processes that I totally ignore the future (as you appear to want me to, though maybe that's not exactly your point, even if it sounds that way).

The fact is, I've always been very frugal... to a degree where virtually everyone things "she's nuts".  Why was I like that?  I suspect you can guess why!  I denied myself goods and goodies and pleasures (that cost money) and enjoyment (that costs money) so... I could enjoy even better goods, goodies, pleasures and enjoyments... LATER.  Which is precisely ME hanging figurative carrots out in front of MYSELF.  Was that evil?  Was that irresponsible?  What that malicious?  What that harmful?  Or was that wise and prudent?  I'll leave that for you form your own opinion.  Me?  I'm glad I did.  And I'm especially glad I never borrowed money and got into debt... ever.

So I agree with [what seems to be] your warning against manipulation via the "carrot and stick" phenomenon applied by others.  But I am indeed "mindful of the future, [young padawan]".  Guilty as charged.  And I remain so.

As I said elsewhere, I've been working 80+ hours per day for years, and probably for the next 10 or 20 years... to hopefully get a huge, enormous, astronomical payoff for my application of the "carrot and stick" to myself.  And I may lose big time... perhaps almost 50% chance of that.

-----

To some degree "productive" and "destructive" is contextual (or "subjective").  However, normally I understand the context I speak in, even if readers don't bother to attempt to understand (or note) the context.

So yes, when a cow eats grass, in a certain context, that is "productive"... it supplies nourishment that sustains his body and provides energy to his body and brain.  Later, when that cow takes a huge dump, in a certain context, that is "productive" to the cow in the sense he would die if he could never offload the result of his physical processes of nourishment, and also "productive" to the grass (and other plants) in the sense that the "dump" is nourishment for them (when combined with water and sunlight).

So yeah, presumably we all understand these contexts.  I do.  You seem to... but you also seem to accept these context easily while rejecting the context that applies most directly to you and your species.  Oh well, if you are intent on that, not much I can do.

-----

"they lead people like you to assume the good life is impossible"

I said "people like you".  :-)

But seriously, I was just identifying the fact that certain limited-context lines of thought and argument do in fact lead a great many people to such conclusions.  Read your own posts!  The funny thing is, if you read all my posts, I almost agree with you... except not in such a simplistic way (without more context provided).

-----

If I didn't believe that the "good life" was possible then I suppose that I wouldn't be living it, which I am.  Fuck me, I'm confused!

Apparently you are, because somewhere near this message I read your statement "we are all doomed".  Well, if "living the good life" means "we are all doomed"... then you and I have a different idea of what "living the good life" means.  I find this kind of ?apparent? confusion in your message all over the place, sorry to say.

-----

You see, using another subjective word such as "good" does NOT define fact.

I assume when you say "we are all doomed", that includes the subjective "you" too, since you said "we" (which seems to include you).  Can you see why you confuse me?  Nah, probably not.

-----

...most humans today refuse to step up to the plate, get real, get honest, get smarter, get productive, and life that better life.

Could you present your polling methods and data?

Sure.  You may not consider this a "scientific poll", but the results are so overwhelming that I infer the results are generally representative.

For one thing, virtually everyone I encounter (electronically, since I don't physically encounter people very often any more, and not very many then), and virtually everyone I have encountered for my entire life, supports, defends, sanctions and finances the status quo.  Almost nobody I've had conversations with can even imagine life without human predators enslaving them, dominating them, telling them what they must do and what they must not do, stealing roughly half of their income and wealth.

Now, it is hyper-remotely possible, but on the verge of impossible, that I've just run into the "wrong people" all my life.  It sure seems that way!  But then again, when I look at the state of the world, the obvious fingerprints of the predator-that-be are everywhere, and utterly dominant.  So as far as I can tell, my experience has been representative.

Besides, consider this bottom-line answer to your question.  If even 1% of the population DID step up to the plate, DID get real, DID get honest, DID get [more] productive [and less wasteful, and less motivated by predator-controlled carrots and sticks]... the entire destructive, irresponsible, environment-trashing, endless-growth depending artifice of the predators-that-be would be wiped off the face of the earth within a month or three (or a year, worst case).

Therefore, I am confident my inference was correct.

-----

Further, are you asking people to all "pitch in," enjoining what YOU want to (attempt to) establish?  One-world-order (religion or govt)?  And, would you, if you could, establish laws requiring people to do so?  How much separation is this from slavery?

I am not asking people to pitch in.  They own themselves.  And they made their decision to "refuse to step up to the plate, get real, get honest, get smarter, get productive and do what is necessary to live that better life".  They made their choice.  Which is why I don't live in the northwest with those who intend to fight it out with the predators-that-be, who actually believe the piece of paper called the constitution "grants" them something, or has anything to do with them.  Yes, even though I believe their justifications are misguided, I would have moved there, started collaborating with those serious enough to take serious actions, and prepared to fight to the death along side them... constitution nuts, religious nuts and all.

So no.  I've said many times "humans are finished"... because they have made their decisions, they do not agree with me, they intend to comply with the rules the predators-that-be set for them.  NOT GONNA WORK.

Which is why a few of us, who luckily know (and develop) an alternative to "going down with the species" (or "trying to join them"... which won't work)... spend our time implementing our own solution that doesn't depend one bit on conflict with the predators-that-be, much less beating them.

I've only been saying what humans COULD DO.  But as you should have noticed, and understood by my endless repetition of "humans are finished", I also say NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

In other words, I almost agree with [one of] your assessments, the one in which you said "we are all doomed".  The only difference is, we are lucky enough to have a way to escape the doom coming to the planet you life upon.  But our escape from the doom cannot save humanity, and we don't intend to try (which would paint a bit fat red target upon us).  We barely have sufficient time, effort and resources to finish our project, wait for the results to bootstrap for a year or three, then get the hell outta here while the getting is possible.

I reject ANY government or ANY form of forced human domination over other humans.  So how you can possibly imagine I support anything even remotely like "new world order" or "one world government" or "some religious resurgence" (I have always been atheist) is so beyond me that I'm almost speechless.

I reject ALL forms of "laws".  ALL of them.  ALL of them.  ALL of them.  So again, to imagine I desire (or ever would in my wildest dreams) want to TELL people what they MUST do... is completely absurd and insane.  I don't accept ANY form of "government", ANY form of "laws" or "orders" or "obligations" or "requirements" or "prohibitions".  I only believe in consequences.  So if you try to rob or kill me, or succeed at robbing or killing me, the likely consequences are: I will kill you in the process of self-defense, or I will later hunt you down and shoot you dead (hopefully in the back of your head at no risk to me), or people who value me will later hunt you down and kill you... or you will get away with your actions (but good luck [not really] getting away from dire consequences if you try that kind of thing very often).  As you see, what I believe is... actions have consequences, and yes I do consider some consequences "bad" and others "good", but I do NOT believe any "officialdom" exists, or can possibly exist.  Though I do acknowledge "domination" can happen, and has happened, because humans DO NOT step up to the plate, DO NOT get real, DO NOT take responsibility for making consequences appropriate.

And so, I utterly reject slavery.  Because slavery is, in fact, just a more localized version of "government" and "predators-that-be".  And no more real or justified.

My whole thesis is about individual humans taking actions to create local and limited consequences for their own good, while not allowing negative consequences of their actions to harm others.

My ethics is "causality applied to human action".  More specifically, "every individual should enjoy/bare/suffer ALL the consequences of his own actions, and enjoy/bare/suffer NO consequences from the actions of others".  Note the complete ABSENCE of "government", "authority", "official", "law", "god" and "religion" from that ethics and formulation.  You asked for "laws of physics".  Well, my ethics is as close as you will ever find to "ethics derived from physics"... except it isn't physics, it is metaphysics and more fundamental.  It is derived from the fundamental characteristic of reality, namely "causality" (actions have consequences/effects)... applied to those actions taken by humans (not thunderstorms, not asteroid impacts, not solar radiation/sunburn).

-----

Like I said, you seem to confuse me with more conventional humans.  That is an error on your part.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:30 | 5646287 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

I contend this article is incorrect as oligarchs have always existed regardless of political scheme. And even when there is a reset, the names just change but you still have the oligarchs and the serfs.

A form of government will always exist.

Let's say some of you get your wish and government was abolished. As soon as the first roving group of bandits come through your area, then you'll need to form some sort of group for protection - boom - government starts up again. And you should know I feel that government is the biggest problem. Yet it forms again and again and again. That is why the problem has never been solved.

Just saying get rid of government doesn't address the problem of why government gets created in the first place.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 16:51 | 5646345 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

the New Bolshevism is upon us

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 17:13 | 5646409 Lea
Lea's picture

This is plain sophistry. Of course free trade capitalism leads to concentrations of riches, hence to Oligarchy. You'd be dumb not to see the obvious cause to effect. Of course the mightiest kill their competition to become even mightier. What could stop them in an unregulated free trade environment?

Regulations?

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 17:12 | 5646422 Prober
Prober's picture

"Capitalism-Socialism-Communism: "A Republic Always Devolves Into An Oligarchy"

FINALLY a commentator scores a bulls-eye !!!!!!

Common factor = the human species is too defective to have good collective government = ALL of them suck eventually no matter what they are founded on.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 15:00 | 5648717 Seer
Seer's picture

POWER CORRUPTS.  It's really as simple as that.

We are but living things competing for limited resources.  Most (cornucopians primarily) don't want to contemplate this, and it's not because they want to ignore it as much as it's really an unsolvable "problem" (and "solvable" really means permanent solution, and given that time forces change there can really be no such thing as "permanence" and, therefore, no "solution").

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 17:17 | 5646437 Jack's Raging B...
Jack&#039;s Raging Bile Duct's picture

How much money does this co-opted jack-off pay to get featured on Zerohedge so often? Is he just low hanging fruit that The Tyler(s) use to keep the lights running? Fucking democracy is supposed to save free markets? What part of forcing others to particpate in a compulsory system to cohersively allocate resources and organize activity resembles anything like a free market? Go fuck yourself Martin.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 23:33 | 5647414 Jack's Raging B...
Jack&#039;s Raging Bile Duct's picture

Lovely down votes, cowards. Not a single rebuttle. Fight club, indeed. I remember when it was possible to learn something on this site.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 15:03 | 5648730 Seer
Seer's picture

How much do YOU pay for your subscription here?

Contact "Tyler" to find out how you can become one of their editorial members!

And, WTF are you reading and commenting in this article?  How fucking clueless are you to realize that it's a pretty sure bet that things that draw a lot of hits are going to keep being aired here?  For the dense: if you stop reading/ generating page hits on a particular author then It's a pretty good bet that that author's writings will tend to wilt from this site.

Mon, 01/12/2015 - 02:39 | 5650510 Element
Element's picture

Didn't red you, greened. Thought your comment was spot on, except I can't see where Armstrong was advocating something other than a voluntary free market capitalist democratic model in China.

I'll punch you in the kisser some other time bro, promise.  /i keed

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 17:35 | 5646517 noben
noben's picture

No political system or form of governance lasts forever, given the nature of human nature.

These systems go through natural and inevitable cycles. People who expect or hope it to continue are like those who expect or seek a perpetual Summer.

If I had to supervise the writing of the (original) Constitution, I'd have added Articles that explicitly forbid things like Central Banking or anyone but the Government from issuing Currency -- debt-free currency.

I'd also make military service compulsory for ALL males, with NO exceptions or exemptions for the sons of the rich or powerful.

I'd put in articles that prevent the sale or export arms of to other countries. This prevents empire building, and automatically limits the size of Gov agencies like the DOD, NSA and the CIA.

I'd also make Financial and Constitutional education compulsory for all high school students.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 19:50 | 5646857 TuPhat
TuPhat's picture

You would make things much, much worse with your system.  Too much compulsion for it to accomplish anything good.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 20:17 | 5646920 Prober
Prober's picture

AND

A requirement that every individual/family FULLY support themselves and pay ALL of their own expenses, including healthcare and retirement, or be expelled.

A mandatory expulsion for anyone who advocates coercive collectivism, socialism, or any other forced sharing and/or redistribution of earnings.

No branch of government can pay, in any form by any means, ANY personal expenses, including education, healthcare and retirement. This corrupts the government by empowering politicians to create entitlement programs to buy votes.

and more, but that is enough for now

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 15:10 | 5648745 Seer
Seer's picture

So, given that 'No political system or form of governance lasts forever, given the nature of human nature" you're STILL going to offer "solutions?"

I do NOT offer "solutions," as generally one who does is looking to impose his/her beliefs on others.  And, let's not forget the fact, which you kind of acknowledge and then fail to base your "solutions" on, that there are "natural and inevitable cycles" here at play:  the simple life-form growth curve of "grow and collapse."

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 18:49 | 5646683 Uranus Hertz
Uranus Hertz's picture

That was then, this is Now. The quantum universe never repeats itself, at least in this our shared timestream, wherein lies the opportunity for us to do better than our ancestors: bridge to a better future trajectory.

Though we have only fragments of the real history of homo sapien sapiens, Our ancestors did take this course. otherwise we wouldn't be here at all.

Get smart. Take a position. Never give up, never surrender.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 15:14 | 5648765 Seer
Seer's picture

Human hubris.  Don't confuse this with meaning we have become wiser.  We have merely been able to establish ways to combine awareness of our environment in order to extract ever-greater amounts of resources from it (Jevons Paradox kind of speaks to this).

"Get smart. Take a position. Never give up, never surrender."

Be wise, understand that change is something that you cannot fight and that survival is all about seeing the forces of change before they run you over. "surrender" is a great word for TPTB to use to coerce others to do the dying for them (TPTB)  The objective in life is always to live as much of it as you can: or, you can look to hook up with Hale Bopp (or such).

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 19:04 | 5646732 q99x2
q99x2's picture

I have a new way. I call it Q99X2ism. This is how it works. all current governments are transformed into systems of open source software and completely democratic and the laws are via referendum. Money for any one entity is limited to 10,000,000 and that includes corporations as well as organizations. Economy of scale is accomplished through joint efforts by polling of random lotteries of governmental software constituents. Anyone or any entity caught with more than 10,000,000 are: sacrificed on one of 12 pyramids located where the 12 Federal Banks are currently located, or they are dismantled if an entity. A new global holiday is held on the day Goldman Sachs was overthrown and Lloyd Blankfein placed in prison on charges of financial terrorism.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 19:21 | 5646761 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

Well I guess Mark Armstrong is just trying out the Politics right now: First an Article about US Fascism, then an Article about Communism & Socialism in the USA.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-08/martin-armstrong-asks-are-we-he...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-10/capitalism-socialism-communism-...

Why don't expand the Subject and pose that we might be heading for Neo-Fuedalism or are in Neo-Fuedalsim??

- The point is that you have people with Strong Opinions and they can't agree on what to call the Social Angst in the USA... Some want more Fiscal Spending on Social Programs, Neo-Cons want a bigger Military and More Military Spending... While others want Integrity, Responsibility (A base of Conservative Ideas)

- This is why you see Promise Keepers & Oath Keepers
- This is why you see Tea Party & Libertarian Movement
- In business we used to have IBM & Ross Perot's Company EDS who tried to stand for Integrity

- Today we have many leaders, none of whom are acting with responsibility or Integrity, in fact plausible Deniability is a CIA Term that now applies to all Federal Supervisors

- US Investors must assume the USA will not ever pay off it's $18.1 Trillion in Federal Debt, nor will it Raise FED Interest Rates above 4% ever again due to the cost of compounding Interest... But the Government, Nor the FED will tell Investors these Facts

- And the Global War on Terror is a USA Creation, We took War to the far corners of the Earth... we drove people to fight us, we occupied lands & treated people harshly as Invaders... but we won't Admit this. We think at the Federal Level & State Department Level, we have Power & Control.

- But US Federal Power & Control does not Trump Social Movements, Activism, Truth, Integrity, Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood, and so it is an Illusion of the World Elites that they have Power & Control

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 15:19 | 5648779 Seer
Seer's picture

"Well I guess Mark Armstrong is just trying out the Politics right now: First an Article about US Fascism, then an Article about Communism & Socialism in the USA."

Great observation!

And, well, isn't this all about creating debate?  He's certainly fostering it, aint he?

POWER CORRUPTS.  Nature doesn't like non-diversity.  Evolution requires change, dynamics.  Closed/static thinking and behaviors assures a dead end.  I don't believe that there's any "solution" (I won't keep elaborating why- one can look around and seem my comments about this), in which case I believe that we're best off getting away with that mindset altogether.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 19:26 | 5646786 malek
malek's picture

I disagree with Martin Armstrong.

I believe already the ancient Greeks demonstrated that Democracy is the first devolutionary step down from a Republic.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 15:24 | 5648794 Seer
Seer's picture

And ALL republics end up dying.  So, is it democracy that kills them or is it that it's built-in already and that democracy is but a marker along the road to collapse?

Read the John Glubb book for a better look at civilizations covering 3-4 thousand years to see that there is NO form ov "government" that has managed to escape collapse.  If something is so great then it ought not collapse, right?  Sadly, even as astute as John Glubb was, ALL are predicated on perpetual expansion, something that cannot overcome simple mathematics (has nothing to do with people's willingness to subjugate to a particular "system").

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 20:06 | 5649683 malek
malek's picture

While I agree with the outcome, I have a unique opinion (as far as I'm aware) on the reason.

Systems collapse because they cannot orderly compete, compare, and decide what constitutes an improvement anymore internally.
Funnily the ones helping most in initiating the start of the demise, are the ones who want to nail everything down in written rules and regulations.

So it's not the republic concept's fault, in other words.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 19:55 | 5646868 TuPhat
TuPhat's picture

We were supposed to have a constitutional republic.  That means the constitution would be the law of the land and everyone would follow the rules.  That makes it harder for corrupt politicians, judges and oligarchs to oppress others.  It all went bad when the constitution was changed and then completely ignored.  The states were also supposed to be able to leave the union if the union went bad but Lincoln killed that option along with 600,000 americans.  It only gets worse from here until it all falls apart.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 15:33 | 5648829 Seer
Seer's picture

"That makes it harder for corrupt politicians, judges and oligarchs to oppress others."

Really?  Are you confusing words with actual deeds?

Don't confuse the fact that information was more readily able to be hidden from the masses way back then.  We have little way of knowing what levels of corruption were occurring.

"It all went bad when the constitution was changed and then completely ignored."

As I noted above, if something is so great then it ought to not fail.  It's like all the folks who were telling us that communism was so bad and that we had to give up some of our freedoms in order to protect ourselves from it.  If communism is so bad, which I believe is true, then how could it win out?  BAD SYSTEMS FAIL!

"The states were also supposed to be able to leave the union if the union went bad but Lincoln killed that option along with 600,000 americans.  It only gets worse from here until it all falls apart."

Those were road signs along the path that was pointed toward the cliff from the beginning.  That a group of TPTB were to RULE ONLY ever can lead to entrenched power, which then leads to all out corruption.

Not that I believe that it would have changed the outcome (only change the time frame), but I'd state that one could say that when the US turned away from Jefferson and toward Hamilton is where it derailed: and, if I'm understanding history correctly, Hamilton* preceded Lincoln.

* Fuck me!  From Wikipedia on Hamilton: "Born out of wedlock to a Scottish-French mother and raised in the West Indies"

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 20:33 | 5646972 lesterbegood
lesterbegood's picture

In my opinion: the best government is no government.

                    the best religion is no religion.

                    the best money is no money.

The only law is natural law.

 

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 15:35 | 5648838 Seer
Seer's picture

Believe in the Law of Physics!  THAT is the "higher power!"

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 20:33 | 5646988 withglee
withglee's picture

The difference between Capitalism and Socialism is simple. Capitalism is where you are free to decide what you do with your money, and Socialism is where government orders you what to do with their money, which you earn.

I think this is a wrong characterization of capitalism. More accurately, capitalism is where one must get capital to back trading promises between "promise to deliver" and "delivery". For example, if I promise to trade 60 equal future monthly payments for an automobile delivered to me today, I must find a capitalist to back that trade in case I default.

More accurately: Capitalism is two years. That's how long it takes for a capitalist banker to recover his capital based on the interest collections he makes.

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 21:56 | 5647204 roddy6667
roddy6667's picture

Democracy rapidly spirals into socialism. Why should a person work when they can just vote for a politician who will guarantee a paycheck in the mail every month? In America now, two people get a check in the mail for every one that is working. Not a model for success.

Democracy only works where the overwhelming majority of the voting public are educated, hard-working, altruistic, can defer gratification, and work in a manner that is beneficial to the greater good. 

Quick, name three countries that fit that description.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 15:38 | 5648854 Seer
Seer's picture

Quick!  Name ANY country that is practicing ANYTHING that is sustainable!

ALL empires collapse.  Period.  End of story.  Doesn't matter what organizational basis a given society has established (religion or whatever).  The common element in ALL is that they seek to grow (simple math check would show that this is a problematic equation to pursue on a finite planet).

Sat, 01/10/2015 - 23:20 | 5647388 Who was that ma...
Who was that masked man's picture

We devolved some folks.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 01:16 | 5647587 thebigunit
thebigunit's picture

"For capitalism to work historically, it must embrace freedom and that can ONLY be accomplished by a true democratic system."

I suspect that this is NOT correct.

"Capitalism" is deferring current consumption to provide for future consumption.

"Democracy" is two foxes and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.

Capitalism REQUIRES freedom to make choices on HOW to use deferred consumption (savings) to provide for future consumption (create wealth).

Capitalism also REQUIRES police forces to protect savings and wealth from foragers and poachers.

It may seem paradoxical, but capitalism requires BOTH freedom AND police force.

Capitalism cannot rely on democracy to allocate resources (defer consumption) to create wealth because "true democracy" will ALWAYS prefer current consumption and save nothing.

Capitalism survives only if democracy is restrained, e.g. through a "consitutional republic" that protects capital and wealth creation.

 

 

 


Sun, 01/11/2015 - 15:45 | 5648871 Seer
Seer's picture

Capitalism still operates under the illusion that perpetual growth is good.  Further, it has NEVER succeeded outside the theoretical (just like no PURE "ism" has [every side blovates that their "ism" has never been given a real chance- same argument that is used with the "ruling" political parties and religions, divide and conquer in order to maintain power]).

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 03:03 | 5647706 Victor999
Victor999's picture

Seems to me that there is an argument that would suppose that a republic is the 'result' of an oligarchy, not the other way around.  The USA was established by a small clique of landowners who made certain that they and their heirs would both control and benefit from the government being formed well into the future.

No, the end of a republic is not an oligarchy, but a police state.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 14:35 | 5648658 thebigunit
thebigunit's picture

Societies of whatever kind need security forces to keep the enemies of society in check.

Capitalist societies have police forces. (Call it a "police state" if it makes you feel morally superior).

Tribalist societes have mobs. (Call it a "mob state").

Take your pick.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 15:49 | 5648886 Seer
Seer's picture

"Tribalist societes have mobs. (Call it a "mob state")."

Nothing like unfair biasing here, eh?

Tribalism, contrary to what most shallow-thinking folks believe, doesn't mean "backward" or "ruled by mob."  And their "security" forces are more akin to community self-policing.

That said, for sure, every group looks to have some means of protecting its interests.  And usually those interests have to do with resources (necessary for survival).  By losing sight of this we allow ourselves to get caught up in a bunch of propaganda for why things happen, doing so which jepordizes our very own ability to survive in the future as it's mostly about handing over our future to ruling powers.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 07:07 | 5647724 trader1
trader1's picture

we've had an oligarchy since at least 1789.

not everyone got the memo.

 

 

The mediator between head and hands must be the heart

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 12:14 | 5648308 BlussMann
BlussMann's picture

True, very true, a classic case of the old adage "Rich Mans War, Poor Mans Fight".

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 14:43 | 5648680 thebigunit
thebigunit's picture

"Rich Mans War, Poor Mans Fight"

And a civilized society would have it no other way since "the Poor" benefit from the productivity, wealth. security,  and opportunities provided by "the Rich".

The alternative is endless tribal warfare.

Rich Man's war or tribal war. Take your pick.

To help you make your decision, tribal wars probably involve more cannibalism. 

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 15:54 | 5648901 Seer
Seer's picture

"And a civilized society would have it no other way since "the Poor" benefit from the productivity, wealth. security,  and opportunities provided by "the Rich".

And WTF is "civilized?"

"Rich Man's war or tribal war. Take your pick."

Tribes cannot have "rich" members?  Are you just looking for ways to slip in denigrations of anything that is not YOUR "system?"  Slipping in subliminal messages promoting the notion that "tribalism" is "bad?"  What is bad is offering up propaganda as though its fact.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 05:19 | 5647774 Jano
Jano's picture

Armstrong, a good piece to laugh.
All your definitions are wrong. What was in that bottle, which you drunk from?

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 06:16 | 5647800 K_BX
K_BX's picture

China is an Oligarchy. Without connections to central bureau you are only useful as a 1$/h working bee.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 10:39 | 5648091 roddy6667
roddy6667's picture

The Party tempers the power of money with the ideals in their constitution. The latest purge of corrupt billionaires is a good example. In a world run by the ethics of Confucius, a moral, ethical, and disciplined person is expected to prosper. It is a world that runs in the here and now, not getting your rewards in a later life.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 12:19 | 5648319 BlussMann
BlussMann's picture

China is working now due to adopting, or evolving into, a Fascist type economic model - which is a successful model that benefits the "Folk" of the nation. If the Chinese don't succumb to the Jews and their Lies re Multi Culti (an ideal embraced in Israel ((snicker)) ) China will become the next world power without question.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 13:13 | 5648464 juujuuuujj
juujuuuujj's picture

America is simply a Capitalist oligarchy. The USSR and China are socialist oligarchies. Neither Capitalism, nor Communism have any protection whatsoever from becoming oligarchies, and people should stop blaming the failure of their favorite system on the other system. They're both flawed by design. The only true protection is a direct-democratic system, where people vote for actual policy decisions, and not just for political parties.

Sun, 01/11/2015 - 17:25 | 5649171 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

George Orwell - Second Thoughts on James Burnham (1946)

http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/jam...

Excerpt:

What Burnham is mainly concerned to show is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Burnham does not deny that “good” motives may operate in private life, but he maintains that politics consists of the struggle for power, and nothing else. All historical changes finally boil down to the replacement of one ruling class by another. All talk about democracy, liberty, equality, fraternity, all revolutionary movements, all visions of Utopia, or “the classless society”, or “the Kingdom of Heaven on earth”, are humbug (not necessarily conscious humbug) covering the ambitions of some new class which is elbowing its way into power. The English Puritans, the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, were in each case simply power seekers using the hopes of the masses in order to win a privileged position for themselves. Power can sometimes be won or maintained without violence, but never without fraud, because it is necessary to make use of the masses, and the masses would not co-operate if they knew that they were simply serving the purposes of a minority. In each great revolutionary struggle the masses are led on by vague dreams of human brotherhood, and then, when the new ruling class is well established in power, they are thrust back into servitude. This is practically the whole of political history, as Burnham sees it.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!