This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Statist Mindset
Submitted by Roger Barris via Acting-Man.com,
The Key Logical Fallacy of Statism
I just read an article in Bloomberg View yesterday by Cass Sunstein, who is a law professor at Harvard. It was a roundup of a number of books published last year on “behavioral economics”. For those who don’t know it, behavioral economics typically focuses on the biases and systematic errors in human behavior.

Surely everyone has heard an argument along these lines before: socialism would really work if only it were done right! For starters, it would need to be administered by a host of angels, so what you see above should be considered the ideal communist bureaucrats.
In his review of the book Phishing for Phools by George Akerloff and Robert Shiller, Sunstein concludes that one of the major contributions of the authors “is to show that if we care about people’s well-being, the invisible hand (i.e., free markets) is often the problem, not the solution.”

Cass Sunstein, a committed, and as we believe, truly dangerous statist, who would likely have felt right at home in Stalin’s politburo. We have discussed this crypto-communist weirdo previously in these pages (see The Taming of Deluded Conspiracy Theorists) and so has incidentally Dr. Machan (see Rights and Government). Sunstein is not only an enemy of the free market, he inter alia once opined (in an academic paper, no less) that Americans should henceforth only be fed government-approved information. In order to achieve this, he proposed that government agents should infiltrate the web sites of “conspiracy theorists” (=anyone who thinks the government may be lying about something) to spy on them and discredit them, and if that doesn’t help, government should tax them or outright ban “conspiracy theorizing” (wise men like Mr. Sunstein would presumably determine what does and doesn’t constitute a “conspiracy theory”). He failed to mention how those breaking the ban should be punished (forcible relocation into a reeducation camp perhaps?)
I guess that this is the fundamental difference between the statist and the libertarian mindset. A statist looks at the results of behavioral economics and concludes that, since peoples’ decision making is clearly fallible, we need someone else to make decisions for them.
A libertarian mindset looks at the same results and concludes that if people are fallible, then the absolutely last thing in the world we should do is to give them sovereignty not only over themselves but over other people as well. Because, if people are prone to make bad decisions in their own lives, at least we know that:
- They will bear the direct consequences of those decisions, which will give them a strong motivation to avoid errors and certainly not repeat them [1];
- Their bad decisions will affect only one or a limited number of people, as opposed to having the widespread effects of a government policy; and
- Their poor individual decision making will not be magnified through highly imperfect political processes, including voting and the distorted incentives of bureaucracies.
The collective decision making of politics contains none of these limitations on human fallibility. This makes it a total non sequitur to conclude that, since people are fallible, we should expand their power to coerce others.
Of course, the way that statists rationalize this is to assume that only “the best and brightest,” preferably someone a lot like them, will be empowered to make these decisions. In other words, they rationalize this by ignoring the entirety of human history and common experience.
This logical fallacy is another manifestation of a phenomenon I have often discussed in this blog. This is the totally destructive belief that, if it can be demonstrated that a free market is not perfect in some way, then this automatically creates an argument for government intervention.
This standard is way too low. The real test should be whether an imperfect – but small-scale, competitive, subject to learning, non-coercive, incentivized, “antifragile”[2] and informationally efficient – market is better than a hugely imperfect political process. By this correct standard, the case for intervention becomes far rarer.
Footnotes:
[1] One of the fundamental flaws of behavioral economics, and much thinking about consumer choice, is that it ignores the ability and incentives of people to learn from their mistakes. For example, much is made by certain social thinkers about the ability of marketing to influence consumer choice. This ignores the fact that most things people do and buy are repeated, and whereas someone might be induced to try something through marketing, they are far less likely to be convinced to continue with it unless it performs. This thinking also ignore the role of acquisition costs: it generally costs a lot of money to “acquire” a client. A business that is built around acquiring clients and then losing them through poor performance will not last long.
[2] I am using term this in the way of Nassim Nicolas Taleb in his book Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder. Taleb draws heavily on the work of Friedrich Hayek for this book.
- 53 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


"I just read an article in Bloomberg View yesterday by Cass Sunstein, who is a law professor at Harvard"
Well ~ That's your problem right there! Try & 'fix' it if you can.
You see, me? I wouldn't bother (in the same degree that I wouldn't bother watching the 'Evening News' or any other shit on TV).
The agenda rolls on unabated......
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/12/as-events-spiral-ou...
Cass is much smarter than you goyim, submit and everything will be ok.
I do not agree with the statement that Libertarians believe that "the absolutely last thing in the world we should do is to give them (individuals) sovereignty not only over themselves...".
Sovereignty over one's self is exactly what Libertarians believe in (among many other things regarding freedom and liberty).
I'm wondering if this guy mis-stated his point there accidentally or if he actually thinks that is true about Libertarians???
Anyways...just thought I'd point that out. And also that Cas Sunstein is a fucking scumbag piece of shit statist, Fascist, traitor who should NOT be allowed anywhere near anything to do with governing others as he has been allowed to over the last several years.
And his shit-bag skank, treasonous wife, Samantha Powers should NOT be allowed in any governmental position either. She was made the U.S. representative to the U.N. Which in a way is fitting because she really does fit in well with all the other sick scumbags of the U.N. who work day and night to destroy America and every other country on the planet.
They are both sick and twisted scumbags of the lowest order of scumbags. Just like O-shitbag in Chief who partnered up with them.
I think you mis-read the statement. The meaning is clear to me.
Y’know, maybe I’m a little too far into this crap-fest.
When you can recognize Cass Sunstein right away in a story header thumbnail, you might be a little over the top.
And when you know right away that Samantha Power is his wife, you confirm that fact that you are hopeless.
Samantha Power, America's Youngest-Ever U.N. Ambassador ...
"Because, if people are prone to make bad decisions in their own lives, at least we know that:
This is the whole problem today. Take healthcare for instance. Instead of letting anyone into the ER who has made piss poor decisions with their money----gambled it all away instead of buying health insurance---if you don't have the means to pay for your healthcare because you made piss poor life decisions, we aren't going to help you. After a few people die because of their piss poor decisions, those who remain will start to realize, maybe I should buy my health insurance, and gamble whats left over, instead of gambling and losing it all, and forcing someone else to take care of me. I have employees at my business that thought it was more important to take a vacation to disneyworld, than pay for healthcare insurance. Health insurance comes first, Disney second. Not the other way around.
Until people are forced to take responsibility and learn from their mistakes, they will not do so. Quit taking from the people who are responsible, to give to the irresponsible. I know some of you will junk me because you think "oh those poor people".....but most people are in the shitty boat because of the piss poor life decisions they have made.
Medicine has a human charity streak that an iPhone does not. The way it would go traditionally might be: You make piss poor decisions and have no health insurance. You show up at the ER and you get a host of very expensive treatments. Because you cannot pay, you lose your home, car and a few other assets, but, hey ,you are alive and still in the game. Other people take note and at least buy catastrophic insurance which used to be about $125/mo. Now, with Obamacare it is about $1000/mo and you will get audited and go to jail. This is called, "helping people" by a statist.
One of the biggest economic problems for the State is that it never adapts and rarely invents anything. It is cost-insensitive and will not invent the lates MRI, medicine, widget or iThingy. Government and it's regulations are always stuck in the past. When you throw ObamaCommieCare rules on healthcare you stop free individuals from negotiating or renegotiating the terms of their trades. The government fixes the trade as of the moment the rule comes down. It is hard to innovate around that.
Suppose I had a system to end run or eliminate or replace EMR systems in medical offices. Well, CommieCare just mandated EMR so my system is basically dead in the water. Imagine if it had mandated typewriters and word processors. How long would it take to change and would not the typewriter lobby work to keep them in offices and talk about unemployment of typewriter makers
Government cannot be efficient, cannot innovate and cannot care. It values process over results which is the exact opposite of private business.
@ Beam Me Up, we aren't going to help you.
By your "We" You are speaking of the government.
In a libertarian sense, "We" is "We the people" and there would be multiple means of assisting the downtrodden with free market contributions. The free market is more generous than you might imagine.
I think you're right, but there's another way to look at it. The problem is complete confusion about hat is compasionate behavior. It is noble to hold the idea that I don't want you to die just because you don't have health insurance. And there's nothing wrong with me acting individually on that belief. Evidence suggests that enough people were behind the affordable care act that if they each acted individually to help people without insurance there would be no problem. The confusion comes when you extend I don't want you to die because you don't have insurance to: "therefore I will make you buy insurance," or "therefore I will confiscate what others earn and use it to pay for your inrurance." Now you have turned a noble thing into an evil thing because you have total disregard for the person from whom you are taking, and their ability or desire to help others.
The meaning is clear if you withhold judgement to the end of the sentence, but it is poorly worded, as it sets up the possibility for the exact misunderstanding that Save_America1st made.
I would change it to this:
Or something to that effect. It's the argument I'm constantly making to any statist who feels the need to defend the illogic of being responsible for others' when one isn't even allowed to be responsible for themselves.
I think the meaning may be that in a Libertarian state the market is the sovereign force. The market meaning the collective decisions of large populations.
It is a bit confusing. Hard to determine if Sunstein is saying that or the writer of the article is saying that. At any rate a libertarian would never say they shouldn't have sovereignty over themselves as you pointed out.
@Save America 1st:
Agreed. The primary tenet of Libertarianism is Universal Self Ownership. I say this as a past Libertarian candidate in federal politics in Canada.
It's an awkwardly written pragraph where the "mis-statement" that you speak of, is.
Geez, where did you go to school? Newfoundland? The meaning of that sentence was pretty clear to me. SA1 obviously never studied German, or he'd have learned you don't make up your mind until the end of the sentence.
SA1,
It was a very tortured segue, to a point that seems to say that humans are not fit to lead humans because of our malleable self interest.
Arnold - A lot of good intellectual meat to argue over, especially in what has become a 'political economy'. I dont disagree with your point on hashing out others commentary. My opinion is that we hire government as a security guard to be a deterrent from robbery. That part is a security racket, to me one I am willing to pay for. However, when the security guard decides he can collude with robbers to make more by robbing me, I want the promised and natural right to fire him. Do I have this natural and obvious human nature right? No?
Well that is in reality while the Founders framed a second amendment. What I want to speak clearly for.my wants is a limited government in power but expanded representation. 500 or so people deciding how 300 plus million live was not how our government was originally framed.
For a solution, it has to become prohibitavely so expensive or dangerous to buy the government it happens rarely. American Libertarianism is about self-accountability which is a concept that leads to freedom. One must look in the mirror first, then hold to account. But expect to pay when you reach that point. Of course logic tells me I am my brothers keeper as the theory of Six Degrees of seperation has been proven. Freedom is not free in this world. But as Einstein said all that evil has to do to succeed in this world is for good men to do nothing. Evolution is a bitch but doing nothing and being a slave, being bored is a fate worse than death.
Yeah well someone has to call bullshit on fucking unbelievable lyuing god damned bastards like Sunstein so someone has to read the article. Blood boils over and over and over at this and evey other fuclking insanity coming all the time now
Today in Toronto, some fat-faced chick on city council said "If you can afford to spend $20,000 on a fancy dress .. I want a lot more of your money." I get so furious...
Stocks are in freefall.....
Jhoocoodanode? ~ lol
I like ZH keeping quiet today. Maybe after 5 years they finally realize they call the bottom when they post each drop !!!
Reverse ZH algos are the best and brightest lol
.
3:30 Ramp LLC has just come into the office...
Yellen's jiggalo Kevin Henry is wondering where $100B went.
That was the most hilarious misspelling of gigolo EVER!
rofl
maybe it was on porpoise. ;)
Maybe, the 3:30 ramp looks to be giving it the old college try
That is a bit of exaggeration and does sound like a ZH headline. Freefall is when everyone is selling and the markets are halted to catch up with the order flow. A one or two percent decline on strong volume in a day is not the definition of free fall. Just wait a bit and you will get it right.
Why is this article on ZH?
To confuse dumb fucks like you...
Relaxing weekend reading, a perfect addition to a fifth of modest scotch and a stogie.
People -- and I say 'people' advisedly -- like Sunstein are nothing but hired hands and psuedo intellectuals for justifying the corrupt actions of the statist and fascists who hire them. History is littered with this type and they leave a foul odor on the trail.
Sounds like he is trying to persuade students that the Bill of Rights was a big mistake. But he has the protected right to say it. I suppose he doesn't understand that line of thinking though. Perhaps freedom to say anything that is pre approved.
Yep....Look where "intellectuals" led Germany about 80 years ago.
Clergy were to Divine Right of Kings, what "Intellectuals" are to Divine Right of the Majority.
Left-right is dog and pony. What matters is the Up-Down axis. Unfortunately the real correct position, the one which has historically produced the most liberty, is in the CENTER, not the anarchist, end of that axis. On one end is the extremism of the central state, on the other end the extremism of anarchism. Localism is in the center. Have a government to regin in the worst of us, but make that government extremely decentralized and limited geographically so that if it turns out that "the worst of us" wind up running the thing then escaping or changing them out has as low a transaction cost as possible. http://www.amazon.com/Localism-Defended-between-Anarchy-Central/dp/09962...
Have a government to reign in the worst of us,
This article just explained why government inherently selects for the worst of us to be at its helm. With the worst of us at its helm, the only things they will reign in is their own competition or obstacles to expanding their power.
...but make that government extremely decentralized and limited geographically...
You just described anarchy, "absence of rulers." Anarchists believe in governance, just governance that one actually agrees to vs. suffers being imposed. Governance one can secede from using one's own private property in unlimited degree in order to decentralize governance as much as is desired.
People are bad, therefore we need a government made up of....nevermind.
People who are less bad. Not all humans are equally bad. And even those humans must have checks and balances on them, even as government acts as a check and balance on the less virtuous among us.
PS- I am better at using my freedom well than when I was 19. I needed government then, even if I don't now- except to restrain the others who are as I was.
True not all humans are equally bad. The worst of them become politicians for the strict purpose of lording over the people who are at least semi-decent.
Regarding your first point. Your County Clerk's office is not filled with "the worst among us" is it? Are they worse than those in the County Jail? Still, you are right about government's natural tendency to gain ground. Jefferson spoke of it as well and agreeing with him is usually a good idea. But power is centralized via a non-infinite number of means. If you close the doors through which power is centralized, its process is checked. Localism identifies 13 doorways through which liberty is lost and the state gains ground. It makes provision to close them all. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B0GACAQ
I do know that some anarchists thought is favorable to localism, as they view it as a stage on the path from our present central state to the final destination of anarchy. Relationships between governments are pretty much voluntary, and from there it is thought to be a short step to making them all so. I can't agree because I see the premesis of each can be very different, and localism can be a final destination, not just a waypoint. Right now we are all the way on one side of the board- the central state. Some think we should be on the other extreme - anarchy. I think reality is a lot less binary. The middle is a valid position.
At any rate, in the end it will be either globalism or localism, if for no other reason that other philosophies lack the means to protect their population from globalism.
http://www.amazon.com/Localism-Defended-between-Anarchy-Central/dp/09962...
The worst don't vie to be county clerks. They vie for legislative and executive positions so they can direct county clerks who enforce their dictates in exchange for a paycheck and fat benefits.
Yes, politicians are categorically worse than individual criminals. I can protect, defend, and insure against the 1 in 100,000 idiot who tries to use as much violence as he can individually muster to steal the money in my wallet as a one-off act. Meanwhile I otherwise get to live my life in total freedom. I'm helpless against a sprawling government organization that commands well-funded institutions of violence, that between taxes and inflation systematically takes 2/3rds of my earnings, and that dictates how it allows me to live most every aspect of my life. You have to ask me which of these is worse?!
Your "middle position" that admits "just some" centralization can't be valid. Where do you draw a line and on what objective basis can you draw it? The minute you stop people from seceding with their property, you violently impose a system of rule on peaceful people who don't agree with that system. That principle is true regardless of how large the plot of land in question is.
Of course there are huge mutual advantages to people cooperating with respect to many specific issues of shared interest, so people will eagerly form confederations of all sorts for addressing just those specific issues. All voluntary and individually agreed to. Only this can be moral.
Well said, herk
Thanks! :)
It was well said, and in this present environment I tend to agree. But you are hinderd from seeing the big picture because right now we are in an environment of an extremely vast central state. There are two possible places violations of liberty can come from. One is threats from your own government, let's call that public threats, and the other is threats not of your govrnment. Let's call those private threats. If you were in a place where all government had broken down, unless they were among the most virtuous people on earth then it is likely private threats to your liberties would abound. Localism posits that the center, where there is some government but it is close to the individual and easier to change and easier to leave, will result in the most liberty- that is the least violations of people's rights from private threats + public threats. It is hard to write out several chapters of stuff.... http://www.amazon.com/Localism-Defended-between-Anarchy-Central/dp/09962...
I think you just described the original intent of the American Constitution. At the extreme was the previous Articles of Confederacy where the central government was not able to require the States to fork over payment of the Federal expenses.
Close. I think the Anti-Federalists proved to be more right than the federalists. The Constitution did attempt to keep power decentralized but it did not close all 13 doorways to centralizing power and thus each generation of Americans lived under a government more centralized than the last- whether they voted that way or not. That is now happening at an exponential rate.
Localism is anarchism. Unless you project power over others, it's also the basis of every single personal encounter you have all day long, each and every day of your life.
The idea that you need an institutionalized mob of any size in order to achieve social order is to not understand that harmony naturally occurs within all chaotic systems (otherwise they cease to exist).
Dontcha just love these Jewish Masterminds? They have such a great track record!
With the jews the goyim always lose.
until they don't ... but "this time is different" - 15 million vs. 7 billion?
There are a whole lot more than 15 million on earth.
It would not surprise me if 30% of 'Mericans have jew blood but don't know it.
There is one test proven to find if a 'human' has jew blood of course.
http://youtu.be/hqVbOSEsJNo
Don't you idiots understand we are all mongrels. Do you think various ethnic or religious groups sprang up in a vacuum independent of each other? Humans and their predecessors roamed the planet over millennia and mixed with and divided into other groups.
Just like there are Christians, Muslims and Jews in almost every country on the earth that have intermarried by choice or conquest there are decedents and mixtures of all the races which may have started out as only one or a few.
We are all part of the family of man. I may have Mongolian, Swedish or Tatar genes. The chances of any of the light skinned people being related to the Mongol hoard or their leaders is pretty big.
No, they don't...
Well, since you brought it up (and thank you for doing so)...
Mr. Sun-stein is cut from the same cloth as Trotsky - hence, it is no coincidence that the author invoked the name of Stalin, as Bolshevik Tribe members were responsible for the creation of the Cheka and many more niceties of Stalin's era, so it stands to reason. Authoritarianism based upon a perverted sense of mental superiority, is in their collective DNA.
Haha Czar Cass "the nose knows" Sustein said this:
"Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”
"
And his dip shit idiot of a wife said this.
"Hi everybody. You know life has changed when you’re hanging out with Jane Fonda backstage. There is no greater embodiment of being outspoken on behalf of what you believe in — and being ‘all in’ in every way — than Jane Fonda. And it’s a huge honor just to even briefly have shared the stage with her.
My older brother served as a Marine infantryman in Vietnam and was wounded at Khe Sanh. I knew all about “Hanoi Jane” who took her outspokenness right to the enemy, donned an NVA helmet and sat on an anti-aircraft system, used to shoot down American pilots"
Liberals.
Lets just call them 'communists' and open up the concentration camps for them and cuckservative slime, with the libertopians as well.
Hanoi Jane was right about one thing. We were there for power and profit attacking a country that did us no harm.
that statement means back to cave dwelling and hunter gatherer status. The moment a man acquires property and becomes sedentary he needs government to define "common laws". Otherwise its rule of the gun and every man for himself.
How come people in this age can profess such anhistoric and regressive mantras like God spoke to them?
The force of social gravity pulls us together. Nothing exists in isolation like in the Big Bang theory; we are attracted by dark and light forces. Its the law of nature and thus of Man.
You've accepted false views statists have diligently promoted to defend the lie that keeps them in power over you. That you need them to rule you and everyone around you in order to keep you safe.
Think through the incentives of individual property owners living free. You'll see mayhem doesn't optimize outcomes for the productive, only respect for property does, thus it will emerge the most heavily defended. You'll see each and every problem you think you must have a single, violent, leviathan overlord attempting to solve, is a problem that entrepreneurs will offer to solve for a fee on a voluntary basis. Problem = consumer demand.
There are plenty of people out there who like being a sheep and feel safer when they have a shepherd -- however incompetent they may be -- to guide and watch over them. I'm talking about the closet socialists who prefer being "taken care of" by their government masters and the statists who love to rule over them.
We can't have freedom as long as individuls can hide behind the corporate veil. Personal responsibility is a pre requisite for freedom.
As global population and chaos grows expect more from the likes of Sunstein. It is mostly about protecting their own privileged narcissistic world and keeping plebs outside the castle walls.
Cass Sunstein is a highly educated idiot.
I don't know how "highly educated" he is, but there is no doubt he is an idiot.
'Conspiracy theorist' is a pejorative leveled at the truth to effectively marginalize and render any argument or debate, over, before the 'defendant' even has a chance to present his case.
In Mr. Sun-stein's case, one may as well just substitute 'Protestant White Male' for 'Conspiracy theorist', because that is ~Precisely~ the target audience Mr. SPLC-cum-Sun-Stein is targeting when he opens is Matzoball'd yap.
I read these slimebag Shylocks better than the back of my hand.
The irony burns, for "conspiracy theory" was a term invented and promulgated by the CIA to discredit those who were skeptical of the Warren Commission report on JFK and wanting a new investigation.
I don't think Sunstein would limit his theories to 'Protestant White Male'. These ivory tower theoretical statists believe they should controll thought and commerce for everyone.
Fuck this guy and his ilk...
Political tags--such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and. so forth--are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.- RA Heinlein
Yes, nearly every human on the planet suffers this logical delusion. The 1-4% of the population who are psycopaths love money and power. The best and brightest of them go into government and have convinced the other 96-99% of the population to love them and give them money and power in order to protect them from being ruled by psychpaths. It is the greatest con of all time, done in the open.
+1
It maybe as high as 6% and can grow upward from there if the society itself becomes "ponerized" by it's leadership and creates "crypto" or "secondary" psychos (Bolsheviks, current US, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine etc).
If you think about the issue of pedophelia for example, it is the state that insures the pedophiles survival. The population would kill them off if they were not protected by the legal system. So they get 7 years in jail and get out in a few for good behavior and on average will assault a huge number of kids in their life time.
"Interviews guaranteeing complete confidentiality and immunity from prosecution, conducted by Emory University psychiatrist Dr. Gene Abel*, uncovered that:
Interesting that our society which is run by psychos also has a legal system that basically facilitates pedophelia which causes an exponential increase in the problem over time. I don't believe that this is a coincidence as we have seen with the controversy over political pedophelia and child murder in England. This is a policy of protection.
So like you said, right out in the open.
You copy and pasted without a citation.
And yet men are raped by women just as much
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/09/breaking-wall-secre...
However, most female rape accusations are false
http://www.cotwa.info/p/false-rape-allegations-assault-on.html?m=1
And of course, women in Canada are 70% of the abusers of children.
https://www.mensrightshalifax.com/international/safer-with-their-fathers...
You are a woman so that makes you a liar. I never trust women to tell the truth.
Your sources are stupid and you are annoying. Be sure to make this a gender battle issue rather than an issue about children.
There are women that rape yes, not as much as men and that's not the point. Some stats on female rape are discussed briefly in this study also, you will see that part of the issue is fairly considered although it's very hard to get accurate numbers on that and they even describe that they believe that results may be biased in favor of women.
The only reason I highlighted boys up there is because of the incredible numbers of little boy victims. Here is your link if want to read through the study that I quoted above with the name of the researcher.
P.S. How many bodies do you have in your garden?
http://www.yellodyno.com/pdf/Child_Molestation_Prevention_Study.pdf
Blah blah blah blah I cited government stats, you don't want to read them but you seem to think some 'study' on a questionable pdf is proper evidence?
Is this a joke?
Or are you just incompetent because you have a vagina?
Perhaps it's both.
This thread is about statism and the camparison was made to state laws and pedophelia, then you go on a tirade citing a guardian article that states that 1.1% of men have been forced to penetrate a woman.
I am sorry you can't get laid and I'm sorry if your sheep have lied to you. I don't have to lie to get laid, does that make you mad?
If so, after reading this you should immediately go and punch your blow up doll in the face 5 times.
I don't think the power players give one whit about pedophilia one way or the other, except sometimes they use it as a distraction. I think the place you see true proof of institutional state corruption is in the crimes of money and power. The drug war, the free ride for massive banking fraud (hundreds of thousands of falsified mortgages), the clear cronyism for the Iraq war, Blackwater, Halliburton, the legalized racketeering that is the federal reserve, the obvious and now exposed but unanswered treason of the IRS and NSA, and so on.
In a utopian society nobody would have to do anything...just like the Matrix.
We're always going to have people like Cass Sunstein. The problem is with the electorate. Many would agree with his totalitarian bullshit. If a society truly valued its "freedom", people like Sunstein would be shunned. But yet here he is, preaching his shit at Harvard to the next generation of statists that the majority of the citizenry will trip over themselves to follow.
God I wish the fucking collapse would come so we could wipe the slate clean and start over.
In early 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, commanded by a General Lemnitzer, planned to kill US citizens in false-flag terror incidents and blame it on the governemnt of Cuba to justify an invasion.
It was called OPERATION NORTHWOODS, and the meeting notes were actually left in the US Archives, to be found decades later by author James Bamford in late 2001, after the 9/11 attacks.
This was no 'conspiracy theory'. It is a fact that the US government conspired to kill US citizens.
So, you have to ask: if such a plan existed, what other such plans have been drawn up and actually were implemented? How much of this country's history in the decades since then was also the result of false-flags? (Gulf of Tonkin, to begin with.)
I suppose Mr. Sunstein would tell us that that was something we needn't be concerned about. A true disciple of Leo Strauss and his Platonic 'Noble Lie'.
True and we know from Nazi Party admission that they used the tactic as well and referred to it nonchalantly as it had always been the case with leadership. Which begs the question: has this been a means of manipulating populations throughout human history, the population being kept ignorant were unaware of this simple tactic.
In my opinion it is of course the case that creating an external menace has been a tool used by rulers as far back as they could strategize but winners write the history and insiders don't give up their secrets too often.
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
That's right!
+1, excellent article. Hits false premises at root of statism head on.
Exactly! Look around you... Open your eyes and look at "reality". The proof is every decision this government currently makes SUCKS.. The decisions this government makes have nothing to do with benefiting the people of this country.. Its way out of control. The people also fear the consolidation of power.. Human nature makes it dangerous
A statist looks at the results of behavioral economics and concludes that, since peoples’ decision making is clearly fallible, we need someone else to make decisions for them.
This is such flawed logic it really is mind boggling that it is coming from supposed "higher education authorities"!!! If ALL human decision making is flawed and fallible then how is it going to help to have one person or group make decisions for another group?? Won't the decisions be flawed and fallible since they are still being made my humans?? Doesn't make sense what-so-ever . . . . .
"If ALL human decision making is flawed and fallible then ?..." etc. etc.
It is a most sophomoric fallacy to assume that because everyone is fallible it follows that every decision ever made by anyone on someone else's behalf has always been and always will be wrong.
“It’s tough to be a pure libertarian, because reality has a way of messing with that beautiful theory.” Ezra Levant
Ignoring what happens when they 'win', collectivists may suck collectively, but absolutists of any stripe always absolutley suck.
Each individual has his own personal values, risk/reward preferences, investment priorities, life goals, lifestyle preferences, etc., etc. Accordingly, it is impossible for a statist to correctly make decisions for another man, much less claim a right to forcibly impose them, "for his own good." Even if the statist actually had angelic intentions.
Even anarchists can recognize 'universal' morals (Kropotikin), so what is your excuse?
Anyway the 'argument' I was eviscerating was Dickweed Wang's, who might as well have written:
"It may rain tomorrow, therefore it has always been and always will be raining."
Anyway the 'argument' I was eviscerating was Dickweed Wang's, who might as well have written:
"It may rain tomorrow, therefore it has always been and always will be raining."
For someone who appears to be going out of their way to sound intelligent it is pretty amazing that you missed my point completely . . .
since your point wasn't derived from anything cogent, I took it for what that was worth.
Just so everyone can be absolutely clear on who misunderstood what, answer me the following:
Who`s final decision on a bridge design is more likely to be fallible, a fry cook's or a structural engineer's?
@GionFawr
the stupid, it burns. dear god man please. would you please list for me and the audience the intelligent and siccessful decisions made by government.
Now let's take a look at that morality thing you mention. Through what convaluded sense of "morality" does one justify the actions of "government" that, if committed by an individual would mean prison time at the least? By what right or morality does any man or group of men rule over another?
Your morality is nothing more than violence, force and coercion performed by a third party so you and your ilk do iot have to get your hands dirty. The fact that those of your mindset along with guys like Sunstien are not shot in the face out of self-defense is only a indication of the generous, good nature of those who subscribe to voluntaryism, anarchism, and the like.
Your ideas have no "moral" foundation.
Did I rattle my zipper or something?
Because governments through their agents, the people's employees, practically all over the planet, despite facing even the most disgusting of shtiholes and shitheads, perform sundry valuable services for all and individuals alike, 24/7/365.
"Through what convaluded sense of "morality" does one justify the actions of "government" that, if committed by an individual would mean prison time at the least?"
I dunno big man, as a capitalist do you expect to enforce any and all perceived breaches of contractual obligations against your business all on your lonesome? Because that works fine as swimming 'til you get sucked in from behind by the bigger fish, Cassius Clay.
"By what right or morality does any man or group of men rule over another?"
WTF is so difficult to understand about a simple mandate from the masses? Sure, it doesn't have an absolutely spotless historical record; are you seriously demanding one? But history is quite clear that it beats the living snot out of every other system that has been tried, time and time again.
So don't try to tell me about my morality, you don't know me. Sounds to me like you ought to focus that lens a little closer to home, tough guy.
My sympathies for the burning.
The definition of what is good for me, is what I believe is good for me. "Absolutist" is a dodgy accusation when the true issue is who shall be master of your life.
so you're denying the existence of 'universal' mores?
Go on, pull the other one.
What, you lot need examples? How about this one:
Treat people as you expect them to treat yourself.
Of course, I'm not so arrogant as to claim to be wholly guiltless in that regard...
"But, Sir... Missus... I see that it's wrong! It's wrong because it's like against like society. It's wrong because everybody has the right to live and be happy without being tolchocked and knifed." - Little Alex
They believe that a group of idiots somehow becomes intelligent. Or do they?
What they really believe is that individuals who are better than the rest of us can hide behind these committees and make all the decisions, without all that pesky public commentary. It is also a part of well known group psychology theory that people accept the decisions of groups with much less scrutiny than they apply to individuals like presidents or kings. Basically control freaks who are Statists are trying to hide what they are really up to, always.
It's all bullshit, and it's all bad for you.
Basically control freaks who are Statists are trying to hide what they are really up to, always.
Exactly! And then when someone does get through with a logical point of criticism, or someone reveals the inner workings of the secret machine, they pull out the old stand-bys which include; personal attacks on the criticizer or whistle blower, claims of racism, claims of unholy alliances with some powerful or well known group, etc. Most of their ilk are just like cockroaches - they can't stand the light of day.
Hey, dickweed:
statism is the belief that the state should be responsible for either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree
<emphasis mine>
In other words, scratch the surface of any of you loopy resident ZH self purported 'anarcho-capitalists' and you'll invariably find that you actually expect the state to undertake the enforcement of contractual obligations, at the very least, every. single. time.
IE technically that is "statist", not anarchist, you dirty statist you.
Plutocratic sycophants, useful idiots, or duckspeaking employees quacking 'might makes right', and 'money talks', as if either one or both together could possibly provide the basis for the meritocratic society such types disingenuously promise they will.
Mammonites reserve the right to invoke buzz-words like 'statist' (ironically) in the pejorative in order to attack anyone who calls them on their sycophancy, or differs in opinion, however slightly, on how to employ the power of the state. Especially if that opinion seeks to use that strength to mitigate the power of concentrated wealth on behalf of the comparatively 'unpropertied' masses.
"Oh! What a giveaway!"
GoingFawr - Upvoted you every time on logic in your argument. I agree to pay government for security against robbers but it eventually always turns into the government selling out to the robbers.
The solution sets I see are slightly better screening and brakes for sociopaths. Slowing the decent into hell or accelerating the rise from the ashes tends to be more the bigger choices with a few variances of that in-between.
Rules either apply equally or they dont. Government is granted the monopoly on violence, I pay for that to kill or jail robbers only.
But the flimsy well trotted out excuse of new world orders is always horseshit to rob all beneath power.
By the time we can advance to a true global Republic we will.actually no longer need one. My reasoning would take a book report to explain. One group always starts breaking the rules and will misdirect the why that is happening. Politicians have been called crooks since a word for that was invented. Learn as an individual to avoid being robbed, might cause early death trying but the alternative being a slave is worse. End of story.
“If people are fallible, the absolutely last thing… we should do is to give them sovereignty… over other people”.
Exactly.
So, what’s the solution?
How do we convert this maxim of natural law from mere words to effective actions?
In other words, ‘how do we convert another maxim (two-part), “every man may do exactly as he pleases; and nature requires that he enjoy, or suffer, consequences of his actions”.
Nothing is required to “enforce” the first part; but how do we enforce the second part… especially when we deal with tax thieves and regulators?
This was the perspective I held when I searched original and un-sanitized histories from the first known civilization to the present: ‘who were the men that authored those eras that most advanced the condition of man; and how did they accomplish their unprecedented achievements?’
After studying 30,000 to 50,000 pages of such histories, I found answers we are not supposed to know – answers that have been erased from current history, law and philosophy books. I found treasures that are lost to current generations, eras and men that have gone too long unheralded; and because of these losses, we marched relentlessly and probably irreversibly to a new Dark Age many times the duration of the previous one.)
Your comment: "‘who were the men that authored those eras that most advanced the condition of man; "
They are "Good" strong Men, not evil or greedy Men. Its easy to find them, its the virus of thought that spreads that is harder to stop.
The same as it were if any other herd of wild beasts charged towards you.
<<Nothing is required to “enforce” the first part; but how do we enforce the second part… especially when we deal with tax thieves and regulators?>>
From your link:
In other words, ‘We part with the natural rights of execution and judgment so that one power may exercise both with justice for all.
I have always been troubled with how freely the word "right" is tossed around. People claim rights to everything. They assume they have rights which they never specifically claim (i.e. natural rights). They claim rights they assume to have can't be taken away (i.e. inalienable rights).
For me personally (and I don't know why it wouldn't apply universally, but I can't get anyone to agree with me), a right is simply "a defended claim". If I make no claim, I have no right. If I make a claim and can't defend it, I have no right. Most people don't like this "right is might" concept. But it's real.
Personally, I seldom deal in rights. Real estate, which is a basket of rights, is pretty much my only interaction with rights ... and the government takes those rights away from me continually through taxes and ordinances. I haven't come close to mounting a defense. My best defense of government is avoidance.
I don't claim rights. I can't defend those that are claimed for me. If someone does something to me I don't think they have a right to do, I simply counter and resist them or avoid them. Its silly to just declare they don't have the right to do what they're doing.
You are exactly "right":
http://www.spectacle.org/0400/natural.html
There is no such thing as "natural rights". It's a matter of what YOU can defend and we humans, being social animals, quickly realize that our "rights" are much stronger when we work in groups. Eventually a State forms and defines what the "rights" are for members, who agree to abide by the rules to continue to enjoy the benefits of membership.
It's natural only so far as we, like all other life, seek MOAR for our genes to prosper. Never in the disussion of "rights" are the "rights" of other life forms considered in the process of us establishing what is "ours".
All of it is a lazy attempt to ignore difficult thoughts and mentally cocoon the brain in feel-good nonsense. We're savage animals, that's it.
Clethneses - Really, its an ancient Chinese secret right? You fuckhead its about withholding labor. Your welcome, now just call me a seer or perhaps a queer. sarc off asswipe.
While you do that the chicks dig those spirtitual rugged individualist types and if you have half a brain in how you go about doing that it wont in most cases get yourself killed either. You analyzed 50,000 documents of recorded history? How old are you 350? Come now...
"Behavioral economics" is another term created to hide the deployment of social engineering against the cattle, er the people. It's a crap, nonsense passel of lies. But what else is new?
Cass Sunstein one of the architects of the internet troll campaign that the US Government is running through contractors.
You know what else your "government" can do, you elitist prick? Cass and his buddies spend all day thinking about how to influence our behavior to keep us from trying to influence theirs. In a so called representative republic, that is called tyranny.
Sic Semper Tyrannis, Cass.
Cass Sunstein has yet to be punched in the face.
Hey, the overwhelming majority of the conspiracy theories are crazy and baseless. They are so non-sensical that the they really only appeal as an emotional salve to those who can't compete in the real world.
So don't be surprised when successful peiople think you're a whackjob.
Insallah infidel.
Here's some statist mindset from Putin:
"Of course, regional budgets need funds to develop infrastructure for future investment. Indeed, there are problems related to high debt levels in certain regions. However, the government is making appropriate decisions. This year we have provided an additional 160 billion rubles from the federal budget to regional budgets – 310 billion in all. For what? For regional debt restructuring. Where commercial loans were taken out at 11–12 percent interest they can receive loans from the federal budget at 0.1 percent interest.
Next year, the federal budget will provide another 310 billion rubles for regional debt restructuring.
However, the most important thing is that these regional loans are spent on addressing primary, not secondary objectives."
http://thesaker.is/vladimir-putins-annual-news-conference-full-text/
What is the most important thing in terms of development? This [money] should be spent on creating new jobs, providing conditions for new manufacturing facilities, new technology and new infrastructure so that investment generates revenue that can be used to repay loans and generate additional funding for regional budgets.
Yeah, and Cass Sunsteins wife is......ding ding ding.....Samantha Power, the current U.N. ambassador....
Hows that for a communist conspiracy?.....And Obama and Valerie Jarrett just adore them......
I wonder if the chairman mao Christmas bulb is on the White House tree again this year?.....
LMAO!.....mao zedong and Christmas.....Only in Obamaland........
It amazing how people can cast a stupid vote when recieving a government handout....Just ask Venezuela.....
Some more Statism from Putin:
The development of the agro-industrial sector and private farming is an extremely important issue. Of course, I know about discussions between the supporters of various development trends for the agro-industrial sector. Some say that large-scale production should be developed first and that only large-scale production, and not private farmers, can provide the country with quality food products in the required volumes. But, nevertheless, without any doubt, we must also support private farming as a form of agriculture. Farmers make a significant contribution to ensuring food security. I have repeatedly said this and can confirm that all plans regarding support for the agro-industrial sector will be implemented unconditionally, including financial support.
My addition:
All systems are control systems. Pick your control system carefully. Libertarians cast hypnosis when they promulgate an erroneous assumption: they assume wrongly that control systems can be organic and self leveling. History teaches otherwise, especially when it comes to people, many of whom are predatory and rent seekers.
There are examples in history of benign control systems, for example - Hungary which had an elected King system; this system lasted 1000 years and had balanced forces and low level feeback nodes.
Hey there Mefo, always love reading your comments. I believe you are absolutely right.
I've seen you mention Hungary monarchy example before, and how they could elect their king.
Could you point me towards where I can read more about that? I've searched for it and can't seem to find it anywhere.
Keep it up, cheers!
All successful economies are public/private:
Libertarianism incorrectly assumes that all markets are elastic. How about infrastructure, the commons, and delivering economic goods at lowest costs?
Again, Putin and Russia seem to understand :
excerpt on infrastructure:
There is no doubt that we need this project. Yamal is Russia’s oil and gas pantry. We have been developing this territory and we’ll keep doing so in the future.
You know about the major international project implemented by Novatek, and the Chinese and French partners. The Government supports this project, among other things, because foreign investors entered this project before us. I’ll be honest with you. These investments by our foreign partners provided us with an incentive to support this undertaking. Withdrawing our support for the project after foreigners invested in it would have not made any sense. It would have been simply unfair towards our foreign partners who had already invested in the project.
This is an important project. This shows that we are thinking about the future. What I mean is that global LNG sales are set to grow.
Today, we are able to offer LNG for sale only in Russia’s Far East through the joint ventures we have, or through Gazprom’s swap deals. But here, in the Yamal Peninsula, there will be a powerful project by the Russian, French and Chinese to produce large volumes of LNG and access almost all global markets.
We have the future in mind as we work on this project. I’m surprised that those who run it have been so successful. Everything is on schedule, and the quality is high.
As for what you’ve mentioned, I think this is an extremely important project, as with a huge terminal, extraction and shipment operations, it would be desirable to have a universal port there. This way, not just LNG products can transit through this port, but all kinds of goods that can be rerouted from the Trans-Siberian Railway or Baikal-Amur Mainline. This is a very convenient location with great logistics. This could be all sorts of goods — bulk shipments, or anything else.
http://thesaker.is/vladimir-putins-annual-news-conference-full-text/
How do Libertarians plan to solve the top down, central planning that comes form a single board of directors in large corporations?
Libertarians are self made sociopaths who of course built it all themselves with no planning whatsoever.