This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: What Democracy?
Submitted by James Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada
What Democracy?
A sacred cow is usually defined as that which is regarded as far too valuable or prestigious to even think about altering. Any proposition that comes close to complete abolition is met with astounding ridicule. In the realm of legalized harlotry (politics), careers are made out of defending sacred cows no matter how expensive, socially corroding, or intentionally dishonest they are. Compulsory public education is one of the first to come to mind. The various vote buying schemes that masquerade as a welfare safety net are another. Whenever the political class or its apologists in the media find themselves in a bind trying to validate the government’s latest plot to fill its coffers or grind already-undermined liberties further into the curb, they often resort to evoking the greatest sacred cow of all: democracy.
Starting from the earliest years of basic comprehension, children in the Western world are propagandized into believing that without democracy, society would descend into unlivable chaos. Schools, both public and private, perpetuate the fantasy to millions of forced attendees every year. They are told that the government which has a hand in practically anything they encounter was formed with only the best intentions. In America especially, the representative democracy constructed out of the collective genius of the country’s founding fathers is lauded as a gift to humanity. And though its influence is waning in recent years, the Constitution served as a model for developing nation-states around the globe. Back in 1987, Time magazine estimated that of the 170 countries that existed at the time, “more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version.”
The Constitution is presented as the miraculous creation of divine individuals when, in fact, it was nothing of the sort. Like any attempt to centralize state power, the Constitution was formed out of the economic desires of its framers. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and Henry Adams weren’t even present at the Philadelphia Convention as it was drafted. Many Americans at the time were suspicious at what ended up being a coup to toss out the decentralized Articles of Confederation in return for an institution powerful enough to be co-opted for the purposes of rent seeking. As Albert Jay Nock noted:
The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d’état.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production
when the Constitution was promulgated, similar economic interests in the several states had laid hold of it and pushed it through to ratification in the state conventions as a minority measure, often — indeed, in the majority of cases — by methods that had obvious intent to defeat the popular will. Moreover, and most disturbing fact of all, the administration of government under the Constitution remained wholly in the hands of the men who had devised the document, or who had been leaders in the movement for ratification in the several states.
Unvarnished history like this is never taught in public schools and is hardly known by the public at large. There is a reason for this of course. When the rose tinted glasses are removed, the state appears as the organized criminal racket it really is. Those entrusted as “representatives of the people” are really looking out for themselves and their financial well-being. As government grows and regulatory bureaucracies flourish in size and scope, law formation becomes not just a job for the elected legislature but also of the executive enforcers. In other words, the same people tasked with enforcing the law are also given discretion over what rules they wish to impose. These unelected bureaucrats, in a constant effort to validate their positions of authority, will never seek to cut the tax money that is their lifeblood. Instead, they will spend the whole of their budget every year as they live out their desire to have meaningful employment through crushing freedom. The people’s will is sold off to ensure a new bloc of state-privileged voters.
Leviathan’s growth by bureaucracy has been occurring all over the Western world but it is accelerating at a worrisome rate in the United States and Europe. In the 2012 edition of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s 10,000 Commandments which provides a type of snapshot of the American regulatory state, it is documented that federal agencies were responsible for the implementation of 3,807 rules. These economically destructive regulations were set in stone despite only 81 bills passing Congress and being signed by the President. Representative democracy has been replaced by the rule of the unaccountable. In an environment where the power players are shielded from public backlash, the opportunity for cronyism, corruption, and back room deals increases tenfold. Revolving door politics becomes the norm as the regulators who write the laws end up being employed at the same firms that avoid their punitive nature.
Across the pond in Europe, unelected technocrats continue to try and save the floundering currency union. Austerity measures, which amount to more tax increases than cuts in government spending, have been imposed by bureaucrats who have little to no identification with the people they are levied against. It is centralized planning on continent-wide scale. The person with the most sway in the crisis has been European Central Bank President Mario Draghi. Though Draghi only has one vote in the body that controls the printing press, he is seen as its mouthpiece. Last week as the Olympic Games kicked off, he infamously made the off-the-cuff remark on doing “whatever it takes to preserve the euro”. The remark, whether Draghi admits it or not, carried with it the bought-and-sold notion that the printing presses would soon be put on overdrive in an effort to quell the crisis by buying sovereign debt. Stocks in both the U.S. and Europe rallied on the news but sunk soon after the plan was revealed as a farce. There was no trick up his sleeve; Draghi’s remark was pure posturing.
However the event was highly revealing of the reliance the global economy has on a constant injection of cheap, fiduciary currency. Under central banking, consumer preferences which normally guide the free market’s structure of production take a backseat to the whims of the operators of the printing press. Financial markets begin centering their operations around fresh batches of newly created digital currency. Fractional reserve banking becomes even more emboldened. Because money isn’t neutral and always enters the economy at specific points, the first receivers are able to spend and invest before overall prices are affected. The last receivers must deal with prices rising prices as their wages stagnate; thus lowering their real income.
The free market economy is analogous to democracy because consumers vote with their wallets on who produces the best product. Under central banking, few individuals are granted the monopolistic license to produce that which facilitates all transactions. There is nothing democratic about central banking in practice; it is a system of top-down governance based on the fantastical idea that there exists an ideal amount of money that only a few intellectually gifted economists can determine. With one hundred years of operation under its belt, all the central banker profession has learned through the various recessions which plagued the 20th century is that money printing appears to solve everything.
From the beginning of the Eurozone crisis, anyone not quenching their thirst with the Kool-Aid of good, honest government recognized that the large banks were the true beneficiaries of the various bailout schemes. Because commercial banks in Northern Europe are exposed to sovereign debt, it is in their best interest for default to be avoided even if it means receiving interest payments in a devaluing currency. The people of the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) are told their governments are being bailed out as a benefit to them. What’s really happening is the bankers are pulling the reigns of an unscrupulous political class looking to ultimately cash out by helping their friends in high places. The rhetoric of preserving democracy by EU officials amounts to nothing but a childish ploy when contrasted with the brazen, systematic exploitation the state embodies.
To the ruling establishment, the approval of “we the people” matters insomuch that they don’t recognize their oppressors. Democracy is a charade to convince the masses that they are in charge of their future when they are servants to authoritarianism. Economist and philosopher Hans-Herman Hoppe was spot on when he recognized that
Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.
Rather than give the people a voice, democracy allows for the choking of life by men and women of state authority. When Occupy protestors were chanting “this is what democracy looks like” last fall, they wrongly saw the power of government as the best means to alleviate poverty. What modern day democracy really looks like is endless bailouts, special privileges, and imperial warfare all paid for on the back of the common man.
None of this is to suggest that a transition to real democracy is the answer. The popular adage of democracy being “two wolves and lamb voting on what’s for lunch” is undeniably accurate. A system where one group of people can vote its hands into another’s pockets is not economically sustainable. Democracy’s pitting of individuals against each other leads to moral degeneration and impairs capital accumulation. It is no panacea for the rottenness that follows from centers of power. True human liberty with respect to property rights is the only foundation from which civilization can grow and thrive.
»
- 15467 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Well, then by that definition I would argue that mankind collectively has never been civilized, no individual nation has ever been civilized, and neither ever will be.
I'm going long on barbarism in that debate.
How can one measure an individual trait by conflating the action of specific individuals with the acts of all other individuals? I don't know where you live but my neighbors are decent folks. We chat over our fences and exchange the produce of our gardens. It's all quite civilized. Then there's the petty thief heroin addict who lives next door in public housing. He's not particularly civilized but that hardly reflects on the rest of the neighborhood.
"characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint"
Your source must be trading in stolen goods if you were to refer to democracy. Aristocratic virtues, none of them inheritable even though reclaimed by some bourgeois
imitators.
But you are referring to the issue at hand, so no offense intended...
You keep tossing out "civilized" as though it's some gold standard.
History, even as presented by the pious "victors," contains plenty of data to inform us that this term is primarily used to denigrate others so that their possessions (land and resources) can be taken from them. "Savages," "monkeys," the list of names used by the propagandists is long, and is used to paint the "others" as "uncivilized" and in need of "help." (yeah, we're from the <church/government> and we're here to "help" you!
Are you condemning me for using the word "civilized" properly because others sometimes distort its meaning in order to procure collectivist gains? If you understand that propagandists use language imprecisely so as to weaponize it then shouldn't you support my employment of words according to their standard definitions?
I consider being civilized as possessing a high level of cerebral control.
Or your higher brain functions control your animal instincts in relation to others.
Thus, so called savages can be civilized.
To say other constitutions were modeled after ours is silliness. Our constitution says what government can NOT do to the people not what government must do for the people. Every other constitution on the planet says what government must to for the people, as in what government must provide.
Our constitution is the oldest on the planet because it works as long as it is followed, and it hasn't been followed for a long time. Which is why things are getting ugly.
I don't know about the rest of you out there but I just want to be left alone, and I most certainly don't want to be compelled to pay for some sluts birth control or some sloth's food.
The remedy to Leviathans growth is a return to an origialist application of the constitution.
You cannot have a nanny state AND have liberty.
"True human liberty with respect to property rights is the only foundation from which civilization can grow and thrive."
Here we fucking go, AGAIN!
"Civilization" has to do with "cities!" There is absolutely NOTHING sustainable about cities. And you wish to proclaim that the TRUE path lies with growth (which is essentially cities pilfering the countrysides)?
FAIL!
There you go again. Do you own a dictionary?
civ·i·li·za·tion[siv-uh-luh-zey-shuh n] Show IPA
noun
1.an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached. 2.
those people or nations that have reached such a state. 3.
any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization. 4.
the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable. 5.
cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.
I don't fucking care about what is WRITTEN. SHOW me where ANY city, EVER, has been self-sufficient without having to import ANYTHING from outside of its boundary.
“I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in this country”.
- William Jennings Bryant
As Derrick Jenson puts it (http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/3-Civilization.htm):
I suddenly remembered that all writers, including writers of dictionaries, are propagandists, and I realized that these definitions are, in fact, bite-sized chunks of propaganda, concise articulations of the arrogance that has led those who believe they are living in the most advanced—and best—culture to attempt to impose by force this way of being on all others.
I would define a civilization much more precisely, and I believe more usefully, as a culture—that is, a complex of stories, institutions, and artifacts— that both leads to and emerges from the growth of cities (civilization, see civil: from civis, meaning citizen, from Latin civitatis, meaning city-state), with cities being defined—so as to distinguish them from camps, villages, and so on—as people living more or less permanently in one place in densities high enough to require the routine importation of food and other necessities of life
You're the only one talking about cities because you are under the mistaken impression that the sole definition of civilization is "to live in a city." That is not the definition and living in a city had nothing to do with the post to which you responded. How is it possible that you could be so incredibly stupid and still manage to walk around and stuff?
I gave you a MORE meaningful definition of what "civilization," one, as Derrick Jensen puts it, is less based on the definition provided by the propagandists (keepers of the keys).
I'm challenging you on your incessant use of "civilization" as some gold standard.
Go ahead, let's actually hear some sort of attempt to SUPPORT your positions without the use of trite phrases and words. Otherwise you're no more than a cheap propagandist and we're in no way going to figure out any sort of "solution."
"living in a city had nothing to do with the post to which you responded."
So, by omission it's all OK? That is, if we don't expand on a "term/phrase" we just accept it?
OK, Mr. "I'm smarter than you," let's hear from you where "civilization" is so much of the gold standard that you proclaim it to be, that there's an instance of YOUR definition around that is an example of the gold standard that you're intonating it to be. Show me one instance of an acceptable "civilization" that isn't centered around the "city."
How can we have a conversation if you insist that words don't have specific meanings? What does the word "civilized" mean to you and why do you dislike it so much?
"How can we have a conversation if you insist that words don't have specific meanings?"
I was the one who came along and provided a challenge on using KEY words on face. I presented what I believe is an expanded and a more true definition of what I believe the word "civilization" means.
Refer back to what I presented. Yes, I'm using someone else's words, but these can hardly be said to have less significance than those that you obtained from a "dictionary" (which, as Jensen points out, are written by propagandists*).
* A test would be whether one does or does not believe that the natives of the American continents were, as modern history reports, "uncivilized."
Again, just stating that "civilization" is THE path and not questioning the very term/word is a bit tenuous (when so much is riding/hinged on this word). I applied the same defense (of testing) to someone's abuse of the word "conservatism" (though I do not support most of those who purport to be "conservatives").
Not to appear to be speaking to myself, but... I've got things to do and won't be able to pick this back up; not because I don't want to, as I think that it's extremely important... I'm pretty certain that we're not all that far apart on how we see things; if you'd like to discuss this further then feel free to contact me on the side (I don't know what that would be here on ZH, as I'm somewhat intentionally not "up" on such things).
I like Indians just fine if that's what you're on about. I'm watching Little Big Man right now. The Human Beings (Cheyenne) in the movie didn't kill women and children but General Custer did. So the Cheyenne were civilized in this context and Custer was not.
But that's just a distraction from the discussion of the quote from the article with which you took exception: "True human liberty with respect to property rights is the only foundation from which civilization can grow and thrive."
So do you or do you not believe that mutual respect depends on one's ability to act civilly with other individuals whom one encounters in the course of one's endeavors? Do you expect that behaving in an uncivil manner is helpful when interacting with other individuals? If so, why?
There can be no civilized society until Property Rights are respected and defendable per the 2nd Amendment (that means Weapons). No person should be able to charge property tax for ANY motive, or come on your property for ANY motive. Period. A Revolution is justified, warranted and necessary.
After that we can start to build a "civilized" society
"* A test would be wether one does or does not believe that the natives of the American continents were, as modern history reports, "uncivilized"*".
Whatever they were, they were not Christian Europeans, the only standard of civilization the colonizers knew, so, while Modern civilization may want to re-write the past, Noble savage and all that, which I think is good, we are all in it to-gether now, at the time they were Savages standing in the way of Destiny's manifestation!!
You, I think, misunderstand something about the role of consciousness and language in rationalizing our behavior, activities are commenced in response to instincts unconscious urges, Civilization and language give us the tools to "Rationaly" explain our behavior. The `Uncivilized savages`, stood in the way of our instinctual urges, they `Had` To go! (And "Go" they did!)
Who cares about cities not being self-sufficient.
I'm not self-sufficient on my own property. And I'm pretty sure farmers don't make everything they use in the job of farming.
Basically, they only make crops.
"People who don't read history, deserve what they get."
Cicero, (paraphrased a little)
"The free market economy is analogous to democracy because consumers vote with their wallets on who produces the best product" conditioning sheeple with neuromarketing to buy shit that they don't really need sounds pretty Free & Democratic.
A free market does not preclude the possibility that some idiots will spend money on crap. Freedom is desirable and necessary but it ain't fuckin' magic, you know.
Hungry people think and talk about food, horny, sex starved people think and talk about sex... Slaves and depressed think and talk about freedom and liberty.
Did you have a point?
Did'nt you feel it?
No. It's far too dull or far too small to make an impression.
we all need to be responcible for industry's global carbon polution at the very least before we destroy the planet for the future of all mankind
.
-The living constitution of the USA
Why is it always my fault? I don't have a corprate jet, fleet of cars, yacht, or ocean view mansion.
Judging by the number of red down arrows you got, I'D SAY THE GOVERNMENT TROLLS ARE OUT IN FORCE TODAY
The single most polluting entity is government, and within government, the military.
Horribly inefficient.
If a farmer does not represent production, then who even possibly could? It is doubltless true that many farmers also speculate in land. But pretending that their crops do not exist is delusional. Ben Franklin was a printer. Was <i>Poor Richard's Almanac</i> not production?
And OMG, the state legislatures appointed the delgates to the Constitutional Convention. And then they appointed many of the same men to the Senate. Just how many capable, intelligent, articulate men, who could take months at a time away from their farms or businesses does James Miller think existed in New Hampshire or Delaware in 1790?
Jeezus.
Clearly there are very few farmers here...
The wrong path was taken when the Hamiltonians won. Jefferson had pointed us in the path of an agrarian society, which would have (literally) grounded us in the physical world (where the true fundamentals of Food, Shelter, and Water are based).
Certainly the Hamiltonians sent us down a path to crony capitalism.
Humans organize. They form organizations.
Rule by an elite becomes closed and self-serving.
An anarchistic society never having to do anything one doesn't want to do is an adolescent fantasy.
Democracy is the best means to govern or regulate those organizations. The majority must however support protections for the minority, and various individual rights such as habeas corpus and prohibition of torture.
Some of the criteria needed for a democratic republic in general are:
{A} public knowledge about government
1) transparency of government
2) free press (free of control by special interests or government)
{B} minimal political corruption
3) minimal financial incentives for politicians in office
4) minimal financial barriers to run for office
{C} guaranteed rights and minority protections
5) habeas corpus and prohibition of torture
6) freedom from government surveillance and intimidation
7) freedom from persecution for cultural preferences (aka "victimless crimes")
Finally, there is no "end of history" perfect government and society that requires no further citizen involvement and improvement.
You're dreaming. No one said that anarchy means that you don't have to do what you don't want to do. It means that no one has a right to force a person who is minding their own business to do things which are against their own interests.
Democracy is a rip off. Each individual is a sovereign being with natural rights. In a democracy you give up your right to self determination in order to have a one in 300 millionth say in how other people will be forced to live. That is neither a good deal nor a worthy goal.
Crockett wrote:
It means that no one has a right to force a person who is minding their own business to do things which are against their own interests.
own interests as determined by ...? (aka not having to do what you don't want to do)
AND
those "own interests" of course NEVER conflict with the interests of others (lol)
I don't want to go to the dentist but I have to go and therefore I can not be an anarchist by your criteria.
Of course personal interests sometimes conflict. There would be no need for an economy if they didn't. Sometimes two people both want the last apple in the barrel. That's when the man who owns the apple listens to bids from the rival buyers and accepts one bid if it's high enough. It might behoove you to spend less time "lol"ing and more time thinking about the supid stuff you say before you say it (lol).
All conflicts cannot be resolved by "the economy".
The "economy" also requires laws and enforcement, including property and "property rights".
Once you concede there can be conflict, you concede some form of government is necessary to resolve disputes and enforce laws. You abjure anarchism.
Then the question becomes what kind of government.
"Democracy" in its crudist form is just majority rule. But few philosophers have advocated such a crude form of government.
In my earlier comment I indicated elements needed for a democratic republic to function.
Not sure what you disagree with. Habeas corpus? Torture prohibition? Transparecy? Minority protections?
Or is it democratic decision-making? Especially if it conflicts with what you want to do?
"Once you concede there can be conflict, you concede some form of government is necessary to resolve disputes and enforce laws. You abjure anarchism."
How about you provide a definition of what "government" is. Technically, anarchism doesn't discount "government," just coercive force.
Take a look at the REAL world and tell me that governments are doing a superior job of resolving "disputes." I can as readily point out that it tends to be governments themselves who are responsible for the disputes, and quite often, and escalations to violence.
Those who actually would like to expand on their intellectual prowess might like to read the following:
ANARCHISM: IDEOLOGY OR METHODOLOGY?http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/practice/sp001689.html
One can follow rules without giving an absolute ruler a monopoly on violence over others. Just because you don't think that you are capable of treating people fairly without being threatened by prison or some other form of secular hellfire doesn't mean that there aren't those of us who can behave civilly without giving up our right to self determination. If you feel such a lack of personal control then perhaps you should have yourself committed and let the rest of us get on with our lives.
"anarchy means that you don't have to do what you don't want to do. It means that no one has a right to force a person who is minding their own business to do things which are against their own interests."
Here's a point that we can agree on! :-)
In it's most basic form, anarchy is based on the notion that no one should be forcibly coerced: because centralized power nearly always (any instance of it not?) employs force one could say that anarchism doesn't support/encourage centralization of power (seems that this warning has been readily prevalent to us in the form of "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely").
Once again, the adolescent fantasy,
once free from parental control, no one can tell them what to do.
No “coercion” = no one to stop anyone from speeding drunk on the highway,
No one to arrest anyone for theft or rape.
No one to stop anyone from polluting the town reservoir.
No one to stop anyone from threatening others, or to compel anyone to pay for the frauds they commit.
No way to be protected or to get redress from the abuses of non-government organizations.
What a lovely society.
What does it matter what others want? It’s all about me.
(and anarchism does advocate no government - although I realize you would prefer to make up the definition conveniently as you go along.)
You win the dunce of the day award. Keep trying, you might win the Douglas Feith Dumbest Fuck on Earth Award.
Your statements are only true in your head.
I suggest you get a head that works.
Despotism (1946) vs. Democracy
i always find it odd, that zh is so against collectivism however tyler durden the character is infact a collectivist.
Anyway mises institute and co are all small children, they look at things and scream tyranny dictator, give us freedom!!!
yet fail to offer up any solutions, just a few soundbite words thrown in, i also find inherent irony in the fact that institute of mises, praises individuality, yet they are an institution of people collectively following one mans work, without any individuality at all.
We have found new membership donators to help our depleted fund account. We’re very excited to transition those monies to other ailing membership clients who can no longer meet quarterly collective minimum fund fees. The Fund’s intent will be to expand our new membership forecast in balancing members in arrears and new membership fee increases. Collectively, the fund will manage profitability while offering new benefits to existing club members thru subsidized amenities.
http://www.imf.org/external/mmedia/view.aspx?vid=1769369608001
Holy Shit - what a recipe for FAILURE - but typical COLLECTIVIST bull shit - "we need new members to help our depleted fund account"
Don't assume that that which you fail to comprehend is infantile. The reverse is more likely the case.
By your definition any group of people who have common agreement on any philosophy or system of government necessarily lack individuality- that is seriously flawed thinking. Under such a standard nobody on the planet can be a proponent of individuality as there will necessarily be others that agree with pretty much any system of thought or opinion yet devised.
by being part of the institute they have become collectivists, very simple.
"i always find it odd, that zh is so against collectivism however tyler durden the character is infact a collectivist."
Read the Disclaimer. There you will find it noted that the intent should be for EACH person to analyze the information provided, that picking apart individuals (as noted by the argument as to why any attempts to present a "full disclosure") is stupid.
Go ahead, dig into REAL arguments.
What about the drones though? Has anyone thought about the drones? Dumbass repeat for some, but if you haven't seen it yet....This is what the red pill looks like........................
http://mises.org/daily/5955/The-Seven-Rules-of-Bureaucracy
100% true and accurate bitchez.
We are their prey.
It is a fucking job for them.
"hey I think I will become a parasite", "pay is great and I have a basically sick personality anywho so WTF?".
Fucking cops and government hooligans. Cut from the same cloth.
Occupy Wall Street is a cousin of my idea for Occupy. If you're unemployed, you should be OCCUPYING a Republican's office to conduct your job search. The telphone, computers, copy machine, restroom, pencils, papers, pens, sewage, and utlities should be at your disposal, and you should OCCUPY until you find a job at same wages and benefits.
Take a camera, film the process, and invite the Republican staff to call Faux News. Believe me, they won't want to.
You're right. Only Democrats are for jobs! It is this type of deep analytical skill that this country is lacking. Good work.
Do you know why the Dem-Rats are for the Job's Bill? Have you taken the time to read it? Well, it's to remove state sovereignty dumby head.
It's a Power Grab to instal more Federal control.
http://gulagbound.com/21352/obamas-jobs-bill-ends-state-sovereignty-wake...
Thats right, they owe you. You show 'em- because you're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it people like you.
It appears to me that the OCCUPY movement is controlled opposisition. The word 'Occupy' is also a military term as in 'Occupation'. Also at the beginning of the movement they received $185,000 from a Soros front group called the Tides Foundation. I have found that following the money, players, and powers usually leads to the truth.
You've just made the same mistake that those who will jump on your ass will make...
Really, why is it that people demand to work FOR the very corrupt and enslaving entities that they're whining they should be hired by?
I'm not a fan of the corporate world, but I've become rather partial to one corporate slogan: Just Do It! [shut up and do whatever- quit telling others what they should and shouldn't do and start doing It yourself!]
One thing to consider in all of this emotional froth is that all modern governments have existed in an era of huge energy and resource inputs.
This era began with the colonial era in which the riches and lands of indigenous peoples added the inputs, then coal, then oil which allowed for a Capitalistic Colonialism to make the indigenous people serfs and subjects of dictators who served foreign corporate instead of just killing the people and taking their stuff. An objective look across the landscape indicates that were are nearing peak energy inputs into the economic systems with many other resources tailing off too. Yes we can interject a bit of techno-utopian optimism and dreaming to some of these declines, but reality is a different matter.
So, what I am getting at by bringing this up is that the best future lies in looking forward and creating systems that deal with the reality at hand instead of endlessly looking backward to find an old, ill-fitting idea, complete with all of its accompanying baggage, to jam into the vacuum. I hold little hope in a good outcome due to the move toward conservatism in this country as this is a perspective that never looks forward, seeks to destroy and blame instead of build or create, and cannot comprehend anything outside of the same old hierarchy. Hence, things will definitely get much worse before they get better. JMHO.
Well, you were doing good until this part:
"I hold little hope in a good outcome due to the move toward conservatism in this country as this is a perspective that never looks forward, seeks to destroy and blame instead of build or create, and cannot comprehend anything outside of the same old hierarchy. Hence, things will definitely get much worse before they get better. JMHO."
Tossing out "conservatism" like this is, IMHO, no more than the "emotional froth" that you're railing against. We need to quit using these buzz/trigger words and get down to real underlying meanings/arguments. In NO way do I see "conservatism" today as meaning what it once did. Further, I see a future that can ONLY be based on "conservation," as the physical world won't be capable of delivering ever-expanding resources. Given this fact, I see any antithesis to "conservatism" (as more readily defined as being conservative with things [my fixation being with actual "resources," not with social mores]) as representing a path which directly opposes that which the physical world will be able to deliver.
Those out there on the propaganda channels (wide-scale communications outlets) posing as "conservatives" are not.
Lots of people get tricked into "new" things by those who would claim to be non-"conservatives." We'd have been better off being more "conservative" when it came to derivatives (of things like [C]MBSes).
I agree with you on being conservative when it comes to natural resources. However, when it comes to social/political conservatism, that is an ideology heavily invested in the ideals of human dominion of the Earth and everything upon it. This is the ideology I am aiming at in the above rant.
Very flowery, philosophically artzy-fartzy. Folks here will debate the Constitution as opposed to the Articles of Confederation, Republic or Democracy, who could piss further, Jefferson or Madison. But when all is said and done, to paraphrase Mark Twain....Everybody talks about the government, but nobody does anythng about it.
Not true. At least not in the US. There are new liberty movements popping up everywhere.
And it keeps happening... AND, nothing becomes of it because, when it comes down to it, they're all trying to say what everyone else should do rather than engage in the DOING.
Yes, I've spent time trying to engage and organize, and, clearly, I came to realize that it's NOT the way to get things done: you cannot demand power to change itself; power will look to ensure that it winds up right were it is- with it's boot firmly on your neck; if you don't like this then you need to step away and let power support itself (in which case it'll fail) while you get on with another life. As (one of the few beneficial things) I got from my experience in the military: "Set the example!"
(no interest or relation on where this was found- just the first search hit that came up)
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/S78LNxeFsEZnvjWeLTY7adMTjNZETYmyPJ...
"And it keeps happening... AND, nothing becomes of it...." This is very different Bro, there's a greater awakening happening in the World that can't be stopped. I don't know why you're telling people that you've already "tried it" and therefore they should NOT engage and organize. You'd rather allow (or promote) the Country to fail so "they" can re-make it? Careful what you wish for.
True that.
God put the concept of Liberty into everyone's DNA, at no extra charge.
Looks like I'm bit late, but this comment thread is gonna be epic. Mises Institute posts always make the kid-gloves come off on ZH. Sit back and bask in the warmth of bleating sheep.
I hope that Romney doesn't get elected. His world views might be a bit distorted
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Where liberty dwells, there is my country.
God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country.
Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.
He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas.
If you would not be forgotten
As soon as you are dead and rotten,
Either write things worthy reading,
Or do things worth the writing.
Never confuse motion with action.
This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame.
To find out a girl’s faults, praise her to her girl friends.
Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.
He’s a fool who cannot conceal his wisdom.
What is the use of a new-born child? (When asked the use of a new invention)...a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles...is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep a government free.
There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people mroe easily and more frequently fall than that of defrauding the government.
But I also really like this Ben F. statement:
..."Geese are but Geese tho' we may think 'em Swans; and Truth will be Truth tho' it sometimes prove mortifying and distasteful."
We were a Republic. Today, not so much. Do you love your Freedom?
Americas pending call to Muster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vCF-R_tMeE&feature=related
-JP
well put:
the US constitution is a treasonous document. it was a con of the highest grade:
http://tinyurl.com/dfztye
Which 'Constitution' are you referring to?
The Constitution for the united States, circa 1787 or the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, circa 1868?
circa 1787
do away with ALL property taxes and you will be FREE
I wouldnt stop at property taxes - if people actually want a state, then a state that lived only by voluntary contribution would be the least harmful form.
More and more people are beginning to wake up to what a government really is - and how they, the people whom it supposedly represents, actually have no voice whatsoever in what it dictates.
Personally - I would prefer an incredibly simple social contract, that stated the natural law, which in its most elementary form is this; that a human being owns their own body and mind, and hence their labor, speech and thought - and that no power or authority may legitimately infringe upon them. That is the the entirity of the law in its simplest form.
The question often arises then, who owns the air, water, earth and the cycle of living things. The answer is simply that all human beings have an equal interest, and the use and control of those things must be managed via contracts.
Any supposed authority that infringes upon the property of any human being without their consent (specifically via contract) is illegitimate.
"Any supposed authority that infringes upon the property of any human being without their consent (specifically via contract) is illegitimate."
I agree, but... people, as people seem to do, tend to DEMAND that someone do something about it/something. This seems to evolve into some sort of collective sanctioning, which then tends to form power centers, which then...
There just isn't any panacea out there. The "founders" were aware of this; they had to, however, create something in order to "keep" what they thought was their rightful possessions (the fact that most was at the expense of other humans -natives- was, astonishingly hypocritical, immaterial).
It ultimately boils down to what's sustainable. No matter how great a "system" might be on paper or in practice, if it's based on perpetual growth it WILL hit the wall (and it's a certainty that there will be less "freedom" [to do anything other than what the collective allows]).
I agree with your final comment rergarding the economic case, that is - growth can hit limits in a finite world - but economic freedom is only one aspect of a free society. Additionally, if you imagine a world in which there is unlimited free energy - then growth can exist regardless of the constraints of real estate - we would have the capacity to create new worlds and places to live - we are not there right now, and we have too much consumption for the planet to regenerate right now.
Fractional reserve banking, and a monopolized interconnected banking system is a form of slavery - but removing that is not a total solution. The fundamental problem is in the monopoly of laws.
The fundamental problem is that a group of people have taken control of law, and made it serve their interests, using force and coercion - rather than law serving justice as is the natural order. An unjust law, is no law at all - any law that does not simply preserve property rights is not derived from natural law - it is simply someones rules.
Rules, backed by force and without consent, define tyranny.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
DemoCrazy
"True human liberty with respect to property rights is the only foundation from which civilization can grow and thrive."
And the Supine Court took care of that little inconvenience for the Kleptoligarchy in 2005 with KELO vs. City of New London - making the confiscation of individual property to simply increase tax revenues and enrich corporations the law of the land; further cemented with the decision to see corporations as "individuals" with the same rights as individuals (who supposedly comprise the electorate and the draftees for an army).
The arguments here about the framers of the Constitution veers into the hackneyed "rich white men" diatribe that ignores the Constitution's precepts and unmistakable call for individual liberties contained within and in the Bill of Rights.
Rich White Men who wanted only economic advantage would not have included as the number one and number two rights - the right to free speech and the right to bear arms.
"Rich White Men who wanted only economic advantage would not have included as the number one and number two rights - the right to free speech and the right to bear arms."
Purely an appeasement!
When those "rich white men" controlled armies and most of the means for production it really mattered little.
It's open for question whether "We the people" actually did include EVERYONE. When not EVERYONE had equal voting rights in the SYSTEM (proclaiming EVERYONE equal), well...
Why is a "Bill of Rights" even necessary?
A political science teacher coined the definition of "free speech" as (to paraphrase): "The right to talk about what everyone else is talking about."
I'm sorry, but the era for utterly and completely insane "chimps-wearing-clothes" to hold abstract conversations has long passed. Perhaps such an era never happened in the first place - certainly one could draw that conclusion from the supposed recorded and distorted history that still exists.
I flat-out understand consciousness, what is consciousness, and how it works (especially the effective functioning of consciousness). I can say without any doubt that humans have absolutely no hope whatsoever (to survive, prosper, enjoy), unless they start operating their consciousness differently. When I say "different", don't fret. The "different" I mean is "simpler" --- much, much, vastly "simpler".
I suggest what Einstein called "mind experiments" (as I recall, pronounced "gedanken" or something, but I don't speak german). This simply means working through a problem by visualizing very simple versions of that aspect of reality, then watching what happens when you "let those visions play out".
For example, if you want to grapple with "property rights" or "democracy" (or any of dozens to thousands of other abstract nonsense), perform the following "mind experiment". By some act of genius, you invent a super efficient thrust device, attach it to a garage you made "air tight", and traveled to mars --- all by yourself.
Let's say 20 years later some other smart dude invents another form of propulsion or travel, and happens to land near you. To his astonishment, he finds you already on mars. To your astonishment, you see another craft land.
Do you own mars? Which portion? On what basis? Did you create mars? That might be a reasonable basis to claim "ownership". Nope, you didn't. Hmmmm. First come, first served? Really? Does that make any sense? How so? And if "first come first served" does make sense, then what constitutes "first come"? You haven't been to the other side of mars, so can your new buddy just land there and "own" the other side? Does that other side constitute "another country"? Do these terms refer to anything real --- anything except in your brain?
Oh, but wait! This new guy brought his girfriend alone for the ride. Damn, isn't she a sight for sore eyes?
Does this mean you are now a slave? What I mean is, if you "believe in democracy", doesn't this mean they can outvote you on every issue? Isn't that legitimate? So maybe THEY own mars now, simply because they "vote it so". Or at very least, they can make all the rules?
I started this conversation to hopefully get some people to see how utterly INSANE most ideas are that are supposedly the "most important ideas of all". Frankly, if you examine abstract ideas honestly and carefully... and in situations that let you examine them clearly in their most fundamental forms and situations... you can learn a lot.
I'm afraid most people will take the example I just posed and go off screaming and bouncing off the rock walls of their mars dwellings like insane chimps... instead of realizing they've been sold one gigantic pile of BS when those concepts (and all the implications that come along with them) were foisted upon them in their youth.
The fact is, reality is vastly simpler than people imagine, even including supposedly "messy" topics like "human relations" and "human institutions". For example, upon closer examination, we find "human institutions" flat-out don't exist at all. They are all absolute, pure, 100% fiction (which means, they are only "in your head", and "not in reality").
I guess my point is this. No human can legitimately hold ANY conversation of the type that we are fed dozens, hundreds, or thousands of daily --- unless you first honestly and carefully and very thoroughly grapple with the basic concepts upon which these topics depend. Otherwise you and everyone else is just bouncing off the walls like wacko chimps, throwing nothing but real and verbal feces at each other. You're just wasting your time, and making each other angry in the process --- for no good reason. After all, all that brown stinky stuff flying around is no more than verbal spin that other crafty apes crapped out of their mouths centuries before. What's the point of that?
If anyone wants to have a productive thought, much less a productive conversation, they must work their way through each and every concept carefully and thoroughly. In practice, this cannot even work unless you start with simple issues in simple but fundamental situations, and work from there. And today, that too probably can't work either, unless you spend 20 years working through everything all by yourself... on mars or somewhere similar... because every concept today is utterly and completely twisted and polluted and perverted by centuries of crafty spin artists.
But there is one way that can work. Purposely avoid (ignore) every concept that does not clearly refer to something utterly real. If you're fully honest, as you work through your list of concepts that refer to "totally and obviously real" existents, you will find that even some of those are fiat, fake, fraud, fiction, fantasy --- and have no basis in reality. I am not kidding. For example, one day you will realize the concept "time" is bogus. You will realize the concept "time" is absolutely, positively bogus. After you work through this shocking realization for a while, you will --- with considerable relief probably --- find that, whew, at least "change [of various aspects of reality] exists"... but there is no such "stuff" as "time".
My point is this. Nobody is capable of understanding even the simplest concept that humans babble about all day long, unless they spend a LOT of careful, honest time and effort working through reality. And I very much do suggest you "work through reality" and don't attempt to "work through concepts". Because most concepts are totally bogus, and a great many non-bogus concepts are positively covered with layers and layers of lies, spin and stinky BS.
Once a human has his basic concepts under control (clearly understood), grappling with potentially new concepts isn't nearly as difficult... or dangerous. But never underestimate the craftiness of the lies, spin and BS layered on these concepts to purposely confuse you. Probably you should consider every new concept completely alone for a few weeks before you even think about talking with others about it --- because even the best and most honest of them have probably absorbed endless scams and bogus justifications for every concept.
Perhaps all this sounds like hopeless effort. For older folks (over 4 to 6 years old), perhaps it is --- unless you've been an extreme skeptic since age 4 to 6 (school age, no coincidence). But on the positive side, once you have solid grasp of basic, fundamental concepts of reality, you'll almost certainly understand enough about the nature of reality to help you stay close to sane, and catch yourself when you go off track temporarily. Best of all, you'll have real, clear, solid, honest answers to the most basic and fundamental aspects of reality, including human beings and their behaviors and supposed relationships. All the legitimate concepts and understanding really does boil down to an amazingly tiny collection of insights about the fundamental nature of reality. Of course, that you understand reality so clearly will make almost everyone hate you. But that's okay, because they're on earth, and you're on mars... or much further. Perhaps only figuratively for a time, but later on... well, let's keep that to ourselves.
Speaking of "reality" douchey, and Einstein, go back and study GFB Riemann's work, and then review Einstein and Bohr and then note out Einstein's Special Relativity wasn't really so special after all!
Oh, many physicists are worse than most, no doubt about it, especially many of the quantum wackos. However, the technique I'm talking about is helpful, whether many physics ideas are bogus or not. One of the worst perversions of so-called physics? The infinite parallel universes theory! Not only pure BS, but BS that would utterly defeat THE most fundamental premise that all science depends upon, and distinguishes science from goofball magic. BTW, apparently Einstein also realized that "time doesn't exist", but instead of being totally honest and "fessing up", he concocted the notion of "time is relative" instead in an attempt to "save physics" (or some dishonest motive).
"No human can legitimately hold ANY conversation of the type that we are fed dozens, hundreds, or thousands of daily --- unless you first honestly and carefully and very thoroughly grapple with the basic concepts upon which these topics depend."
I would suggest that the best place to start any discussion is in identifying the premise and then questioning it!
All too often the premise is rushed/tossed by and we're off debating something that's grounded in quicksand! At this point there can be NO clear path to be had. This is why I am so persistent on bringing up the notion that everything has to be based on growth (not a good premise when you're staring at an finite environment).
We're living on a finite planet. We've based our social structures on the need for perpetual growth. Is this good or is it bad?
This is one damn good reason to get our butts off this rock! Nothing wrong with earth, mind you (except too big (too much gravity) and too humid), but that's just being picky when there's a whole freaking universe out there to enjoy.
And enjoy it we could, and enjoy it we would by now if the predators hadn't beaten everyone down so thoroughly. Sure, not that many of us would be permanently living in space (or on mars, phobos, asteroids, whatever) at this date, but some thousands of us would be, with technologies on the drawing table to step up to millions of us.
But the predators of the world want every last being under their control. This is why it took 9 years to go from NOTHING to landing on the moon and returning... then having ZERO advancement in the 40-some years that followed. And people actually believe that's a coincidence! Hahahaha!
As for growth on earth, I totally sympathize with you about that... even as I must regret to disagree. I do totally agree that population must shrink if humans are to live even a marginal quality of life --- as long as they insist upon keeping the predators in charge of everything. Furthermore, as a matter of personal preference, I admit to loving extreme boonies. I never feel more alive and happy than when I'm hundreds of miles from the nearest human being. I want my own planet, moon, asteroid... or even just a self-sufficient deep-space craft will do.
But the fact is this. If all "predators DBA government" were shut down tomorrow (and not replaced with other non-voluntary alternatives), mankind would be blown away by the endless supply of raw materials on this "finite planet". To be sure, earth is indeed finite, as you say. And the way it is controlled by predators DBA government, corporations and central banks today, population is many times too large already. However, if mankind was free, even with some new problems that would arise for a short time until the "new reality" stabilized, people would be blown away by all the goods and goodies that became available - and how low the cost of a basic but quality life became.
To begin with, earth is a hot ball of molten lava. The available energy is so monumental that computations are irrelevant. That alone would power more humans than anyone would wish to squeeze onto this globe. And ditto for all materials humans want and need to live the good life --- available in quantity "down under" the fairly thin skin of planet earth.
But most modern humans literally cannot even imagine what is possible in a world devoid of the 99% wasted by predators DBA government, predators DBA corporations, predators DBA central banks, predators DBA you-name-it.
Nonetheless, I prefer people stop reproducing AT LEAST until they learn to operate their brains. Until humans are smarter than crazed chimps, too much already. I'd say until humans "get real", a population of 1 million per planet is more than sufficient.
I agree.
Government is humanity's greatest obscurant. It is a place where all of man's failed ideas are kept on life support.
Also, you seldom argue with what someone is thinking, rather you argue with how someone thinks.
You nailed it. Language-games, then the metanarrative.
This is the old 1930's Charles Beard "Economic Interpretation of the Constitution" argument which was since knocked flat many decades ago.
The leviathan has been allowed to grow out of control due to 1) the judiciary not upholding a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution (e.g., the expansion of federal powers via the Commerce Clause), 2) the extension of the priviledge of voting to every Tom, Dick, Harry and now Jane, beginning at 18 years of age and regardless of their intellectual prowess or ability to create even a modicum of wealth, 3) the framers' inability to forsee every loophole possible or creatable in "Constitutional law," or the rise of such a powerful media influence on the masses so useful for swaying the opinions of those who now are allowed to vote while distracting them from consideration of the real issues, among other problems.
As Franklin said, it's not perfect, but it's the best we can do. Obviously, in hindsight, that was an understatement.
Due to these problems, what we have today is a seriously corrupted Consitutional system geared to promote economic confiscation, but that is certainly not what it was originally intended to be. Far from a panacea, direct democracy was precisely what the framers did not want and warned against as it could lead to the destruction of private property.
"to create even a modicum of wealth"
For starters, define "wealth."
More people work for financial institutions? Seems that that's where the "wealth" is (if one goes by the currently accepted definition of wealth). Or, if someone works for some "free market" company like Facebook, is that creating "wealth?"
Is it legitimate if one steals "wealth" from another and then leverages that "wealth?"
I pray for revolution without blood, but if no such path exists - then I pray for revolution.
That human beings own their own body and mind does not need to be taught, nor debated - that the labor, speech and thought of a human being is contingnet upon their body and mind is also self evident.
To whom should we surrender our property without consent? Only to thieves who intimidate with force, or swindle with lies. That is the democractic government - to vote at all is to yield consent for their plunder, to pay their taxes, bear their debt and suffer their laws - a surrender of freedom without a fight.
The state who preys upon its people with mandatory taxation, expropriated by force is illegitimate.
"La Revolucion is like a great love affair. In the beginning, she is a goddess. A holy cause. But... every love affair has a terrible enemy: time. We see her as she is. La Revolucion is not a goddess but a whore. She was never pure, never saintly, never perfect."
- Jack Palance, as 'Jesus Raza', in, 'The Professionals' (1966)
If you don't like the State then do all you can to remove yourself from it: it does not require getting others to confront and overthrow the State to create an alternate environment (that's the great trick that's been played over the course of human history- those who were either in power or close to it manage to get their hands on the "new" power levers and the game repeats itself).
I agree with your sentiments - to walk away from the state is a revolutionary act - to refuse to pay the taxes, fight the wars, listen to the propaganda, use the money - but this exercise of freedom will be deemed unlawful - and if freedom is unlawful, what choice, but to fight or run.
While clearly there is a huge problem with democracy at the moment this article doesn't really get to the solution. We need to focus on improving the standards of behaviour globally and a couple of the key issues are that there is an elite that's accountable to nobody and they tend to fund the political system and countries have very limited wiggle room as they just get out-competed by other countries. A global approach based on raising the standards of acceptable behaviour appears to be what's needed. Fortunately we've got this great thing called technology which actually might make this achieveable in the next few years:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/98216626/New-Global-Strategy
I think the Poll Tax changed this Country. It used to be that you had to own Property to vote or pay a Poll Tax. That way only people that had a financial steak in the outcome of the vote could vote. The Government changed that by eliminating the Poll Tax.
The Government caters to the People and the Corporations that donate to their re election campain and they also cater to the people that the Government takes care of. There is no voice for the Middle class. They are the patsi to fund it all.
Yet, the Middle Class are becoming the lower class and want to get the Government dole. So, what happens when the Middle class becomes the lower class and wants someone else to pay for their living expenses? Especially when there is no patsi left to pay?
So a poll tax on the disenfranchised sheeple while the increasingly elite property owners (check the redistribution of wealth in this country over the last three decades) get even more representation? How is this supposed to help the middle class again?
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/25-graphics-showing-upward-redistribution-of-income-and-wealth-in-usa-since-1979/
Most Middle Class Families Own Homes. It is only the Welfare croud that do not Own Homes.
So how many of the 65% that "own" homes are underwater and will be repoed as the banks begin foreclosing again. And 65% may be a majority, but it sure leaves out a huge number of people. Including the majority of millenials, and anyone else who wasn't suckered into home loanership during the bubble. The population under 35 has a home ownership rate of less than 40%. This generation is also being hit hard with under/unemployment. Is that an excuse to charge them a poll tax, paid for with their low wages from their no benefits dead end jobs?
Democracy’s pitting of individuals against each other leads to moral degeneration and impairs capital accumulation.
The above is one of the most bizarre sentences I have ever heard, and could only have originated with a sociopath.
'Nuff said about that and about this pathetic blog posting.
I recommend reading some of Jonathon Haidt's stuff.
America's democracy has been subjugated by the United Nations and NATO, period! They [NATO & UN] have subverted our constitution and congress?
Panetta is a lifelong bureaucratic POS! We currently are in Sryia supplying al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups.
Obama just gets his 'MIC Orders' and delivers them to NATO & UN,... and, whalla --goes backdoor, behind the backs of the american public!
Ref: http://www.pragmaticwitness.com/2012/03/17/obama-snubs-congress-will-see... nato--u-n-to-bomb-syria/
Jeff Sessions is worth the listen [somewhat dated and perhaps old news... but
great read, thankyou
"What Democracy?"
Ask Mr. Goldman Sachs Monti. Today the unelected technocrat jerk demanded that the (unelected) governments in Europe should't care what the (elected) parliaments care about.
His idea seems to be that elected bodies (parliaments) shouldn't interfere with the doings of unelected ones (governments, ECB, EU Commission…)
So much about the understanding of democracy entertained by Mr. Monti.
Seems to be pretty much in line with what Merkel, Schäuble, Draghi, Hollande, Barroso, Samaras… and the rest of the ‘elites’ would prefer.
There can never be a "real democracy" or a "free market economy" in a capitalist system. That is because those in financial power will control the economy and the government. Citizens in return will support both in exchange for tax cuts and easy credit, which very much describes the U.S. the past four decades or so.
Other night i had a dream that there would soon be massive inflation. The dream came out of nowhere, but the over-riding message was "this is real, its coming, so prepare".
I've been interested lately in the Drones and surveillance issues, along with my ancestral lands in the Syria/Lebanon areas (from one side of my family). So, inflation was not on my mind; in fact I've been reading more about deflation if anything, when it comes to economies.
We can never emphasize enough to prepare yourself and families as best you can.
We must get stimulus money to build hardened backyard shelters against the Hellfire Drone missiles of the USG.
Doublethink instead.
"In the realm of legalized harlotry (politics), careers are made out of defending sacred cows no matter how expensive, socially corroding, or intentionally dishonest they are. "
I realise that the author is writing to the crowd here. However, because I am sympathetic to aspects of the school, I seriously wish Austrian writers would stop resorting to this kind of hyperbole. Im all for a bit of Bombast (like TD used to be good at), but this really comes over as crass and a form of special pleading, not argument.
Im not sure resurrecting debates about democracy/communism is constructive either. Democracy is a baseline it would be an achievement to return to imho. To arrive at the Mont Pelerin purgatory from where we are is like the old joke about asking for directions in Ireland: "I wouldnt start from here..."
How about giving us some fresh insights from the Austrian challenge to institutional economics (NIE) or analysis of institutions and 'politics' as the markets they so obviously are, at all levels and with their own logic (a la David Friedman).
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,
I wish people who promoted freedom knew the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. I won't make you figure it out, as it is hidden well now. A Republic preserves the rights of the individual man above all else. You have not broken a law unless you have trespassed on another's rights.
"If you can keep it"
++
But isn't the author a Canadian? People from UK i've talked to say the U.S. should have a parliamentary form of government, and one ass-hole told me the US would be better to pay tribute to Queen of England and support their Monarchy.
They are working hard to destroy the Constitution and Merge the UK and US....The Queen needs more taxpayers to fund her empire. Brits are another of the "special" people upon this planet.
The Queen bitch and her disgusting brood needs to be taken out. Nuke them from orbit.
James Miller's diatribe fits perfectly into the hands of would-be dictators, Socialists, and Tsars. His premise is simply: All commoners are stupid and therefore Democracy won't work. He then turns around and states that the common man will make brilliant free market decisions. Which is it Jim? Are common people perfect shoppers for iPads but Morons in voting?
Not quite.
Far better shoppers than voters.
Throw out the Zionists who control Finance, Media, and Education.
Throw out their puppets: 'democrats' and 'republicans.'
Abandon their fiat money.
Realise that voluntary unrestricted religious values and common-sense values are Treasures.
Get back your Republic.
But there is noone here who can claim to be rich or poor on their own outside of the system. We are all part of the system. The system made you and me. You might not be so great on your own.
So?
The point is that there are far better systems.
Nobody can do this 100% of the time, but, if you always try to consider others before yourself, most of the problems in the world would go away.
There is nothing wrong with Democracy,final!
What is wrong is ,the freaking corrupted people who hijacked Democracy,in search of the peoples money,called commen wealth.
We dont live back in the wild west anymore,where would the cars be, without the ROAD???
Democracy,meens everybody has equal chance in life,nomatter,if you come from Goldstein familys or Joe the Plummer,ok.
The biggest problem, with the Corrupted democracy,is the Taxecempted hipocracy,the Island and none islands where,theifs can hide their taxfraud,which not was the idea with democracy.
Democracy,in my contry,where i was born,social democracy,was based on everybody paid 40-50% in tax,i know a lot is shaking in the pants to hear,40-50%?Yes but wath did we get for this contribution,Free hospitals free schools univerity,free in the meening WE, paid for it.The Eu technocracy killed it,and turned into Hipocracy,and i dont say it was perfect,but the institution called EU,is nothing but the Mafias extended arm,is godfather realy gods father.
So no its not democracy thats to blame,but plain simpel Hipocracy!
Oh i dont want to pay so much!Oh now i have to sell my house, to go to Hospital????No you wouldnt,if all paid to the greater wellfare of all,isnt it said in a charger in the UN,every one has the same right to House work and ect,i am living in a contry with 60 million poors,citys in state of civil war,corruption beyound imagine,and fool me not,its called a democracy,no its not,its more wild west than even the original wild west.
Just short for Democracy!
From a home-based small business, the amount of money you may want earn <a href="http://www.oaksunglassessale.com/Oakley-Radar-Polarized.html">oakley radar path polarized</a> can be limitless. It is just like a give and also take rapport. People give your time, attempt and also work and also often you get profit.
I find this guest post repugnant. Yes Jefferson was in Paris during the CC and Adams elseware but to present them in the context of having no effect on the creation of the Constitution is simply irresponsible propaganda. They were both deeply involved in forming the thinking of the time in which that document was produced.
Furthermore it is an old rhethorical method to get the audience to buy the premise knowing that they will then follow buying the bit.
WE DO NOT HAVE A DEMOCRACY, NOR A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY....WE HAVE A REPUBLIC.
The differences are profound. The writer fails so profoundly in articulating anything about a republic vs. a democracy that his writing does not even reach the sophmoric level. It appears the creation of a last minute current event presentation in a high school civics class where the teacher most likely knows no diference between a democracy and a republic.
The post is a piece of crap.
Do some research and discover who pioneered the field of psychology {especially social psychology}. They know us better than we know ourselves. This is why the average 21st century westerner is so clueless as to his/her servitude. We are bound by velvet chains. We suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. There is no better slave than the slave who isn't aware he/she is one. They don't resist. Like the Romans of old times, they cry only for more bread and circus. Over the last twenty years or so, I have talked to countless people about "The System". They either think I am crazy or do not grasp what I am talking about. I am through talking. I have thrown in the towel. Something FAR WORSE than what we have now is fast approaching. We have been conditioned for it's coming for decades. Most will embrace it when it arrives as the answer to their prayers. Others won't know what to think. A small few will recognize it for what it really is, and will resist, only to disappear into a re-education camp {asylum}. Data bases already have the names and addresses of those who will be preemptively rounded up in advance. Things are happening at a rapid pace now, and I suspect the calm before the storm is about over. Prepare accordingly.
Allow me a further observation. Wilh very,very few exceptiond the contributors to this thread totally bought into the false " FACT" they we have a democracy.
This is a huge part of the problem in this country, when educated prople can't see the fog and fu-fu dust thrown in there faces. Most of the posts were remedial. They focused on a totally false premise and ran with it. What a sad commentary when in the 90th percentile most Americans when asked if we have a democracy or a republic answer, a democracy. Look up the difference. Do your due diligence.
Flush out your headgear people. Learn a bit about our country before you write commentary that is better saved for some other country's form of government.
So your point seems a little pedantic to me. Most people realize they have been disenfranchised in our bought-and-paid-for-by-special-interests system, whether they call it a republic or a democracy.
Edgewood: Eviction Free Zone
http://afscatlanta.blogspot.com/2012/08/edgewood-eviction-free-zone.html
I'd take a benevolent/benign dictatorship (such as natural law or nature itself) over mob-rule (democracy) any day of the week. And oh yeah... don't forget the imminent MASS ARRESTS... http://tinyurl.com/cd5cyjo/
I'm sure your handlers are telling you, right about now,"That'll do pig, that'll do"
beyond democracy, Frank Karsten
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Democracy-ebook/dp/B007692VDW
Second Amendment Hero goes on Liberty-spree; 7 dead
I'm only sorry it was Sikhs instead of white Christians. In fact, I wish the government would PROVIDE weapons to the residents of Jesusland so that they can just wipe each other out....
Now now, everyone can be redeemed even the mentally ill among us who worship akhenatan's castoff's.
"When Occupy protestors were chanting “this is what democracy looks like” last fall, they wrongly saw the power of government as the best means to alleviate poverty."
Sorry, completely wrong. That chant was a reference to the protests themselves, not some paean to big government. In fact, a fair amount of Occupy protesters are Anarchists, who are as or more anti-top-down-government as anyone. The line you quoted was only the second part of a chant that was yelled whenever protesters were confronted with riot police. First, with a nod to the cops: "This is what a police state looks like," followed by the self-referential "This is what democracy looks like." You people have to stop with the second-grade notion that because the name of the movement is "Occupy Wall Street," the members of the movement simply hate Wall Street and love the government. OWS is opposed to any form of institutional abuse, and big money and big government are both guilty of that, a million times over....
This isn't true for all of the Occupy movements. Each kind of had is own motive, with similiar themes. Here in Boston, there was a huge swath of anarchist and "End the Fed" talk amonsgt the assembly (some of which I took a part of). Lots of talk of a more organic, local economic movement. Granted, there were the uber-socalists in the crowd, too, but the Boston message was mostly in defense against the mass banking fraud that Bank of America had done to houses in Massachusetts. And protesting against Fox News (which was of majority of the anarchists' focus).
Now the DC Occupy? I heard that thing was pretty much as leftie communist as it gets....which makes sense, considering the motif of the political elite and their offspring down there.