This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Niall Ferguson: "Greece Is The Symptom Not The Cause"

Tyler Durden's picture




 

In a brief clip from a lengthier discussion between historian Niall Ferguson and ex-Greek PM George Papandreou at this week's Zeitgeist conference, the effusive Englishman lays out perfectly what many are missing with regard to Europe: "Greece is not the problem - it is a symptom of a much more profound malaise that affects the entire monetary union." - just as Lehman Brothers was not the 'cause' of the US's problems. The wasted energy spent moralizing about the 'work habits' of Mediterranean citizens as being the problem is incorrect as this is a European-wide problem - a systemic crisis of European banking and public finance. Papandreou pipes in by noting, in typical toe-the-line manner, that Germany must swerve (in the game of chicken) or there is a major danger of disintegration because "there will be contagion".

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 05/25/2012 - 22:01 | 2464321 The BEST ever
The BEST ever's picture

Symptomatic of a farce of an idea--that a bunch of extremely varied, service-based economies should somehow envelop themselves into a monetary Union whereby the productive members subsidize the early retirement of the chubby ones... sounds sort of like the USSA.... Gold, gentlemen.

http://comparegoldprices.com

Fri, 05/25/2012 - 22:51 | 2464399 flacon
flacon's picture

The cause is Fractional Reserve "Banking" with Interest bearing Debt "Money". 

Fri, 05/25/2012 - 22:54 | 2464415 DormRoom
DormRoom's picture

to much debt out there. too much compound interests to pay off, creating a drag effect.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 01:26 | 2464613 BenLightYear
BenLightYear's picture

Not a drag effect at all...just simple math...money created out of debt necessitates a need for continual growth at continual higher rates...once the velocity of growth slows to a certain point it all starts to unravel...the entire system is built and structured to try to maintain continual growth...the error of this is infinite growth with finite resources...I do agree the system is not sustainable indefinitely we have quite a ways to run before the wheels fall off....the same cases made today are the same cases made for the last 30 years

As long as the majority of people look the other way and play along the system will work until resources become strained or the cost to access said resources exceeds the value of said resources...the truth is the majority of Americans are happy with the system as it now stands...yes inflation is theft...yes many fleece the system and take advantage...yes the system is more beneficial overall to some more than others...however life in the USA is pretty damn good even if your on the bottom of the heap

OH poor me I have a 6 year old car, poor me I can't go out for steak dinners 7 nights a week, poor me we vacation at a 1000$ dollar a week resort in Florida instead of owning our own 7 figure beachfront summer home in florida....the problem isn't that things are bad...the problem is everyone wants to live like the richest son of a bitch they have ever heard of...the rest of the worlds resentment toward us is not that we live so well...it's that we live so well then whine like little babies because it's not better...if you want me get off your ass and go get it...you don't have what it is you want for me reason and one reason only...you lack the initiative or the ability...either way it is your fault...success is earned...earn it or go back to sitting on your couch, watching tv, and bitching about how crappy things are for you even though you live better than the majority of the worlds population

When in the future historians look back and write about this period of time it will not be favorably...we have wasted, we have squandered, we have failed to capitalize, all the while bitching about how bad things are when not only are they not bad but they are what they are because of us

When I first became curious in regards to how our economy, money, and society functions I found myself often inflamed at the audacity of those at the top of the food chain. Of those who find themselves in a position to take advantage of the majority who remain ignorant and complacent. I wish I would have stopped then and there. I was a much happier person when my anger was directed at the few rather than the many. Eventually you realize that the many are pillaged and plundered by the few not because they are evil or because they are greedy. They do it because it is handed to them. They do it because in the course of business, profit is the point. The economy is their business and the majority are the non bargaining participants.

Too the few based on advantage and ability. From the many based on ignorance and compliance.

The quote that would have been taken from Das Kapital had Marx and Engels been capitalists.

If you are stolen from and make no effort to prevent it from happening again when said effort would be effective you have become a complacent party in said act of theft.

Knowledge is the answer and the key. Turn off the tv and get you some.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 02:18 | 2464686 djrichard
djrichard's picture

People want to enslave themselves to something.  And by people I mean everyone, except for Jesus.  So who do we blame?  Those who want to be enslaved?  Or those who want to do the enslaving?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 05:31 | 2464845 EuroSovietSerf
EuroSovietSerf's picture

'Jesus' wanted to enslave you to a fiction story of some omnipotent 'supreme being' (which doesn't exist). Religion is an invention of the elites to pacify the masses (with false promises of after-death prosperity, and rather amazingly many people actually believe it) so they (the elites) can keep dividing all the goodies.

 

Religion is a bit like snake oil, 'they' tell you it will work, and by the time you find out it doesn't, they've run off with the money. And when you die, you find out that all of it wasn't true. Or rather, you don't find out because there is no afterlife.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:41 | 2465069 Sojourner.
Sojourner.'s picture

The socialist elites want the masses to rely and worship them and not God. Don't fall for it!!!

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 10:25 | 2465136 He_Who Carried ...
He_Who Carried The Sun's picture

The EU must declare "moral bankruptcy"

if it keeps on supporting Greek tax cheaters

who care not a bit about their own country

and who are not willing to fight corruption

and do not put their political leadership in to jail.

With Greece out of the Union there will

be hard times, but at least you will have

countries of taxpayers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/25/payback-time-lagarde-greeks

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 12:21 | 2465447 macroeconomist
macroeconomist's picture

You should first bark at all the banks and companies that are avoiding billions of euroes in taxes by accounting gimmicks and fraud to pay their share and then ask people of Greece to do so..How about a European financial transactions tax first to fund governments instead of forcing people to give away 25% of their already destroyed incomes?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 10:03 | 2465093 gwar5
gwar5's picture

Actually the fiction turned out to be the 19th century Newtonian worldview (Newton fan here) which was completely demolished by 20th century physics.

 

Your desk is not really solid, it's virtual empty space. If you collapsed it into a black hole it would be so small you couldn't see it -- yet, it'd still be your desk because all the quantum information is still there, perfectly preserved in the singularity, at the surface area. And not only is all the information for the desk there, but the entire history of all the desk particles are there, all the way back to the Big Bang.  

You are very different from your desk because you are also a conscious, self-aware being, with free will. But those inner thoughts and experiences of yours are also Planck scale moments captured in space-time and quantumly entangled with everything else. This is convenient since human brains also have built-in holographic properties and a nonphysical environment where time is not linear would actually be extremely liberating.

Famous last words:

Thomas Edison: "It is very beauiful over there."

Steven Jobs: "Oh Wow!"


 

 

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 10:09 | 2465100 Bendromeda Strain
Bendromeda Strain's picture

Yup, that whole "Jesus walking through walls thing" turns out to make perfect sense when you consider the space/mass ratio. Energy not being destroyed means consciousness abides, dude.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 11:53 | 2465391 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Religion also provided a lot off good jobs for the high priests who organized the cult. In return for their running the cult, they got food, wine, sex and a life of lesiure. It has always been so, you name the religion or the time in history. Religion is a scam, whith the cults serving the polticial and economic masters, giving devine sanction to what the elites do.

The poor dumb bastards who buy into the fake cults are followers, independent thought strikes fear into them. Lead me PLEASE!

Sun, 05/27/2012 - 03:36 | 2466791 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

How can any of these holy books be wrong when they were written when we absolutely knew that the world was flat?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 18:27 | 2466134 hedgehog9999
hedgehog9999's picture

Some smart guy said Humans created GOD or GODS and not the other way around!!!i

A refinement to that is more like Elitist Humans created gods for their own Terra based benefits, while the masses expect to go to some paradise when they are dead, the nature of paradise varies by religion, some are 5 stars , others three or 4 but it is generally very good across the board......

 

i

Sun, 05/27/2012 - 03:36 | 2466795 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

and in some you get thirty virgins, but who wants that?

Now thirty seriously dirty women is a different matter entirely...

and what happens after you've bagged them all, poof, no more virgins. Sounds like a crock dreamed up by sad old men if you ask me, and not very well thought out either.

Still, doesn't stop a couple hundred million so called adults believing it eh...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:12 | 2465051 poldark
poldark's picture

You think the wheels have not come off??

During the last depression not one bank in the whole British empire went bust.

This time three banks have gone done in the UK although two are kept alive on the taxpayer support system.

According to USdebtclock.org the US national debt is $15.75tn. Tax revenue is $2.24tn. Interest payments are $3.82.

The debt ceiling of $16.394tn will be reached by Sept 14th according to ZH. This will not be good news for Obama before the election.

I would have thought when a country's interest payments were larger than total revenue is when the country goes bust.

Another thing that baffles me is where all the money comes from to lend to the US government and all the other governments round the world.Is it all new printed money?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:39 | 2465068 Marco
Marco's picture

Increasingly an inability to be rich is because people are being born in the wrong timeframe ... youth unemployment is one indication, the ever decreasing social mobility is another. The level of initiative and ability you need to get to the top is ever increasing, ultimately the only ability left to get to the top will be violence.

Yes, most people are lazy ... but people have not gotten lazier, opportunity has decreased.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 10:50 | 2465197 Umh
Umh's picture

I agree with most of what you said, but people are being taught laziness and that they will be provided for. 

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 15:28 | 2465823 DrunkenMonkey
DrunkenMonkey's picture

Kudos.

This guy gets it.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 18:52 | 2466175 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

Wealth might be earned but then it should be mine to keep and spend.

Fri, 05/25/2012 - 23:30 | 2464455 Seer
Seer's picture

Which relies on perpetual growth.

Niall and others who think that the problem lies only in the EU is either ignorant or is a tool (perhaps to themselves).

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 02:21 | 2464693 djrichard
djrichard's picture

Niall isn't ignorant or a tool.  He's carrying water for his masters.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 04:27 | 2464807 GernB
GernB's picture

I don't think fractional reserve banking is the total cause.

I think it is coupled with a pervasive belief that by your very existence you are owed things that others must provide, and that by giving the government the power to take things that belong to other people they will use it only to take what belongs to people who dislike and spend it to fix your problems and provide the things you are owed.

The US shouldn't have a fractional reserve banking system. The root cause of it having one is people of this mindset voting for government to "fix" our financial problems. Once you decide freedom is less important than having government make sure nothing bad ever happens to you, then you will always be a slave to government and the will of other people.

 

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:41 | 2464952 Marco
Marco's picture

The root cause of all financial crisises is greed and ponzis ...

It always amazes me when people say deposit insurance inspires moral hazard ... why the fuck would bankers care about deposit insurance? If their bank goes bust it will go bust, and their cushy jobs and bonuses will go bye-bye either way. The only way it could inspire moral hazard is if they cared about the depositors ... HAHA ... or if banks had transparency and the moral hazard was with the depositors, again HAHA. Banks have been lying about their assets since gold certificates were invented, transparency can only be enforced by regulation.

Bail outs inspire moral hazard, deposit insurance is simply welfare ... being against it because you're against welfare period is fine, but to pretend getting rid of it will actually solve a damn thing except lowering taxes/inflation a bit is silly.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 12:50 | 2465515 Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

I'm still piecing this together, but perhaps the political desire to protect depositors is THE REASON JPM says that the money it lost was DEPOSITOR money. Therefore, politicians have to give JPM whatever they want or else look like they don't care about the depositors and thus lose reelection.

The depositor insurance money is given directly to the banks isn't it? Don't they have something like 30 years to transfer it to the depositors?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 13:48 | 2465657 Marco
Marco's picture

The bank goes into receivership, it doesn't get any money ... you get your insured deposit either at a different bank or through a check, pretty quickly most of the time. Getting the uninsured portion of your deposits might take a long time to get back, if at all, but that's because you are just a creditor in bankruptcy proceedings and bankruptcy proceedings take time.

Be careful about propoganda, especially if it supports your own viewpoints.

Really the FDIC does nothing to subvert the normal bankruptcy proceedings ... which are what punish the bankers. They just provide a fast track for depositor pay outs together with some welfare to make up the difference between the value of the assets and the deposits.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 04:39 | 2464814 shuckster
shuckster's picture

Don't assign blame to inanimate concepts and abstractions. The fractional reserve system is a Jewish concept. The debt money system is created to enslave non Jews to the Jews using the powerful compulsion of guilt and deception

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 04:38 | 2464812 shuckster
shuckster's picture

The problem is the infectious effect that policies created by Jewish bankers have on their non Jewish victims. These parasitic creatures from outer space come down to the planet and reek havoc on everyone in their path. If you want to solve the problem, start with the Jewish one

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 06:13 | 2464884 WTFx10
WTFx10's picture

start with the Jewish one .  Jewish Criminal,there's a difference. I am starting to believe the Rothschild's encouraged hitler to wipe out the Jews who could not afford to escape just for the martyred aspect. What better way to deflect all criticism of what you do than by tying it to your previously persecuted nationality? (attach the messenger and ignore the message)

What better way to deflect the world's attention away from you lest you be labeled an anti-Semite. It's NOT the JEW just the CRIMINAL Jew ,the Con man,the fraudster,the BANKSTER.

 

Truth is stranger than fiction. The world operates on a big lie so they can keep what they have stolen.

Fri, 05/25/2012 - 22:01 | 2464323 scatterbrains
scatterbrains's picture

I'm not seeing a link.

Fri, 05/25/2012 - 22:05 | 2464330 tahoebumsmith
tahoebumsmith's picture

Just follow the forensic money trail...It always leads you back to the real killer. Seems like all trails lead back to the same place lately... 200 West St. NY NY 

Bloomberg is out with a telling report on how Goldman Sachs helped Greece set up a secret loan swap deal in 2001 that helped the country hide its debt levels in order to meet requirements to join the European Union. 

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-06/wall_street/31125653_1_greece-government-goldman-sachs-greece-s#ixzz1vwAOpT99

Fri, 05/25/2012 - 22:46 | 2464403 Dingleberry
Dingleberry's picture

I would respectfully add the City of London. That's where money goes to hide.

Fri, 05/25/2012 - 23:28 | 2464449 tahoebumsmith
tahoebumsmith's picture

OBTW if any of you have wondered how California has been able to balance its budget over the past 3 years, please take notice. The last time I tallied the #s it was pushing 38 Billion owed to Wall St. using the same derivative scam and holding America's largest state hostage... So turn the microscope around and look into the big end...See me waving, yup that's me here in the Golden State.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 02:10 | 2464675 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

CA is not "America's largest state" but it is the largest economy.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 02:21 | 2464692 tahoebumsmith
tahoebumsmith's picture

"economy", thx for the correction

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 03:15 | 2464753 TNTARG
TNTARG's picture

Old news. Goldman helped Prodi also (under Ciampi) to balance the budget to get into the Eurozone. An actual "Band of Brothers".

Fri, 05/25/2012 - 22:07 | 2464335 Aziz
Aziz's picture

Small point Tyler — as a legit bona fide Englishman, Niall Ferguson ain't one. He's a Scot.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 01:19 | 2464600 skepticCarl
skepticCarl's picture

We here are known as Americans, as well as Californians, New Yorkers, etc.  What is it for the U.K.? Kingdomaniums?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 03:56 | 2464786 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

No, just English, Scots, Irish and Welsh... or collectively, Brits.

Internally of course, it's English, Jocks, Micks and Taffs...

though nobody generally wants to be labelled a scouser.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 04:01 | 2464793 gojam
gojam's picture

England and Scotland are both countries spliced together about 400 years ago, Wales is a principality, and Northern Ireland is a province.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 05:09 | 2464826 Sabremesh
Sabremesh's picture

Perhaps uniquely, there is no precise adjective for someone or something pertaining from the UK. "British" is usually used, but this is strictly a geographical term, meaning "from the island of Great Britain". Northern Ireland is part of the UK, but is not part of Britain, and many Northern Irish would not countenance being described as British.

As for Niall Ferguson, he's either a Scot, Scottish (never Scotch!) or British.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 10:11 | 2465103 TheFuture_MrGittes
TheFuture_MrGittes's picture

I try and see individuals. Identifying yourself or other people as part of a group tends towards disinformation through false homogeneity and may lead to cognitive dissonance when people don't match perceived stereotypes. That said, I'd accept Brit or British, because it identifies the land mass I inhabit rather than the paper fiction/social construct/tax farm that claims title to a percentage of my labour and the ownership of my body when accused of a crime or demanded in sacrifice for war.

Fri, 05/25/2012 - 22:12 | 2464344 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

What is happening in Greece happened in the Soviet Union and is happening in China, Japan, the US, Canada and Europe. Government corruption + impossible electoral promises + voodoo economics.

Fri, 05/25/2012 - 22:32 | 2464373 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

Fractional reserve banking + usury, period. Everything else is a symptom.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 04:04 | 2464797 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Disagree, too simplistic. You need to add the monopoly institution Govt to the pie

Govt steals (taxes) the productive wealth and sucks it out of the economy, and strangles freedom with Law-Legislation. 

This nation-wrecking parasite is the cause of the USSR's demise, Commie China, Eastern Europe, North Korea and now slowly but surely Western Europe, Japan and America

It is not just debt-based money and fractional banking... Govt is the cancer in society

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 04:11 | 2464800 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Mogadishu, heaven on earth eh...

They've got zero govt...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 04:53 | 2464821 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

America has a Govt and 3 illegal wars on the go ...what's your point?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 05:18 | 2464831 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Charybdis and Scylla. You are too anti-charybdis to avoid the rock of Oligarchy. Go read the Odyssey, and Plato's republic. Good starters and then keep reading; all the way to Ibn Khaldun who invented supply side economics and social economics. SOme mind, back in 1400...Laffer and Mundel...his sons.

 The Man Who Invented Supply Side Economics « Info Ink

Robert Mundell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ibn Khaldun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 05:23 | 2464837 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

If you want zero govt, if you genuinely feel it works, go to Mogadishu. They have no govt, America does, like it or not. The point is that Mogadishu is what you say you want, no govt.

You seem to want to bring Mogadishu to America. My point is that that's just plain stupid. To say that you want no govt or that you would prefer a Mogadishu type situation just because you are at what you claim is an illegal war war is somewhat idiotic. I don't think you've thought this through have you?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 05:25 | 2464840 falak pema
falak pema's picture

those who plead for anarchy and "free markets" beget dictatorship and Caesar. Useful idiots. Civilization is a bitch and Sisyphus its true son.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 05:37 | 2464849 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

I'm sure one day that I will encounter an anarchist that runs his/her own business and/or relies on their own capital to provide their income.

It takes some kind of guy to put his own hard earned capital at risk of not being repaid to believe that we should give up all rights to enforcement of our contracts. Normally, after a short discussion we encounter a naivety that is truly staggering...

But you never know, maybe he does have a point worth hearing, and I'm all ears...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 06:24 | 2464891 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Harlequin  -  you wouldn't recognise an anarchist if he was called the President and lived in the White House because you're so asleep and rammed with liberal words to suck on you're fucking delusional to actual reality

your vacuous point was Mogadishu has no Govt but has a civil war

my point was you have a US Govt and have 3 false illegal wars

got any other points to support your delusional peanut brained belief in Govt while Govts wreck nation states from Europe to America to Japan (not to mention the hundreds of wrecked countries throughout history at the hands of Govt)

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:12 | 2464924 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

How can it wreck the State. it is the State, and like it or not is does the bidding of society even if that bidding is to bankrupt itself passing handouts to the disenchanted that it cannot afford.

Clearly you think the State is something else, but what?

and how does this 'State' you want to live in function?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 06:20 | 2464889 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Falak  -  i'm not pleading for anarchy, I'm pleading for an end to anarchy (Govt)

anarchy is a small group running riot across society.. what do you think Govt is peanut brain?

Mothers and sons are committing suicide in Greece because the Greek socialist have wrecked the economy

Govt is wrecking every economy in Europe, is wrecking the economies of America and Japan and Govt is waging false illegal wars across the globe

wake up and smell the napalm you deluded zombie

Govt is anarchy

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 06:30 | 2464895 falak pema
falak pema's picture

self governance by the people has never existed in history. Where do you get your reference from to define absence of government? It has never existed. Somebody ALWAYS holds the big stick! WHO is the question...and you don't have a response to that. Also, you dont not use words are they are commonly used : Dictatorship government is NOT anarchy, its TYRANNY, those who use napalm. You confuse the evil empire with normal governance. Ever heard of treaty of Westphalia; it defined the nation state and allowed religious tolerance. It didn't stop wars but that is human nature. If you lobotomise the human race then there will be no wars. I think that is the gist of the thread on EUgenics. But if you allow free will you need regulation within naton states; and you will have wars, hard or soft and commercial like today.

Your system has never existed, so its utopia of your mind, not reality.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 06:53 | 2464903 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Falak  -  self-Govt has existed for BILLIONS of years... it is how we got here, it's called NATURE

Govt has put a spanner in works all the way through recent human history and been nothing but a vandal and wrecker of economies and societies

look out your window mate at nature which is self-governing

that's how we existed (and still exist) until a shithole institution caled Govt tries to wreck it

Note how the more Govt there is the more wrecked an economy. You have hundreds of examples throughout history and dozens of unfolding current examples

Govt does not organise or help any issue social or economic.. it wrecks everything it touches. You do not need governing, instead you step around the turds the politicians throw in the street

You cannot be represented by a bankers puppet, you have never been represented by a politician nor any Govt nor any of its policies almost none of which you'd have voted for. But you just sit there like a brainwashed slug spouting vacuous liberal words that you want "democracy" without ever facing up to the reality Govt is anarchy and is wrecking the globe

You wouldn't know the problem or an anarchist if they both smacked you in the nose... you are part of the problem because you want Govt (anarchy) the wrecker of nations you poor delusional zombie

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 06:57 | 2464913 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Do you worship Gaia or something?

Because after nature self regulating,you've got into nature self governing?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:16 | 2464927 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

'Falak  -  self-Govt has existed for BILLIONS of years... it is how we got here, it's called NATURE

Govt has put a spanner in works all the way through recent human history and been nothing but a vandal and wrecker of economies and societies

look out your window mate at nature which is self-governing

that's how we existed (and still exist) until a shithole institution caled Govt tries to wreck it

Note how the more Govt there is the more wrecked an economy.'

Ok now I get it, you want to go back to living in trees and scrounging for food wherever you can find it in the vain hope that other nearby tribes don't take offence and declare war on you.

Good luck with that. I think I'll stick with some form of govt and its warts an' all...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 06:57 | 2464912 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

Zero Govt - please, I beg you not to go there in this fashionable "1984 (the book) psy-op trend" of saying things like Government = Anarchy.

Government is the opposite of Anarchy - in the terms as per definition.

Government is defined as an (imposed) monopoly on force applied to a territory. Anarchy is the lack on a monopoly on force, i.e. the lack of Government.

Both can be Hell or Heaven and many things between.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:06 | 2464922 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Ghordius  -  don't accept others words (disrciptions of words). That is the beginning of propaganda and the hed-fuk of your brain

Anarchy is not described as the dictionaries dictate. Anarchy is a small group running riot across society, that is the correct definition (my definition) not the pre-loaded propaganda dictionary definition as something abusing the Law

The Law does not uphold justice, check the history books, it is a crone of the State and oppresses people/civilians as the Govt become more Totalitarian while it is a protection racket for the elite (see Crozine, see mass mortgage fraud)

Govt is anarchy.. a small group runnign riot across society, as the socialsits have done in Greece as the socialists/fascists are doing in Brtiain, Europe and America

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:11 | 2464941 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

In my book this very concept of Anarchy as defined by "small group running riot across society" is propaganda (If I remember right this meme was forged by a Prussian secret police chief, by just making anarchist=bomb-thrower). Where is the reason for a true anarchist in running riots? Why should an anarchist be violent - per definition? Anarchists are usually hunted, not hunters.

By the way, the word is Greek (can't put greek letters here, it seems) and literally means an-archy -> no-rule, or no-ruler, as monarchy -> mono-rule, one-rule or one-ruler.

"Anarchy" as a word describes either

- a "Status without Government, i.e. without someone having control by factual monopoly of force

or

- the political thought movement that is against Government, that includes notable writers and thinkers like Proudhon (the first to use this term), Bakunin or Stimer.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:38 | 2465013 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Associating rule, ruler and archy is diminishing.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 12:39 | 2465487 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

rulerarchy... hmmm

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 22:15 | 2466509 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

ANARCHY != CHAOS

Check out:  http://pixel420.com/pixel420/stateless/

Earthlings are NOT intelligent enough for Anarchy.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:00 | 2464886 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

No Harlequin, you get off your sofa and go to Iraq and Afghanistan and see the murdered burnt bodies of men, women and children that your Govt has delivered

But of course you'll just sit there watching X_Factor spouting trite vacuous words like "democracy" and "Govt" without ever facing the realities of your corrupt Govt institution which is currently wrecking Japan, Europe and your nation itself

a 'system' that has already wrecked China, USSR and Eastern Europe, North Korea and Greece every 14 years on average.

So sit tight mate because your world of Govt is an ever decreasing circle as your beloved US Govt passes laws to shoot its citizens without trial, thieve farmland, rob your pension, rob your bank account, builds spy centres on its civilians and arms Homeland Security with 7 years of bullets

Suck on democracy ...while it lasts (it won't)

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:08 | 2464920 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

Zero Govt, let's say I have the farm next to yours and you see me treating my slaves badly, including torture and sometimes killing them in terrible ways.

One of them flees to your farm, but I pick up my rifle and kill it from afar.

What do you do? (I think most would answer: Call the Sheriff?) But I am genuinely interested in your answer. :-)

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:11 | 2464923 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Ghordius  -  i'd do nothing, i couldn't change the event

the Law will at huge expense deliver retribution (which changes nothing) and lock the farmer up for life (at huge expense but changing nothing)

you call it "justice" i call it an expensive waste of money that changes/achieves precisely zero (Govt in a nutshell)

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:32 | 2464940 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

So you'd let him kill another one then?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:41 | 2464947 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

No, my question was more in the direction of what you would do if there would be no Law and no Sheriff.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 10:36 | 2465169 TheFuture_MrGittes
TheFuture_MrGittes's picture

There can still be courts and policing without governments, indeed, if they were competing private operations they might be less corruptable as they would have to respond to the customer. Both parties to a dispute would have to agree to settle in a specific jurisdiction, but that could be stated in advance within a contract, which would allow for the enforcement of contracts. Contracts could also state the need for insurance to cover both parties delivery, behaving in an honest fashion would lower insurance costs and act as an indicator of the faithfulness of parties entering a contract. Common Law predates and provides a basis for much statutory regulation, and simply covers harm, theft and fraud.  

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 11:00 | 2465218 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

'There can still be courts and policing without governments,' - Yes, and history is replete with tem. They're called Kangaroo courts and you wouldn't want to be involved with them, not unoess you were or had supplied the judge so to speak.

'Common Law predates and provides a basis for much statutory regulation, and simply covers harm, theft and fraud.' Yes, and it was inforced by the monarch with his soldiers before we had parliament.

There is no law without enforcement, how can there be?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 11:40 | 2465351 TheFuture_MrGittes
TheFuture_MrGittes's picture

A private court system would be reliant for revenue upon it's customers, to compete with other courts it would have to respond to the needs of those customers. Courts would be in competition for business, therefore the reputation of the court would be a large part of the fee it could charge for service. The parties to a contract would agree in advance to a jurisdiction and court in the event of a dispute, the parties could also agree in advance to a private enforcement agency. Contract insurance would be part of the cost of doing business, lower or higher cost depending on the reputations of the parties to the contract. That fairly covers a commercial dispute; a contract is law, but only between the parties to the contract.

Communities can create a social contract among themselves which would cover which private court and enforcement services the community would hire for dealing with common law crimes.

Problems arise from monopolies. As things stand, the state has a monopoly on the court system and most of the enforcement system. Step into any court as the accused and both the prosecutor and the magistrate (and often the defence) are on the same payroll, presenting a clear conflict of interest which often leads to unjust prosecution for victimless crimes defined by statute i.e. drug offenses. It matters not whether it is the king and his soldiers or the government and their police force if they hold a monopoly, monopolies will always lead to abuse.

I'm not pro- or anti-government, I just believe in voluntary association and the non-initiation of force.

You also seem to be implying that the system we have works, and I doubt anybody truly believes that. Whatever system is in place will never achieve perfect justice, the argument seems to be do you trust the state or the free market to improve things. 

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 12:09 | 2465420 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

'Courts would be in competition for business...' they already are. Certain states are preferable to others in bankruptcy settlements etc. It already causes public outrage that it goes on.

'therefore the reputation of the court would be a large part of the fee it could charge for service' Do you really think we should be shopping around for more favorable courts? That would be a boon to mass murderers wouldn't it, who could get off, for a fee to a less reliable and I presume cheaper judge?

'the parties could also agree in advance to a private enforcement agency.' We already did, it's called the State, and I can think of no private arrangement that I would prefer. The State isn't perfect but it's the best we've got and is infinately preferable to any private arrangement. Under your proposal, any court of questionable judgement could make a fortune acquitting killers, for a fee. Don't see how it can work.

'As things stand, the state has a monopoly on the court system and most of the enforcement system.'- who else would you want to enforce the law, a warlord? We're straight back into Mogadishu trerritory here aren't we?

Drug offenses are not vicimless crimes. THAT'S JUST PLAIN SILLY.

'You also seem to be implying that the system we have works, and I doubt anybody truly believes that.' Ok go kidnap someone for ransom and you'll soon find out if it works.

'Whatever system is in place will never achieve perfect justice,...' I never said it did, just that it is the best system we've got because it is fair to all, or as fair as it can be. There is nothing suggested here that would make me feel more comfortable.

 

 

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 13:05 | 2465552 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Harlequin - "it is the best system we've got because it is fair to all, or as fair as it can be."

Fair to whom precisely? Go on tell me who this system is fair to??

I pay taxes for the Police whose sole purpose is not to track down criminals but to bully and petty fine (thieve) the easy targets, Joe Public.

Go get your wallet, Passport or house robbed, then go see the cops. They'll shrug their useless fuking shoulders and get you to fill out a form which will be filed under "Fuck Knows"

That's one leg of your useless Justice system which is doing precisely fuck all on both the mass mortgage fraud and fuck all on that thieving cunt Jon Cornzine as we speak

How about the courts giving you justice? How big is your pocket??

The courts will rifle you through if it's a petty offence and slap you with $1,000 speeding fine that harmed nobody, 18 months off the roads while being no theat to anybody just the 'accusation' that speed causes accidents which is statistically proven lies from start to finish (it's slow drivers that cause the vast majority of accidents)

I could go on for days but reality just passes your idealistic zombie brain by!

"There is nothing suggested here that would make me feel more comfortable."

No mate, keep living in your vacuous idealistic world, don't wake up and smell reality, keep swallowing the liberal pills and the empty lines of why you need Govt while it vandalises whole nation States. Maybe when you're on the street because the economy has been raped by Govt and its theiving scum (inc the judges) you'll wake up

Now go read a Party manifesto, drown in bollocks, you're good at that 

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 13:17 | 2465581 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

It's fair to you and me isn't it? Or do you think I have some unfair advantage?

'I pay taxes for the Police whose sole purpose is not to track down criminals but to bully and petty fine (thieve) the easy targets, Joe Public.' This is bullshit and requires no answer. It sounds like you need to grow up

'Go get your wallet, Passport or house robbed, then go see the cops. They'll shrug their useless fuking shoulders and get you to fill out a form which will be filed under "Fuck Knows"' Well I have been burgled and they did get the guy who did it, along with thirteen other jobs. and no they aren't the most efficient but that's better than what you're suggesting.

'No mate, keep living in your vacuous idealistic world, don't wake up and smell reality,' but that's just it isn't it? I'm the one suggesting that reality works whilst you pick individual instances of I know not what to justify your view that it doesn't. Yet your only suggestion so far is that we should nod and bark like dogs and birds, buy stuff singularly or in small quantities in a market based on nothing but an email and a fucking handshake avoiding anything remotely resembling any written agreement because its is an expensive waste of time and money.

Come on, who's living in a dream world...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 13:06 | 2465554 TheFuture_MrGittes
TheFuture_MrGittes's picture

The reputation of the court would be raised by impartiality, not partiality - if both parties to a disagreement are paying an equal share of the cost (which they should've agreed in the contract under dispute), then there is no motive for impartiality except bribery, which would adversely affect the reputation of the court. There could be private auditors paid to assess the reputation of various courts and private enforcement (yes, private police) by both service providers and customers, like any other free market service provision.

I should have narrowed my example specifically to drug use and drug possession. That said, habeas corpus, show me the victim.

I'm also going to have to ask you to provide proof of claim regarding my alleged agreement to the rules as defined by the state. No contract, no consent. Any implied contract was entered into under duress and I wouldn't consider it justly enforceable.

I don't think I'll kidnap somebody and hold them for ransom, that would be hypocrisy on my part, having stated that I believe in voluntary association and the non-initiation of force. All governance begins with self governance, you can always say no and accept the consequences, but justice is not a property inherent in nature, merely a social construct.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 13:22 | 2465594 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

This is pure idiocy.

why don't you just renounce your citizenship and go live somewhere more suitable?

'I don't think I'll kidnap somebody and hold them for ransom, that would be hypocrisy on my part, having stated that I believe in voluntary association and the non-initiation of force'- I don't. Given half a chance I'll be round there with a knife at your throat demanding money. and food and anything else i might fancy. What are you going to do about that, call the local security...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 13:41 | 2465648 TheFuture_MrGittes
TheFuture_MrGittes's picture

Ok, so we've descended to the level of; 1) ad hominem; 2) Some strange idea that I don't have the right to be critical of a system which seeks to enforce itself upon me arbitrarily, and have therefore forfeited my property rights; and to top it off 3) The idea that the non-initiation of force means I won't meet force with force, combined with some sort of veiled threat. 

Sustainance, shelter and society (family and friends) are important, all else belongs in the realm of 'if', it's not worth getting that worked up over, your increasingly emotional responses disincline me to continuing to debate.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 13:57 | 2465688 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

It's not a debate is it when you suggest something, I refute it and then you simply restate the same in another form.

'I don't have the right to be critical of a system which seeks to enforce itself upon me arbitrarily, and have therefore forfeited my property rights; and to top it off' - I haven't said any of this. If you want to citicise, go do it, all we're trying to do here is establish if you have a workable alternative, but when you start with the ' I haven't personally approved all the laws of the land blah, it's game over. You were born into a system in which others already had the same rights you now lay claim to. You should respect that, and that a system already exists in which others already had entitlements that you didn't personally approve either.

So what do you want to do, are you retaining your property right, forfeit them and ask everyone else to as well, or just not recognise everyone else's rights to property but your own?

Just curious...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 11:23 | 2465291 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

Common Law presumes that the individual accepts the restrictions on his freedom due to the fact that the village or county has an enforcing system of the law, be it one or many, called Sheriff or Marshal or Commissioner for policing, funded by taxes or just amateurs, elected, appointed or just de-facto, following up on the orders of a court, be it a Baron or Judge, judging on the cases, or, in other cases just managing the case flanked or not by a verdict-spelling jury, elected, appointed or drawn by lot...

Ergo Common Law presumes governance, which is what governments deliver. often the same way the newspaper boy hits the pool instead of the door.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 11:43 | 2465365 TheFuture_MrGittes
TheFuture_MrGittes's picture

I was trying to suggest persuing a free market solution to enforcement rather than a government monopoly.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 12:12 | 2465427 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

you mean like private prisons...

We could have private police next, and then no one would have any idea where they stood...

we could even have little residents associations deciding who can drive on local roads and between what times, and they could compete for private tolls...

Nah, doesn't work...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 12:41 | 2465496 TheFuture_MrGittes
TheFuture_MrGittes's picture

I'd have to agree that under the current system, private prisons don't work, after all judges have been caught taking gifts and bribes in return for longer sentences in some states; maybe if they weren't all operating under a state monopoly the opportunity for corruption would be reduced.

You have merely stated that it wouldn't work, you haven't demonstrated why it wouldn't, there are social and technological solutions available.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 13:00 | 2465540 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

if you have a technological solution to bribery and graft then let's hear it...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 13:12 | 2465569 TheFuture_MrGittes
TheFuture_MrGittes's picture

Sadly, no, I don't have a technological solution to bribery and graft, the only solution there would be transparency for all, I don't know how to achieve that. I was suggesting that technological solutions exist for the management of road pricing and other aspects of society currently paid for through taxation.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 13:35 | 2465629 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

You're a bit of an idealist aren't you?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:06 | 2464921 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

So you think the solution is no govt?

Mogadishu is at war becasue it has no govt. It is a battle of the warlords. You seem to be referring to a dreamworld where the only bad guys are the ones in govt and other bad guys don't exist, and therefore don't need to be kept in check.

So what are you then if you are no anarchist, a monarchist, or what? What are you proposing that is better than this, and is there any place on earth that your proposed system is currently working, or are you as I suspect, living in an idiological dream world?

Do explain, please...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:14 | 2464926 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

I hope not to muddle the affair by stating that in my book warlords and mafia gansters are also a form of Government.

They apply force as they see fit, try to acquire and sometimes expand territory where they have a monopoly on force and fight against anybody trying to impose their force monopoly on them.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:19 | 2464929 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

That is exactly right.

We rely on govt to be the ultimate form of force or coercion, whichever way you want to look at it so that we can all rely on our contracts to go about our business.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:26 | 2464934 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Harlequin  -  you're still hed-fuked with ideas

ideas that Govt or the Law uphold the law of contract or business depends on Govt to do its business. Absolute bollocks from start to finish mate

The $Trillions of trade between nations are done without any international Law in operation. They are based on B2B relationships and handshakes. 

Contracts in fact create problems, business is best conducted in short agreements month by month because the element of time (and therefore change) can create problems

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:29 | 2464937 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

I think you'll find they're based on the OECD business model which defines where and when a transaction takes place. International Law...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:21 | 2464930 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Ghordius  -  yes precisely. Govt is a monopoly.

Govt is a monopoly on society on authority/power

it is the exact opposite of freedom.. in fact Govt is worse than that. Govt is the enemy of freedom

Which is exactly how every Govt plays out in every nation. Period.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:31 | 2464939 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

But that is exactly what it is required to be if society is to properly function.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:45 | 2464950 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Harlequin  -  ".. that is exactly what it is required to be if society is to properly function"

Fucking hell, please wake up mate!!!

Govt is the nation wrecker, the vandal, the enemy within

Look at Greece, wrecked by socialist Govt. Govt is anarchy, the riots are against Govt as they want rid of the parasites

Govt does not create Law & Order, it is a protection racket of parasites (socialist/fascist criminals) who proceed to wreck the country, wreck free markets and trade, wreck healthcare systems, wreck education, wreck finance, wreck housing, wreck society.

Are you not getting the news from Japan, Europe and America??? 

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:51 | 2464955 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Greece is wrecked by debt. The Greek govt did precisely what the people wanted and provided easy living and welfare.

You should not confuse economic collapse with poor government. I am the first to agree that the Greek govt overstepped the mark when it gave away welfare, but I think you'll find that the riots are against the govt for no longer being able to continue that welfare, and not about the democratic system itself. It was the same in Egypt...

But that's more akin to refusing to give in to a petulent child...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:26 | 2464988 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

What about the other nations? He quoted other examples. Are they all examples of poor governments?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:30 | 2464997 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

No, but I didn't consider them to be of benefit to the discussion.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:54 | 2464956 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

I think that a friend of Government as an ideal would now step in and say Govt is (ideally) a restriction on the freedom of the individual for a common cause (typically a CommonWealth).

Having said that, yes, I agree, historically Government is the enemy number one of individual freedom, and that includes the foreign Warlord that is planning to expand his rule on your farm and the region where you live (did I mention he really likes your daughters?).

But of course I live on the greater landmass that has an older history of having often only bad choices...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 11:00 | 2465224 TheFuture_MrGittes
TheFuture_MrGittes's picture

The initiation of violence is always a breach of Common Law rights. The state is built on the false premise of a monopoly on the use of violence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 12:30 | 2465441 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Exactly, it is the ultimate force, which is why we all fear and respect it and rely on it to enforce our contracts...

Our contracts are therefore ultimately sacrosanct and enforceable...

Would you want it any other way? Do you really think it's a good idea to rely on private security to enforce your entitlements?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:17 | 2464928 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Harlequin  -  2 warlords are fighting for the reigns of Govt, same as Thailand. You cannot change a turf war with Govt. Govt is the personifaction of intrenched interests, it has fuk-all to do with the interests of the people, society or the economy

Take a look at the Isreali-Palestinian conflict, 80 years and counting, how has Govt resolved that for you?

How about the Northern Ireland conflict which lasted a Century or more

You think Govt resolves things.. you're delusional because you've been sold an 'idea' of Govt ...you need to suck on the reality of Govt, smell the napalm, eat the crap of what Govt delivers across the globe

Delusion vs. Reality : wake up my friend

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:27 | 2464935 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

I think your missing the point here. I don't think Govt resolves anything in the manner you infer, it maintains the framework by which we must all abide if we are to settle our disagreements based on something other than brute force and coexist peacefully together. For that reason alone it must be stronger and more forceful than any private party i.e the ultimate coercive force, but it must be so for a reason, because without it we have Mogadishu.

Sometimes, others don't like it and would wish to impose their own rules rightly or not, so we go to war in other places when we deem it to be in our best interest.

It might not be perfect but do you have any better alternative?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:40 | 2464945 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Harlequin  -  so your argument Govt improves anything has crumbled. And what you're left with is Govt "provides a framework by which we all must abide"

How's it doing applying fraud to WS mortgage fraud and theft regards Corzines MF Global heist??

Have you seen dogs and birds resolve disputes? Over in seconds. The Law costs $millions to resolve disputes and takes fuking years. It's made a coplete farce of financial theft and fraud already and go see how Law handles divorces or any other issue under the sun

Rule based system DO NOT WORK

How many times does the Law have to fail, the Govt has to fail, the Regulators have to fail before the penny drops you cannot intrust a monopoly system/institution????????????????

Nature works on an individual to individual basis making up the rules (relationships) that suit each individual, not applying some mass delusion of a rule on everyone.

We are individuals. we are not to be boiled down to a lowest common demonitator zombie which some agree with and many do not

Take the Laws on Drugs: a massive colossal failure, just like prohibition was

Rules don't work, nobody gives a fuck and they'll do what they want, the Govt can go hang.. just as it should be, society doing what it wants

So yes i do have a better alternative: it's called nature (no Govt, no law, no centralised beauracy)... Freedom 

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:44 | 2464949 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

'so your argument Govt improves anything has crumbled' - where did I say that?

'Have you seen dogs and birds resolve disputes? Over in seconds.' True, the dog usually just eats the bird, unless I'm missing something...

The Law costs $millions to resolve disputes and takes fuking years.- That's a fault with the laws, not the basic system. Should we not bother because it takes too long, or should we cut these investigations short and just hang someone, anyone?

'Rule based system DO NOT WORK' - So what does?

'We are individuals. we are not to be boiled down to a lowest common demonitator zombie which some agree with and many do not' - true, we may all be different as you say, but if there's is one thing on which we all agree it is that we need a level playing field on which to sort out our differences, otherwise its my gun against yours, and Mogadishu2. I didn't say the system was or functioned perfectly but my understanding of the cases you mentioned is that they are still ongoing, are they not?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:51 | 2464954 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Harlequin - no you obviously haven't studied nature enough. When dogs dispute they usually posture first, make faces, then make noises rising to agressive barking and should the dispute still not be settled (very rarely) they end up throwing hanbags at each other

That's how dogs dispute but i've seen dogs argue with dear or other animals in the exact same way: it's animal language and we humans do exacrtly the same dispute resolution/escalation but with our langauge in a slightly (not by much) more sophisticated manner

It works

The Law doesn't (plus it's an expensive joke)

Period.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:53 | 2464958 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Zero I need some basis upon which I can enforce my contracts and oibtain payment for my goods. Posturing and snarling doesn't cut it.

How do you suggest that I enforce my rights if we have no laws, and no govt to enforce them?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:02 | 2464965 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Harlequin -  you don't need a contract to do business. You need a business relationship (human trust).

That's how we've traded for thousands of years across the seas and across land.

The best business is done on the spot in a market. You cut a deal there and then. That's how you should seek to conduct as much biz as possible. 

Writing a contract achieves precisely zero and actually creates problems because you've firstly added complexity (language) and secondly baked in the issue of time. Time is dangerous, the only constant in time is change. You cannot forsee change so again write contracts if you absolutely must over the shortest time period possible (less than 6 months if you can)

The Law will not enforce contracts except at huge expense. By then you have no biz relationship with the other party, only a relationship with your lawyer who is charging you $200 an hour for not finding a new biz relationship 

Contracts and Law are bollocks (another worthless rule-based system). Build trusted relationships, not contracts

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:05 | 2464969 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

That's ok if I want to buy a bag of fruit, but what if I want to build a production line which requires parts from many sources?

I can't always nip down to the market and buy a bunch of rear windows, so how do I secure my suppliers if I don't have a contract?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:15 | 2464972 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Harlequin  -  if you're building a production line you're buying 1 compenent at a time for a one-off instalment. So the question of time does not arise, it's a one-off buy/purchase

if you're constructing a 200 block housing estate then time is an issue ..again i'd resolve it by simply buying as you go or locking in suppliers prices

the 30 year mortgage was an invention of the US Govt to pump up the property market post 1945 recession.. i couldn't think of a worse lock-in to not adjust for time/change but that's Govt for you, a complete cretin of society/commerce

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:18 | 2464977 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

How are you going to ' locking in suppliers prices'? without a contract?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:44 | 2465075 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Er, agree a price verbally (or by email) and shake hands on it

your biz relationship is (wait for it....) as strong as your biz relationship

..a contract is a sign of insecurity you do not know your customer/supplier (see reems of crap to sign when you go to a bank or utility)

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 12:55 | 2465102 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

That is incredibly naive.

But let's look at this just for a minute. Now why would I, as you say, want to agree something by email? Is it because we agree that we need some kind of document or agreement in writing, in whatever form that we can both rely on to remind us of the terms? Wouldn't want to be forgetting the terms now would we, not if we are to deal amicably together and not forget what we're supposed to supply and pay to each other eh? That would be a contract then. Now, does our email contract need to be in email form, or should we make it a proper document format, and what point does your suggestion become a pointless and expensive waste of time?

 

I'm going to suggest that not only do you not run your own business, but that you've never even had a job other than perhaps a news paper delivery round. If you did, and I may be wrong, did you have a contract of employment, and did you ever take any time off from that job under the terms of that contract such as holidays or sick leave and not lose your job? If you did, why did you not lose your job? Is it because you have rights and entitlements as an employee that are enforceable by the same courts you deride?

 

You need to give this some thought. What you're proposing is very dangerous and naive. You won't be the first person I know who bought an asset on a 'gentleman's agreement' and found himself in dispute over whether he had paid rent or mortgage at a later date and in dispute over title to the asset. He lost.

Contract is everything. Without it you have nothing, and will end up the same.

Your proposal will not work, simply because if I ever find out who you are, I will be placing my order in the full knowledge that I can make more money and survive better simply by not paying you and buying more from someone else.

Good luck with that...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:09 | 2465042 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

How are you going to ' locking in suppliers prices'? without a contract?

We could use an answer here...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:41 | 2465071 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Ok Zero, I think we're going to end this conversation here. There are a lot of threads still unanswered here and I don't think we're going to achieve much more.

Still nice talking to you, and until next time I remain unconvinced of your arguments or your reasoning but still, you have a good day...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:33 | 2465000 Absinthe Minded
Absinthe Minded's picture

"Harlequin - you don't need a contract to do business. You need a business relationship (human trust)."

Good luck with that, how do you sort the honest from the dishonest? It's not about government being bad, follow the money. It's inherently about money being involved with government. Take the money out of campaigns. Each candidate that can get a certain amount of votes in a primary gets the same amount of money to campaign with. No more, no less. Ban all lobbyists. It is bribery plain and simple. Term limits. You have to have people in government that want to serve the people, not their own greedy interests. Take away the money and you will have people who really want to serve.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:35 | 2465005 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

I've suggested that loads of times. Spot on.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:52 | 2465081 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Great idea, de-funding Govt ...alot like re-arranging (and re-painting) the deckchairs on the Titanic

the problem with Govt is it is a MONOPOLY on authroity in society. It is not the funding or the size of Govt that is the problem, it is the monopolisation/perversion of freedom, freedom of the individual to make their own choices and build relationships with others or conduct business how they see fit

Govt monopolieses power then abuses it because it has next to no corrections (which is why people have to riot: see Greece, Egypt and coming to a nation near you)

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:16 | 2464974 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

'When dogs dispute they usually posture first, make faces, then make noises rising to agressive barking and should the dispute still not be settled (very rarely) they end up throwing hanbags at each other' - Just as an aside, you seem to advocate a system where the largest or strongest dog wins.

How is this different than Mogadishu where he who has the most force wins? What happens to the nice, honorable guy who doesn't have a gun? Does he lose out, or is some warlord going to pay him because it's fair and he's a really good egg?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:22 | 2464983 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Harlequin -  Mogadishu i entirely agree are 2 packs of dogs fighting it out. How is that cifferent to the Isreali-Palestinian dispute that's been bickering on for 80 years

Your point was Govt makes things better or provides a franework for resolutiions.

My point is Govt makes matters worse, not better, and Govt escalates disputes and the carnage greater than a free society ever would

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:29 | 2464994 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

My point exactly is that Govt provides a framework for resolutiions. I never said it makes things better, only that we as a society are better off with a means to settle our differences that is not based on brute force, and that that can only be achieved through a strong govt that has more force than any private party, else it doesn't work.

Your point is that 'Govt makes matters worse, not better, and Govt escalates disputes and the carnage greater than a free society ever would' but I know of no place where this works.

The only truly free place is one where you can do what you please, which is anarchy, and that is far worse than anything we have here...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:47 | 2465023 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Harlequin -  "Govt provides a framework for resolutiions. I never said it makes things better.."

So a pointless framework that doesn't make anything better. Er, so you want a pointless failure, that's expensive, why precisely???

".. that we as a society are better off with a means to settle our differences that is not based on brute force.."

Isn't brute force precisely how Govt settles disputes? There are an increasing number of innocent people being shot-up by Swat teams or battoned by State police, forget the criminals who are also jailed with brute force.

"..I know of no place where this works.."

Here's a bet. Mogadishu gets settled far faster than the Isreali-Palestinian conflict? Bet ya $50 bucks and that way you feel some pain for supporting a pointless expensive ssytem called Govt that escalates disputes against my freedom-based model that settles disputes far quicker, cheaper, better. Deal?

"The only truly free place is one where you can do what you please, which is anarchy"

Nope, your liberal hed-fuked brain is confused. Where i am free to do what i want is freedom and doesn't hurt anyone.

Where a small group of dysfinctional brats run riot across society wrecking the economy and peoples lives is anarchy. See Greece and most of Western Europe and America real soon.. it's called "democratic Govt" but its real name is anarchy

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:08 | 2465040 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Ok, 'So a pointless framework that doesn't make anything better' - the framework is far from pointless. It means we can all trade equally with each other.

'Er, so you want a pointless failure, that's expensive, why precisely???' - That's not what was said.

'Isn't brute force precisely how Govt settles disputes?' No, that's what happens when your supreme court says the govt is behaving in an unconstitutional manner. So far from it.

'There are an increasing number of innocent people being shot-up by Swat teams or battoned by State police, forget the criminals who are also jailed with brute force.' That is irrelevent to the discussion.

Here's a bet. Mogadishu gets settled far faster than the Isreali-Palestinian conflict? That has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of whether we need govt or not.

'that way you feel some pain for supporting a pointless expensive ssytem called Govt that escalates disputes against my freedom-based model that settles disputes far quicker, cheaper, better. Deal?' - Sure, and if I can find you and enslave you and your family because you cannot defend yourself because you have no govt and no means to defend yourself you will soon discover just how well your freedom based model will stand up to reality.

'Where i am free to do what i want is freedom and doesn't hurt anyone.' in who's view, and who decides when someone is hurt and who imposes any cost or pays any penalty when someone is hurt, even if accidentally?

What are you going to do when I take your goods and simply refuse to pay?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:57 | 2465037 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Zero GovT

As much as I'd like to believe we could live without some sort of government in place, I just don't see it as being possible. There will always be a group of people trying to exercise power over another group of people. I agree with your overall thesis that government solves nothing ( how much money has been thrown at the war on drugs, poverty, and war?) and it's a racket to protect those in power. but , I just don't see government going away. In my view the only solution is to neuter government as much as possible.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:02 | 2465044 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Got it in one. The govt has taken too many powers but that is not a good argument for no govt at all, and no govt is no solution to the problem in which society still needs to settle its differences without declaring all out war....

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 10:03 | 2465094 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Dr E  -  we already exist in a (relatively) free society and behave, as nature intended, naturally going about our daily business free from State intervention (except local highway robbers like the Police and traffic wardens).

So society would be alot like today just considerably richer (without tax theft and Govt strangled monopolised markets)...ok massively richer

regards there always being a parasite class yes so long as we tolerate them... but as history shows with revolutions (see also Greece and Egypt) we throw them off at regular intervals. So the trick is THIS TIME to never let the thieving tossers back on

regards that "not being possible" it's actually easy peasy: Stop Paying Your Taxes

when America and Europe all looks like Greece and Egypt we must ensure that post the pitchforks we continue to revolt against any and all forms of new Govt (a new set of parasites) 

the key battleground is small business, the 1%. If small business, who employs the most people and pays the most taxes by far, reject Govt then the parasites are totally fucked at re-establishing their ratchet, Govt

No Tax = No Govt = Game Over

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 12:22 | 2465282 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Zero this is pure dreamboats stuff. 'So society would be alot like today just considerably richer (without tax theft and Govt strangled monopolised markets)...ok massively richer'

How do you work this one out if you have no enforeable laws by which you can enforce ownership? The statement itself is contradictory.

'we already exist in a (relatively) free society and behave, as nature intended, naturally going about our daily business' - you're deluding yourself if you think for one minute that the only reason I haven't stolen your food or your money is because I'm a nice guy. You can go about your business because policemen will lock me up if I take it, that is all.

'when America and Europe all looks like Greece and Egypt we must ensure that post the pitchforks we continue to revolt against any and all forms of new Govt (a new set of parasites)' Come on man, grow up. What happens when you want to start a family without fear of someone just carting your children off to work in foreign lands for no money? It's happened before has it not? What happens when you want to own something like a house for them to grow up in and I arbitrarily lay claim to it? What are you going to do?

If what you say were even possible, why would you not simply walk into a bank and take all the money instead of working to grow food and sell it? Never mind, why would you not simply walk into your neighbours house and take all his money? It is human nature to do so.

You are assuming all the benefits and safety of growing up in a 'safe' environment and pretending that all the rules that gave it to you don't or don't need to exist, and that we would still all behave accordingly.

That's foolish.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:04 | 2464968 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

Zero Govt, in this I don't agree. Rule based systems DO WORK. Rule based systems BREAK DOWN, from time to time.

First it's a little corruption, then it get's stronger, then you have a breakdown, etc. At some point, a new system arises.

Don't judge the year by one season only... ;-)

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:24 | 2464978 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Ghordius  -  you say rule-based systems "break down" ...i'd argue they never worked in the first place

the Justice system is a rule-based system, it delivers only retribution in a very expensive, time-consuming and pompous manner, but doesn't change anything.. It is a failure from the get-go, not over time

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:29 | 2464995 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Very entertaining. Even misconceptions are enough to blow up US citizenism.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:34 | 2465003 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

US citizenship now comes with so many chains attached emigration is going to be a bigger problem than immigration

like everything Govt touches they're wrecking the 'Land of the Free' and turning it into a totalitarian hell ..there's nothing Govt can't wreck don't you know

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:38 | 2464998 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

well, where I came from (a place far away in time) where IF "the law" did not deliver retribution, someone ELSE did.

to state it differently, I am uncivilized enough that if you would hurt my sister and in court you would get a discharge because of a technicality, I would use you as fertilizer even if this would be a bit excessive, given the case.

no hard feelings, though ;-)

------------------------------

first came the ruler, that promised protection (mostly from the other rulers and himself)

than came the judge of peace, that promised to mediate in disputes

than came the judge of justice, that promised to prosecute and retribute where nobody else dared (or only in a posse)

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:33 | 2465001 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

it maintains the framework by which we must all abide if we are to settle our disagreements based on something other than brute force and coexist peacefully together.

_________________________________________

The resolution by us citizen government is based on brute force. US citizen government has the monopoly on legitimatization of violence.

Peace in US citizenism? There is no peace in US citizenism. Only comfort. The exercize of violence is sub contracted to US citizen professionals, which means that hirers (US citizen society elements) are relieved from exerting their coercion act themselves.

That is comfort. Maintaining a social order without dirtying your hands.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:48 | 2465027 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

'The resolution by us citizen government is based on brute force. '- Yes of course it is. If it wasn't you would choose which laws to abide by and which you wouldn't, and since that is the framework by which we settle our differences peacefully then it cannot be any other way. The govt is the big stick because it has to be.

'US citizen government has the monopoly on legitimatization of violence.' absolutely, because if it has to decide the rules of the game for us all.

'Peace in US citizenism? There is no peace in US citizenism. Only comfort. The exercize of violence is sub contracted to US citizen professionals, which means that hirers (US citizen society elements) are relieved from exerting their coercion act themselves.' - Go read the Oath of Allegience and tell me at what point you are authorised to decide who is the enemy either foreign or domestic, and at what point you are allowed to decide when the State is wrong...

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 08:56 | 2465036 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

So in what way is it different from the stuff advocated by the other US citizen?

Save comfort of acquired social order when one knows one is on the good side of the fence, when a change could jeopardize that, it is hard to see the differences between no government and a US citizen government.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:12 | 2465049 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Harlequin -  "The govt is the big stick because it has to be."

Yes, you've made it so. So you can now live with the consequences as your Govt runs out of control (not just globally as it has for decades dispensing anarchy, murder and mahem on foreign soil) and begins to spy on you and rob you of your pension etc etc etc etc

Be careful what you wish for (a monopoly of power in society called Govt) because you're going to get the monster you believe in ..no wimpering now, just bend over and take it

"Go read the Oath of Allegience ...you are allowed to decide when the State is wrong"

Govt is wrong from the get-go. Monopolising authority in society (Govt) is the opposite of freedom. I don't need to read someone elses words to get my moral compass, i can work it out for myself (unlike some around here)

Now you go read it, decide where right and wrong is, and go to your beloved Govt institution and see where it gets you. Suck on "democracy" and let me know if the liberal word tastes like the actual reality

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 11:06 | 2465242 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Alternatively we can negotiate and posture like dogs and other forna eh?

The system of government might not be perfect and I didn't say it was, but what you're proposing is just plain lunacy. You will not survive two minutes running your own business with views like this. You need to go think it through...

'Go read the Oath of Allegience ...you are allowed to decide when the State is wrong"' - where? Last I heard you could be shot at the side of the road for that.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:42 | 2465072 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous, wrong again:

The resolution by us citizen government is based on brute force. US citizen government has the monopoly on legitimatization of violence.

You are stating what is true of all governments. Your attempt to limit it to the US government is simply ignorant propaganda.

 

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 13:47 | 2465671 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Attempt to limit it to US citizen government? I state once again what is relevant, that is the dominant form of government in the world today is US citizen government.

I dont spend time on irrelevant governments.

It is known that US citizens love to attribute their misfortunes to others, like wishing to kill non consumers in order to alleviate an overconsumption issue, but reality catches up.

I do not have to look at other governments. I dont even need to know if your general statement is true (even if through US citizen familiarity and the way they build generalities, that is by removing all counter examples, I have big doubts)

All I need to know is the attributes of the dominant form of government and that is US citizen government type.

Keep your fantasy approach, claiming that the irrelevant are the causes and that they must be dedicated time and resources in order to investigate the causes of the situation.

I'll stick with relevancy.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 14:21 | 2465736 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous backpedaling furiously:

Attempt to limit it to US citizen government? I state once again what is relevant, that is the dominant form of government in the world today is US citizen government.

More lies and denial. All governments, now and in the past, claimed a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. You now try to limit that to the world today, and specifically to the US government. Your ridiculous charade is quite transparent.

I dont spend time on irrelevant governments.

More backpedaling, trying to weasel your way out rather than admitting error.

It is known that US citizens love to attribute their misfortunes to others, like wishing to kill non consumers in order to alleviate an overconsumption issue, but reality catches up.

It is known by whom? By you, in your crackpot fantasy world? Just another unsupported assertion. You can repeat a falsehood until the end of time, but that won't make it true.

I do not have to look at other governments. I dont even need to know if your general statement is true

Typical response from your fantasy world of Chinese citizenism crackpottery. If you assert that something is, then it must be. Dawai, dawai.

All I need to know is the attributes of the dominant form of government and that is US citizen government type.

You can't even define "US citizen government type", so how can you determine its unique attributes? The sad fact is that you cannot.

Keep your fantasy approach, claiming that the irrelevant are the causes and that they must be dedicated time and resources in order to investigate the causes of the situation.

I'll stick with relevancy.

Translation: "Do not question me, for I am the great and omniscient Chinese citizenism citizen AnAnonymous. My mind is made up and so I refuse to examine anything which might contradict my fabulous theories.

I define reality for all time and space, because I am AnAnonymous, the brainiac of the world."

You bring shame upon your ancestors.

 

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:37 | 2465067 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

I get tired of stupid all or nothing throw away lines like" Mogadishu... Grow up, refute a point with logic..  Try this on for size, Soviet Union your conception of Heaven, right..

Sun, 05/27/2012 - 04:11 | 2466812 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

No, try not to make shit up and invent stuff eh...

If you need to it means your argument has no basis.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 05:57 | 2464875 WTFx10
WTFx10's picture

Governemnts are the beneficies and the shake down muscle for the Banking syndicate. They both have one thing in common their self preservation.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 05:54 | 2464871 WTFx10
WTFx10's picture

Fractional reserve banking + usury being Controlled by a Organized Criminal Banking Cartel headed by the Rothschilds. Everything else is a symptom.

Fixed it for ya.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 07:55 | 2464961 Nukular Freedum
Nukular Freedum's picture

Ban Frb and usury? Thats a coercive curtailment of freedom though isnt it? And then welcome to medieval rates of growth - more sustainable no doubt.
My own view (not popular here I know): "let freedom (not lawlessness) reign".
As for zero government, cant we at least agree to roll back govt to some kind of protective, law enforcing minima, perhaps paid for by a comsumption tax? And then when this is bedded in even this function can be privatized. Then youd have your zero govt. Otherwise. what exactly IS the correct amount of govt we supposedly need? Felak? anyone?

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 09:03 | 2465038 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Nukular  -  "..cant we at least agree to roll back govt to some kind of protective, law enforcing minima.."

This is an argument, a weak one, i hear alot from the likes of Ron Paul and our very version here in Europe, Danial Hannan. That the solution to Big Govt is small govt

It's wooly, half-a-job, un-critical, truly backward thinking like this that let the parasite that is Govt in in the first place and then allowed it to spread its cancerous destructive ways

The problem with Govt is it's a monopoly. Which is why Govt large (national) and small (State and town Councils) always displays the exact same corrupt, ignorant, anti-citizen traits. You're asking not to be cured but for a little bit of cancer ..absolutely mindless!!!

Govt, large or small, never gets any issue right because it is the opposite of freedom, it is the monopolisation of authority/decision-making and a lame attempt to apply one mindless rule across a varied and disparate society. So why would anybody think small Govt or Govt just dispensing "justice" would be better than a free justice system?

There is no decision, social or economic, that Govt resolves better than a free society or a free economy. Not one thing.

Freedom is always the best answer. It always beats the crap out of a dumbed-down monopolising colourless institution and runs rings around it for imagination and variety and progress

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 10:19 | 2465119 Nukular Freedum
Nukular Freedum's picture

Well thanks for that and I broadly agree with you and always appreciate your posts. Govt in political economy is akin to friction or imperfection in free markets. Sure we want to approach the ideal coercionless case as we might approach a limit asymptotically in mathematics. However, in practice, real world frictions (in this case coercion) can never be banished from the system.
However this is no excuse for cravenly abandoning the ideal of free markets or freedom from coercion as some on this website seem to want to do (imagining themselves to be great realists in the process). Always keep the ideal case in mind and try to remove obstacles that stand in the way of it. That is the correct approach to economics and political economy. All the best.

Fri, 05/25/2012 - 22:15 | 2464349 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 Northern Europe planned to absorb " CLUB-Med" from the inception of the Euro!

    France and Italy were the primary counter weights. Spain and Portugal came along for the experiment!

Fri, 05/25/2012 - 22:27 | 2464368 web bot
web bot's picture

Ferguson is one of the best... Couple his historical analysis of economics and Robert Johnson's view of how economics needs to be taught... and you're starting to talk about what an economics education should look like. Do this and we'll be saving our great-grandchildren from the next cabal of morons who will be ruling Terra.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 00:12 | 2464500 Absalon
Absalon's picture

Niall Ferguson is a pompous idiot.

Sat, 05/26/2012 - 04:16 | 2464801 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Fergusons historical perspectives are very valuable. The economists perspective are close to worthless, no matter how 'good' they are they deal with a fantasy (the economy) which is as real as the staticians average man

there is no economy, national or global.. it's just business (B2B or B2C)

Everything economists talk about is fantasy, including their attempts to intefer/mangle with 'solutions'. Business, like nature, is self regulating (no academics, economists or politicians required)

Freedom (no Govt) is the answer to our economic problems of too much Govt

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