How To Fight Tyranny.

by **Gouda** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:11 pm

Roth wrote in black, I respond in blue:  **** You claim you wouldn't outlaw my shoe purchase: "No, I don't think so. I want to see a society organized in a way that your shoe purchases do not exploit other human beings." And that would start with outlawing Nike's operations and outlawing the manufacturing plant's operation (because of substandard procedures or whatever)...thus forbidding me the choice of buying those shoes. You're in denial. No global, free market capitalism = no Nike in China. Period. Get rid of greedy global capitalist system. Then, no Nike in China. No Nike in China? Then Nike back in the US of A. Nike make shoes for Roth in USA. In USA, Nike might institute fair wages, safe working conditions, sound environmental practice, profit limits & executive pay limits so that Roth’s sister is happily employed and Roth gets fairly priced shoes. But will Nike or the market self-regulate or volunteer for that? Hell no – not if they do not have to. market like big growth and big profits. Must cut corners to get those. Some (very few) hand-wringing public officials who will not abide one person (NIKE, Corporate Person) stealing freedom from other persons (slave laborers) makes regulations since NIKE no like self-regulate. NIKE no like regulation. Bad for profit. NIKE go back to China. No global capitalism? Oh, Nike not allowed back into China. Nike nowhere to go. Roth buys New Balance. I say again, if Nike's operations are substandard...get rid of the various governments (whether Indonesia or Malaysia etc.) that have given these companies artificial protection from competition. Why that’s just what the PTB do: remove governments unfriendly to capital flow. They don’t give a hoot about Nike’s substandardry. United Fruit had a say about the government of Guatemala in the 1950s, for example. We, regular people, however, are not citizens of Malaysia or Indonesia or China or Guatemala. We have no say and no control over their governments. We cannot overthrow them. We have to hold our own governments and corporations accountable at home, and if they continue their tyranny, we should overthrow them. ----------------------------------------- "I want to see you have shoes, Roth, I really do, but I don’t want to see sweat and blood on them." What "blood" are you talking about? (See DE’s last post on Walmart, as one small example. Beaten and raped.) In a huge percentage of cases, these people are flocking to these jobs because the pay, the benefits and conditions are superior to other opportunities. That's not to say things couldn't be better...if we got rid of the governments who are immorally using their powers for protectionism. Like Chavez protecting the nation’s oil wealth and distributing the profits to health and education? That’s pretty immoral, I agree. Health and education.  And all of this handwringing moralizing about "sweat". I've had very few jobs in my lifetime where I wasn't working up a sweat, working my fingers to the bone. In the taxed-to-death world in which we all live these days, most people are having to greatly overwork to compensate for the tax dollar 'gravy train' being extended to the PTB who have all their bought-and-paid-for politicians. When I included “sweat” I was riffing on the concept of “sweatshop”. Believe me, you don’t sweat like they have to.  This entire scenario could be shut down in an instant if...we pulled the plug. …on free market capitalism. No more of that, no more incentives for corrupt government officials to join in the profit orgy.  -------------------------------------- "If I were the government, I would dismantle every friggin’ global corporation and send all that capital right back into your town, where shoes can be made and people can be paid enough to be able to afford those shoes. Pretty simple." There you libs go again-- slipping into your totalitarianism. At long last...do you mean this literally, or not? I have observed about a dozen times in your thesis here, where you have slipped back and forth between totalitarianism and libertarianism. Which is it? Does “if I were the government,” sound literal to you? You might not be able to pigeonhole me with regard to some ideology or political label because I try to integrate good ideas from all parts of the spectrum, even libertarianism. How about I agree not to stereotype libertarians and you promise not to stereotype everyone and everything not libertarian? Totalitarian I assure you I am not, and if getting raping hordes of corporate criminals off the streets is a totalitarian measure, then I like that particular totalitarian measure, though I would probably call it something else, like “justice” or something quaint.  ------------------------------- "I agree the IMF and World Bank own a lion’s share of the responsibility for the injustices in this world. However, the centralized control systems you speak of are not only governments..." What ARE you talking about? If the government was shut down, these PTB psychopaths would have no way of perpetrating the horrible injustices of these government agencies (the IMF or the Federal Reserve bank). What are you not understanding about that? If THIS Gov were shut down, yes, the PTB would have to scramble pretty hard and fast to maintain control, and they will be thus forced to forgo all pretense of democracy and governance and directly resort to the vast resources of control now held by the global capitalist system: private mercenaries, private armies, private jails, banks, prisons, coerced labor, water, food, roads, transport, …shoes, etc. They already have this (see NOLA after Katrina) but they use the government as a bit of a smokescreen. Take away (bad) government, and then you’ve got naked capitalist tyranny ready and waiting for the highest bidder to do the bidding of the PTB.  Just a question, why do you glaringly omit the World Bank from your equations?  They could no longer create money out of thin air (or from coerced taxation) then shove these loans (in the case of the IMF) down the throats of the Third World. Period. That's the end of IMF injustice, because it no longer exists. -------------------------------------- "This is weird logic at its finest. The PTB are by definition powerful..." [I had made a comment that the PTB's power source is centralized government] Are you sure about that? So if we removed the government...how could Bush Jr. and Sr., and Kissinger, Rumsfeld (sans his military killing machine, which is only sustained by coercive taxation), David Rockefeller and whoever else fancies themselves a member of the 'power elite'...do much harm (if any at all)? They go into private business, as they have, as they are. There is no real government to speak of right now, is my point. It has been completely possessed by capitalist process.   They would have no police, no army, no CIA, no NSA, no money (unless they want to spend their own). George W could write some complaint letters to his local newspaper. He might be able to finagle an appearance or two on Oprah. Totally false. They already do. have you read this board for the last year or so? And it is being privatized, and more quickly now than ever. You should be happy about that. The government is helping create a perfect free market world for you. And since you are on that team, you will probably not have to worry about being locked up in their private prison camps. They do not entirely need government for their wealth and control. They need government to make it look like they are democratic. Take away the pretence of government, and you will see naked capitalism looking just like the Tyranny we are all supposed to be fighting.   ------------------------------------- "I also see another contradiction in your ideology: you advocate for a " 'self-organizing' principle of freedom" - yet, you leave it to Walmart and Nike to organize sweatshops for people, which seems decidedly unfree to me." Well again, you are having misperceptions. I want protectionist governments removed from the scene so that Nike and Walmart will be forced to have vigorous competition from other companies offering better pay and conditions, thus greatly empowering the employees in these 3rd world countries. Am I misperceiving your 2-pages worth of Nike/Walmart sweatshop defense (and thus, by your own argument, you are supporting the weak government that allows Nike to swoosh into China to save them)? Am I misperceiving that you just said that such foreign capital is “greatly empowering the employees in these 3rd world countries.”? Again, where’s that " 'self-organizing' principle of freedom"? These governments are not protecting anything but themselves; Nike and Walmart are all to happy to assist. Government is a formality to them, not a necessity. No government to bribe? They’ll bribe someone else. Hopefully me.  You're also misunderstanding the expression ('self-organizing...etc.). I am simply refuting the false notion forwarded by government bureaucrats that the world would collapse, highways wouldn't be built, and justice wouldn't be served...if 'regular people' and not bureaucrats, were allowed to build and run their own lives. “Regular people” are laborers and small business owners, and they should be able to self-organize too, right? Or are you denying them the freedom to do so?  The world IS collapsing, the national highway system IS decrepit, and injustice IS the norm in our bureaucrat-run legal system. It's time to fire the government. This system has been given ample opportunity, and is a failure…because it was taken over by elitist cutthroat capitalism. Lop off this cancer, and government may have a chance to recover. If people have the money they will hire firms to protect them, they will hires firms to keep their little patch of earth in tip-top condition. Streets of the 9th ward be damned! Ooops, handwringling liberlism again. Sorry.  ------------------------------------------ "There is nothing “voluntary” about taking these jobs; it is a life or death necessity brought on by the very global conditions which led to the existence of these jobs, and it is neither free nor fair." I don't understand the point. My job isn't voluntary either. This seems to be more handwringing moralizing. There is nothing voluntary about ANYBODY'S job, 99% of the time. You don’t understand, eh. You asked this question: “What then would you propose to do with all these people who voluntarily take these jobs?” to which I directly answered with the above. I suppose you are saying that these people voluntarily take these jobs. Let me look at that again…yep, it does indeed seem that you are saying just that. You also say: "Without the coercion of immoral government authorities...any business is strictly at the mercy of voluntary customers (and voluntary employees)." There! I saw it again: voluntary. In any case, most of the world's poverty is caused by the IMF sucking these countries bone-dry by requiring massive interest payments on involuntary loans forced upon them...loans which were funded by government scams (IMF funny money). You also have all these dictators who live billionaire life-styles, but most of them are PTB creations (like Saddam Hussein). Setting up a series of tin-pot dictators is something the PTB couldn't do if they didn't have the powers of coercive government. A PTB-controlled US government has done all of this. Again, the PTB is the corporate capitalist system, with some funky variations. It uses the government when expedient and avoid it when convenient. It relies much more heavily on free enterprise and corporations. Did you know that United Fruit set up a tin pot dictatorship in Guatemala in the 1950's? The CIA, which is the intelligence branch of global capital, installed a tinpot dictator in Iran as well round about that time.  And if there is any slave labor out there, it involves government coercion 99% of the time. Get rid of the government. More direct to get rid of the slave-owners, no? The government owns nothing but your consent to allow slave-owners to proliferate. The slave-owners, however, own the slaves. Get rid of the slave-owners. AND get rid of government officials who support slave-owners and/or are slave-owners themselves, which in most cases, is the case. Eureka! A more comprehensive solution.  ------------------------------------------ "Now you've got me in a bad mood. Don’t be an idiot." [You were referring to my idea of giving poor people my business.] You went on to issue a number of personal insults. Not meant as a personal swipe at all, Roth. If I had said, “You are an idiot,” then yes, that’s bad. However, I was appealing to your more intelligent nature with my gentle reminder that you had temporarily slipped into a state of idiocy from which I was hoping you’d emerge.  To me this is a very signature Lib 'panic attack'. Yes, I can also be a “liberal” with the right light – we ought to contain oceans. You and I both have ideas about how to make the world a better place. I have referred to securing my children's future. I am deadly serious about these issues. But in the typical liberal mind set (that I have repeatedly run into here), it's not enough for the other guy (me) to just be "wrong". No, I have to be evil too. I have to be categorized as murderously greedy, evil and stupid. I did not say you were murderous or stupid. I have said you said stupid things, and I stand by that, because they were pretty clueless – though that can be remedied with education. Greedy? Yes, I have my suspicions, though I think we all get that way now and then.  It's not like I get to have honest motives...or be guilty of an 'honest mistake' (if my views are wrong). So in bizarre fashion, you confer upon yourself mind-reading and heart-reading capabilities, and then pass judgment. Very, very typical stuff. May I? Quote: “Dimwitted, unmotivated, pompous bureaucrats…There you libs go again-- slipping into your totalitarianism…handwringing moralizing…To me this is a very signature Lib 'panic attack'…Here again is this typical liberal (and neocon also, by the way) bizarre presumption to consign the freedoms of others unto themselves…you would very much like to consign my freedom unto yourself…the libs come up behind them for the final blow, in driving thousands out into the streets in the name of political correctness….You obviously want to see my shoe purchase outlawed.” ---------------------------------------------- "No. Where did anyone say that?" [In response to my complaint that libs want government powers to be greater than Walmart powers.] Wow. You have just glibly, breezily brushed aside the entirety of the typical liberal nanny-state, micro-managing, heavily overpowered Orwellian BigBrother government philosophy. "When did anyone say that?" you ask. You can't be serious. Roth, where did anyone say that? Could I have a quote please?  ----------------------------------------- "Walmart is the epitome of coercive monopoly. Your statement just fell apart." You're wrong. Walmart has no coercive powers. They cannot arrest me, put me in prison, or send my son to war. What ARE you talking about? I am talking about other coercive powers. Physical force is not the only coercion now, is it?  The ONLY coercive powers that Walmart may have indirect access to, are the coercive powers of some governments, which in a number of cases, may have coercively frozen out competition. They have direct access and in most cases have frozen out competition. Politicians are lucky to have direct access to THEM when they are out of office. That’s how they work. That’s how IT works. Now, about those two or so pages of defense of Nike, Walmart and sweatshops… --------------------------------------------- "Internal contradiction alert. How can a bloated, dimwitted, inefficient government be obscenely powerful?" What contradiction are you talking about? The US government IS obscenely powerful...and it IS bloated, dimwitted and inefficient. Bush IS obscenely powerful...and he IS none too bright. You can turn off that flashing alert button now. Bush is at the beck and call of private interests. He cannot lift a finger without the go-ahead from say, the Carlyle Group, or Wall Street in general. If the country is falling apart, then I assume this massive power the government has is being wasted on things like, hmm, starting wars to carve out more freedom for capital markets.  -------------------------------------------- In my previous post I made the comment: "The huge and vast majority of the problems associated with economic injustice stem from the ability of businesses to hide in the skirts of coercive, corrupted government." Gouda's response was: "Yes, but mostly vice-versa." OK, if that's true then let's kill two birds with one stone-- get rid of government...and all the skirt-chasing is over. Get rid of bad government first, and if that does not work, then yes, get rid of all government. On the condition that free market capitalism is also dismantled down to a human, humane level. No monopolies, limitations on growth, profit, and thus power. Classic economic liberalism may have worked in a previous day and age, but today things are so lopsided and desperate, radical measures are needed to restore a balance. Any one ideology or –ism will fail, and may lead to another form of tyranny.  ------------------------------------------------- You quote my statement: "If they were not treating their employees well, another business could rise up that was offering better things." [In the absence of government.] Your response: "Oh if this were true." You make some strange leaps. I didn't say it WAS true. I said it WOULD BE true (or truer) if coercive government were removed from the equation. You're right...in a sense-- If only these conditions DID exist. But they don't (to a great extent) because dishonest business can utilize corrupt government to eliminate much of the competition, providing far fewer choices for employees.  One could also say that good government would be able to stop dishonest business in its tracks. Private interests cannot be trusted to police themselves, just as government cannot be trusted to police itself. Regular people, laborers most, must step up to the plate.  ------------------------------------------ "I agree that some plug needs to be pulled. But can’t communities be reconstituted without free market capitalism?" I don't think you understand the implications of what you are saying. If the plug was pulled on this government, and we were all free to go about our business, and somebody built a better mouse trap, and the world beat a path to this guy's door, and he made fifty million dollars...so what? That's a good thing. It created jobs. It created prosperity for people. Even in a PTB-dominated world we still see these success stories. Fedex, as one of many examples...and with no unions. Anyone else want to deal with Fedex? Roth wears me out. How do you stop the freedom of this guy who made the fifty million? I would argue that you are in denial if you don't think you're proposing a coercive government with a dangerous, world-threatening power monopoly...in order to coerce this guy back into line (whatever you anti-capitalists think that would entail). I’d probably let the mousetrap guy go. It’s the peopletrap entrepreneurs I don’t like.  -------------------------------------- "By the way, they [Third Worlders] will not starve without Nike." Really? Then how do you describe what is going on in Africa right now...excessive dieting? You are dead flat wrong. If manufacturing could gain a foothold in Africa, they would (as even you have acknowledged)…“get to eat”. Right now, PC libs have them starving.  To think Nike or Coke will feed Africa willfuly omits the entire colonial history of Africa. The political economics and complexities of Africa are so great, I can at least be assured that, no, Nike will not feed the hungry. If anything, it will perpetuate a system which is eating Africa and the world. Your other, idea about small seed businesses is much better as long as no conditions or ideologies are attached to the deal.  ------------------------------------------------ "No power to force anything? They have money. Follow the money, Roth. By the way, private companies now do have their own armies..." I think you're ignoring my example of the U.S. Civil War. I will re-quote my statements-- "Another good example...is the U.S. Civil War. That entire war was instigated when Northern PTB elements sought to impose a huge 50% tariff on Southern merchants/PTB. Because of their parasitic attachment and control over the US government and the politicians they had bought off...the Northern PTB were successful in having this tariff imposed on the South. O the Times they have a-changed.  Think about it--- In the absence of centralized government authority, and without all of the government's 'military' resources, and without the ability to coerce young kids to fight a war to the death....this massive dispute could never have gotten anywhere. Back to the present: they don’t call it the Military-Industrial complex for nothing. Big money. Should government be disbanded, as some theorize might be done soon for whatever emergency reason, our private warmongers like Raytheon, Lockheed and GE will step in with their stock, and you will see the generals switch hats on a dime.  The Pentagon is already Pentagon Inc. only they have not (yet) outright chartered themselves. Right, disband the Pentagon. That’s a building. The Complex is the entire corporate-financial R & D manufacturing spectacle spread out across the country, with various tasks outsourced to the private captains of death who build the best “mousetraps”. How much of their own money would the Northern PTB have spent to pay for mercenaries, before they cut their losses? You would have seen a conflict a thousand times smaller than the huge tragic massacre that ensued. The government's ability to coercively create a 'collective' of military slaves, finances and weaponry set the stage for this evil holocaust." ------------------------------------------ "...you cannot possibly believe that ADM will not use it’s money to buy off landowners or offer them other carrots." So what? If the landowner wants to sell his land or is otherwise satisfied with the "carrots"...that's his business and that's his choice. Where's the problem? Soft coersion. Less land for fewer people, more centralized control.  -------------------------------------------- "Also naïve to think that ADM might not resort to goons with sticks, especially when there is no police, or courts in your world..." Who said Libertarianism doesn't take community security into consideration? Or doesn't cover the issue of judges or arbitrators? In fact, I addressed both issues directly. Maybe you overlooked that. You also seem to have a notion that ADM could perpetrate intimidation similarly to a Mafia-like organization. Yes, actually.  The Mafia only thrives in the shadows of (partially or fully corrupted) government. First, they gain partial (or extensive) control of government agents (police, judges). Then, they are able to count on the citizenry to be disarmed and defenseless, and reluctant to use deadly force because of the ridiculous and immorally prohibitive self-defense restrictions that exist currently. In the absence of government that scenario disappears very quickly. And it is thus ‘all powerful’ government that is able to dismantle a mafia. This IS getting circular.  ------------------------------------------ "You think people will be all self-regulating and fair when stuff and profits and power and control are at stake?" It is interesting that you don't see how your own statement is a spectacularly powerful argument against the idea of bureaucrats (mere humans) who get to be in charge of a government power monopoly. Mentalgonfu rightly reminds us that: “Private companies are full of bureacracy, waste and poor management.”  Meanwhile, I am absolutely NOT relying on businesses to 'self-regulate' . I am relying on their forced accountability to strictly voluntary customers who can switch over to a competing business if they want. That is, if the free market does not somehow learn to reduce choice and competition, as it has over the years due to increased deregulation and hands-off policy of government.  Then you start talking about how folks would opt to patronize a "nicer competitor", except that this nicer business is apt to be gobbled up by a "shark". This is pure gobbledygook. Why? That’s all we’ve seen over the last 100 years when government is forced by big business to step aside.  If the competitor can see that his business is more popular, then nine times out of ten, he'd be inclined to not sell off his business and instead make a killing in the market place. Meanwhile, business volume for the 'shark' continues to drop like a rock...and eventually the nicer business makes the shark an offer it can't refuse. Nice in theory, but that’s gookledygob in reality!  ------------------------------------------- "Question though: who is allowed into this amazing private community? People do come in all shapes, sizes and dispositions" You are misunderstanding the concept. Any individual who lives in a particular community (or regional network of communities) and runs a business there, or has employment there...would have strong motivation to 'play by the rules' and remain in good standing with the rest of the community. Even though it's a voluntary association and he is free to leave...he doesn't want to. This may be where he has built his life. The same goes for ADM's community, however large that community may be. They would have strong motivation to maintain good credit and a solid reputation. I would hope so!  Finally, you say that you agree with my statement about support of a 'government' being strictly voluntary...and with that you have undone all of your previous arguments. You can't have any of the things you are proposing, without a coercive government. Somehow you're not making the connection between your ideas...and the coercion they require.  See my post previous to this one. Final question: Who do you think the “PTB” rely on more for competent, efficient, do-badery: The slow, inefficient, incompetent, bungling government which sometimes, sometimes steps in to halt embarrassing malfeasance? Or the sleek digital world of instant capital.  Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 6/16/06 11:13 am

by **rothbardian** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:14 pm

DreamsEnd-- You make the statement: "...it is the ACTIVE participation of the REPRESSIVE (by any definition) governments which allow the bosses to keep wages low and workers disempowered." Let's be fair about this. I'll answer your question about my "support" of repressive governments if you tell me why you continue to buy food at your local grocery store, even though some of the people who work there are bad people. One guy beats his wife. A couple of them have molested children. Somebody else committed rape. You say you don't know that for a fact. Come on now. You know there are some bad people working there, who have done bad things. Not only that, why do you continue to buy food there, even though some of the food products are provided by Mafia-owned companies, or companies who have critical reliance on cooperation with the Mafia? I could go on and on about your (and my) financial support of bad people. In a 'coercive government'-dominated world, bad people are dominating the market place. I can't even buy my Chrysler van without there being a big fat occultic/luciferian symbol slapped right of the hood of the vehicle (or so my research indicates). The other big problem with your proposal to starve the Chinese people until government bureaucrats see the light of day......it doesn't work. Cuba. Fifty years of freezing the Cuban people out of the world's economy and shoving them down into poverty...and Castro stills sits in his private movie theatre eating caviar. And this has been an embargo with the full backing of the PTB. In terms of getting rid of the repressive Castro dictatorship, denying the Cuban people participation in the world's market place has been a 100% failure. In terms of keeping the Cuban people impoverished, it's been a 100% success. Meanwhile, back in China, entrepreneurs have risen to such prominence that they have somewhat diminished the powers of China's ruling elite. The rulers have been more or less forced to grant much greater freedom. I don't know about the statistics you have clipped and pasted in your post. It sounds terrible. But a 'coercive government'-dominated world is the world we live in...and it's a world libs (and neocons) apparently WANT to live in. It is certainly not MY choice. The other problem here is that (in my experience) libs have been caught with their hand in the Hyperbole 'cookie jar' so many times...there's no credibility left: People are being tortured to death by the thousands, in these slave labor sweat-shop/death camps. Shoes are coming off the factory line with blood splattered all over them. And so on. I keep hearing positive reports also. Countries like Thailand and Malaysia (etc.) have dramatically increased prosperity. Life has improved over all. I previously provided here some quotes of people who are very happy about their employment. So the lib 'wall of propaganda' doesn't help matters, in sorting this all out.

by **Ike Broflovski** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I can't even buy my Chrysler van without there being a big fat occultic/luciferian symbol slapped right of the hood of the vehicle (or so my research indicates).<hr></blockquote> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> Yes, the multinationals would be fine....if they weren't all Luciferians. If it would make you feel better, Roth, I feel sure you could replace the hood ornament with a cross.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Let's be fair about this. I'll answer your question about my "support" of repressive governments if you tell me why you continue to buy food at your local grocery store, even though some of the people who work there are bad people.<hr></blockquote> The difference is, I don't claim my shopping there is an act of charity. I don't shop there to "help" the workers, but because I have needs. We are all part of this big, ugly, corrupt and rotten system...no way out of it unless you live off grid somewhere in montana or something. I do draw some lines, however, whenever possible. Walmart is a symbol...they aren't the only bad guys. By targeting the worst, we hope to send a message to them all. Until the revolution comes (don't worry, we won't have you arrested), they system has us all by the short hairs. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Not only that, why do you continue to buy food there, even though some of the food products are provided by Mafia-owned companies, or companies who have critical reliance on cooperation with the Mafia?<hr></blockquote> I thought only governments were corrupt on a large scale? You mean there can be corruption in a centralized fashion without government? But that would mean....nah. By the way, Somalia hasn't had a government for a decade. How's that working out? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The other big problem with your proposal to starve the Chinese people until government bureaucrats see the light of day......it doesn't work.<hr></blockquote> I didn't propose that. I just said that buying chinese goods supports the chinese government. If you want to argue that we have limited choices, especially on low budgets, about how to get our needs met, this is valid. Many people can't afford to do other than shop at Walmart...I get that. But don't claim that by shopping there you are somehow helping the Chinese people. And you would have to be utterly naive to assume you are fueling capitalist progress free from government interaction. In fact, the irony that you, rothbard the anti-communist libertarian (putting Cuba of all places at the top of your list of repressive governments) would not only shop at a place that gets their goods from government controlled sweatshops and even prison labor...but from COMMUNIST (sic) CHINA! You, the guy who says Marx is a tool of the Illuminati and the communist movement simply an elaborate banker plot, dare to shop at a company that imports CHINESE goods, enriching the very "communists" themselves. No, please don't misunderstand. I really do get that people of low income can't be judged for refusing to buy all organic veggies or hemp shirts. That stuff is expensive. That's not the point. The point is that they aren't claiming that they do this to benefit the poor, starving Chinese workers. And the even sadder point is, that if these low income folks ban together in a union, say, to ask Walmart for redress of grievances, you'd suggest THEY were the problem and now WALMART. Just go work somewhere else, you would cry...despite the fact that one of the main grievances against WALMART is they drive other business away from the communities they are in. And yes, unbridled capitalism does increase "prosperity" when countries in semi-feudal states move into that stage of development. You'll be happy to know that you and Marx agree on this. As I said before, Marx felt capitalism is a part of the historical process...and an improvement over the feudalistic economies. More people get access to property of their own. The power base expands...a bit. However, it doesn't extend to the whole country...and the drive will ultimately turn into a process of wealth concentration. Concentrated wealth, with or without government = power. Walmart can operate at a loss in some community till its competitors can't keep up. Drive out the competition, do whatever the hell you want after that. so, we agree that capitalism will lead to material benefits. However, history is quite clear that the benefits don't spread out to everyone and that concentration of wealth and the coercive government controlled by that wealth both operate to keep it that way. If government isn't available, the mafia will do fine...as will "warlords". This doesn't even take into account large powerful corporations coming into small, lesser developed countries and buying up the place. And calling facts presented here the "hyperbole cookie jar" would at least merit some counter information, no? "Did too...did not" doesn't really get us anywhere. I think back to the "Dark Ages" of Europe. No governments, really, but lots of little kingdoms, feuding with each other and killing each others peasants. It took some consolidation of power to bring some level of stability..via the church and larger kingdoms. Not advocating monarchy...but that all grew up organically (with lots of bloodshed to get it sorted out)...no one sat down and said, "Let's have a king here and here, and then we'll hire some Lords who can have some vassals, etc." And with about 95% of the land in the hands of about 2% of the population...not much room to move up. OH...and they all had their own "armies" (knights) to boot. Just paid them with grants of land, etc. That's a lot of history to review and decide if the absence of centralized government, on its own, leads us to Utopia. Lord of the Rings mythology aside, I'm gonna have to go with "no" on that question.

by **rothbardian** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:53 pm

I wasn't able to make heads or tails out of a dozen or so, of Gouda's responses to my responses. At one point he had strung a bunch of my statements into a full paragraph, as though they in themselves constituted some kind of powerful rebuttal. I have no clue what was going on there. I had made an illustration regarding the Civil War and the response was something like-"That was a long time ago"?? The equation "2+2=4" was worked out a long time ago also. You could substitute any war for this analogy. Just fill in the blank. The point being that without Other People's Money to spend, the PTB are shut down. I think that's why Gouda and a handful of others have slunk away from the Civil War illustration (I have used this a number of times before)-- it becomes too painfully obvious that these guys wouldn't have spent their own money. And therefore if there had been no centralized state, 600,000 boys would not have died. Fill in the blank-- the Iraq war is the exact same scenario. What is it?-- Two billion dollars a month? From a financial standpoint, Iraq would be a complete and utter fiscal disaster. The war in Iraq has happened only because the costs of the invasion are entirely borne by taxpayers...by Other People's Money. The PTB are completely and totally reliant on Other People's Money and/or the funny money cranked out by the cranks over at the Federal Reserve. If the PTB had to spend only there own money for all of their psychopathic shenanigans worldwide...they'd run out of money in a month. In fact, I am certain they wouldn't be so dumb as to reduce themselves to pennilessness. They would be forced to invest their capital in something that would create profit. DreamsEnd-- I just have to reiterate what I think is the irrefutable evidence from the Cuba scenario...which is that 1) cutting poor people out of the market place in order to 'get at' the unjust elites behind them, is an absolute 100% failure. And it is a failed strategy that punishes the poor who live under these elites. If the PTB lifted the embargo against Cuba, and they were able to bring successful products into the American market...even if there was a completely unbalanced "99 to 1" profit sharing ratio (99% for Castro 1% for the people) I would be thankful for the opportunity to contribute in some small way to a lifting of these poor folk. As even Gouda inadvertently acknowledged (in the midst of 'yelling' at me, at one point), my patronization is putting, at the very least, food in their mouths. I am feeding these people, at a minimum (even according to the skewed depictions of the liberal mainstream). Would I rather see a 50/50 deal? Of course. But we would need to see the end of the Castro regime, and all the other regimes that protect big business. You were also saying that you'd rather place your bets with the current status quo of centralized government. I just don't understand that mindset. We're on the brink of worldwide totalitarianism. It would seem that almost anything different than what we currently have, would be a welcome change. As a final thought, here is a quote from Steve Molyneux (of lewrockwell.com) that makes a powerful point: "Two objections constantly recur whenever the subject of dissolving the State arises. The first is that a free society is only possible if people are perfectly good or rational. In other words, citizens need a centralized State because there are evil people in the world." "The first and most obvious problem with this position is that if evil people exist in society, they will also exist within the State – and be far more dangerous thereby. Citizens are able to protect themselves against evil individuals, but stand no chance against an aggressive State armed to the teeth with police and military might." "Thus the argument that we need the State because evil people exist is false. If evil people exist, the State must be dismantled, since evil people will be drawn to use its power for their own ends – and, unlike private thugs, evil people in government have the police and military to inflict their whims on a helpless (and usually disarmed!) population." <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux4.html">www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux4.html</a> mentalgongfu-- I'll try to get to a response (if you're interested) in a short while. I appreciate your non-insulting style (DE also). I truly enjoy a no-nonsense conversation that just gets down to the subject matter. dugoboy--ditto.

by **professorpan** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:57 pm

Pearls before swine....

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:11 am

Roth A1"It's about the fact that there are vastly greater numbers of people (myself included) who can contribute financially to these poor people...if we are enabled to do so by simply giving them our business. And I have to wonder out loud what kind of (inadvertently?) condescending view you might have on the various peoples of the world such that you think they would be placated by...chickens and goats?" A1"They would like access to the entire array of 'high' technology items that have made our lives so much easier, more practical, more efficient, more comfortable and more enjoyable. These people would like a position in the world's marketplace. You think they want to be sent back to the Stone Age, so they can...milk a goat? To me that is an amazingly low view." B"But if there are carefully developed plans out there, I am actually very, very interested in the idea of helping Third World families get set up in a self-sustaining business. A seed investment to set somebody up like that is a very satisfying approach to 'charitable giving'. I have a friend who has started (and then sold off) a number of businesses, who is trying to set up a 'connections' website, where people can click on photos of a family or individual, their backstory, the type of business they would like to start, and the amount of investment required." Here's a challenge to you mate. Go here: <a href="http://www.unahi.org/index.htm" target="top">Put up or shut up</a> And buy the CD, then you get something. I get no financial anything out of this BTW, but I know people in that tribe, and I believe in their cause. Those quotes with an A1 next to them are some of the most condescending neo colonialist bullshit I have ever read, but I genuinely think they come from ignorance not malice. The mob I linked you too are not interested in the global market place, and are basically fighting to keep it out. Why? - because to them the forest is home, meaning and life. To the global marketplace it is a resource to be exploited, and even today they are fighting logging interests and mining interests. They are not interesting in being able to interact with the world, except on a cultural, non market based level. If members of the tribe want to live in the west they leave, through choice and with blessings. And are always welcome back. They see the consequences of our culture on their home. They don't want it in there, and fair enough too. Our culture is a poisoned chalice to people like them. They are forever having family members murdered by mining and logging interests, their reforestation projects attacked by the same. Crops destroyed and Blah blah blah. Your CD will pay for the replanting of 20 seedlings in degraded logged out former forest. Other money for the purchase of land titles to create a buffer zone around whats left of their forest. Their nurseries are hidden in the jungle because the forces of Global Capital, the ones you champion, wish to destroy their livelihoods. To remove them from the source of their life, independance and own (subsistance based) economy will leave them in the same powerless poverty trap that so many throughout SE Asia are struggling to climb out of. That might enable some in our culture to feel good about the pittance we send their way contributing to their weekly food budget, but really ... So you - Roth, and the rest of you, thats my challange, you wanna fight tyranny, sacrifice something that matters to you, less than a days wages would do so much. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=joehillshoist>Joe Hillshoist</A> at: 6/18/06 11:31 pm

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:43 am

No comment Roth, I hope thats just cos I'm an impatient prick, and you are offline.

by **rothbardian** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:20 pm

Mr. Joe-- You're right. I've been offline. I wanterd to first make a few comments to mentalgongfu. Maybe I can scrape together some remarks after that, later today. mentalgongfu-- You had felt I missed your point and thus made the following comment: "...the point, is that it doesn't matter if the power is held by an appointed board of directors of a private corporation or a small group of elected citizens in a community." I thought I did address that. Let me reiterate-- There is a HUGE difference between the two. This "small group of elected citizens" (as you refer to them), including the mayor...have a full police force of gun-toting bureaucrats. By use of force, up to and including deadly force, they coerce 'community members' into coughing up tax payments....and all other kinds of scams and injustice, including the aforementioned "eminent domain" scenario. Walmart or ADM cannot arrest me, put me in jail or take my son off to war, nor can they tax me. Are we misunderstanding each other here, somehow? I'm not sure where the confusion could possibly lie. There is absolutely no comparison between a coercive, gun-toting government...and Walmart et al. Maybe you could clarify where your concern lies. And I don't know how Iraq is a good example of your arguments. Iraq is completely overrun by gun-toting government agents (US and Iraq troops and police officers). Iraq is wall-to-wall government right now. And you will notice that despite this incredibly heavy clamp down by government authorities, there is very little safety being afforded the community, and government agents, whether American or Iraqi, still have not gotten oil, electricity or drinking water production up to Saddam Hussein's levels. Meanwhile, in Somalia (for example) where they have had no government for many years (although that is changing unfortunately), private individuals having been building large parts of the country's infrastructure, strictly on an entrepreneurial basis. Additionally, you briefly describe how the community's water tower scenario might play out, and then you state: "That sounds suspiciously like government to me." I think you may be misunderstanding the scenario: If just one individual jumps at the opportunity to invest and put up this competing water tower, then he will own that tower and charge lower prices. If twenty (or fifty ) community members invest to do so...they are still the "owners', they are still the shareholders...whether or not they hire someone to oversee the project, while they all go back to their respective day jobs (as you described it). There is no danger of employees taking ownership of the project. There is not going to be a 'coercive government' that accidently grows out of this scenario...anymore than the quarterback for the New York Jets is accidently going to take over ownership of the NFL. If the twenty shareholders live in a community of a hundred or a hundred thousand...the remaining residents then would become patrons of this water business. You were also making the comment that it's a "myth" to believe that the private sector has superior efficiency. But if a private business lacks efficiency, it will cease to make a profit and it will go out of business. So...if you've seen inefficient businesses, those are businesses that might be on the way out. Government bureaucracy, in stark contrast, can simply raise taxes if they run out of money. Here in California, we've been complaining for years about two thirds of the $50 billion "education budget" that never make it into the classrooms. It just disappears. That factors out to around $9000 per student. Meanwhile, the schools are squeaking by on $2500. If we were actually getting the full amount, my kids could literally be chauffeured to school in a limousine. It's the usual government rip-off. The rule-of-thumb for any profitable business is about 10% overhead costs. The average government bureaucracy is about 50-60%. There is simply no comparison. Your examples of Haliburton and Enron are interesting. Haliburton isn't a viable business. Is survives strictly on government handouts. If we got rid of centralized government, Haliburton wouldn't exist (unless it converted to a legit business of some kind). And maybe you didn't notice....the nice thing about Enron, unlike the Pentagon or the Department of Education (on and on)...when it did a lousy job, it went out of business. (By the way, Enron was also largely a creature of government...feeding largely on government funny money. When the funny money ran out, Enron died.) When government is a miserable fiscal failure and destroying our children's future security, why aren't we calling for a shutdown of these entities also? As I said before, give me my tax money back (paid to the education budget)...I will hire a tutor for my children and thus will have replaced the government, in four seconds. All the rest of 'government' services are just as easily replaceable.

by **professorpan** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:10 pm

. . . pearls before swine. You can lead a fool to a library, but you can't make him think.

by **Mentalgongfu** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:54 pm

"There is a HUGE difference between the two. This "small group of elected citizens" (as you refer to them), including the mayor...have a full police force of gun-toting bureaucrats." (sorry, i'm not yet logged in, no EZ post) Roth, I think this is where our disconnect begins. It doesn't take a "government" to create a police force, to enable or encourage tyranny. "Walmart or ADM cannot arrest me, put me in jail or take my son off to war, nor can they tax me. Are we misunderstanding each other here, somehow? I'm not sure where the confusion could possibly lie. There is absolutely no comparison between a coercive, gun-toting government...and Walmart et al. Maybe you could clarify where your concern lies." Sure, WalMart could arrest you, or have you arrested, if they wanted. I hate to get into another of these hypotheticals, but . . . . Say there's a guy named Joe. Joe works at Wal Mart. He's a manager. And Joe doesn't like Roth. One day, someone steals a TV. Just picks it up and runs out the door. Joe doesn't know who this guy is, but he looks a lot like his enemy, Roth. So, he blames it on Roth. Tells his boss and the police he got a good look at him, and he's pretty sure it's his neighbor. Even tells them what kind of car he drives. Police arrest Roth. Okay, but if there were no government to enable the arrest, what then? Wal-mart security arrests Roth, sans the middleman, only Roth has no right to trial and will likely be tortured unless he can convince them Joe is full of crap. BTW, I hope you didn't consider my last post "mean." I'm not trying to be. I dont posess the faith you seem to have that the "free market" will right any wrongs in the absence of government. Probably about as much faith as you possess in the government to tell you what you should and shouldn't do. If I had millions of dollars, I could easily hire my own security forces, essentially my own private police, and have them do my bidding. True, as you might point out, if my forces were tyrannical or just pissed off the wrong people, someone could take me or them out, but that's no different in a "free-market" than it is in a coercive government. If anything changes, its only the degree of difficulty, and even then I'm not sure which way it swings. To stick with some of the examples I've used earlier - if I had significant funds, say because I owned the only water tower in a community and made a hefty profit, it would be no complex feat for me to send my paid goons out to instill fear in community members who are trying to start a competing water tower because they're unhappy with my gouging rates. And I'd do it too, ungrateful thirsty bastards. Perhaps we're arguing over definitions. To me, it doesn't matter if the entity holding power is a "government" of five city council members or a single individual who owns a private company - how the power is used and to whose advantage is what matters. How do you view, for example, a tribal community which has its own customs, laws, chiefs, etc., but no formal "government?" Is a cooperative a "government" if it takes a vote, or does it have to be a "coercive government." How does one differentiate between a coercive government and a government "of the people?" (if one can). and so on. My advance apoligies for failing to touch on each of your points, but I feel we're talking in circles and I'd like to figure out the fulcrum of our disagreement. I can agree with many of your principles (i'm no gov't cheerleader) and even follow the logic of some the statements for which you've taken heat on this thread - but why is "government" bad while "private" is good and why is it private can only be bad with governments acting as an enabler?

by **AlanStrangis** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:34 pm

All I got to say is that sure, we could get rid of big centralized gov't, but then the multinational corporations would just fill that void. The vast majority of capital (and people in the upper floors of power) flow freely between "Big Gov" and "Big Biz". Eliminate Big Brother, and Big Sister will pick up the slack, with little real change except for the logos on the riot gear. BTW, Roth the last I checked, the Federal Reserve isn't REALLY a gov't agency, and I have about the same level of faith in the IMF. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:40 pm

>>Perhaps we're arguing over definitions. To me, it doesn't matter if the entity holding power is a "government" of five city council members or a single individual who owns a private company - how the power is used and to whose advantage is what matters. How do you view, for example, a tribal community which has its own customs, laws, chiefs, etc., but no formal "government?" Is a cooperative a "government" if it takes a vote, or does it have to be a "coercive government." How does one differentiate between a coercive government and a government "of the people?" (if one can). << Exactly. the real issue is how closely the aims and aspiration of the "people" are reflected by those in governemnt. And the market is a force that interferes with that feedback relationship. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Say there's a guy named Joe. Joe works at Wal Mart. He's a manager.<hr></blockquote> well you're obviously not talking about this Joe. BTW This Joe would like to go on record that he is: A Not a dog B Never has been C And doesn't need the filth to sort out his issues. All policing is private security, it supports prive liege. BTW This Joe has no dislike for Roth. But he is still waiting for him to respond. the History of Common Law is a bit like the history of the struggle against Prive Liege. Or is exactly like it. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>To stick with some of the examples I've used earlier - if I had significant funds, say because I owned the only water tower in a community and made a hefty profit, it would be no complex feat for me to send my paid goons out to instill fear in community members who are trying to start a competing water tower because they're unhappy with my gouging rates.<hr></blockquote> I would take it one step further and say why would I give that water to any of them anyway. This power is mine and if they want access they have to pay. Why would I give a widow some of that water, it lessens my power, who cares if she is dying of thirst. That isn't my problem. I have done the hard work - built the tower and if they were too weak or stupid to do the same thing they reap their harvest now. Even anarchists recognise some form of governemnt is a neccessary evil, the so called free market is an unnecessary one. Roth perhaps some research into Snowy Hydro and its privatisation would help expand your understanding.

by **Mentalgongfu** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:05 am

I certainly didn't mean to implicate you, Joe Hillshoist. I was talking about this kid I went to school with, Average Joe. I'm sure you know him, or one of his cohorts.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:16 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Meanwhile, in Somalia (for example) where they have had no government for many years (although that is changing unfortunately), private individuals having been building large parts of the country's infrastructure, strictly on an entrepreneurial basis.<hr></blockquote> In case this didn't make you realize where Roths' thinking leads...a few excerpts. I won't put them in blue as evidently that confuses Roth. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Diarrhoeal disease-related dehydration, respiratory infections and malaria are the main killers of infants and young children, together accounting for more than half of all child deaths. Cholera is endemic in Somalia, with the threat of outbreaks recurring annually during the “season” from December to May, when in many crowded communities the pre-conditions are set as a result of critical water shortage.The major underlying causes of diarrhoea are the lack of access to safe water, and poor food and domestic hygiene. In a survey carried out in 2000,(i.e. before those horrible centralization efforts started coming in) it was found that almost a quarter of children aged under five years had diarrhoea in the two weeks preceding the survey—a very high rate. Malnutrition is a chronic problem in all areas, and becomes acute when areas are struck by drought or flood, or where localized conflict flares up, scattering populations. A persistent shortage of food (mainly due to successive droughts and conflicts), low quality diet, poor feeding practices and inadequate home management practices contribute to many children being inadequately nourished. One of the greatest hinderances to girls' enrolment is that traditionally they assist their mothers in bearing the burden of domestic labour and are often sent to work to generate income for the family. Neonatal tetanus and other birth-related problems are a further cause of many infant deaths, while measles and its complications result in widespread illness. Immunization coverage is not yet sufficient to prevent measles outbreaks. Susceptibility to measles is compounded by poor nutrition and transmission is rapid where living conditions are crowded, resulting in a high death rate. Though data are lacking, Somalia is among countries with the highest incidence of tuberculosis in the world. Overcrowded conditions in camps where many displaced people are living , general lack of treatment facilities, poor quality drugs and malnutrition keep tuberculosis as one of the country’s main killer diseases. Inadequate water and sanitation provision cost lives Lack of access to safe water is a striking feature in almost all parts of Somalia. Probably less than 1 in every 5 households has reliable access to safe water throughout the year. A result of erratic rainfall patterns which are responsible for both droughts and floods, this climatic causation has been compounded by the destruction and looting of water supply installations during the civil war, by depredation during continuing conflicts, and through the general lack of maintenance of existing infrastructure. Less than 50 per cent of the population of Somalia lives in households with sanitary means of excreta disposal. Poor hygiene and environmental sanitation are major causes of diseases such as cholera among children and women. The impact of poor environmental sanitation is particularly felt in the cities, towns, large villages, and other places where people are living in close proximity to each other with waste disposal adjacent to dwellings. Lack of garbage collection facilities is another factor affecting the urban environment and polluting water sources, along with the proliferation of plastic refuse bags. Progress Some dynamic progress has however been made in the field of health. In the last two years, Somalia has stepped up its polio eradication drive as part of the global polio eradication effort. No cases of the wild polio virus have been reported since October 2002 and there is hope that in the next two years Somalia may be certified polio free if no more cases are reported. <hr></blockquote> So, it must be the entrepreneurs leading the vaccination efforts, I assume. Well, not unless you count WHO and UNICEF in that category. Of course, surely the polio vaccines are only a ploy to slowly poison them. And the propaganda about water is just to lure them into accepting fluoridation. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>in Somalia (for example) where they have had no government for many years (although that is changing unfortunately),<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> although that is changing unfortunately<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>although that is changing unfortunately<hr></blockquote> Maybe it's just because Roth isn't buying enough shoes from Walmart. Full report on Somalia is <a href="http://www.unicef.org/somalia/index.html">here.</a> By the way, there is actually some government complicity in all this. US, of course. The CIA has been funding the warlords. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been funnelling more than $100,000 a month to warlords battling Islamist militia in Somalia, according to a Somalia expert who has conferred with the groups in the country. The U.S. operation, which former intelligence officials say is aimed at preventing emergence of rulers who could provide al Qaeda with a safe haven akin to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, appeared to be seriously set back on Monday when an Islamic coalition claimed control of Mogadishu.<hr></blockquote> More <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=831732006">here.</a> Get the reason? To prevent the emergence of RULERS. They don't want a centralized government either...at least not an Islamic one. Now, I'm no fan of that Taliban, but with the CIA actively working to prevent a centralized government from forming, we have a sick and twisted laboratory to check out Roth's hypothesis. Please note the that the problems listed above, tied to things like lack of potable water, are not a result of what the CIA warlords are DOING...it's what the warlords are PREVENTING from happening, namely for a stable and secure government to build an infrastructure.

How To Fight Tyranny.

Re: Response

Boycott...everything!

Re: Boycott...everything!

Re: Boycott...everything!

Other People's Money

Re: Other People's Money

Re: Other People's Money

Re: Other People's Money

comments to mentalgongfu

Cast not. . . .

comments to rothbardian

yin and yang

Re: comments to rothbardian

yo joe

Re: comments to rothbardian

Who is online