Dealing with ultra-libertarian idiocy?

[Ghost Rider]

Grah. Thinko. Allowance, not alliance.

Stop spamming. You made your point to the moron.

[Covenant]

I'm also amused by the idea of security companies not sharing information with each other. If SecCorp is unable to get into a community patrolled by IronGuard Security, then how are they to investigate the murder? IronGuard may even know that it would be in their best interest not to let in SecCorp--if they just stonewall for a few weeks, SecCorp will call the claim no longer financially reasonable and default, saying they've expended their required amount of assets on the problem and not found a lead. IronGuard then gains credibility for being a good, high-security company (same way that Journalists gleefully go to prison to protect a source) and continue to make money off the rich dilletante strangler living in their city. Certainly not a preferable solution, but the market doesn't enforce scruples. If I know that my company can even protect murderers from being prosecuted, I know that's the firm I want--especially so that if someone else with it harasses me, I know they'll get that guy to keep me paying for them.

For that matter, if SecCorp has a suspect (or a suspect location), how would they even get a search warrant in order to investigate? After all, when you come down to it, a search warrant is authorization to infringe on someone's property on the basis of suspicion of wrongdoing (supported suspicion, but still not conclusive proof, since A) whether it's conclusive or not is only determined at trial, and B) if you have conclusive proof you don't need the warrant) - something this society should view as heresy. Yet without it, SecCorp would inevitably be forced to violate the law in the course of their investigation - unless they have some sort of immunity. The downsiedes of such immunity should be obvious.

You know, that's a good question. I suppose a search would be the infringement of a property right. It's possible that SecCorp would need to pay the owners of the property to search it, for the annoyance and loss of time there, and possibly to put things back where they're supposed to be (like a maid service to clean it up). It's also possible that since these searches are voluntary and non-compulsary, that nobody would be able to violate the "Man's Home Is His Castle" doctrine without fear of death from the defensive rights-minded property owner.

[Satori]

Explain to the lobotomians what a "no true scotsman" fallacy is and tell them to stop making them or GTFO.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What seems to be implicit in these later attempts to justify libertarianism is the curious notion that an individual being under the direction and guidance of another (Euphemistically called "slavery") is a priori wrong, instead of attempting to evaluate the benefits v. drawbacks to the person of that condition.

Now, I have my own weird political theories, but most important and relevant among them is the idea that the state is an organic whole, of which individuals are mere components. And to be the "slave" of this state is no better nor worse than for your cells to be the "slaves" of your body. All are interdependent, and together all prosper, and with good reason. Individualism is certainly the greatest triumph of inane, narcissistic flattery in western civilization.

[Darth Wong]

Little-known trivia fact: Albert Einstein thought that some type of command economy would be necessary in the long-term future. Needless to say, this particular aspect of his writings has been largely ignored in the West, even as we breathlessly quote his other opinions.

[K. A. Pital]

Einstein in his article "On Socialism":

It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."

Someone as short-sighted as MartianHoplite may not realize that hidden external investment into his puny existence has already been made for hundreds of years by the hated "government" and dreaded "society" which have instituted policies that raised the level of education, sufficience of humans in food and cloth, and collected and preserved innumerous knowledge, like language and other things, in their vast databanks which M-H is eagerly using to his own end. And he thinks neither all the prior work of governments to get MartianHoplite and the whole society out of the shithole they were it, neither all present work to allow him to sustain himself, aren't worth any compensation.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration.

A right-on-spot indictment of such douches as our libertarian friend. He's pretty conscious that he's dependent on the society and already spent massive investment funds into his own self, which were granted to him on economically irrational behaviour (parenting, social support which he ardently seeks to abolish), yet has no qualms about using them to further bolster himself and himself only.

But obviously Einstein is wrong and an evil commie. A university student living on someone else's money knows better.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Now, I have my own weird political theories, but most important and relevant among them is the idea that the state is an organic whole, of which individuals are mere components. And to be the "slave" of this state is no better nor worse than for your cells to be the "slaves" of your body. All are interdependent, and together all prosper, and with good reason. Individualism is certainly the greatest triumph of inane, narcissistic flattery in western civilization.

This is fascism, and is reflected in your very quick to point, "many will have to die" conclusions.

[Darth Wong]

Now, I have my own weird political theories, but most important and relevant among them is the idea that the state is an organic whole, of which individuals are mere components. And to be the "slave" of this state is no better nor worse than for your cells to be the "slaves" of your body. All are interdependent, and together all prosper, and with good reason. Individualism is certainly the greatest triumph of inane, narcissistic flattery in western civilization.

This is fascism, and is reflected in your very quick to point, "many will have to die" conclusions.

Fascism and libertarianism are two extremes of a spectrum. It's not an on/off switch. Every society in practice employs certain methods of centralized command and coercion, and those methods often paradoxically bring greater liberty to the people. That's the old paradox of civilized society: you cannot have freedom without some kind of authority to protect that freedom.

[Kanastrous]

Freedom is Slavery, in exactly the way that O'Brien described it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Fascism and libertarianism are two extremes of a spectrum. It's not an on/off switch. Every society in practice employs certain methods of centralized command and coercion, and those methods often paradoxically bring greater liberty to the people. That's the old paradox of civilized society: you cannot have freedom without some kind of authority to protect that freedom.

I agree with all that; but Marina's claim that individuals are but mere components of an organic state (NOT THE SAME AS SOCIETY OR CULTURE), is sinister.

[K. A. Pital]

I agree with all that; but Marina's claim that individuals are but mere components of an organic state (NOT THE SAME AS SOCIETY OR CULTURE), is sinister.

If she's a monarchist-traditionalist, that is only natural. The tsar is the state, and the state also is equivalent to the society. That's wrong, of course, since the state is an instrument of society's self-regulation which takes people employed by the society to run the economy and politico-legal issues, but finer distinctions of state and society were often abscent in monarchist states of old, as you may know.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I would say that true stateless societies, where there is no compelled social organization, are nearly a myth. It assumes people are free to leave—and freedom of movement was never feasible before relatively modern times where you became less dependant on groups for your own personal survival. If you’re not free to leave a group, you’re beholden to obey its systems. And thus a state is merely just a greater degree of organization among those who have already formed rule-based social groupings, with an agreed upon set of rules.

This is a point I tried to make early on in the thread. Libertarianism seems to regard social organization and collective compulsion as an external force applied to unwilling individuals, which is completely false. Governance (by which I mean the state of being controlled by a larger body) is as much a part of human nature as sexual attraction.

Also I'd tend to object to some posts earlier in the thread that portrayed relatively primitive forms of governmental organization like feudalism as being essentially the same as extortion enterprises. Theoretically this is a fair way to characterize feudalism, but in practice the situation was much more complex. People these days have a tendency to look at feudalism too simplistically; in fact serfs had a number of important rights and the nobility had a lot of fetters on their authority, and townspeople were even more independent.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Fascism and libertarianism are two extremes of a spectrum. It's not an on/off switch. Every society in practice employs certain methods of centralized command and coercion, and those methods often paradoxically bring greater liberty to the people. That's the old paradox of civilized society: you cannot have freedom without some kind of authority to protect that freedom.

I agree with all that; but Marina's claim that individuals are but mere components of an organic state (NOT THE SAME AS SOCIETY OR CULTURE), is sinister.

In some sense you're right, since multiple cultures can be directed under one government very successfully, for extreme periods of time. However, the usual way this was successfully done was by associating a series of totally different government organizations under a single person. Therefore, no, I don't think monarchism is required for the healthy functioning of a unified socio-cultural group. Rather, I think monarchism is necessary as the unifying element of a collection of such groups, i.e., that multiethnic states only function based on personal relationships as found in feudal monarchies. We can see this is the case due to the fact that the breakup of multiethnic states has happened coterminus to the end of traditional monarchy. This may or may not be a bad thing, but if you wish to have a multiethnic state, the bonds of personal loyalty in feudal governance appear to be the only way to manage it.

[Junghalli]

However, we should never regard this as anything other than what it is; the kindness and charity of individuals. It is not an obligation that should be enforced through the coercive power of the state.

So in other words "I should have the right to watch another man starve in front of me while I throw food in the garbage, if I so desire."

You're a callous asshole. Thank you for showing your true colors.

[Junghalli]

I agree with all that; but Marina's claim that individuals are but mere components of an organic state (NOT THE SAME AS SOCIETY OR CULTURE), is sinister.

Indeed, it's exactly the sort of ideology that Starship Troopers gets (rightfully) bashed for. It's a profoundly anti-humanist theory, holding that individuals exist to serve the state and not the other way around.

[Darth Wong]

I agree with all that; but Marina's claim that individuals are but mere components of an organic state (NOT THE SAME AS SOCIETY OR CULTURE), is sinister.

Indeed, it's exactly the sort of ideology that Starship Troopers gets (rightfully) bashed for. It's a profoundly anti-humanist theory, holding that individuals exist to serve the state and not the other way around.

That's not the same thing as Starship Troopers. The idea that individuals are organic components of a larger living organism is a statement of fact, and not necessarily an endorsement of any particular totalitarian governmental structure. The government of Starship Troopers does not follow logically from that premise.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Rather, I think monarchism is necessary as the unifying element of a collection of such groups, i.e., that multiethnic states only function based on personal relationships as found in feudal monarchies.

Eh, there are observable alternatives.

One is to subsume different ethnicities under a larger cultural identification, as in melting pot states like the USA or Brazil. It's likely, however, that the replacement of ethnic labels by American identity was only made possible by the physical removal of the immigrants from their Old Country. Had their homeland been incorporated (even willingly) into a larger state they would have maintained old identities indefinitely, as was the case with the Habsburgs. In the USA, the multicultural patchwork still exists, just under a blanket of American sentiment.

Another possibility is the preponderance of a "super-ethnicity" like Han Chinese, the sheer population of whom renders every other ethnic group in China a mote by comparison and allows them to undertake projects like what is being done presently in Tibet. There won't even be a "Tibet" inside of ten years.

Finally, there's the example of India, which is a multi-ethnic republic if there ever was one, and which shows no serious signs of fracture. Personally I'm not sure how to explain that one. Would you have a go?

[Kanastrous]

Yeah. We I think in the film we wound up over-emphasizing the fascistic feel of the Starship Troopers future, over what's really there in the book.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah. We I think in the film we wound up over-emphasizing the fascistic feel of the Starship Troopers future, over what's really there in the book.

The book understated the fascistic nature of its proposed governmental system, compared to how it would work in reality.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I think that one of our better historians said about libertarians puts it best.

The last true democracy with a free market for everything from food, to education and medicine was Athens. They were crushed by Spartan Oligarchy in the Pelopaneseian Wars. No one has tried to repeat that mistake since than.- Noam Chomsky

[Junghalli]

Eh, there are observable alternatives?

Don't forget Rome. Sure, it was a monarchy, but it wasn't feudal. It was held together by centralized military power, not a system of local lords with personal loyalty to a king.

For that matter in pretty much all ancient empires military power was what really held the territory together. The local potentates obeyed the emperor primarily because they were afraid of him, not because they loved him.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think that one of our better historians said about libertarians puts it best.

The last true democracy with a free market for everything from food, to education and medicine was Athens. They were crushed by Spartan Oligarchy in the Pelopaneseian Wars. No one has tried to repeat that mistake since than.- Noam Chomsky

Chomsky as usual is simply completely wrong, with the old Greek democracies being far, far more paternalistic than modern ones.

[Patrick Degan]

Rather, I think monarchism is necessary as the unifying element of a collection of such groups, i.e., that multiethnic states only function based on personal relationships as found in feudal monarchies.

Funny, the United States has managed this feat without resort to a king.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Rather, I think monarchism is necessary as the unifying element of a collection of such groups, i.e., that multiethnic states only function based on personal relationships as found in feudal monarchies.

Funny, the United States has managed this feat without resort to a king.

I don't think the United States is succeeding, and I'll readily add Pablo's proviso about how the United States has succeeded in the past (the trend is downward), to the extent that it has, by getting all the people away from their ancestral homelands rather than incorporating them. Note that the biggest failure in integration so far is in the native Americans.

[Patrick Degan]

Rather, I think monarchism is necessary as the unifying element of a collection of such groups, i.e., that multiethnic states only function based on personal relationships as found in feudal monarchies.

Funny, the United States has managed this feat without resort to a king.

I don't think the United States is succeeding

Personal opinion, I'm afraid, is no substitute for extant fact.

and I'll readily add Pablo's proviso about how the United States has succeeded in the past (the trend is downward), to the extent that it has, by getting all the people away from their ancestral homelands rather than incorporating them.

This does not defeat the general observation that a multiethnic society has been built and successfully functions. The present multicultural fad aside, the plain fact is that for all anyone rants about pride in their ethnic backgrounds, none of these people are going to be willing to trade the society they enjoy here in the United States for the Old Country, so they learn to get along with one another each generation.

Note that the biggest failure in integration so far is in the native Americans.

Who constitute only a very tiny minority of the overall population and, again, does not defeat the general observation.