Pope wants “World Political Authority”, aka New World Order

Page 5 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

16 Jan 2010, 9:05 pm

Orwell wrote:
Well, I for one appreciate the interstate highway system, local utilities, law enforcement, fire department, public education (flawed as it is), public funding for scientific research which has immeasurable benefits in the long run, public health efforts, etc etc etc.

When I meant intrusion I meant victimless crimes. Property taxes. Economic regulations. Substance prohibitions.
Don't name a few agencies that run poorly and attempt to legitimize their function, they are still being funded with extorted money, I myself don't agree with that principle, you do.
Even if they ran better I would oppose their method of funding.


Orwell wrote:
State violence is also on a sharp decline, and the more we cooperate with (and perhaps unite with) other countries, the less inter-national conflict there will be.

State unity has only served to invade others.
I don't say we don't unite, we should, trade openly and freely, just not unite politically, militaristically.


Orwell wrote:
I'm pessimistic about humans, I'm somewhat more optimistic about the future. Of course I know utopia is impossible, that is why I accept the necessary evils of government involvement.

But wouldn't you advocate something where reason rules over brute force?
After all, you talk to people trying to make a better world for you and them, you are affecting the future. In what way you want to affect the future is up to you. If you want to advocate more of the same, you aren't making much of a change then.


Orwell wrote:
Stronger to provide a good standard of living to all its citizens. If, say, Florida and the Midwest were separate countries and used tariffs to gain revenue, Midwesterners wouldn't be able to afford as many oranges and Floridians wouldn't be able to afford as much bread (just a simple example). Also, many government roles may have an economy of scale, so we don't need to duplicate efforts in Ohio and Florida when one entity can take care of some things for both.

Your example of oranges and bread shows that you don't understand how prices are set.
Prices are not objective phenomena to be observed under a microscope.
Tariffs are a scam. Prices are to be decided in the marketplace by the bid and offer of the provider and the consumer, not in govt buildings with 40+ yr old men making laws, trying to profit in return of no production whatsoever.


Orwell wrote:
Sure it does. It's quite unlikely that one part of a country would seceded without feeling antagonism and hostility to the other part.

Ask yourself why people would not like secession and you wont agree with them.


Orwell wrote:
The only way to opt out of the social contract is to emigrate and renounce your citizenship. I wouldn't see any reason to attach any epithets to you for that choice.

At the moment that is what you can do, but people like me are trying to educate others so that more choices can be possible. You can't keep conforming for ever, don't you see they will take more advantage of you then?
The State keeps growing, politics keeps corrupting, because people are not on top of it, and they shouldn't, that is too much work. They should remove this cancer altogether, treating the symptoms have not worked.


Orwell wrote:
The government holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. That is why they can show up to collect taxes but you can not mug me, even if you use the money taken from me for my own benefit.

What legitimizes them?
The compliant majority.
Democracy, mob rule.
Not forgetting the fact that people are conditioned to support it. Public schools, MSM, the society around them... A kid is born unto this world and sees everyone doing it, he will emulate. But I personally see that emulation in this case causes more harm than good. We could be better and we are not going to be better until we stop legitimizing this backwards way of dealing with things(even if we don't see it while we are alive, we must try because this is how humanity evolves, through the presentation and adoption of ideas).


Orwell wrote:
I suggest that without a government acting as an arbiter, you would be extorted in far worse ways than you are currently.

You need to know how supply and demand works(you probably already know, but maybe you don't trust it).
When you own a business and you extort and scam people your clientele will decrease.
In a free market not only could extortion be stopped faster and more efficiently but it can allow for private courts to issue verdicts. The court with fair verdicts will form good reputation of itself, people will request their arbitration, voluntarily. (This is not going to make sense unless you stop thinking that humanity will always be the way it is today in this your era)


Orwell wrote:
I have enough libertarian leanings that I don't force others to live as I live. But everyone has to recognize that they have a least a marginal responsibility for the benefits they gain by living in society.

When I said that I was referring to the fact that you approve of the State when they perpetrate its legal extortion to fund itself.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Jan 2010, 10:03 pm

What seems to be missing is the understanding that property as such is an arrangement of the state and without the state there is no guarantee of ownership of anything unless it is defended by violence. If you dislike the way the state handles ownership, try living in a continuously violent social situation.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

16 Jan 2010, 11:07 pm

Sand wrote:
What seems to be missing is the understanding that property as such is an arrangement of the state and without the state there is no guarantee of ownership of anything unless it is defended by violence. If you dislike the way the state handles ownership, try living in a continuously violent social situation.


Not so. Property ownership is an inalienable right. The state exists to SECURE that right to the individual. The state has since made moves to say that it owns all and people only have tenant interests in land.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

16 Jan 2010, 11:50 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
Sand wrote:
What seems to be missing is the understanding that property as such is an arrangement of the state and without the state there is no guarantee of ownership of anything unless it is defended by violence. If you dislike the way the state handles ownership, try living in a continuously violent social situation.


Not so. Property ownership is an inalienable right.


Try practicing your inalienable right in say,.. somalia. You can even have a bunch of guns.

Think you'll succeed?


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

17 Jan 2010, 12:34 am

ASPER wrote:
When I meant intrusion I meant victimless crimes. Property taxes. Economic regulations. Substance prohibitions.

Fair points, at least on the victimless crimes and substance prohibitions. You won't see me claiming that our government is perfect.

Quote:
Don't name a few agencies that run poorly and attempt to legitimize their function, they are still being funded with extorted money, I myself don't agree with that principle, you do.
Even if they ran better I would oppose their method of funding.

Would you prefer to not have functional roads? I'm rather fond of the aqueduct.

Quote:
State unity has only served to invade others.

Empirically false.

Quote:
I don't say we don't unite, we should, trade openly and freely, just not unite politically, militaristically.

Why do you assumed politically=militaristically? If anything, economic unity is more likely to bring military unity. Nations disregard their treaty obligations from time to time, but seldom do you see someone ditch an investment partner.

Quote:
But wouldn't you advocate something where reason rules over brute force?

Which is why I do not promote anarchism.

Quote:
Your example of oranges and bread shows that you don't understand how prices are set. Prices are not objective phenomena to be observed under a microscope.

It was a simplified example, as I noted when I made it. I assure you I have studied at least as much economics as you have, probably more, and I have a reasonable understanding of how prices are set. Larger markets increase efficiency, and markets are smaller when people are divided.

Quote:
Tariffs are a scam.

Sorry, I think I had you confused with someone else who was advocating replacing income tax with tariffs.

Quote:
politics keeps corrupting,

Somehow I don't think politics is any more corrupt than it was 100-150 years ago.

Quote:
When you own a business and you extort and scam people your clientele will decrease.

Only if you suck at PR.

Quote:
The court with fair verdicts will form good reputation of itself, people will request their arbitration, voluntarily.

Or, courts will get a reputation for tending to rule a certain way, both sides will recognize this and seek a court that is likely to rule in their favor, and you will not get both sides of a case to agree on a mutually acceptable court and the situation will be resolved with violence.

Quote:
(This is not going to make sense unless you stop thinking that humanity will always be the way it is today in this your era)

Then it doesn't make sense. Humanity has always been the same, will always be the same. We don't need any "New Communist Men." You can ask me to stop thinking that the sky is blue, or that acceleration is directly proportional to force and inversely proportional to mass, but that doesn't change the fact that it is true.

Quote:
When I said that I was referring to the fact that you approve of the State when they perpetrate its legal extortion to fund itself.

What other way do you want the state to fund itself? The alternatives to the state all suck.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

17 Jan 2010, 2:13 am

Orwell, with self governance(anarchism) and a free market economy, do you even agree on principle?



ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

17 Jan 2010, 2:15 am

Sand wrote:
What seems to be missing is the understanding that property as such is an arrangement of the state and without the state there is no guarantee of ownership of anything unless it is defended by violence. If you dislike the way the state handles ownership, try living in a continuously violent social situation.


And how does the State defend property?
Isn't it with violence too?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

17 Jan 2010, 2:51 am

ASPER wrote:
Orwell, with self governance(anarchism) and a free market economy, do you even agree on principle?

Do I agree with anarchism? Certainly not. I am, however, in favor of free market economics.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

17 Jan 2010, 3:15 am

Orwell wrote:
ASPER wrote:
Orwell, with self governance(anarchism) and a free market economy, do you even agree on principle?

Do I agree with anarchism? Certainly not. I am, however, in favor of free market economics.

(What "anarchism" really means should remain nondebatable at this time)
Anarchism was put in parentheses, self governance was the concept I asked you about, if you agreed with it on principle.

You are in favor of a free market economy... Then you agree that the State should stay completely out of it?
(Because that is what free market economics is all about).



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

18 Jan 2010, 12:40 am

ASPER wrote:
(What "anarchism" really means should remain nondebatable at this time)
Anarchism was put in parentheses, self governance was the concept I asked you about, if you agreed with it on principle.

I responded to "anarchism" because you were attempting a cheap backdoor redefinition. You'll have to clarify what you mean by "self governance" if you want to ask about that.

Quote:
You are in favor of a free market economy... Then you agree that the State should stay completely out of it?
(Because that is what free market economics is all about).

Ah, but that is not what free market economics is all about. The State is necessary to provide the framework in which capitalism can even exist. The State can not exist without taxes. Thus, the State must collect taxes, which at least according to your interpretation constitute interference in the market. The problem is that you are taking an extremely narrow definition of free market economics, to the point that no conceivable system matches your definition.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

18 Jan 2010, 2:15 am

Orwell wrote:
ASPER wrote:
(What "anarchism" really means should remain nondebatable at this time)
Anarchism was put in parentheses, self governance was the concept I asked you about, if you agreed with it on principle.

I responded to "anarchism" because you were attempting a cheap backdoor redefinition. You'll have to clarify what you mean by "self governance" if you want to ask about that.

Quote:
You are in favor of a free market economy... Then you agree that the State should stay completely out of it?
(Because that is what free market economics is all about).

Ah, but that is not what free market economics is all about. The State is necessary to provide the framework in which capitalism can even exist. The State can not exist without taxes. Thus, the State must collect taxes, which at least according to your interpretation constitute interference in the market. The problem is that you are taking an extremely narrow definition of free market economics, to the point that no conceivable system matches your definition.



Self governance means no State doing anything to affect your life.
It means that we are so responsible and ethical that we have no need for a State.
Seeking solutions through reasoning and open debate rather than through politicians.
Do YOU agree with that, just in principle at least?



Free market means it lacks regulation, it is "free" because only supply and demand regulate it.
If it is regulated one bit, by an institution such as the State, then it is regulated, therefore not free.
What you might favor is a less regulated market, thus "Market Liberalism".
This is not an 100% free market, thus not a free market.
And if you still say that YOURS is a free market and mine is not, then what would you call mine?



ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

18 Jan 2010, 2:17 am

You might want to take a look before you respond:
Free Market
Market Liberalism



ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

18 Jan 2010, 2:18 am

Market Economy
Market Anarchism


(I couldn't post all 4 links together, it was telling me that ~to prevent spam my computer is being denied access to this page~)