Is there a global power elite that may make traditional governments obsolete?

[Tippit]

Salon.com spin of the encroaching New World Order:



http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/03/14/superclass/index.html

The rise of the superclass

Are Bill Clinton, Rupert Murdoch, the pope and Osama bin Laden part of a new global power elite that may make traditional governments obsolete?



More fragments of truth for JREF "skeptics" to deny or downplay.

[CFLarsen]

Conspiracy Nuts always miss the one crucial thing.

The point is not that there is a group of people with non-democratic power. There is, there has always been, and there will always be, such a group.

The point is that the group constantly change: One day, Bill Gates has a lot of power, the next day Microsoft has crashed. One day, Osama bin Laden is the most feared terrorist leader in the world, the next he is either dead or in prison.

If the group of people really were in control, the people in the group would be constant. Not the case.

Where is Tony Blair today? Busy praying. Where is Bill Clinton? On the lecture circuit. Where is Radovan Karadzic? In jail.

[Tippit]

Conspiracy Nuts always miss the one crucial thing.

The point is not that there is a group of people with non-democratic power. There is, there has always been, and there will always be, such a group.

The point is that the group constantly change: One day, Bill Gates has a lot of power, the next day Microsoft has crashed. One day, Osama bin Laden is the most feared terrorist leader in the world, the next he is either dead or in prison.

If the group of people really were in control, the people in the group would be constant. Not the case.

Where is Tony Blair today? Busy praying. Where is Bill Clinton? On the lecture circuit. Where is Radovan Karadzic? In jail.

Pseudo-skeptical idiots often miss many things, including but not limited to the fact that many of the names of the WEF attendees in Davos, the heads of the councils, round tables, and think-tanks are for all practical purposes immutable. Names like Rothschild and Rockefeller, the patriarchs of corrupt global banking dynasties next to whom the wealth of people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Carlos Slim are pittances.

And of course, if you had bothered to read the article you would realize the author of the book in question is documenting a system run by people that operates above sovereign nations. Mortal limitations dictate that people will change, but this is irrelevant. The contemptible figureheads we know as politicians who attend these meetings merely serve to placate those discontent with the system by being systematically voted out - a meaningless gesture when the system itself remains fully intact.

Downplay, deny.

[Oliver]

Pseudo-skeptical idiots often miss many things, including but not limited to the fact that many of the names of the WEF attendees in Davos, the heads of the councils, round tables, and think-tanks are for all practical purposes immutable. Names like Rothschild and Rockefeller, the patriarchs of corrupt global banking dynasties next to whom the wealth of people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Carlos Slim are pittances.

And of course, if you had bothered to read the article you would realize the author of the book in question is documenting a system run by people that operates above sovereign nations. Mortal limitations dictate that people will change, but this is irrelevant. The contemptible figureheads we know as politicians who attend these meetings merely serve to placate those discontent with the system by being systematically voted out - a meaningless gesture when the system itself remains fully intact.

Downplay, deny.


I live in Europe and despite the guys in the US, there are no Bilderbergs, Rothschilds, Kennedys, Masons, Trilateral Somethings and Hollywood Jews anywhere near our "parliamentary crown jewels".

So leave the Rest of the World out of it. This topic most probably will make you look pretty stupid whenever you are on vacation over here...

[SezMe]

I did not read the whole article, but I think the emphasis is misplaced. It is not Gates or Buffet, et. al. that are worrisome. I am more concerned about faceless global corporate organizations. Many of these corporations are far larger than traditional nation states and wield considerable power. Witness the WTO whose negotiations are not public and whose rules override national laws as just two examples.

But I don't see a shred of an conspiracy here. It is just the normal consequence of the accummulation of wealth and power.

[Oliver]

I did not read the whole article, but I think the emphasis is misplaced. It is not Gates or Buffet, et. al. that are worrisome. I am more concerned about faceless global corporate organizations. Many of these corporations are far larger than traditional nation states and wield considerable power. Witness the WTO whose negotiations are not public and whose rules override national laws as just two examples.

But I don't see a shred of an conspiracy here. It is just the normal consequence of the accummulation of wealth and power.


I can agree with that argument about global corporatism - sometimes bordering conspiracy out of greed. But that's what Tippit is free to vote against in the next election - unless he's forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.

[CFLarsen]

Pseudo-skeptical idiots often miss many things, including but not limited to the fact that many of the names of the WEF attendees in Davos, the heads of the councils, round tables, and think-tanks are for all practical purposes immutable. Names like Rothschild and Rockefeller, the patriarchs of corrupt global banking dynasties next to whom the wealth of people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Carlos Slim are pittances.

And of course, if you had bothered to read the article you would realize the author of the book in question is documenting a system run by people that operates above sovereign nations.

What "system" is that that is so unknown to the general public? People have always "operated" across boundaries, regardless of whether it is sovereign nations or other formations.

Mortal limitations dictate that people will change, but this is irrelevant.

What about the limitations that aren't mortal? What about Osama bin Laden if/when he is caught?

The contemptible figureheads we know as politicians who attend these meetings merely serve to placate those discontent with the system by being systematically voted out - a meaningless gesture when the system itself remains fully intact.

Downplay, deny.

Please list the names of these "immutable" persons: Start with the "patriarchs of corrupt global banking dynasties".

Please explain your solution to all this.

Please explain why you are allowed to divulge this global conspiracy.

[moon1969]

Yes Hamas and Hezbollah are trying to do a NWO and Ramzan Kadyrov and Chechnya is also involved. Chechnya is a secret because you never see it in the news. People in the west will never talk how Russia violates human rights everyday in Chechnya. Chechnya is NWO just look what happend to Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya when they tried to expose what Russia is doing in Chechnya. Ah and maybe Robert Mugabe is also apart of the NWO?

[Cuddles]

Is there a global power elite that may make traditional governments obsolete?

No.



Any other questions?

[geni]

On the national scale no.

In the international scale these is no functioning body that acts like a conventional goverment. For a long time this didn't matter since very few enterties operated beyond the national scale. Now more and more do. With the lack of goverment other power players will have greater freedom to act.

[Travis]

Pseudo-skeptical idiots often miss many things, including but not limited to the fact that many of the names of the WEF attendees in Davos, the heads of the councils, round tables, and think-tanks are for all practical purposes immutable. Names like Rothschild and Rockefeller, the patriarchs of corrupt global banking dynasties next to whom the wealth of people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Carlos Slim are pittances.


I see we are talking about fictitious entities.

When we start talking about things in the real world, let me know.

[SezMe]

In the international scale these is no functioning body that acts like a conventional goverment.
I dispute this by citing the WTO. Unless you want to argue what "conventional" means.

[geni]

I dispute this by citing the WTO. Unless you want to argue what "conventional" means.

How many divisions does it have? How many prision cells?

[Miss_Kitt]

SezMe -- The WTO is an organization that oversees and enforces rules for trade between member states. Its rulings are enforced basically by threatening to expel member nations from the group, thus losing its benefits, if they don't straighten up and fly right. Just as the IOC oversees the Olympics and decides who can compete, and what the drug-testing standards are; and the ISU (International Skating Union) oversees figure skating and speed skating competitions. None of these groups can put people in jail, impound a person or nation's assets, impose limits on travel, interdict immigration or emigration, refer any head of state or individual to a court for criminal charges...not much of a government. WTO is a rules organization, nothing more.

Further, its trade agreements are negotiated by representatives of national governments, and generally have to be ratified by the member governments before they come into effect.

ETA: You will undoubtedly regard this as "downplaying", where as I think of it as "stating actual verifiable facts".

[leonAzul]

On the national scale no.

In the international scale thesethere is no functioning body that acts like a conventional govermentgovernment. For a long time this didn't matter since very few entertiesentities operated beyond the national scale. Now more and more do. With the lack of govermentgovernment other power players will have greater freedom to act.

FIFY

FTR (For The Record)

There is no verifiable extra-national organization. The United Nations exists as a forum for discussion--and disputably for the implementation of the consensus among nations.

Yet there exists a community of persons who are potent.

Either you are carny, or you are rube.

Some of us are ambidextrous ;)

[Tippit]

I see we are talking about fictitious entities.

When we start talking about things in the real world, let me know.

I see that you're just ignorant.

The World's Billionaires
http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/28/0228dynasties_2.html



"Some even believe we (Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure---one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
- David Rockefeller, “Memoirs”, 2002



Rockefeller's name has been a perennial entry on the member lists of the organizations and think tanks that have influenced the New World Order. The fact that you're totally oblivious to this doesn't change reality one iota.

[Hans]

The problem is that you think all these "elite" people think alike and are interested in the same goals, (usually evil ones).

They don't.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The World's Billionaires
http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/28/0228dynasties_2.html


Are you trying to claim that the Rockefeller family fortune puts Bill Gates to shame? Have you seen how much he's worth?

According to your link, the Rockefeller family, as a whole, doesn't even beat any single person in the top 100 wealthiest people in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_billionaires).

So, what's your point again?

[Travis]

I see that you're just ignorant.

The World's Billionaires
http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/28/0228dynasties_2.html


...and where are the ones that put Gates' and Buffett's fortunes to shame?

Rockefeller's name has been a perennial entry on the member lists of the organizations and think tanks that have influenced the New World Order. The fact that you're totally oblivious to this doesn't change reality one iota.

Conspiracies about the Rockefellers? That is sooo 20th century.

[CFLarsen]

I see that you're just ignorant.

The World's Billionaires
http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/28/0228dynasties_2.html



Rockefeller's name has been a perennial entry on the member lists of the organizations and think tanks that have influenced the New World Order. The fact that you're totally oblivious to this doesn't change reality one iota.

Welcome back.

What "system" is that that is so unknown to the general public? People have always "operated" across boundaries, regardless of whether it is sovereign nations or other formations.

What about the limitations that aren't mortal? What about Osama bin Laden if/when he is caught?

Please list the names of these "immutable" persons: Start with the "patriarchs of corrupt global banking dynasties".

Please explain your solution to all this.

Please explain why you are allowed to divulge this global conspiracy.

[dudalb]

...and where are the ones that put Gates' and Buffett's fortunes to shame?



Conspiracies about the Rockefellers? That is sooo 20th century.

Throw in CT's about the Rothschilds in the mix also. Although they are still wealthy, they are not nearly as powerful in the world of banking as they once were.
And they NEVER came close to dominating it.

[Travis]

Throw in CT's about the Rothschilds in the mix also. Although they are still wealthy, they are not nearly as powerful in the world of banking as they once were.
And they NEVER came close to dominating it.

Old Woo dies hard, apparently.

[JimBenArm]

I don't care. Doesn't matter in the least.

Even if this is true, which it isn't except in the overactive imaginations of paranoid idiots, it wouldn't change anything about how I live my daily life. So, BFD.

They want to run the world? Go for it. Just come take care of my crabgrass, and baby, you're in.

[Horatius]

They want to run the world? Go for it. Just come take care of my crabgrass, and baby, you're in.



So you would sell your soul for a lawn mowing service?





Actually, having passed up the best afternoon for after work biking we've had in weeks in favour of mowing my lawn yesterday, I guess I'm right there with you.....

[JimBenArm]

So you would sell your soul for a lawn mowing service?





Actually, having passed up the best afternoon for after work biking we've had in weeks in favour of mowing my lawn yesterday, I guess I'm right there with you.....
Yeah, I'm a cheap whore. Hey, I'd put in AstroTurf if it wasn't so expensive to install. Do that, and not only can you have my soul, I'll throw in my wife's and daughter's as well!

[beeksc1]

Conspiracy Nuts always miss the one crucial thing.
The point is not that there is a group of people with non-democratic power. There is, there has always been, and there will always be, such a group.


Pseudo-skeptical idiots often miss many things, including but not limited to the fact that many of the names of the WEF attendees in Davos, the heads of the councils, round tables, and think-tanks are for all practical purposes immutable. Names like Rothschild and Rockefeller, the patriarchs of corrupt global banking dynasties next to whom the wealth of people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Carlos Slim are pittances.
...
Downplay, deny.

I see that you're just ignorant.

The World's Billionaires
http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/28/0228dynasties_2.html

Rockefeller's name has been a perennial entry on the member lists of the organizations and think tanks that have influenced the New World Order. The fact that you're totally oblivious to this doesn't change reality one iota.

The problem is that you think all these "elite" people think alike and are interested in the same goals, (usually evil ones).

They don't.

Analysis:

Group X: Some people believe that there is nothing that is going on behind the scenes that shape world events.

Group Y: Some people acknowledge that everything that is going on today cannot be from natural causation.

The people who do not acknowledge the hidden agenda love to label the former group "conspiracy nuts".

The fact is that both groups can argue and argue, until they are blue in the face and still not agree with each other. And for the people who deny the clandestine agenda toward a global governing-body, where people only have limited choices, and the outcomes is virtually the same, "Group X" probably does not understand (cannot comprehend) how it got that way.

So, Y shows evidence that indicates the wicked agenda of the elite; X attempts to counteract that by presenting other "evidence". Y analyzes the counter-argument and realizes that "Group X" only takes pieces of the pictures and concludes that there is no hidden agenda. Thus, X labels Y as "conspiracy nuts". And Y is only trying to help spread the truth.

Now, I do not believe that the elite will be successful in their attempts at world domination; yet, to say there is no secret scheme for the governmental, economic, and social elite to forge a new world, where the people are preconditioned to revel in their servitude, is entirely senseless.

Even though government is considered an necessary evil, the government itself is not the primary entity that is responsible; bad leaders have infiltrated our governments and are using them as tools against the people.

Even (mainstream) Lou Dobbs acknowledges that something is terribly wrong. But, this concept of conspiracy is not a phenomena of the 20th century. Many "civilizations" have sought-after world domination. Egyptians did it; Romans tried it; Italy tried to lead it; Germany tried to head it. (And I am probably forgetting before and in between.)

That is, to have full understanding of a certain phenomena, a person must think like another group, and try to consider all other possibilities. And one of the most notable findings of the behavioral sciences is that many people shape their world view from the way that they would behave; i.e., the masses construct their world-view from their shoes and their shoes only.

For example, many of the people who do not believe in a clandestine (quasi-hidden) agenda for world domination, most of those people likely arrived that their conclusion by a similar mentality as this one: "I would never be in cahoots with "high-society" people and big business, so to control the masses and shape public affairs, so it only benefits the elite. And because I would do something as such, it cannot be true that other people are doing that."

And what is just illustrated is most often not a conscious process, those who think that way, are unaware they have shaped their mentality in that fashion. It is a mental defense (defense mechanism).

So, retrospective evaluation of history, all perspectives, and experiential factors most definitely indicates that elitism is up to something wicked. I agree with Hans, that not all members of the elite as up to no good; nonetheless, when a family has been a member of the elite for generations upon generations, the elite start to shape this mentality that they are "enlightened"; and the masses are their sheep to herd, in such a way that primary benefits the elite. To label this hidden scheme as a conspiracy is trendy, convenient, and not entirely accurate; not mention the taboo that has been associated with the term. Labeling the comprehensive idea of this very real supranational ideology as a "conspiracy" is an easy way for people who want to conceal this plan and those who cannot comprehend the magnitude and coordination of such a plan to erroronously dispel other more reliable, valid, legitimate explainitions.

The discussed plan is an elitist ideology that is directly/indirectly practiced (or favored) by a large majority of federal politicians, big business executives, prominent socialites, economic tycoons, the families and monarchs who have ruled powerful nations throughout the centuries, their bloodlines, and other initiates (who have "proven" themselves worthy to the cause) of "brotherhood" organizations, "non"partisan groups, and think-tanks; and this aforementioned ideology, its subsequent meetings, many of the persons that carry it out, and the resulting structure are intentionally concealed from the public eye. The elitist agenda has openly declared to forge "a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations." This elitist scheme has been and plans to institute a supranational governing-body where the conduct of nations is determined only by maximum profit for the top-eschalon. Basically, the economic and political elite plan to establish an all powerful global system that is based on a debt and credits (a cashless) system, where every person and entity is tracked and traced, the judicial systems is absolutely unforgiving, and public affairs are shaped in such a way that the only profiteer is those people who are at the top of the global hierarchy. As Aldous Huxley observed, the elitist plan is to craft a scientific dictatorship.

As mentioned, I do think that the elite will be successful; but, the agenda is as real as reality is. Wickedness only has smarts; goodness (purity, truth) has intelligence.

And it is very easy to label this in-depth agenda, which is nothing new, even to western civilization, to write this ideology, agenda, the resulting events; etc. as a conspiracy. The term conspiracy is limited and does not embody the entirety of this plan, which is being discussed. The characterization of the last paragraph is much more accurate than a simple-minded conspiracy; nonetheless, the elite are definitely in cahoots with the backward mentality that they are the chosen (enlightened) ones, who are best suited to herd the masses like sheep; and milk the sheeple for all they can get. And some people write off Bush 41's announcement of the "new world order" (quoted in the last paragraph) as a paradigm shift. In one way, it is a paradigm shift, in that consciousness has been predicted and seems to be rising at unprecended rates; but, what Bush is talking about is more than a paradigm shift; the elitist plan is a direct assault on freedom.

An easier way to conceive of the agenda that is being discussed:

When football teams are playing a game: do the coaches, QBs, etc. approach the other team and say ok, during the first quarter we are going to run this play, second quarter we are going to run this plan; and during the second half we are going to change our plans a little?

Or do each of the teams conceal their "game-plan"?

Why would you think that politics is any different from sports?

If a person thinks the people who are running the "world-playing" governments care about the independent farmer or the first grade teacher or even the owner of a small business, how did you come to that conclusion?

And if a person believes everything (information; agendas; the truth) is out in the open for the common man (or women) see; you are (in one way) letting the powers that be to "be successful."

People who acknowledge that something nefarious is being perpetrated through the ruling elite have never claimed to "know it all"; but, those people are not saying, "Well, other perspectives besides my own is preposterious." For those people who believe that everything is fine and dandy, it is very easy to see how you came to that viewpoint. But, the people who are saying, "Wait a minute, world domination has always been sought-after by crooked cohorts," those people are just advocating humanitarian values and suggesting that, "Wow, everything that meets the eye does not add up; there are other factors that are not visible to the casual observer; and the people concealing these other factors know that if all people know of these clandestine factors (the quasi-hidden agenda), people will rise up. Then the conscious people talk about the hidden agenda; and they discuss how to ensure individual freedom.

Yes, people like Icke and others are a little nutty; they are opportunists who debase the truth. But if a person takes in all the available information (and disinformation), studies legitimate history (not the stuff that is taught in our government funded schools), employs his/her intuitive sense, thinks like the "devils-advocate" (tries to argue all sides of the coin), critically thinks about all possibilities, common sense says that the masses are misled and the story that the masses are sold is a story carefully contrived, manipulative, and deceitful; that is, the dominating elitist agenda is intentionally kept in the dark because the majority of people would not back it.

So, I do not personally think that the elitist efforts will be successful in forging a global power; but, to entirely discount the likelihood of the concealed agenda is not helping the truth get out. That is, part of the elitism agenda is to precondition the masses to deny and compartamentalize any evidence indicating that elitist puppets have been and still are pulling the strings of global policy and major economic trends.

And for the people who are not skeptical about the status quo (those people who digest the public opinion or those people who think they are above the evidence that indicates the real and true existence of the quasi-hidden agenda for supranational domination), a comprehension of the process of initiation may assist your understanding toward history, modern world affairs, global politics, the status quo, the atrocities that are being carried out under the guise of a legitimate governing-body, the truth...

A person can shape a different perspective; but a one point, that person will most likely receive a rude awakening.

Oh yeah, communism, Marx, Engels, Moses Hess, etc. was funded by the central bankers of Germany and the US; that is, many philosophies and the -isms are put out there to further divide and disharmonize the people. Just another tactic of the ruling powers that be.

And ultimately, it really does not matter if a person or a certain group does not acknowledge the truth. Ancient wisdom, ruined empiricism of advanced cultures, self reflection (looking within), and even modern Western science has shown that all living bodies are one. Life is holographic; so, the local is reflected within the whole. Thus, the effects coming from the people who try and say that all information, political agendas, and all events are visible to the casual observer (those people that do not acknowledge the well-established movement toward an all powerful supranational political, judicial, and economic system) are virtually insignificant; likewise, the efforts of the people who say "Wait a minute, the elite are trying to pull a fast one over the people" are also virtually insignificant. But "Group X" and "Group Y" (as a whole) may experience different things and form different tendencies in the future.

All is one.
Life has purpose.
Essence is love.

As all biological animals, wildlife, and ecosystems have built-in "self-cleaning" mechanisms, so too does the nature of humankind; even though good-for-nothing people have been running our world for many centuries, eventually nature will work itself out to the point that human consciousness will expand exponentially. The evil forces can try all the tricks in the book; still, the benign forces of our universe always have and always will find a way to out-grow wickedness. It is our nature. It is all about capacity and potentiality. Wickedness is limited by deception; truth (purity, goodness, etc.) is boundless because of the essential nature of love, creativity, and freedom.

(Sorry the post is so long; but this is first time I posted in this subforum. And many of the people who do not acknowledge the quasi-hidden plan often are unaware that this agenda manifests itself in many, many aspects of mainstream society.)

I know there are people who may disagree with the perspective that I have explained here, nevertheless, it is laid out in a respectful and peaceful manner. If a person is going to offer a counter-argument toward the problems of elitism and secrecy, please, present what you have to say in a civil, friendly, and respectful manner. Way more is accomplished when hostility and animosity is kept at the door step. All people may not take the same perspective; nonetheless, we all can coexist and value diversity.

Essence is compassion; good always triumphs over wickedness; deception and fear is conquered by truth and love.


What we got to say
Power to the people no delay
To make everybody see
In order to fight the powers that be

~Chuck D


Peace.

~beeks

[dudalb]

Wow, that is a whole lot of Woo for one post.
And all the Hippie rhetoric does not diaguise the face that 90% of the "facts" you present are crap.

Oh yeah, communism, Marx, Engels, Moses Hess, etc. was funded by the central bankers of Germany and the US; that is, many philosophies and the -isms are put out there to further divide and disharmonize the people. Just another tactic of the ruling powers that be.


Total crap that has been disproved time and time again.
ANd your talking about "Truth" after posting a rant filled with false information is the funniest thing ever.

[beeksc1]

^ Woo woo? You did not address any of the points that I explained.

Hippie rhetoric? 90% crap. The post you are referring to lays everything out in a logical way. And all you can muster up is that it is "crap." Talk about a bunch of bull honky. Are you satirizing yourself?

About the communism, really? Most (mainstream) people have never even heard that communism was propagated by elitist capitalists; and you attempt to say, that this has been debunked?

Yeah, the person posting this knows about the truth; and people like you, well, not much good can be said about a person like you. I am sure you can add notable posts; but, the last one was practically worthless. That post was a distraction.

So, if you can address all the legitimate points, which I have explained, feel free to include some intelligent discussion. But, if you only have comments that a numskull would post, you might be better off by just dancing instead.

Anyway, elitism, quasi-hidden plans...

[Travis]

Yes, people like Icke and others are a little nutty; they are opportunists who debase the truth. But if a person takes in all the available information (and disinformation), studies legitimate history (not the stuff that is taught in our government funded schools), employs his/her intuitive sense, thinks like the "devils-advocate" (tries to argue all sides of the coin), critically thinks about all possibilities, common sense says that the masses are misled and the story that the masses are sold is a story carefully contrived, manipulative, and deceitful; that is, the dominating elitist agenda is intentionally kept in the dark because the majority of people would not back it.


Right there you lose your legitimacy. Not only have you boarded the Woo Ship bound for Crazytown via Route Failure but you seem to be doing it in a most long winded manner.

Notions of a masterminded "history" would only make sense if there wasn't any transparency in the process of determining history. Perhaps if there were some government Bureau of History that decided "true history" for the masses with no one seeing exactly what was going on you might have a point but the fact is that in Western Civilization history is researched and vetted in a very comprehensive and transparent manner.

[beeksc1]

^ No. I am sorry; you are incorrect! Thanks for playing.

95% of what I post is perfectly legitimate/accurate. Please, do not take your frustration out on this forum just because you have put much time into government-approved, history textbooks.

George Orwell,

Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.


You label yourself as the "kindest evil guy ever" and you expect that maybe some people will respect your perspective. Get real.

Perhaps, refrain from your regurgitation and testify, if you can comprehend what that means.

[gumboot]

I'd like to know what this "traditional" government is that they're referring to?

Could it be liberal democracy? Well that's only been around for a couple of centuries - sufficient to be a "tradition" in the baby nations of Australia, New Zealand, USA, etc. but hardly traditional by European standards.

So perhaps they mean the traditional governments of Europe - the "old guard" of feudal monarchies that stretched back two thousand years and still cling to life in places like Buckingham Palace.

Well, let's look into that.

The monarchs were never the ruling elite. They existed at the will of the powerful landowners - the real ruling elite of Europe. Monarchs that were powerful only gained that power through their landowning, not through their role as government.

In fact, the Dukes and Earls and Counts and Barons and so forth of Medieval Europe are very much like the Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch's of today - corporations - where the money and the power and the material wealth lay. The peasant class were much more affected by the local knight than by their king - just as most of us are far more affected by our employer than by our government leaders.

So really, nothing has changed, except that as the playing field has grown, so has the power of the landowners - so that the "Duke of Computers" (Microsoft) has "territory" in multiple nations (Microsoft has offices in 105 countries), and nearly 90,000 "peasants" (employees) "work its land" (work for them).

It seems to me that the things this article are talking about are the traditional thing, and it's the government that's the "new kid on the block".

[JimBenArm]

Hey, beeksc1, IF any of this is true, (which it isn't, but let's play pretend, since you're very good at that), what, if anything, should we do?

Spell it out. I want to know what your solution to this "problem" is.

There's this big, evil cabal running my life. Well, let's see. I enjoy a standard of living that less than 1% of the people who have ever lived have had. I enjoy a longer life span. I don't have to worry about wild animals dragging me off, freezing to death, starving to death, disease or even the tribe next cave over coming and dragging me off into slavery.

Gee, things are terrible. With things so bad, hey, how about some more of that evil, cabal dudes?

Sheesh, what a maroon!

[Cuddles]

Group Y: Some people acknowledge that everything that is going on today cannot be from natural causation.

Humans aren't natural? What, are you a creationist as well?

[Jontg]

^ No. I am sorry; you are incorrect! Thanks for playing.

I win this debate.

[theprestige]

Analysis:

Group X: Some people believe that there is nothing that is going on behind the scenes that shape world events.

Group Y: Some people acknowledge that everything that is going on today cannot be from natural causation.

The people who do not acknowledge the hidden agenda love to label the former group "conspiracy nuts".
Straw man.

It's not that we don't acknowledge that things go on behind the scenes according to hidden agendas. It's that we rightly expect specific claims supported by good evidence.

A better analysis would probably be:

Group X: Some people believe that there is nothing that is going on behind the scenes that shape world events.

Group Y: Some people acknowledge that everything that is going on today cannot be from natural causation.

Group Z: Some people believe that because there is specific evidence that some things going on today cannot be from natural causation, everything must be part of a hidden agenda whether there is evidence for it or not

The people who do not acknowledge hidden agendas without evidence quite rightly label those who claim hidden agendas even without evidence "conspiracy nuts".

The real conflict is between Group Y, which accepts anything for which they have good evidence, and Group Z, which believes anything without any regard at all for evidence. Group X, made up mostly of children and apathetics, doesn't enter into the debate at all.

[beeksc1]

Federal Reserve.

Bank note = No gold backing.

At one time US currency was backed by gold. Why did that change?

Oh, that is right, the government is our friend and all the powerful federal governments of the world are legitimate; there is nothing to make of the fact that US money has no value if Uncle Sam is not there to recognize the IOU slips. Silly me; I forgot that Big Brother is there for you and I and him and her...

[van_dutch]

^ oh geez, a Fed CT. beeksc1, if the US government had no intention of recognizing a reserve note that is not backed by gold, why would they accept it as tax money? The fact that fiat money is accepted by a government for taxes gives it legitimacy. Perhaps you could explain why representative currency is better than fiat currency or even commodity currency without going into the whole evil government thing? How about an explanation of how any of these work? Do you really think that the government is going to stop accepting paper money on a whim?

[dudalb]

Please note that beeksci has not offered one iota of any real evidence for his crapola.
And there is nothing original about it, it's the same Conspriacy BS we have seen again and again and again......

[maxpower1227]

Please note that beeksci has not offered one iota of any real evidence for his crapola

I'm just waiting for quotes from Revelation to start rolling in or something.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Federal Reserve.

Bank note = No gold backing.

At one time US currency was backed by gold. Why did that change?


A little something called the Great Depression...

[albie]

It's logical that society would form into one group eventually, irrespective of this being a sinister plot or not.

[theprestige]

It's logical that society would form into one group eventually, irrespective of this being a sinister plot or not.
Really? It seems much more logical that society would continually splinter into diverse factions, with occasional attempts by tyrannical overlords to unify some or all of the factions, with limited and temporary success.

Some examples:
- India and Pakistan
- The former Soviet Union
- China and Taiwan
- The former British Empire
- The former Roman Empire
- The Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the ten thousand different Protestant factions
- Such as the Baptist Church, notorious in Christian circles for its tendency to calve off new factions at the slightest disagreement
- Rock bands
- The Spanish colonies in the New World
- The former Ottoman Empire
- The former Mongol Empire
- The former Yugoslavia
- Mainstream Mormons and Fundamentalist Mormons
- The ten thousand different Communist and Socialist societies
- The ten thousand different animal rights groups
- The ten thousand different conservationist groups
- The Hutus and the Tutsis of Rwanda
- The Five Families of organized crime in New York--why aren't they all just one big happy family (and why aren't they all part of the law and order system, instead of breaking away to form their own criminal system)?
- The ten thousand political parties around the world
- The former Persian Empire
- Etc.

Everywhere you go, you see that humans break up into smaller groups at least as often as they join together to form larger groups. I see no logic at all in the idea that eventually humans would form one group eventually.

Maybe you could walk me through the steps to your conclusion?

[dudalb]

It's logical that society would form into one group eventually, irrespective of this being a sinister plot or not.

Don't know much history, do you?

[Tippit]

^ oh geez, a Fed CT. beeksc1, if the US government had no intention of recognizing a reserve note that is not backed by gold, why would they accept it as tax money? The fact that fiat money is accepted by a government for taxes gives it legitimacy. Perhaps you could explain why representative currency is better than fiat currency or even commodity currency without going into the whole evil government thing? How about an explanation of how any of these work? Do you really think that the government is going to stop accepting paper money on a whim?

That's funny, the fact that you're required to remit your taxes in Federal Reserve notes doesn't make them "legitimate" as much as it creates an artificial demand for them based solely on the coercive power of government. It's the same principle with respect to how the oil cartel prices oil in US dollars, thereby creating an artificial global demand for US dollars, all based on the coercive power of a cartel. It's not a coincidence the Federal Reserve and Income Tax acts were both passed in 1913.

[CFLarsen]

That's funny, the fact that you're required to remit your taxes in Federal Reserve notes doesn't make them "legitimate" as much as it creates an artificial demand for them based solely on the coercive power of government. It's the same principle with respect to how the oil cartel prices oil in US dollars, thereby creating an artificial global demand for US dollars, all based on the coercive power of a cartel. It's not a coincidence the Federal Reserve and Income Tax acts were both passed in 1913.

Welcome back.

What "system" is that that is so unknown to the general public? People have always "operated" across boundaries, regardless of whether it is sovereign nations or other formations.

What about the limitations that aren't mortal? What about Osama bin Laden if/when he is caught?

Please list the names of these "immutable" persons: Start with the "patriarchs of corrupt global banking dynasties".

Please explain your solution to all this.

Please explain why you are allowed to divulge this global conspiracy.

[van_dutch]

That's funny, the fact that you're required to remit your taxes in Federal Reserve notes doesn't make them "legitimate" as much as it creates an artificial demand for them based solely on the coercive power of government. It's the same principle with respect to how the oil cartel prices oil in US dollars, thereby creating an artificial global demand for US dollars, all based on the coercive power of a cartel. It's not a coincidence the Federal Reserve and Income Tax acts were both passed in 1913.

Income tax is not a new idea. It was in existence before 1913 and is in fact in Article 1 of the US Constitution. Here is a little history of how the current tax structure came to be:

The Revenue Acts of 1861, the first federal income tax statue, and 1862 set up income tax rates. These were to pay for the Civil War and repealed in 1872. The 1894 Tariff Act set up income tax again. 1895 brought about a Supreme Court case, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co that prohibited the government on taxing income from property. This ruling made the 1894 Tariff Act void, due to the fact that it was a direct tax. Thus, it was required to follow the rule of appointment in Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3. The tax on income, however, was ruled to be an indirect tax and was authorized by Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1. The 16th Amendment was drafted to keep income tax as an indirect tax and stop it from being applied in the wrong manner as was the case in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 is limited by Article 1 Section 9 that requires "Duties, Imposts and Excises" to be uniform throughout the US. This is the reason for the various acts that have changed the rates etc. More acts throughout the years have adjusted the rates and structure, but as you can see the idea of an income tax goes back way before 1913.

I'm not sure what you are references as the Income Tax of 1913. Do you mean the 16th Amendment or do you mean the Revenue Act of 1913? Either way, from the above history, this is a moot point. Neither really set up the income tax, it was defined and enacted previously. The various Supreme Court cases throughout the years have found it legal and binding. I'm not sure why you are lumping it in with the Federal Reserve Act as they are not related; taxation predates the Federal Reserve by over 100 years.

The Federal Reserve was created to help prevent banking panics. They did make a royal hash of it during the 1920s and 1930s. Their management of the money supply is one cause for the Great Depression and it has been expressed as such in your signature. The idea behind the Federal Reserve System was to create liquid assets that could help curb panics as well as provide a standardized currency that could change as the economy changed. Again, time for some more history. The Federal Reserve Act was not the first attempt at making a centralized bank. The First Bank of the US was chartered in 1791 and the Second Bank of the US was chartered in 1816. There was an 80 year gap after the Second Bank of the US's charter expired before the Federal Reserve System was put in place. The goal of these banks has been to stabilize the money supply and help the economy grow. Fiat currency was one of the things the First Bank of the US was tasked with managing. So again, another idea predates the evil year 1913. There have been issues along the way, but where isn't there one? The economy has grown and strengthened. We are in a bit of a downturn, but that happens.

Now to the legitimacy of fiat currency. If the Federal Reserve note was such a joke, why would the government accept it? If it didn't have value and counted for not, why would public debts be payable with it? Do you understand how money works? We can all go back to trading goods and labor for other goods and labor, but can you really carry around enough goods and labor to obtain everything you need? The dollar acts as a stand-in with which goods and services are purchased. The government says that in place of requiring x bushels of your crops or x hours of labor, we are going to take this piece of paper (technically cloth) that represents that much. Then we are going to use it to purchase other goods and services. The use of fiat currency by the government gives it legitimacy. They are the supreme authority (unless of course you believe in a higher power). So when they follow their own rules and accept a dollar bill in place of other, harder to transport items they give it legitimacy. This is the natural progression of economics. First, when there is no government, or a government that doesn't function, goods and services are bartered for directly with other goods and services. As the government grows and develops, a stand in is used that is backed by some precious resource. As the government gets to a point that it is not going to topple over tomorrow and its law are enforceable a fiat currency can be employed.

The oil companies are not artificially pricing oil. The price is due to a number of factors including the value of the current versus future supply, the risk associated with the future supply, the cost of extracting, transporting and refining the supply, the demand, as well as the amount available. It is unfortunate that oil is traded in US dollars as it can present problems due to those using another form of currency can levy more purchasing power. It is priced in US dollars because that is a convenient unit. Pricing it in another form of currency just changes the medium of exchange.

I'm done with this post for now. Maybe I will post up some other thoughts later. I have some work to do for now.

[Alex Libman]

All governments are bad, and the bigger they are the worse. This applies to geographic centralization as well. I'm not a big fan of democracy, but I've seen it work well in small New England towns where anyone can move out of they so choose. Applying it on a broader scale is ridiculous, and a world government would be the end of free humanity as we know it. (At least until the rebels escape into space, but that's looking too far ahead.)

[dudalb]

Wow, someone is sure living in a dream world.

[Jontg]

Alex... government is the reason humanity exists today. The ability to act as a collective and carry out complex plans is more important to us than opposable thumbs, and it's the ability to create societies like this that kept us alive through our formative years in one of the harshest climates on the planet. Democracy is a luxury so extravagant that no society in history has ever been able to afford it in its purest form; the government that you're railing against is a federal republic, and the word "Democracy" doesn't even appear in the Constitution. Even in this day and age, I wouldn't trust humanity in general, or even America in particular, with real democracy--there simply aren't enough people in this world who are qualified to conduct themselves properly in the absence of a higher power.
Our founders did the best they could to create a government structured so that it was impossible for one faction to gain too much power--mostly by trying to arrange it so that everybody would be too busy arguing to cooperate on anything too shifty. Unfortunately, that structure was compromised while Washington was still warm, when our new leaders managed to put aside their differences enough to form political parties.
If you want to do something about the current system, which with the formation of a two-party system has devolved into a circus of pandering and smearing, then the best thing to do would be to gauge the situation and wait for a period of total voter apathy, and then introduce a compelling third-party candidate. Some of our current alternatives are fairly interesting--but the present political map is so polarized that hardly anybody is willing to risk electing McCain by not voting Obama, or vice versa.

P.S. And Alex, our currency has value for the same reason gold has value--everybody uses it. That's why currency goes up and down in value--it's only worth what the world agrees it's worth, and at the moment this country is so deeply in debt that nobody has much faith in our money anymore. Which, by the way, is a problem that wouldn't exist if the government really held US citizens as collateral against debts, as is commonly alleged by the people who are likely feeding you your data.

[zaphod2016]

Federal Reserve.

Bank note = No gold backing.

At one time US currency was backed by gold. Why did that change?





A little something called the Great Depression...



Not quite. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act) came 16 full years before the crash of '29 which marked the beginning of the Great Depression.

The Federal Reserve came BEFORE the Great Depression, not as a response to it.

However, our modern fiat dollar is hardly a new concept, even within American history. For example, Lincoln Greenbacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note) were used to help fund the Civil War a full 51 years before the Federal Reserve.

Furthermore, the gold standard survived for another 58 years after the Fed Reserve act of 1913, and was not completely eliminated until Richard Nixon eliminated the fixed price of gold in 1971 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Post-war_international_gold_standard_.281946.E2.80.9319 71.29).

Note to duh-bunkers: when attempting to combat woo, you must always make sure to fact-check yourselves. Many of you come across as arrogant and rude, which is especially ironic when you yourselves are wrong.

[Elizabeth I]

All governments are bad, and the bigger they are the worse. This applies to geographic centralization as well. I'm not a big fan of democracy, but I've seen it work well in small New England towns where anyone can move out of they so choose. Applying it on a broader scale is ridiculous, and a world government would be the end of free humanity as we know it. (At least until the rebels escape into space, but that's looking too far ahead.)

Do you seriously think anybody would try to stop you if you decided to leave wherever you are now? (Unless, as I suspect, it is some sort of high-security medical institution.)

[Alex Libman]

Alex... government is the reason humanity exists today. The ability to act as a collective and carry out complex plans is more important to us than opposable thumbs ...

Human cooperation can exist on voluntary basis.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Can, but relying on it is somewhat odd.

(We also call governments something like that...)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Human cooperation can exist on voluntary basis.


On relatively small scales, and oftentimes not even then. In fact, I'd be surprised if there was a single, long-term success story of such voluntary cooperation in modern man's entire ~250,000 year history.

Do you know of any?

[gumboot]

Human cooperation can exist on voluntary basis.


Only when everyone's interests are the same. In a large diverse group people's interests are never the same.

[Jontg]

And all too often, they can conflict directly--government is not just a coordinating force, but a mediating one. That's why I support the creation of a true global union, one a bit more effective than the UN has been at making us stop murdering each other.

[Alex Libman]

On relatively small scales, and oftentimes not even then. In fact, I'd be surprised if there was a single, long-term success story of such voluntary cooperation in modern man's entire ~250,000 year history.

Do you know of any?

No. (None of the examples on this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities) are good enough for me.) But no one knew of human flight until a certain point either, and the first attempts throughout the ages have been disastrous...

The Internet is close to being an example of Anarcho-Capitalism in action, except the national governments still regulate (with harmful effects) things like domain names. If using an alternative DNS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root) (or a different protocol completely) and a P2P wireless mesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh) (or other connectivity methods that are privately owned), Internet would be a perfect metaphor for AnCap - everyone does whatever they want on their own property (i.e. servers), everyone is responsible for their own security, etc. Still not good enough, I know, but just some food for thought...

[dudalb]

And notice that none of those groups lasted very long before disintegrating because of bickering among their members.
There has never been a anarchist society that has been sucessful for any real length of time. And I could debate if there were really anarchists, because I am sure most of them got support from the evil government in some way or another.
And notice that some of the group he mentioned..the Spanish Anarchists for instance, were violently (literary) anti capitalist and considered private property to be just another form of oppression.
Someday reality is going to hit Alex in the face,and, boy, will it hurt.

[Alex Libman]

I'm a free market capitalist first, the word "anarchy" is just thrown in for my rock'n'roll street cred. (J/K)

And examples of a free market minarchy having a competitive advantage are numerous. If I lived in a society as free as Hong Kong before its handover to China, or freer, AnCap philosophy would have a far lesser influence on my day-to-day outlook. I won't accept a government job or anything like that, but I might limit by tax resistance efforts to paying in "ass pennies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feZeOnEzs98)". :duck:

[volatile]

I'm a free market capitalist first, the word "anarchy" is just thrown in for my rock'n'roll street cred. (J/K)

And examples of a free market minarchy having a competitive advantage are numerous. If I lived in a society as free as Hong Kong before its handover to China, or freer, AnCap philosophy would have a far lesser influence on my day-to-day outlook. I won't accept a government job or anything like that, but I might limit by tax resistance efforts to paying in "ass pennies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feZeOnEzs98)", or something like that.

You don't pay taxes?

[Alex Libman]

As many as I can get away with not paying without reducing my ability to earn an income below a certain threshold. Never filled out an income tax form yet.

[volatile]

As many as I can get away with not paying without reducing my ability to earn an income below a certain threshold. Never filled out an income tax form yet.

Sorry - do you not pay taxes you actually do owe, or do you structure your earnings to avoid owing tax in the first place?

[dudalb]

Sorry - do you not pay taxes you actually do owe, or do you structure your earnings to avoid owing tax in the first place?

I think Alex is talking about participating in "The Underground Economy" where everything is paid on a cash basis, to avoid records and be able to hide it from the Government.
Of course, if The government should catch you at this, you are liable for the full amount of income tax.
But I have a feeling that Alex is fibbing quite a bit to maintain his "badbutt revolutionary" image...probably from his Mom's basment.

[theprestige]

...probably from his Mom's basment.
... Which would certainly make it an "underground" economy :D

[dudalb]

... Which would certainly make it an "underground" economy :D

Alex sounds exactly like a High School/College age kid who has become obssesed by anarchism. You know...the constant trumpeting of what a dangerous rebel he is, the ability to ignore the real world when it interfers with his fantasy, etc.
No wonder he is a truther along with being an anarchist.

[INRM]

There is a problem with globalization -- if it becomes corrupt there's no place to go.

Especially with the surveillance technology in this day and age.


INRM

[Alex Libman]

Of course, if The government should catch you at this, you are liable for the full amount of income tax.

I have a problem with the word "liable". If a criminal with a gun stops you on the street and says "your wallet or your life", does the word "liable" apply? Whether this criminal claims to spend this money in your interest or not is beside the point.


probably from his Mom's basment.

If my mother was alive, and if she had a basement, and if we could come to a mutually-beneficial agreement on me living there, then there would be nothing immoral about me living in my mom's basement. But that is not the case.

Alex sounds exactly like a High School/College age kid who has become obssesed by anarchism.

I'm obsessed with individual human dignity and free market capitalism, not "anarchism". In fact most anarchists you'll meet are idiots who have no respect for property rights, which makes them even worse than the status quo. Calling an "Anarcho-Capitalist" an anarchist is like calling a "chickpea" a chicken!


You know...the constant trumpeting of what a dangerous rebel he is, the ability to ignore the real world when it interfers with his fantasy, etc.

I'm not in the least bit dangerous (unless you consider an unarmed slave's desire to escape his master to be dangerous). And the "real world" does not interfere with my fantasies in anyway. The government does.


No wonder he is a truther along with being an anarchist.

I'm a Truther because I admit I don't know for certain what exactly happened on 9/11.


There is a problem with globalization -- if it becomes corrupt there's no place to go.

Especially with the surveillance technology in this day and age.

I agree with you, but I disagree on usage of the term "globalization" when what you really mean is world government. Globalization, as in free international trade, is a good thing, and the only thing the existing governments need to do to make it possible is step out of the way. Various intergovernmental agreements (i.e. UN, EU, NAFTA, etc) are just additional layers of parasitic socialism.

[Donal]

Its just so easy for a middle class white boy to want the government out of business. Never mind that many corporations have become as large, if not larger than many governments and can bring down just as much fascism as you think the US currently is.

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion about unions?

[Alex Libman]

Its just so easy for a middle class white boy to want the government out of business.

I don't self-identify as "white" (my race: "human") or "middle-class" (my hourly wage puts me in the top 1%, my total yearly income on paper in the bottom 1%).


Never mind that many corporations have become as large, if not larger than many governments and can bring down just as much fascism as you think the US currently is.

The largest corporation by revenue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue) is ExxonMobil, $390 billion. They earn that money by producing oil, which requires geological research and risk of losing money. Net income: $41 billion, which it either reinvests in more production or pays to its shareholders at a price / earnings ratio of 9.93. All of ExxonMobil's stakeholders choose to do business with it voluntarily.

The largest government is the U.S. Federal government (not counting state & local). Total 2007 budget: $2,730 billion it got through theft from its tax victims (but it doesn't matter how expensive a gun is, what matters is the consequences of its force). It doesn't produce anything - it only gets in the way, and quite painfully so.


Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion about unions?

I don't like them. I wouldn't mind voluntary clubs among employees, of course, but they are never voluntary and use government force to get their way. Given a choice, I would rather buy a product built in a African free-market "sweatshop" (as long as everyone worked there by choice) than an American unionized company, even if (for whatever irrational reason) they cost the same.

[van_dutch]

The largest government is the U.S. Federal government (not counting state & local). Total 2007 budget: $2,730 billion it got through theft from its tax victims


The government isn't stealing anything. It is stated in the Constitution that the government can collect taxes. This further defined in light of some court cases in the 19th Amendment. Seeing as these laws were created by official processes and have been found time and time again as legal. I don't see where you are getting your crazy notion that the government is stealing anything. If you have a problem with it, feel free to move out of the country, no one is stopping you. You keep bringing up this idea that the free market could solve everything. Do you have an economics background? Could you please explain how a completely and truly free market economy would efficiently allocate public goods? Could you explain how property rights would be protected without the government? Government is quite necessary. Unfortunately, however, size is often an issue. No system is perfect and I would much prefer to have the current government than some fantasy idea like the one you keep proposing.

[dudalb]

Given a choice, I would rather buy a product built in a African free-market "sweatshop" (as long as everyone worked there by choice) than an American unionized company, even if (for whatever irrational reason) they cost the same.

God, you are ignorant.

[Tippit]

And all too often, they can conflict directly--government is not just a coordinating force, but a mediating one. That's why I support the creation of a true global union, one a bit more effective than the UN has been at making us stop murdering each other.

And then when the UN has their world army, who is going to stop the UN from murdering us? I suppose your mythical angelic masters at the UN will be exempt from such barbaric human defects. Of course, they will also be subject to "democratic accountability".

[Jontg]

The same thing that's been keeping the US from murdering us: good people doing the right thing, and bad people fixated on screwing each other over. That's one of the handy little safety features built into our own system; it's designed to keep everybody at each others' throats, making a truly unified government impossible, thus making it difficult for the people to be screwed over too badly. Even now, when the party politics Washington himself warned us about have formed a monopoly on power, the government is still divided into two enormous warring blocs--and every time one gains primacy, the extremist factions within it eventually make the rest of the party look bad enough that the other one starts regaining power. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the theory that every little bit of petty squabbling is some sort of elaborate masquerade. :rolleyes:

[Tippit]

The same thing that's been keeping the US from murdering us: good people doing the right thing, and bad people fixated on screwing each other over. That's one of the handy little safety features built into our own system; it's designed to keep everybody at each others' throats, making a truly unified government impossible, thus making it difficult for the people to be screwed over too badly. Even now, when the party politics Washington himself warned us about have formed a monopoly on power, the government is still divided into two enormous warring blocs--and every time one gains primacy, the extremist factions within it eventually make the rest of the party look bad enough that the other one starts regaining power. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the theory that every little bit of petty squabbling is some sort of elaborate masquerade. :rolleyes:

It's funny to me that you think the two-party monolithic political structure serves to keep each other accountable, when in reality it represents the encroaching New World Order system and total, absolute corruption and tyranny. Of course, the use of plurality voting ensures, according to Duverger's law, that we will have political polarization - a two party system, and that's just how it was designed.

What's also funny, or perhaps not-so-funny, is your presumption that the UN is in any way modeled after the representative republic that we have in the United States. The system of so-called "checks and balances" that supposedly hold the various branches of government accountable do not exist in the UN, instead it's run by shadowy bureaucrats and New World Order banker appointees.

And yet, you're naive enough to think that the human beings who are appointed our puppet global masters will be free of the tendency for human beings to want to murder other human beings, or, more fantastically, that they would be purely disinterested parties with only altruistically human aspirations.

Research the creators of the UN, and you'll find the same dynastic banking families have had their hand in it, and all under the presumption of world peace. You know, the Rockefellers, et al. In fact it was John D. Rockefeller Jr. who granted the land for the United Nations building in New York City. They are wolves in sheep's clothing, and when their system is fully realized it will be idealistic fools like you who get sheared - along with everyone else.

[Donal]

I don't self-identify as "white" (my race: "human") or "middle-class" (my hourly wage puts me in the top 1%, my total yearly income on paper in the bottom 1%).

I don't care if you call yourself Mary Queen of Scots. You're still a whiny, middle class white boy fighting a fake revolution.


The largest corporation by revenue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue) is ExxonMobil, $390 billion. They earn that money by producing oil, which requires geological research and risk of losing money. Net income: $41 billion, which it either reinvests in more production or pays to its shareholders at a price / earnings ratio of 9.93. All of ExxonMobil's stakeholders choose to do business with it voluntarily.

What about the people where Exxon is drilling? What about the villages in other countries that produce products for Nike, Coca-Cola and McDonalds?

The largest government is the U.S. Federal government (not counting state & local). Total 2007 budget: $2,730 billion it got through theft from its tax victims (but it doesn't matter how expensive a gun is, what matters is the consequences of its force). It doesn't produce anything - it only gets in the way, and quite painfully so.

It doesn't produce anything? You know this life style we live very comfortably? The one that allows you to cry and whine over the internet (A product of the DoD by the way)? The one that has trucks running over federally constructed highway systems to deliver food and other essentials to super markets?

Ya, thats held together by government.




I don't like them. I wouldn't mind voluntary clubs among employees, of course, but they are never voluntary and use government force to get their way. Given a choice, I would rather buy a product built in a African free-market "sweatshop" (as long as everyone worked there by choice) than an American unionized company, even if (for whatever irrational reason) they cost the same.

Wow, you are just completly ignorant of the world outside your mom's basement.

[Elizabeth I]

It's funny to me that you think the two-party monolithic political structure serves to keep each other accountable, when in reality it represents the encroaching New World Order system and total, absolute corruption and tyranny. Of course, the use of plurality voting ensures, according to Duverger's law, that we will have political polarization - a two party system, and that's just how it was designed.

What's also funny, or perhaps not-so-funny, is your presumption that the UN is in any way modeled after the representative republic that we have in the United States. The system of so-called "checks and balances" that supposedly hold the various branches of government accountable do not exist in the UN, instead it's run by shadowy bureaucrats and New World Order banker appointees.

And yet, you're naive enough to think that the human beings who are appointed our puppet global masters will be free of the tendency for human beings to want to murder other human beings, or, more fantastically, that they would be purely disinterested parties with only altruistically human aspirations.

Research the creators of the UN, and you'll find the same dynastic banking families have had their hand in it, and all under the presumption of world peace. You know, the Rockefellers, et al. In fact it was John D. Rockefeller Jr. who granted the land for the United Nations building in New York City. They are wolves in sheep's clothing, and when their system is fully realized it will be idealistic fools like you who get sheared - along with everyone else.

This is satire, right? Right?

Because nobody really says stuff like this.

[Tippit]

This is satire, right? Right?

Because nobody really says stuff like this.

Ahh, but if that were true my dear, I wouldn't have said it. I trust you checked to see that it is all true.

[Jontg]

Tell me this, kid: what sort of moron slaughters a prize milk cow for hamburger?

[Elizabeth I]

This is satire, right? Right?

Because nobody really says stuff like this.

Ahh, but if that were true my dear, I wouldn't have said it. I trust you checked to see that it is all true.

Too funny. It's really sad that Monty Python aren't together any more - you would have a great career writing for them.

[defaultdotxbe]

Internet would be a perfect metaphor for AnCap - everyone does whatever they want on their own property (i.e. servers),
everyone doing what they want on their own box is the antithesis of the internet, its just a bunch of non-networked machines operating independently of eachother

[Chaos]

Ahh, but if that were true my dear, I wouldn't have said it. I trust you checked to see that it is all true.

More like, we checked and found that it is all bollocks.

[Alex Libman]

[...] fighting a fake revolution.

I don't like the word revolution. Evolution is more like it: gradual, rational, non-violent, and driven by natural selection. You don't like Anarcho-Capitalism? Fine, your loss.


What about the people where Exxon is drilling? What about the villages in other countries that produce products for Nike, Coca-Cola and McDonalds?

What about them?


It doesn't produce anything? You know this life style we live very comfortably? The one that allows you to cry and whine over the internet (A product of the DoD by the way)? The one that has trucks running over federally constructed highway systems to deliver food and other essentials to super markets? Ya, thats held together by government.

No, it's not. You're like a Mayan religious leader saying the sun won't come up tomorrow unless enough people are sacrificed to the gods of socialism. All that you describe is either held together by capitalism, or would have been if the government didn't get in the way and forced its inferior and more costly solutions at a point of a gun.

As for the DoD contributing to some early networking research, true, but how much capital did it suck in and waste? The free market would have come up with something better without it.


everyone doing what they want on their own box is the antithesis of the internet, its just a bunch of non-networked machines operating independently of eachother

People owning networked devices make connections to each-other for mutual benefit - pure capitalism.

[Disenchanted]

People owning networked devices make connections to each-other for mutual benefit - pure capitalism.

Without a government to enforce intellectual property rights there would be nothing to run the internet on.

Copyright laws are needed for development of stuff like operating systems.

Patent laws are needed for technological progress that has resulted in computers and improvements on them.

Trademark laws are needed for companies to protect their investment in products like computers.

[tsig]

I don't like the word revolution. Evolution is more like it: gradual, rational, non-violent, and driven by natural selection. You don't like Anarcho-Capitalism? Fine, your loss.




What about them?




No, it's not. You're like a Mayan religious leader saying the sun won't come up tomorrow unless enough people are sacrificed to the gods of socialism. All that you describe is either held together by capitalism, or would have been if the government didn't get in the way and forced its inferior and more costly solutions at a point of a gun.

As for the DoD contributing to some early networking research, true, but how much capital did it suck in and waste? The free market would have come up with something better without it.




People owning networked devices make connections to each-other for mutual benefit - pure capitalism.

To make your version of the world work you have to staff it with idealistic humans. Where are you going to get them when you think everyone is a corrupt, murdering criminal at heart?

[tsig]

Without a government to enforce intellectual property rights there would be nothing to run the internet on.

Copyright laws are needed for development of stuff like operating systems.

Patent laws are needed for technological progress that has resulted in computers and improvements on them.

Trademark laws are needed for companies to protect their investment in products like computers.

In his world once you get rid of the corrupting influence of big gvmnt we will all just fall all over ourselves in an orgy of co-operation.

[defaultdotxbe]

People owning networked devices make connections to each-other for mutual benefit - pure capitalism.
and in order to maintain those connections in a standardized manner regulatory commissions and set up and industry-wide standards established, and thus fails your notion of anarchy

look at what the internet was 20 years ago, you had to maintain a huge dialer list, every website was its own BBS, AOL was a network unto itself, you had to maintain a half dozen connections just to keep up with what you were interested in, now you have a single pipe to everything, and its not because anarcho-capitalism

[Disenchanted]

In his world once you get rid of the corrupting influence of big gvmnt we will all just fall all over ourselves in an orgy of co-operation.

And in doing so he ignores ways that society and capitalism need a government to enforce laws necessary for both.

The same even applies to his "perfect metaphor for AnCap" of the internet where governments use methods to enforce some of those laws.

[Donal]

I don't like the word revolution. Evolution is more like it: gradual, rational, non-violent, and driven by natural selection. You don't like Anarcho-Capitalism? Fine, your loss.

Again, it doesn't matter what terms you want to misuse to make your little white boy angst crusade look legit.


What about them?

The environmental damage and human rights abuses reported done by these companies. You really think people work at those sweatshops because they want to?


No, it's not.

Sure it is.

You're like a Mayan religious leader saying the sun won't come up tomorrow unless enough people are sacrificed to the gods of socialism.

Did you just imply that I'm a socialist? Thats freakin funny.

All that you describe is either held together by capitalism, or would have been if the government didn't get in the way and forced its inferior and more costly solutions at a point of a gun.

No, its fueled by capitalism. Government investment and regulation help get them off the ground and make sure they work in our best interest.

As for the DoD contributing to some early networking research, true, but how much capital did it suck in and waste? The free market would have come up with something better without it.

Then why didn't someone do it? Why did corporate America not dive fully into networking technology until the 1980s?

Why was it the federal government created the highway system in the 1950s and another DoD project? Why didn't some retailer look at the country and say "gee, a gridded system of major roads would really help us"?

Simple: They all operate with a bottom line, while the government doesn't really have to. Thats not to say I don't want tax money spent wisely, I just realize that the government shouldn't be doing things with a static RoI in mind.

No company or conglomerate would have been able to foot the cost to develop networking systems or a highway system.




People owning networked devices make connections to each-other for mutual benefit - pure capitalism.

What about frequency modulations and bandwidth regulations to make sure people's and companies signals aren't climbing over each other?

Do you know how networking technology works?

[Alex Libman]

Without a government to enforce intellectual property rights there would be nothing to run the internet on. [SNIP]

Intellectual property rights is probably one of the Top 5 most difficult questions Anarcho-Capitalist theorists are still trying to come up with good answers to. I just talked about one aspect of the situation here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3971895&postcount=83): businesses forming partnerships for mutual benefit that include agreements to respect each-other's intellectual property. Some consumers would find it in their interest to do the same: many companies can make a knock-off Rolex, but only by being a member of the Rolex Social Club can you prove that yours is genuine. People would have an incentive to join such clubs for many different fields, from comic-book fan-clubs to Cisco skill certification.

You have a belief that no one would bother to create anything unless Mommy Government uses force to keep other people from imitating them too closely or too soon. I believe that other solutions to those problems can be found, and government force ultimately benefits existing companies (as government tends to do), reducing innovation and competition. Your belief system can still exist in a free society: simply sign up with whatever government-like ethical society you believe in and only do business with other market entities that this foundation certifies as good. But you cannot force it on others at a barrel of a gun - imitation or even verbatim duplication do not constitute aggression. As for which method is more economically efficient - I could easily speculate, but I wouldn't. Time and competitive experimentation will tell.


To make your version of the world work you have to staff it with idealistic humans.

No, just flawed but sovereign individuals who don't want to be murdered, enslaved, or stolen from, and understand that this will happen if they don't respect those rights in others. Some small minority of people won't accept this "Non-Aggression Principle", and it would be in everyone else's interest to reciprocate their aggression to stop them.


Where are you going to get them when you think everyone is a corrupt, murdering criminal at heart?

I won't speculate on how people are "at heart", but the desire to commit corruption and initiate aggression are decreased when you know that the odds of getting away with it are low. The government bureaucracy can't even keep illegal drugs from being all over their own prisons, because of centralized unaccountable mono-culture that is held together by a few "true believers" wasting the talents that could have been better utilized in the private sector. There is absolutely no reason why a free market can't provide security services that the government currently provides, but better, cheaper, and without overstepping its authority as governments tend to do.


In his world once you get rid of the corrupting influence of big gvmnt we will all just fall all over ourselves in an orgy of co-operation.

I envision no world-wide orgies, but as government is gradually phased out the incentive to cooperate voluntarily will gradually grow.


[...] your notion of anarchy

It's not my notion of mere anarchy that I'm promoting, it's my notion of a gradual transition to libertarianism / minarchism, more and more personal and economic freedom, and eventually a point where voluntary experimentation with Anarcho-Capitalism can take place.


look at what the internet was 20 years ago, you had to maintain a huge dialer list, every website was its own BBS, AOL was a network unto itself, you had to maintain a half dozen connections just to keep up with what you were interested in, now you have a single pipe to everything, and its not because anarcho-capitalism

I have been using dial-up BBS'es since the 2400 baud days, and I can tell you with full confidence that government intervention has brought harm to the Internet. It would have emerged anyway, and sooner without government sucking in resources, monopolizing technologies, and otherwise discouraging competition and innovation. The technology for cellular phones was around to make them possible in some analog form in the 1960s, but the government made that impossible!

Whenever you institute unnatural order at a barrel of a gun, you prevent natural order from emerging organically, and a free-market Internet would have been better: lots of connection redundancy, better fault tolerance, better security and anonymity, wireless P2P meshes, local neighborhood hubs that would operate even if the rest of the world went off-line, etc. It would have been an ultimate freedom tool: utterly impossible to shut down or censor, or to keep from spreading to places like North Korea, making tyrannical societies impossible. Instead what we have is a centralized hierarchy owned by a few companies that cannot defy the government, and can thus be seen as part of the government itself. Instead of true freedom we have one big "Big Brother" that's getting more centralized every day, and it is government apologists like you that will be to blame when Internet freedoms begin to noticeably decline in the name of "public good"!

[Elizabeth I]

I envision no world-wide orgies, but as government is gradually phased out the incentive to cooperate voluntarily will gradually grow.

And you say you're how old? Do you still believe in the Tooth Fairy, too?

[Alex Libman]

And in doing so he ignores ways that society and capitalism need a government to enforce laws necessary for both.

And some tribal shaman might tell me that his drum-beating ritual is needed to keep the sky from falling. My own capacity for rational thought tells me otherwise.


The same even applies to his "perfect metaphor for AnCap" of the internet where governments use methods to enforce some of those laws.

I contribute the relative success of the Internet precisely to the government's ineptitude to regulate its initial growth - but they'll soon catch up. In the name of stopping pedophiles most likely... (See this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120973))


Again, it doesn't matter what terms you want to misuse to make your little white boy angst crusade look legit.

Maybe words don't matter at all? Let's communicate with farts instead! When you don't fart, it means you love the government. And when you fart, it means you REALLY love the government, the louder the better! Ready, go...


The environmental damage and human rights abuses reported done by these companies. You really think people work at those sweatshops because they want to?

I attribute the greatest cause of environmental damage to the tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) - when nobody owns something, nobody has the intensive to derive value from it, and pollution is obviously a negative value. And a lot of environmentalist hysteria is pure bull.

Sweatshops - I'm sure everybody "wants" to be crowned king of the universe and have complete control of all resources therein. Reality, however, does not make it possible. It makes it possible for people to make decisions based on the possibilities they have: working in a subsistence-farming economy, working in a "sweatshop", or something else. Enough people choose working in a "sweatshop" to make them a reality.


Did you just imply that I'm a socialist? Thats freakin funny.

If you believe in a "creation myth", you're a creationist. If you believe in a "race myth", then you're a racist. And if you believe in a "society myth", that it is one indistinguishable entity that someone can presume to speak for - then you're a socialist.


No, its fueled by capitalism. Government investment and regulation help get them off the ground and make sure they work in our best interest.

Very nice arrangement - I (a capitalist) get to pull a rickshaw, and you (a socialist) get to sit in it, take money from me, tell me what to do, and hit me with a stick if I don't obey. Um, why do I need you again?


Then why didn't someone do it? Why did corporate America not dive fully into networking technology until the 1980s?

There were getting there. But then the government jumped in front of their parade (using tax-victim money) and got all the credit.


Why was it the federal government created the highway system in the 1950s and another DoD project? Why didn't some retailer look at the country and say "gee, a gridded system of major roads would really help us"?

The first roads were private (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_roads), and they were growing organically until state intervention ruined them. Then we got gridlock. Then we got the Interstate highway idea from Hitler - now there's a man you'd love if you love an active government! Then costs went up, innovation went down - same as with everything the government touches.


Simple: They all operate with a bottom line, while the government doesn't really have to. Thats not to say I don't want tax money spent wisely, I just realize that the government shouldn't be doing things with a static RoI in mind.

You mean the government can do things nobody wants by force? Got it.


No company or conglomerate would have been able to foot the cost to develop networking systems or a highway system.

How is it any different than everything else that the free market does? First you build the most profitable connections, recoup your investment, and expand from there. Why is it that WalMart can manage the logistics of getting hundreds of thousands of different products (including store brands) to thousands of stores, paying millions of employees, saving billions of dollars a year to its customers compared to its competition, making billions of dollars for its stockholders, all voluntarily, but the complexity of laying down some asphalt... only Uncle Sam is smart enough to figure that one out! :rolleyes:


What about frequency modulations and bandwidth regulations to make sure people's and companies signals aren't climbing over each other?

Access rights can be bought for a period of time, regardless of the physical medium, like shares in a company or rooms in a hotel. Government makes everything more complicated, which is one of its many harms.


Do you still believe in the Tooth Fairy, too?

I grew up in a slightly more socialist culture (USSR) that doesn't have anything equivalent to a Tooth Fairy, and perhaps because the inherent logic of exchanging value for value (naturally-detached teeth for quarters, if I understand correctly) seemed dangerous to them. Maybe by the time your great-grandchildren reach that age, the world government censors will ban Tooth Fairy outright. Santa Claus and other economically-irrational characters may remain, but children will be told their services are authorized and paid for by Mommy Government - we can't allow voluntary altruists now can we? That could give kids anti-government ideas...

[Disenchanted]

Intellectual property rights is probably one of the Top 5 most difficult questions Anarcho-Capitalist theorists are still trying to come up with good answers to. I just talked about one aspect of the situation here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3971895&postcount=83): businesses forming partnerships for mutual benefit that include agreements to respect each-other's intellectual property. Some consumers would find it in their interest to do the same: many companies can make a knock-off Rolex, but only by being a member of the Rolex Social Club can you prove that yours is genuine. People would have an incentive to join such clubs for many different fields, from comic-book fan-clubs to Cisco skill certification.

You have a belief that no one would bother to create anything unless Mommy Government uses force to keep other people from imitating them too closely or too soon. I believe that other solutions to those problems can be found, and government force ultimately benefits existing companies (as government tends to do), reducing innovation and competition. Your belief system can still exist in a free society: simply sign up with whatever government-like ethical society you believe in and only do business with other market entities that this foundation certifies as good. But you cannot force it on others at a barrel of a gun - imitation or even verbatim duplication do not constitute aggression. As for which method is more economically efficient - I could easily speculate, but I wouldn't. Time and competitive experimentation will tell.

What evidence do you have that everyone would voluntarily agree to join the clubs?

No clubs or ethical societies would work unless they were able to enforce the agreements. How would they enforce the agreements?

My beliefs are based on the reality of how things work. Intellectual property rights are one of quite a few crucial areas where a government is needed.

Intellectual property rights are necessary and so that is probably why it was included in the U.S. Constitution.

No one would spend money on research and development if some other companies would just copy their work the minute the product hit the market.

A person would be less likely to work on an invention if there was no patent laws because a company could just make it without the inventor getting any money.

A company like Microsoft would not spend money on producing operating systems with out copyrights to keep others from copying the system after it hits the market.

If someone made cheap shoes (or even cheaper shoes) and stuck swooshes on them that would make it hard to tell the difference from Nike this would hurt that company and other companies in a similar fashion.

What would the difference be between government and a “government-like ethical society”?

All people or property needs to be protected. If a person is in a situation where they cannot protect themselves or their property alone then they would need either a government police force or in your fanciful world a private security force. Whether it would be a government police force or a private security force it would still have to be dealt with in the same manner through force (gun, prison or civil action).

No, just flawed but sovereign individuals who don't want to be murdered, enslaved, or stolen from, and understand that this will happen if they don't respect those rights in others. Some small minority of people won't accept this "Non-Aggression Principle", and it would be in everyone else's interest to reciprocate their aggression to stop them.

That is largely how it works now only people through the government enforce the laws that are based on that principle.

Sociopaths in general do not care about any principles and would commit violent crimes with a government or without. If there were no government what would happen to a sociopath who kills, rapes or otherwise assaults someone?

[Disenchanted]

And some tribal shaman might tell me that his drum-beating ritual is needed to keep the sky from falling. My own capacity for rational thought tells me otherwise.




I contribute the relative success of the Internet precisely to the government's ineptitude to regulate its initial growth - but they'll soon catch up. In the name of stopping pedophiles most likely... (See this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120973))

Rational thought? What rational thought?

If there were no government to enforce intellectual property rights there would be no internet or computers.

Other governments have succeeded at censoring the internet (such as China and Iran), so how is ineptitude the determining factor with the American government?

Pedophiles should be stopped, as that is one of the things I was referring to when saying the government should enforce laws on the internet. The government should put people who solicit minors and people who take and post pictures of minors in prison.

The ignorant and in some cases sickening things you posted in the thread you linked to is astounding.

Child pornography victimless? Drugs are victimless; gambling is victimless and consensual prostitution is victimless. A form of child abuse is not victimless.

[dudalb]

And you say you're how old? Do you still believe in the Tooth Fairy, too?


it's sort of fun to see the way Little Alex keeps totally ignoring reality.
And I not buying his BS about growing up in the Soviet union, either.

[Donal]

Maybe words don't matter at all? Let's communicate with farts instead! When you don't fart, it means you love the government. And when you fart, it means you REALLY love the government, the louder the better! Ready, go...

And it would still contain more wisdom than anything you've stated in this thread.


I attribute the greatest cause of environmental damage to the tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) - when nobody owns something, nobody has the intensive to derive value from it, and pollution is obviously a negative value.

How exactly do you figure that? How exactly to figure deforestation, pollution of our waters and air are products of Tragedy of Commons?

And a lot of environmentalist hysteria is pure bull.

Ya, but so is most of what you write.

Sweatshops - I'm sure everybody "wants" to be crowned king of the universe and have complete control of all resources therein. Reality, however, does not make it possible. It makes it possible for people to make decisions based on the possibilities they have: working in a subsistence-farming economy, working in a "sweatshop", or something else. Enough people choose working in a "sweatshop" to make them a reality.

Or maybe the factories or whatever destroy the land and water around them to make farming impossible. Or maybe the companies that own the factories also own the banks and connive the farmers into loans they can't pay back and stick them with a debt that their children inherit. And since there is no farm, guess where they have to work.

Hell, lets get rid of the hypothetical and talk about Andrew Carnegie and Nelson Rockefeller. How about the Pinkertons?

If you believe in a "creation myth", you're a creationist. If you believe in a "race myth", then you're a racist. And if you believe in a "society myth", that it is one indistinguishable entity that someone can presume to speak for - then you're a socialist.

*snicker* calling me a socialist. Silly little boy.

Very nice arrangement - I (a capitalist) get to pull a rickshaw, and you (a socialist) get to sit in it, take money from me, tell me what to do, and hit me with a stick if I don't obey. Um, why do I need you again?

Not at all. I (the customer) and you (the driver) have an agreement that I will pay you an agreed upon market value for your service and you will get me there in a safe and timely manner. I am also forbidden by law to hit you with said stick and you are required to keep said rickshaw in a certain condition.

Or better yet, you (a driver) can't run up to me (another driver) and put a few rounds into my rickshaw and take my customer and money.




There were getting there. But then the government jumped in front of their parade (using tax-victim money) and got all the credit.

You mean the government took up the projects that had stalled, used their Constitutionally granted powers, and benefited the whole country.

The first roads were private (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_roads), and they were growing organically until state intervention ruined them. Then we got gridlock. Then we got the Interstate highway idea from Hitler - now there's a man you'd love if you love an active government! Then costs went up, innovation went down - same as with everything the government touches.

Did you just Godwin the public highway system? Seriously?

Mods, admins, Randi, someone...can I get a reprieve on Rule 10 for a couple hours?

You mean the government can do things nobody wants by force? Got it.

You mean businesses should be allowed to do that? Got it.

How is it any different than everything else that the free market does? First you build the most profitable connections, recoup your investment, and expand from there. Why is it that WalMart can manage the logistics of getting hundreds of thousands of different products (including store brands) to thousands of stores, paying millions of employees, saving billions of dollars a year to its customers compared to its competition, making billions of dollars for its stockholders, all voluntarily, but the complexity of laying down some asphalt... only Uncle Sam is smart enough to figure that one out! :rolleyes:

Wow, how do you get your head that far up there?




Access rights can be bought for a period of time, regardless of the physical medium, like shares in a company or rooms in a hotel. Government makes everything more complicated, which is one of its many harms.

OK, so you pretty much just had to admit you don't understand the hows, whats and whys of networking. You didn't need to be so verbose about it.

[tsig]

Intellectual property rights is probably one of the Top 5 most difficult questions Anarcho-Capitalist theorists are still trying to come up with good answers to. I just talked about one aspect of the situation here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3971895&postcount=83): businesses forming partnerships for mutual benefit that include agreements to respect each-other's intellectual property. Some consumers would find it in their interest to do the same: many companies can make a knock-off Rolex, but only by being a member of the Rolex Social Club can you prove that yours is genuine. People would have an incentive to join such clubs for many different fields, from comic-book fan-clubs to Cisco skill certification.

You have a belief that no one would bother to create anything unless Mommy Government uses force to keep other people from imitating them too closely or too soon. I believe that other solutions to those problems can be found, and government force ultimately benefits existing companies (as government tends to do), reducing innovation and competition. Your belief system can still exist in a free society: simply sign up with whatever government-like ethical society you believe in and only do business with other market entities that this foundation certifies as good. But you cannot force it on others at a barrel of a gun - imitation or even verbatim duplication do not constitute aggression. As for which method is more economically efficient - I could easily speculate, but I wouldn't. Time and competitive experimentation will tell.




No, just flawed but sovereign individuals who don't want to be murdered, enslaved, or stolen from, and understand that this will happen if they don't respect those rights in others. Some small minority of people won't accept this "Non-Aggression Principle", and it would be in everyone else's interest to reciprocate their aggression to stop them.




I won't speculate on how people are "at heart", but the desire to commit corruption and initiate aggression are decreased when you know that the odds of getting away with it are low. The government bureaucracy can't even keep illegal drugs from being all over their own prisons, because of centralized unaccountable mono-culture that is held together by a few "true believers" wasting the talents that could have been better utilized in the private sector. There is absolutely no reason why a free market can't provide security services that the government currently provides, but better, cheaper, and without overstepping its authority as governments tend to do.




I envision no world-wide orgies, but as government is gradually phased out the incentive to cooperate voluntarily will gradually grow.




It's not my notion of mere anarchy that I'm promoting, it's my notion of a gradual transition to libertarianism / minarchism, more and more personal and economic freedom, and eventually a point where voluntary experimentation with Anarcho-Capitalism can take place.




I have been using dial-up BBS'es since the 2400 baud days, and I can tell you with full confidence that government intervention has brought harm to the Internet. It would have emerged anyway, and sooner without government sucking in resources, monopolizing technologies, and otherwise discouraging competition and innovation. The technology for cellular phones was around to make them possible in some analog form in the 1960s, but the government made that impossible!

Whenever you institute unnatural order at a barrel of a gun, you prevent natural order from emerging organically, and a free-market Internet would have been better: lots of connection redundancy, better fault tolerance, better security and anonymity, wireless P2P meshes, local neighborhood hubs that would operate even if the rest of the world went off-line, etc. It would have been an ultimate freedom tool: utterly impossible to shut down or censor, or to keep from spreading to places like North Korea, making tyrannical societies impossible. Instead what we have is a centralized hierarchy owned by a few companies that cannot defy the government, and can thus be seen as part of the government itself. Instead of true freedom we have one big "Big Brother" that's getting more centralized every day, and it is government apologists like you that will be to blame when Internet freedoms begin to noticeably decline in the name of "public good"!

Just how do you keep the man with the gun from imposing the order he wishes? Better yet how do we get those who have the guns to lay them down?

You go up to him and wave your AC flag and ask him nice.

I'll cover you.

Each railroad company used to have their own gauge track to keep their competitors from using it. Some cooperation.

[tsig]

And some tribal shaman might tell me that his drum-beating ritual is needed to keep the sky from falling. My own capacity for rational thought tells me otherwise.




I contribute the relative success of the Internet precisely to the government's ineptitude to regulate its initial growth - but they'll soon catch up. In the name of stopping pedophiles most likely... (See this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120973))




Maybe words don't matter at all? Let's communicate with farts instead! When you don't fart, it means you love the government. And when you fart, it means you REALLY love the government, the louder the better! Ready, go...




I attribute the greatest cause of environmental damage to the tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) - when nobody owns something, nobody has the intensive to derive value from it, and pollution is obviously a negative value. And a lot of environmentalist hysteria is pure bull.

Sweatshops - I'm sure everybody "wants" to be crowned king of the universe and have complete control of all resources therein. Reality, however, does not make it possible. It makes it possible for people to make decisions based on the possibilities they have: working in a subsistence-farming economy, working in a "sweatshop", or something else. Enough people choose working in a "sweatshop" to make them a reality.




If you believe in a "creation myth", you're a creationist. If you believe in a "race myth", then you're a racist. And if you believe in a "society myth", that it is one indistinguishable entity that someone can presume to speak for - then you're a socialist.




Very nice arrangement - I (a capitalist) get to pull a rickshaw, and you (a socialist) get to sit in it, take money from me, tell me what to do, and hit me with a stick if I don't obey. Um, why do I need you again?




There were getting there. But then the government jumped in front of their parade (using tax-victim money) and got all the credit.




The first roads were private (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_roads), and they were growing organically until state intervention ruined them. Then we got gridlock. Then we got the Interstate highway idea from Hitler - now there's a man you'd love if you love an active government! Then costs went up, innovation went down - same as with everything the government touches.




You mean the government can do things nobody wants by force? Got it.




How is it any different than everything else that the free market does? First you build the most profitable connections, recoup your investment, and expand from there. Why is it that WalMart can manage the logistics of getting hundreds of thousands of different products (including store brands) to thousands of stores, paying millions of employees, saving billions of dollars a year to its customers compared to its competition, making billions of dollars for its stockholders, all voluntarily, but the complexity of laying down some asphalt... only Uncle Sam is smart enough to figure that one out! :rolleyes:




Access rights can be bought for a period of time, regardless of the physical medium, like shares in a company or rooms in a hotel. Government makes everything more complicated, which is one of its many harms.




I grew up in a slightly more socialist culture (USSR) that doesn't have anything equivalent to a Tooth Fairy, and perhaps because the inherent logic of exchanging value for value (naturally-detached teeth for quarters, if I understand correctly) seemed dangerous to them. Maybe by the time your great-grandchildren reach that age, the world government censors will ban Tooth Fairy outright. Santa Claus and other economically-irrational characters may remain, but children will be told their services are authorized and paid for by Mommy Government - we can't allow voluntary altruists now can we? That could give kids anti-government ideas...

I claim Godwin on this one.

Sorry thanks for playing.

[damien pastaume]

It's funny to me that you think the two-party monolithic political structure serves to keep each other accountable, when in reality it represents the encroaching New World Order system and total, absolute corruption and tyranny.

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so the that American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." Prof Carroll Quigley, official CFR historian and 'mentor' to Bill Clinton

Spotted any doctrinaire and academic thinkers on this board, Tippet? Quigley's remarks were written after a 20-year survey of the real power structure of the US and UK governments which he referred to as 'the Anglo-American Establishment'.

What's also funny, or perhaps not-so-funny, is your presumption that the UN is in any way modeled after the representative republic that we have in the United States.

It's admittedly hard to see at the moment that the UN was in fact set up to be the seat of World Government. But that will change as new crises are brought about.

And yet, you're naive enough to think that the human beings who are appointed our puppet global masters will be free of the tendency for human beings to want to murder other human beings, or, more fantastically, that they would be purely disinterested parties with only altruistically human aspirations.

Whoops - global dictatorship. Where's the cavalry? Oh.

Political reality 101
The actual power structure (short version):

1) The private international bankers
2) The unelected think tanks and tax-exempt foundations
3) Government
4) Civil servants
5) Everybody else

1) owns the system and thus sets the agenda
2) formulates the long-term policies for 1)
3) signs these policies into law
4) enforces the above
5) imagines 3) is actually in control

US Code Law definition of 'United States':

"(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html
(emphasis mine)

Are we having fun yet?

[Jontg]

God, I love watching the lunatics quibble over which shadowy forces are in control. Now if only we could get MaGZ in here to tell us about the Jews. And while I'm wishing, maybe I could find my copy of the Necronomicon and resurrect 1inChrist...

[Chaos]

Did anyone notice Alex´s claim of growing up in the USSR? That one collapsed in 1991, unless of course history books (and news broadcasts that I, for one, clearly remember) are all a big conspiracy.
I also sort of remember Alex claiming he was a high school student.

So, let´s do the math. The USSR collapsed 17 years ago. Students tend to be not much older than that when they finish high school. So unless he is a really slow learner, he cannot be old enough to have grown up in the USSR - insofar as he can be said to have grown up at all.

Not to mention that anyone who calls the USSR "slightly more socialist" than what we have now clearly does not have any personal experience with it.

[volatile]

Did anyone notice Alex´s claim of growing up in the USSR? That one collapsed in 1991, unless of course history books (and news broadcasts that I, for one, clearly remember) are all a big conspiracy.
I also sort of remember Alex claiming he was a high school student.

So, let´s do the math. The USSR collapsed 17 years ago. Students tend to be not much older than that when they finish high school. So unless he is a really slow learner, he cannot be old enough to have grown up in the USSR - insofar as he can be said to have grown up at all.

Not to mention that anyone who calls the USSR "slightly more socialist" than what we have now clearly does not have any personal experience with it.

He said he is 26, so by the time the USSR collapsed he'd have only been 9. It's possible - and, in fact, plausible. I doubt many 9 year-olds have much grasp on the economic realities they were born into.

[Chaos]

He said he is 26, so by the time the USSR collapsed he'd have only been 9. It's possible - and, in fact, plausible. I doubt many 9 year-olds have much grasp on the economic realities they were born into.

Okay... that lack of grasp about the economic realities would certainly explain the term "slightly more socialist".