Nanny Free for Thee and Me?

[spidergoat]

The selfsame spirit of those who have come before and those that will come after will never give up, even if you have.

You are the one who is truly giving up the possibility of implementing your ideas, in favor of a futile effort to change the minds of the entire planet, many of whom would relish the opportunity to challenge your ideas with an AK-47. Diversity of lifestyles in an evolutionary sense requires isolation. Do you like failure or success?

 

[quinnsong]

You are the one who is truly giving up the possibility of implementing your ideas, in favor of a futile effort to change the minds of the entire planet, many of whom would relish the opportunity to challenge your ideas with an AK-47. Diversity of lifestyles in an evolutionary sense requires isolation. Do you like failure or success?

Organizing different strata necessitates that you organize on a small scale and to each groups self interest, so here is your small groups. Wanna know more?

 

[Michael]

So in your dream all of this happens organically and the State eventually is no longer needed or wanted. No blueprint needed!

It's predicated on people raising their children peacefully and logically.

I think this http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/lookingbackward/section2.rhtml offers at least a blueprint of how society could arrive at a peaceful and logical society. However, Edward's dream is in direct contradiction to your Stateless society and it also deals with individualism and class, which you really never address.

There is a summary and analysis of chapters 1-28, so please read Michael and tell me why this possibility scares the hell out of you.

Firstly, I have no idea what you mean 'scares the hell out of me'? I'm more than happy for people to do whatever they want so long as it's based on voluntarism.

Well, let's just start with the first sentence: Leete explains that there is no longer any need for money to facilitate exchanges because the nation is the only producer and distributor of goods and services.

A couple points:

The "Nation" exists in this world. This means that in this 'Utopia' the humans living there must still resort to the initiation of violence in order to maintain society. To say a "State" and a "Utopia" exist at the same time is oxymoron.

There was an argument in the 1800s over whether it was more economically efficient to allow the "State" to produce goods or individuals organized 'organically' to do so. Academics by their very nature thought, it'd be better if 'they' take charge (as they're so smart and all). The rational went: From their high up vantage point, they can see how many people need coffee cups, thus they can ensure the factory produces just enough coffee cups to satisfy demand. If it were left up to individuals to produce coffee cups, then you'd have people producing either too many or too few. The State, kind of like Goldilocks, would produce the 'just right' amount.

Seems reasonable right?

Half of the world's population gave this a try and many died (and many are still dying) because they don't understand the role of money and profit in a free-market. Mostly because most humans have never lived in a free-market and when they do, they become immensely wealthy transition to Fascist Progressive State and then collapse (see: Egypt, Persia, Roma, China, USA.... soon). It happens over and over again and again.

Anyway, Socialism/Communism/ State run Coffee Cup factories murdered, literally, 100s of MILLLIONS of humans.


So, how to get the coffee cups without a State? Say, you produce coffee cups. You make a profit, this signals there is demand for your product. You produce more. Other's see you making a profit. They produce coffee cups (right about now you'd buy a politician and use the State to stop that pesty competition thing - but, let's pretend we live in a free market). As more coffee cups come into the market, your profit is reduced. You lower your costs through increases in efficiency, increase quality, lower price - eventually, you lower production and test the market with new products (say utensils). You now also produce these at a higher profit and the cycle repeats or you create a loss (Zune) and quit making that - either way, through sound money and profit you immediately know, to, or not to, produce these. Make too many things people do not want - you go bust. Make things people like, you grow.

Without sound money and profit, the State doesn't know how many coffee cups to make. Thus, the State has to gather information another way, such as spying on people to see if they have a cup. In the end, it's easier for the State to just force each and every person to have, say 1 cup. In order for the State to replace the free market with any semblance of efficiency, it reduces civil liberties, eliminates privacy and resorts to force - which is what the State IS. This was shown to happen in E. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Cuba, over and over again and again. The same process happens. Without sound money and no profit (no private property) the State is inefficient and resorts to what it IS - the initiation of force. It MUST reduce civil liberties and priavcy in order to do what sound money and profit does voluntarily in a free-market.

Thus: free markets require: Law, private property, sound money. We OTOH live in a regulation nightmare, a Progressive State that violates our person, our property and we are forced to use fiat currency (which is not the same as sound money).


RE: Private versus Public
Lastly, the State (Public) has a monopoly on the legal INITIATION of force. Not on 'force' per say. You're (Private) still allowed to defend yourself. That's the difference.

RE: How to stop parents from spanking in a true free market.

Firstly, such a world would be vastly more prosperous than our Fascist State.

Secondly, there's an economic incentive to get information out to parents about how spanking lowers a child's IQ and increases aggression (two undesirable traits in a voluntaristic stateless society). These are a economic drain on society as a whole - given the problems that develop later.

Third, insurance companies, many of whom will have to foot the bill, may offer cheaper rates to parents who attend parenting classes. If parents are found to violate their agreement not to spank, they may find many of their services they pay for - cost much much more. There's a real incentive not to hit kids.

Fourth, the added cost of security on society from dealing with aggressive kids adds another economic negative.

All up, parents may be incentivized not to hit their kids by being offered good economic discounts for not doing so.


While I could go on, I'm getting carpel tunnel. I'll end pay saying: much like the Abolitionist's argument about satellites, machines and dinosaur juice replacing the whip and slaves - no one can know what the free-market (voluntarism) would come up with in the future to deal with spanking. However, as humans transition from force (slavery) to voluntarism (paid work) we increase in prosperity and become more peaceful as a society.




NOTE: I thought I'd also mention, from a workers point of view, they often 'feel' that They are the ones creating profit - this is untrue. Working doesn't create profit. Trading creates profit. I thought I'd mention that as a lot of these "Utopian" ideals were brought about by workers misunderstanding this simple concept. You can work all day long raking leaves in the woods - it's not work that creates profit. It's trade. Which is why I want a liberal free market. I want to free people to freely trade. This INCLUDES people who only want to trade their labor. Sadly, we only produce workers thus there's an oversupply and that means (like coffee cups) the price goes down. Taxes and Regulations have pretty much finished off any semblance of the free market. Thus, we're now poor and we'll be getting poorer soon too.

 

[quinnsong]

@ Michael,

Do you believe we have a market economy in the U.S.? Consumerism already comprises 71% of U.S, economy and you want to make it 100%? How many losers are there in your laissez faire dream? You extol the advantages of the free market but you neglect the disadvantages.

 

[quinnsong]

It's predicated on people raising their children peacefully and logically.

Firstly, I have no idea what you mean 'scares the hell out of me'? I'm more than happy for people to do whatever they want so long as it's based on voluntarism.

Well, let's just start with the first sentence: Leete explains that there is no longer any need for money to facilitate exchanges because the nation is the only producer and distributor of goods and services.

A couple points:

The "Nation" exists in this world. This means that in this 'Utopia' the humans living there must still resort to the initiation of violence in order to maintain society. To say a "State" and a "Utopia" exist at the same time is oxymoron.

There was an argument in the 1800s over whether it was more economically efficient to allow the "State" to produce goods or individuals organized 'organically' to do so. Academics by their very nature thought, it'd be better if 'they' take charge (as they're so smart and all). The rational went: From their high up vantage point, they can see how many people need coffee cups, thus they can ensure the factory produces just enough coffee cups to satisfy demand. If it were left up to individuals to produce coffee cups, then you'd have people producing either too many or too few. The State, kind of like Goldilocks, would produce the 'just right' amount.

Seems reasonable right?

Half of the world's population gave this a try and many died (and many are still dying) because they don't understand the role of money and profit in a free-market. Mostly because most humans have never lived in a free-market and when they do, they become immensely wealthy transition to Fascist Progressive State and then collapse (see: Egypt, Persia, Roma, China, USA.... soon). It happens over and over again and again.

Anyway, Socialism/Communism/ State run Coffee Cup factories murdered, literally, 100s of MILLLIONS of humans.


So, how to get the coffee cups without a State? Say, you produce coffee cups. You make a profit, this signals there is demand for your product. You produce more. Other's see you making a profit. They produce coffee cups (right about now you'd buy a politician and use the State to stop that pesty competition thing - but, let's pretend we live in a free market). As more coffee cups come into the market, your profit is reduced. You lower your costs through increases in efficiency, increase quality, lower price - eventually, you lower production and test the market with new products (say utensils). You now also produce these at a higher profit and the cycle repeats or you create a loss (Zune) and quit making that - either way, through sound money and profit you immediately know, to, or not to, produce these. Make too many things people do not want - you go bust. Make things people like, you grow.

Without sound money and profit, the State doesn't know how many coffee cups to make. Thus, the State has to gather information another way, such as spying on people to see if they have a cup. In the end, it's easier for the State to just force each and every person to have, say 1 cup. In order for the State to replace the free market with any semblance of efficiency, it reduces civil liberties, eliminates privacy and resorts to force - which is what the State IS. This was shown to happen in E. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Cuba, over and over again and again. The same process happens. Without sound money and no profit (no private property) the State is inefficient and resorts to what it IS - the initiation of force. It MUST reduce civil liberties and priavcy in order to do what sound money and profit does voluntarily in a free-market.

Thus: free markets require: Law, private property, sound money. We OTOH live in a regulation nightmare, a Progressive State that violates our person, our property and we are forced to use fiat currency (which is not the same as sound money).


RE: Private versus Public
Lastly, the State (Public) has a monopoly on the legal INITIATION of force. Not on 'force' per say. You're (Private) still allowed to defend yourself. That's the difference.

RE: How to stop parents from spanking in a true free market.

Firstly, such a world would be vastly more prosperous than our Fascist State.

Secondly, there's an economic incentive to get information out to parents about how spanking lowers a child's IQ and increases aggression (two undesirable traits in a voluntaristic stateless society). These are a economic drain on society as a whole - given the problems that develop later.

Third, insurance companies, many of whom will have to foot the bill, may offer cheaper rates to parents who attend parenting classes. If parents are found to violate their agreement not to spank, they may find many of their services they pay for - cost much much more. There's a real incentive not to hit kids.

Fourth, the added cost of security on society from dealing with aggressive kids adds another economic negative.

All up, parents may be incentivized not to hit their kids by being offered good economic discounts for not doing so.


While I could go on, I'm getting carpel tunnel. I'll end pay saying: much like the Abolitionist's argument about satellites, machines and dinosaur juice replacing the whip and slaves - no one can know what the free-market (voluntarism) would come up with in the future to deal with spanking. However, as humans transition from force (slavery) to voluntarism (paid work) we increase in prosperity and become more peaceful as a society.




NOTE: I thought I'd also mention, from a workers point of view, they often 'feel' that They are the ones creating profit - this is untrue. Working doesn't create profit. Trading creates profit. I thought I'd mention that as a lot of these "Utopian" ideals were brought about by workers misunderstanding this simple concept. You can work all day long raking leaves in the woods - it's not work that creates profit. It's trade. Which is why I want a liberal free market. I want to free people to freely trade. This INCLUDES people who only want to trade their labor. Sadly, we only produce workers thus there's an oversupply and that means (like coffee cups) the price goes down. Taxes and Regulations have pretty much finished off any semblance of the free market. Thus, we're now poor and we'll be getting poorer soon too.

Are you not the least concerned about what kind of society you will have created if money is the incentive for everything(even for not spanking your children)we do. Is there not enough greed for you?

 

[Michael]

Are you not the least concerned about what kind of society you will have created if money is the incentive for everything(even for not spanking your children)we do. Is there not enough greed for you?

Money would not "an incentive for everything". Money is an accounting tool and that's all. When you think you see "money" being used as an 'incentive' why don't you ignore the money for a minute and look a little deeper. What you really see are people unhappy with an individual in society. It's not possible to live in the modern world without interacting with people. If you're hitting your children, people are going to ostracise you. While you're looking at the money, what you should be looking at is the dissatisfaction society has with the violence. It's people saying, I don't want to be associated with you because of the way you are behaving.

I personally think a case can be made that hitting children directly violates NAP / non-aggression axiom and this would violate the law in an anarchy.

It's impossible to live without accessing markets. All members of an anarchy would have previously agreed to NAP by accessing markets. These are unwritten rules. You don't sign a contract you're not going to steal, hit people, smash stuff, etc.... when you enter the private shopping mall. It's an unwritten rule you agree to when you agree to enter the mall. I imagine if the threat of having access to all markets cut off, would be scary as hell.

That said, I seriously doubt in such a society that had achieved anarchy, that this would occur. In today's day and age, very few people would accept outright Slavery as practised 180 years ago. They'd find it repulsive and sickening. Likewise for people living in a voluntaristic society. Using force against your child, a helpless individual, would go against everything anarchy stands for. Few people would want to voluntarily interact with such a person.


Let me give you one more example and I hope this makes the point. Suppose I do business with a person (maybe I frequent their shop). I then find out they're a racist and don't serve non-Whites (my daughter isn't 'White'). I could use the State to pass a Law forcing them to serve non-whites. This will cost money and time and require a public police etc.... OR, in a Stateless society (an anarchy) I simply stop going to their shop. They lose my business. Their competitor gains my business. They lose money. As more people find out they're a racist, they soon start to go out of business (in a Republic the Laws reflect the will of the people and so we must assume a society that would vote to pass a Law is a society that doesn't like racism; hence the Law. This is an example of an anarchy and so there is no such law as that shop is that person's private property - I'm simply illustrating both societies think racism is undesirable). This means the shop owner is going to lose more than just my business, maybe their entire income. If you only look at the money, then you're missing what's really happening. In the real word 'I'm not interacting with this person'. This shows up as a loss of money for them. They either change their ways, or they go bust. Either way, we'll have a shop that serves all 'races'. It should be noted the Anarchy is not only volentary, it's also more economic as it doesn't require paying for a massive State leaving society much more prosperous and able to provide money for all the other stuff we want, like medicine, free time, games, time with family, art, etc... (ours costs us $40 Trillion in lost potential this year - that's a colony on Mars and cheap vacations to the moon).

 

[Bells]

Money would not "an incentive for everything". Money is an accounting tool and that's all. When you think you see "money" being used as an 'incentive' why don't you ignore the money for a minute and look a little deeper. What you really see are people unhappy with an individual in society. It's not possible to live in the modern world without interacting with people. If you're hitting your children, people are going to ostracise you. While you're looking at the money, what you should be looking at is the dissatisfaction society has with the violence. It's people saying, I don't want to be associated with you because of the way you are behaving.

I personally think a case can be made that hitting children directly violates NAP / non-aggression axiom and this would violate the law in an anarchy.

It's impossible to live without accessing markets. All members of an anarchy would have previously agreed to NAP by accessing markets. These are unwritten rules. You don't sign a contract you're not going to steal, hit people, smash stuff, etc.... when you enter the private shopping mall. It's an unwritten rule you agree to when you agree to enter the mall. I imagine if the threat of having access to all markets cut off, would be scary as hell.

That said, I seriously doubt in such a society that had achieved anarchy, that this would occur. In today's day and age, very few people would accept outright Slavery as practised 180 years ago. They'd find it repulsive and sickening. Likewise for people living in a voluntaristic society. Using force against your child, a helpless individual, would go against everything anarchy stands for. Few people would want to voluntarily interact with such a person.


Let me give you one more example and I hope this makes the point. Suppose I do business with a person (maybe I frequent their shop). I then find out they're a racist and don't serve non-Whites (my daughter isn't 'White'). I could use the State to pass a Law forcing them to serve non-whites. This will cost money and time and require a public police etc.... OR, in a Stateless society (an anarchy) I simply stop going to their shop. They lose my business. Their competitor gains my business. They lose money. As more people find out they're a racist, they soon start to go out of business (in a Republic the Laws reflect the will of the people and so we must assume a society that would vote to pass a Law is a society that doesn't like racism; hence the Law). This means they're going to lose more than just my business, maybe their entire income. If you only look at the money, then you're missing what's really happening. In the real word 'I'm not interacting with this person'. This shows up as a loss of money for them. They either change their ways, or they go bust. Either way, we'll have a shop that serves all 'races'. It should be noted the Anarchy is not only volentary, it's also more economic as it doesn't require paying for a massive State (ours costs us $40 Trillion in lost potential this year - that's a colony on Mars and cheap vacations to the moon).

How would you police or monitor parents to make sure they are not hitting their children?

Because people rarely hit or even abuse their children in public, but wait until they are in the privacy of their own homes. Or would you expect children to report on their own parents, thus the parents lose the economic incentive you think could work, and in the long run, the children loses out by not having access to that economic incentive?

Or would have a system of dobbing in, whereby neighbours or family members would report the parents who hit their children? This leaves open a system where disgruntled neighbours could exact revenge on people with mere reports. Unless of course you wish to operate on mere rumours and people not wanting to have anything to do with them or whatever business they may run?

Cameras in every household perhaps? But that would be a gross invasion of privacy.

And I am sure there would be a body recording the wrong doing and reporting it to the paying public? Or would it work on the rumour mill?

Again, inherent dangers there..

I could go on, but I am pressed for time..

 

[Michael]

@ Michael,

Do you believe we have a market economy in the U.S.? Consumerism already comprises 71% of U.S, economy and you want to make it 100%? How many losers are there in your laissez faire dream? You extol the advantages of the free market but you neglect the disadvantages.

We do not have a free market no. All markets are regulated. Also, we do not have sound money (we use fiat currency).

 

[Michael]

How would you police or monitor parents to make sure they are not hitting their children?

Because people rarely hit or even abuse their children in public, but wait until they are in the privacy of their own homes. Or would you expect children to report on their own parents, thus the parents lose the economic incentive you think could work, and in the long run, the children loses out by not having access to that economic incentive?

Or would have a system of dobbing in, whereby neighbours or family members would report the parents who hit their children? This leaves open a system where disgruntled neighbours could exact revenge on people with mere reports. Unless of course you wish to operate on mere rumours and people not wanting to have anything to do with them or whatever business they may run?

Cameras in every household perhaps? But that would be a gross invasion of privacy.

And I am sure there would be a body recording the wrong doing and reporting it to the paying public? Or would it work on the rumour mill?

Again, inherent dangers there..

I could go on, but I am pressed for time..

No one can know what a free market would develop.

I can think of one reasonable device. In a prosperous society everyone would have an fMRI scan every 3-6 months for medical check up (it's actually sad we don't do this now). This may pick up on abnormalities in the brains of children being hit at home. There may be a meeting with the child and parent and parenting classes and maybe even therapy or support services (offered free of charge - much like Skype offers free video). It's obvious this parent either had some sort of aneurysm or was abused as a child. Why would a parent born into a society based on voluntarism suddenly start hitting their child? I'd be like a child raised in an English speaking house suddenly speaking Mandarin. The language of violence would be as foreign to such a society as would beating and raping a human would be in the modern day and age. It'd be unthinkable now and yet 180 years ago it was the norm for many parts of the world.

It should also be noted, prosperous societies are usually good generous people. Humans generally default to being kind and social, not mean and antisocial. There'd be no national identity in an anarchy (no State) and I doubt religion would play much of a role either due to the required appreciation of logic to achieve an anarchy.

Those are some thoughts, but again, no one can know what the free-market composed of billions of people would come up with.

 

[Bells]

No one can know what a free market would develop.

You seem to believe that a free market will develop into the land of Ponyville where everyone is happy and nice and all things delightful.

I can think of one reasonable device. In a prosperous society everyone would have an fMRI scan every 3-6 months for medical check up (it's actually sad we don't do this now). This may pick up on abnormalities in the brains of children being hit at home. There may be a meeting with the child and parent and parenting classes and maybe even therapy or support services (offered free of charge - much like Skype offers free video).

Let me see if I have this straight..

In this free market land you wish to live in, you want society or some in society to interfere with how people raise their children, to the point where people will have to have fMRI's every 3 to 6 months and parenting classes and therapy and sessions? This is a free society?

It's obvious this parent either had some sort of aneurysm or was abused as a child. Why would a parent born into a society based on voluntarism suddenly start hitting their child? I'd be like a child raised in an English speaking house suddenly speaking Mandarin. The language of violence would be as foreign to such a society as would beating and raping a human would be in the modern day and age. It'd be unthinkable now and yet 180 years ago it was the norm for many parts of the world.

Tell me, what would happen if parents refused to make their children have fMRI's? Or if they refuse to attend or take part in the parenting classes and sessions?

Because your version of utopia appears to be one of population control, to the most minute detail, even to words spoken by people within their respective communities.

And the irony of all of this is that you complain about Australia banning a violent video game, and yet, here you are saying that "the language of violence would be as foreign to such a society, etc".. I take it that to ensure violence and "the language of violence" is not common place or expected in your version of utopia, violent video games and movies will be phased out? But what if people wish to play or use violent language? Will society bully them until they fall into line?

It should also be noted, prosperous societies are usually good generous people.

In Ponyville, sure. In real life, no.

Humans generally default to being kind and social, not mean and antisocial.

Tell that to the people being gassed to death in Syria.

There'd be no national identity in an anarchy (no State) and I doubt religion would play much of a role either due to the required appreciation of logic to achieve an anarchy.

Just mandatory invasive tests and medical procedures and forced parenting classes..

Your version of utopia, or your dream society, is one based on thought control where there is no free will.

Those are some thoughts, but again, no one can know what the free-market composed of billions of people would come up with.

Mmmm.. Me thinks you need to get out more.

 

[quinnsong]

Possible Answer to the Elimination of Poverty?

One of the reasons I began this thread is to challenge myself and others to investigate why a regulated free market, a socialist economy or the mixture of both has failed to eliminate poverty. Michael believes that laissez faire capitalism is the answer and I tend more toward a mixture of soc/cap, but what if we both changed our mindset and could agree on a way to eliminate poverty and the social ills associated with it. I think I have hit on something through a pretty extensive search that I would not mind putting into place right here in America. What do you think? Could this really work?


http://www.globalurban.org/Issue1PIMag05/Yunus article.htm

 

[wegs]

I've read part of it ^^ and the five "key concepts" that need to be "urgently" addressed are SPOT ON.

Finally, a refreshing view on the matter of poverty with potentially sustainable solutions. Is it possible? Yes. Will it face incredible challenges? Yes. But, if carried out to even half of its potential, we will see a decline in poverty.

I could get excited about something like that!

 

[Michael]

You seem to believe that a free market will develop into the land of Ponyville where everyone is happy and nice and all things delightful.


Let me see if I have this straight..

In this free market land you wish to live in, you want society or some in society to interfere with how people raise their children, to the point where people will have to have fMRI's every 3 to 6 months and parenting classes and therapy and sessions? This is a free society?


Tell me, what would happen if parents refused to make their children have fMRI's? Or if they refuse to attend or take part in the parenting classes and sessions?

Because your version of utopia appears to be one of population control, to the most minute detail, even to words spoken by people within their respective communities.

And the irony of all of this is that you complain about Australia banning a violent video game, and yet, here you are saying that "the language of violence would be as foreign to such a society, etc".. I take it that to ensure violence and "the language of violence" is not common place or expected in your version of utopia, violent video games and movies will be phased out? But what if people wish to play or use violent language? Will society bully them until they fall into line?


In Ponyville, sure. In real life, no.


Tell that to the people being gassed to death in Syria.


Just mandatory invasive tests and medical procedures and forced parenting classes..

Your version of utopia, or your dream society, is one based on thought control where there is no free will.

Mmmm.. Me thinks you need to get out more.

You're still missing the point in voluntarism. As I read your response I can see you have a fundamental misunderstanding to what the free market and State actually are. You should replace the words "free market" with "voluntarism" and "Government' or "State" with the word "force", and then reread your sentences. No one would be forced to have an fMRI scan.

I'll try one more example: Suppose there's a health insurance company. It's but one of many, you choose it. It costs you $1000 a year. Suppose one day they offer to lower your health premium by $100 if you regularly exercise. They give you a free membership to a gym near you. However, to qualify for the $100 you must attend the gym - who will note how many days a week you attend. It's up to you. Suppose they then offer to lower your premiums by $400 a year if you have an fMRI scan. Which would be great - as it lets you know your health status. So you could pay $1000 or you could pay $500. It's up to you. Also, there'd be MANY different insurance companies offering you various plans and services. That's the free market. In our State run healthcare, it's nearly impossible to get in and have an fMRI scan and the number of fMRI machines are limited per city purposely prevent competition in scanning services (I know doctors who have them for themselves every few months - lucky them).

Thus, I imagine in a Stateless society, where people must organize themselves in some voluntarism manner - the scenario I painted may be one of those ways in which people organically organize to prevent spanking. Of course, in an anarchy stateless society, spanking is not preparing your child to be successful in such a society. In a society based purely on negotiation - logic, virtue, honesty, high IQ, and peacefully interacting with one another etc... these are the things you're going to want your children to be raised with to be successful. In a State run society (ours) spanking is actually a good strategy. Traumatise the infant by putting them into day supervision at aged 6 weeks old. When they develop behaviour problems spank them and put them on various mood controlling pills. Force them all to be pumped through a 'standardized education' where all children are 'educated' the same. Randomly pick a few from the top to go into professional careers and then wonder why no one has the mental ability to question the State of things.


I'll say this much, you really do have a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms I'm using in this argument. 'Coincidentally' you happen to align your argument with what is considered at this time as the social norm. That's something you may want to think about. Or not, it's up to you. But, as of now you don't fully comprehend what you're reading.



There's a vote coming up, listen to your 'representatives' see if they want to 'help' society by paying parents a 'tax credit' (haha, pay a tax credit - no, you're not Tax Cattle) to put their children into State sanctioned day-supervision from aged 6 weeks - you know, because the States wants to help society ......make it's mortgagee payments - which greatly benefits the State (the Central Bank works with our "Representatives" like hand in glove to drive the housing prices into a bubble). I know many young Australian who have given up the idea of owning a house and having a family. They just share house with other 20-40 year olds and work at low paying service jobs.

 

[Michael]

In Ponyville, sure. In real life, no.

I've found the opposite in my life. Japanese, Taiwanese, Australians, Americans - I've found them to be generous when they have wealth they share it.

 

[quinnsong]

Thus, I imagine in a Stateless society, where people must organize themselves in some voluntarism manner - the scenario I painted may be one of those ways in which people organically organize to prevent spanking. Of course, in an anarchy stateless society, spanking is not preparing your child to be successful in such a society. In a society based purely on negotiation - logic, virtue, honesty, high IQ, and peacefully interacting with one another etc... these are the things you're going to want your children to be raised with to be successful. In a State run society (ours) spanking is actually a good strategy. Traumatise the infant by putting them into day supervision at aged 6 weeks old. When they develop behaviour problems spank them and put them on various mood controlling pills. Force them all to be pumped through a 'standardized education' where all children are 'educated' the same. Randomly pick a few from the top to go into professional careers and then wonder why no one has the mental ability to question the State of things.

So many questions? What is the women's role in your stateless society? Not everyone has a high IQ , not everyone is virtuous, not everyone is peaceful even though they were not spanked, what do you do with them? The marketplace (buyer and sellers) produces foods, medicines, entertainment and it's own brand of education right now that is not one bit beneficial to the progress of the human race. How will this change in a stateless society? How do you keep the marketplace from being so exploitative to both the environment and to the human race? In your stateless society who owns the means of production?

There's a vote coming up, listen to your 'representatives' see if they want to 'help' society by paying parents a 'tax credit' (haha, pay a tax credit - no, you're not Tax Cattle) to put their children into State sanctioned day-supervision from aged 6 weeks - you know, because the States wants to help society ......make it's mortgagee payments - which greatly benefits the State (the Central Bank works with our "Representatives" like hand in glove to drive the housing prices into a bubble). I know many young Australian who have given up the idea of owning a house and having a family. They just share house with other 20-40 year olds and work at low paying service jobs.

I am not disagreeing that there is collusion between government and Big capital, how do we decide which is the bigger evil? How can someone make billions of dollars each year when there are millions living below poverty? How is this the State's fault?


I want to see a world free of poverty Michael and the free market is great at creating wealth but heck that old human failing called greed kicks in and not everyone gets to share in that creation of wealth. The State did not cause these people to be greedy or selfish! Michael you never did address the disadvantages of the free market?

 

[Michael]

One of the reasons I began this thread is to challenge myself and others to investigate why a regulated free market, a socialist economy or the mixture of both has failed to eliminate poverty.

Saying a mixture of free-market and socialist economy is like saying I thought I'd work on my love-making rape, or saying I've employed a new Slave.

It's an oxymoron.

What it seems you mean to say is you'd like to try out Progressive Fascism. Well, that's pretty much what we do now. It works better than socialism but creates huge packets of inequality. An example would be China. Better than they were as Socialists, but the massive number of Ghost Cities clearly demonstrates a Government can not figure out who needs a coffee cup as well as the free market can.

I do agree 'economies' need to become more liberalized. This has literally worked miracles in China.

 

[quinnsong]

Saying a mixture of free-market and socialist economy is like saying I thought I'd work on my love-making rape, or saying I've employed a new Slave.

It's an oxymoron.

Ha, yeah socialism is the love-making and rape is capitalism.

What it seems you mean to say is you'd like to try out Progressive Fascism. Well, that's pretty much what we do now. It works better than socialism but creates huge packets of inequality. An example would be China. Better than they were as Socialists, but the massive number of Ghost Cities clearly demonstrates a Government can not figure out who needs a coffee cup as well as the free market can.

I firmly believe that education and medical care is a right so call me a Progressive fascist if you like.

I do agree 'economies' need to become more liberalized. This has literally worked miracles in China.

Yep a market economy with Chinese tendencies.

 

[Michael]

So many questions? What is the women's role in your stateless society? Not everyone has a high IQ , not everyone is virtuous, not everyone is peaceful even though they were not spanked, what do you do with them? The marketplace (buyer and sellers) produces foods, medicines, entertainment and it's own brand of education right now that is not one bit beneficial to the progress of the human race. How will this change in a stateless society? How do you keep the marketplace from being so exploitative to both the environment and to the human race? In your stateless society who owns the means of production?

The role of women? The same as men. They're equal.

Not having a high IQ would restrict job opportunities. But may open up others. Some people are funny. Some people aren't. Some people are good actors. Other aren't. The good thing about a liberal free market is there's plenty of work to go around. People aren't regulated out of a job.

I think you'll find privately owned land is much better kept than public. Just like a public house versus a private house. But, some people will soil their land. It must happen actually. When you start your car, you're emitting CO2. When you use a medicine, that requires some oil. The free market will best reach a fair equilibrium. As it is now, under Fascism, we're nuking the Pacific through Fukushima. While you may want to say 'that's a private company' - this just isn't the case. Japan is a State and nuclear energy is highly regulated (much like public schools are public housing). Regulations do not work as well as a free market. Also note no one was put in prison. This is the shield of the "Corporation" again a State derived entity. Lastly, unlike in a free market, here the "Citizen" insures the nuclear industry and will be the ones paying to clean this mess.

In a State run economy people think the State is taking care of things. In a Stateless economy people are forced to deal with this themselves, either by paying someone - or offering the service themselves.

 

[Michael]

Yep a market economy with Chinese tendencies.

I understand, and that's what we're somewhat doing. If you like the way things are in going in the USA, then you'll like that system.

 

[Michael]

I am not disagreeing that there is collusion between government and Big capital, how do we decide which is the bigger evil? How can someone make billions of dollars each year when there are millions living below poverty? How is this the State's fault?


I want to see a world free of poverty Michael and the free market is great at creating wealth but heck that old human failing called greed kicks in and not everyone gets to share in that creation of wealth. The State did not cause these people to be greedy or selfish! Michael you never did address the disadvantages of the free market?

This is Fascism. There's no such thing as TBTF in a free market. We've taken on 14 trillion dollars of debt to bail out the rich bankers (who it was estimated would have only lost 70 billion in bonuses in 2008 - Bankers were willing to destroy the world rather than lose a few years bonuses).

This IS Fascism - the combination of State (force) and semi-free market efficiency. IMO, an unholy alliance.

The reason why there are so few ultra rich (who were bailed out by the State) and so many more poor - is because of Fascism. When people turn to the State (force) to solve their problems, it's like asking Satan to lend a hand. You'll get much more than you bargained for. Only the State can sell bonds on your kids. Only the State can inflate away the savings of the elderly. Only the State can force the Worker to pay a tax for working. You don't think this is like honey is to a bee, for the psychopaths in society? It's like a big beacon above a door that says "Enter Here" sign for the most evil amongst us. That State can legally murder people. The LAST thing you want is the State helping you out.


Anyone who says I'm here to help, and hold a gun to your head - is probably a sociopath at best. I read 1 in 25 people could be diagnosed with sociopathy. Something to think about next time you're voting.