The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

[spidergoat]

You mean humans have collectively decided that some forms of violence within their own society is acceptable. To maintain the rule of law. Which is an ethical thing to do. I don't think you've thought this through. Without law, many people become victims of violence. Way more than without it. And you don't have to eliminate the state entirely to solve the problems you mention. Your ideology creates violence too. Peacefully raised children aren't immune from being violent or wanting power.

 

[Michael]

You mean humans have collectively decided that some forms of violence within their own society is acceptable. To maintain the rule of law. Which is an ethical thing to do. I don't think you've thought this through. Without law, many people become victims of violence. Way more than without it. And you don't have to eliminate the state entirely to solve the problems you mention. Your ideology creates violence too. Peacefully raised children aren't immune from being violent or wanting power.

I did not say without Law. I said "Limited" government. This means that at this time we should have a government that plays a SMALL role in society. Ensuring that private property is protected, that contract is upheld and that the Law is enforced - this IS that small limited role government should play Deciding on who I can marry, if I can smoke a weed, if I can sell sex, if I can paint my house purple, what I wipe my arse with, selling T-bonds on my children's future labor to the Chinese, dropping chemical weapons (like flaming napalming) on villages of small children, and hundreds of other NON-limited roles, is simply not required.


Peacefully raised children may want power and some may want to enact violence against other innocent humans - but without a Government to do so, they're tough out of luck. It simply isn't legal. They're stuck having to provide valued goods and services like the rest of us.

Instead though, as it stands today, violently raised children are the norm (85% are hit as a form of 'discipline) and without a mother at home or a two parent family the vast majority are shoveled into day supervision centers only to graduate into Government-run Government Schools which will "raise" them - as they see fit. This would have been unthinkable as little as two generations ago.

Anyway, those children will find a very large, unlimited government within which they will have all the power they need to fulfill their desire to use violence against innocent people. The Government is a playhouse for the sociopath. They can do everything from directly strangling innocent humans to death for the 'crime' of selling arranged flowers without a licence or working for one of our many prison-cage camps over to the fun of selling T-bonds on unborn children - - safe in the knowledge that if they don't pay, they'll get a bullet or a short trip to a prison-cage. Government is ideal for a sociopath. Which is why, history will show, government murder WAY more humans than all the rest of society put together, many times over.

 

[Michael]

 

[spidergoat]

Government isn't the only tool of oppression. Limited government allows oppression by other entities. So by advocated limited government power, you are doing the same thing you claim to be against. You are advocating violence that the government could have otherwise prevented. It's not even a political ideology, it's just a naive person pretending he knows something he doesn't know.

 

[spidergoat]

...

Yeah I can imagine that too. Doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Michael]

Government isn't the only tool of oppression. Limited government allows oppression by other entities. So by advocated limited government power, you are doing the same thing you claim to be against. You are advocating violence that the government could have otherwise prevented. It's not even a political ideology, it's just a naive person pretending he knows something he doesn't know.

"Entities"?
"Oppression"?
Could you be a more opaque? And, why use these new terms?

I didn't say anything about 'entities', I defined groups of humans as private or public. Those are the two 'entities' I am referring to. I don't know what you mean by oppressed. I did not say oppression. I said specifically stated: the legal initiation of violence against innocent humans. Am I 'oppressing' you if I refuse to do business with you? Suppose you're selling coffee and someone else is selling coffee. Suppose I choose not to buy your coffee - is that 'oppression'? Is my refusal to do business with you a form of 'violence'? Is this other coffee salesperson the 'entity' you're worried about? Suppose they're simply undercutting your price - is that a violence against you?! Or are they simply offering me something of value - and our business transaction, has nothing at all to do with you? It's, none of your business?

Suggesting I'm 'naive' isn't making an valid argument. I could say the same for you. You're naive in thinking that expanding the scope and power of an immoral group of humans with the legal right to initiate violence against morally innocent humans - and not think they'll do exactly that, is absurdly naive on all manner of levels.

Anyway, would you care to clarify your example of 'entities' and 'oppression'? Because as it stands, this is not addressing my argument in any meaningful or reasonable, manner.

 

[joepistole]

The middle class and the poor have NOT BENEFITED AT ALL.

What don't you get?! The numbers are staring you in the face and yet you persist with your belief in Central Planning and expansion of Statism. Which is why I refer to Statism as a superstitious belief no different from any other religion.

Statism -vs- Sky Daddy
Big State, Little Gawd
Little State, Big Gawd​

Only belief in the State is WORSE because it's predicated on one simple rule: The legal initiation of violence against innocent humans. Strangling someone to death for *gasp* selling a cigarette (their property) to an another so-called 'Free" adult American. Or, shooting someone in the head for *gasp* daring to smoke a weed they grew in their backyard. Or forcing laborers to pay a 'tax' on their labor PER HOUR.

Don't worry, we're not getting LESS Statism - nope. We're going to get much much more Statism. And we all get to lose many more Civil Liberties and pay much more tax along that way. You know, because MOAR and FREE.

Well you may not think that reversing the job losses is a benefit for poor and middle class citizens. But I'm pretty sure those that lost their jobs or were endanger of loosing their jobs have a very different opinion. And the simple fact is your antigovernment rants are not based on evidence and reason.

 

[joepistole]

If we did not have a Central Bank and Labor Tax, then there wouldn't have ever been a Great Depression 1 let alone 2. For example, we wouldn't be stuck using one currency, there'd be all sorts of different currencies. Some people would use a version of fiat, other's gold, others electronic and still other's would use types never invented. Most people would use a combination. This diversification would make it nearly impossible for one rouge institution (in this case, the Federal Government) to completely f*ck up society.

We also would not be engaged in trillion dollar wars. Society would be much freer and totally different.

All that just because we have a central bank managing the money supply? Why not blame the Fed for causing Polio, cancer and a host of other diseases? You would have as much evidence and reason.

I swear to God you sound like you're 5 years old. The Koch brothers exist IN THIS WORLD. With THIS Federal Government. That's a FACT. They, like all the other billionaires were bailed out by the Central Bank.

You have ZERO idea of what society would look like if Laborer's weren't forced to pay a tax on their labor. If the Central Bank weren't allowed to sell T-Bond's on their kids, grandkids and great grandkids future Labor. If we had a LIMITED Government that protect Private Property and ensured contract was enforced - life would be very very different.

Yes, the Koch brothers do exist in this world and they fund your ideology, an ideology which would benefit them greatly. They wouldn't have to worry about the government obstructing their pollution of the land or stopping their theft of oil. And I do know what the world would look like if the income of laborers were not taxed. We saw that world before he income tax during the Industrial Revolution. Banks often failed. There was no insurance against bank failure. So when banks went belly-up, depositors lost most if not all of their deposits.

No one knows what life might look like. But, at least it's be a more moral society. Unless you think a more immoral society is BETTER? Then you'd conclude, a freer society is a better society.

Ah yes we do and we also know what your dystopian world would look like, because we have been there and done that. Our current financial and economic system has evolved over centuries. I suggest your brush up on evolution.

I know this is hard for you State-bots to grasp, but it's people who do things. With or without a State. Without a State we'd have to come up with solutions to our problems without resorting to threatening to shoot someone in the face. So, we'd have differing solutions to our problems - but we WOULD have solutions. And if these didn't work well, good, we'd invent other solutions. AND we'd continue to invent other solutions until we were satisfied. THAT is how FREE people operate!


Not that any of this matters. Americans are by and large functionally illiterate (thank you Government School) and read at a 6th grade level. Stupid stories about the Big Scary Koch Brothers sell well to children and adults with a child-like mentality. So, we'll get MOAR government. MOAR centralization. MOAR Central Planning. And finally we'll elect a Demagogue who promises to take the property from people who own something (bye bye SlumLords) and give to those less fortunate. We'll call this The Great Redistribution. During this time, I expect some freedoms to increase as Crony SlumLords lose their Regulatory Capture and status as Rent Seekers. I personally think this may work out so well as to warrant an 'extended' term. Twelve years instead of 8. And, soon enough, we'll have ourselves an official Aristocracy. Returning to the Historical trend-line. Life under an official Aristocracy will probably be pretty good for many Peons. Particularly those Peons who like being Peons.

Oh, and don't expect the Never-Ending-War on Everything to end. It's now too important to the "Economy". It CAN'T end. Your great grandchildren will probably be brainwashed in a Government School into fighting and dying for The Good of You Use The Roads.

That's nonsense. Instead of these senseless rants, how about making a cogent case for your beliefs? But then you would be forced to admit, your beliefs are not consistent with evidence and cogent thought.

 

[spidergoat]

"Entities"?
"Oppression"?
Could you be a more opaque? And, why use these new terms?

I didn't say anything about 'entities', I defined groups of humans as private or public. Those are the two 'entities' I am referring to. I don't know what you mean by oppressed. I did not say oppression. I said specifically stated: the legal initiation of violence against innocent humans. Am I 'oppressing' you if I refuse to do business with you? Suppose you're selling coffee and someone else is selling coffee. Suppose I choose not to buy your coffee - is that 'oppression'? Is my refusal to do business with you a form of 'violence'? Is this other coffee salesperson the 'entity' you're worried about? Suppose they're simply undercutting your price - is that a violence against you?! Or are they simply offering me something of value - and our business transaction, has nothing at all to do with you? It's, none of your business?

Suggesting I'm 'naive' isn't making an valid argument. I could say the same for you. You're naive in thinking that expanding the scope and power of an immoral group of humans with the legal right to initiate violence against morally innocent humans - and not think they'll do exactly that, is absurdly naive on all manner of levels.

Anyway, would you care to clarify your example of 'entities' and 'oppression'? Because as it stands, this is not addressing my argument in any meaningful or reasonable, manner.

Without the law, criminal gangs take over, protection rackets, corporate monopolies. Even people who refuse to do business with other people, like blacks, gays, Irish, or Jews, all of this has happened before. If there is no force allowed whatsoever, there is no law, as there are no consequences for not following the law. You can't even get someone into a courtroom sometimes without some level of force. It only becomes violent if you are violent. It only becomes violent if people disrespect the law. Of course you are assumed to be innocent.

Go follow your dream on some hippy dippy commune if you like, but in the real world your ideas won't work. Where have they worked?

I bet you can't even follow it in your own life. Do you have kids? Here's a mental experiment. One kid of yours puts his sister's barbie in the dog bowl, and there is a huge argument over it. You want him to sit down and talk it over, tell him why he should respect other people's property, etc... But he doesn't want to. What do you do? Initiate a little force and drag your son into the living room? You try to talk to him, but he ignores you and runs outside. What then? Without the tiniest bit of force, you have lost your authority as a parent.

You say the state shouldn't use force on innocent people, but how does one determine who is innocent if there is no trial? You can't have a trial (without force) if someone doesn't want to show up.

 

[Michael]

Well you may not think that reversing the job losses is a benefit for poor and middle class citizens. But I'm pretty sure those that lost their jobs or were endanger of loosing their jobs have a very different opinion. And the simple fact is your antigovernment rants are not based on evidence and reason.

And what about the 'lost jerbs' of all those poor ditch diggers that were lost due to the tractor? Or how about all the horse whip makers put out of business due to the car.

Or how about all the people working at Blackberry 5 years ago when they controlled 45% of the smartphone market - what about them Joe? If you had your way there'd be NO innovation because *GASP* someone might lose their jerb.

Yes, think about all those Slavers who lost their Jerbs selling slaves.
Yes, think of all the Peons' who lost their Jerbs being Peon's to their Aristocratic masters.

Yeah, some people would have lost their jobs, Joe. So what? The world (a) wouldn't have ended, the Sky (b) wouldn't have fallen and (c) we wouldn't be living through a decade of Central Banking distortions. Many of those people who would have lost their job would now have new better jobs. Many of the people who created the GFC would have lost their assets. Instead, they're rewarded with early retirement and life as a SlumLord while their grand children miss out on having a Mother at home because she's to busy working two shitty jerbs to make rent to a despised and hated SlumLord. She can't afford a house because her shitty Jerb at McDonald's ensures she's trapped forever as working poor. NO No NO! Can't let the price of a home go down, she might go buy a house and this might bankrupt a SlumLord who requires that the poor remain poor renters forever. Wouldn't want her to leave. No, wouldn't want that to happen.

Only in your Loonie La La land does bailing out CRIMINALS and thieves make sense because... well, Jerbs. Or, more likely, the bailout worked out well for Joe. Joe cares about Joe and so whatever post-hoc justification is good enough for him.

The FACT IS Joe, the RICH and CRIMINAL (often one and the same) were bailed out.

This is the fact. The data show this to be true.
Having a SHITTY McJerb doesn't alter this empirical FACT.
Soon, QE4 will be bailing out the rich and criminal yet AGAIN.
And, the poor and what's left of the middle class will be poorer.

Yes, the Koch brothers

The Koch brother's didn't cause the GFC Joe - Bankers did. Banksters and lenders did. The Central Bankers being the worse of the lot of them. The Koch brothers inherited an oil fortune from their father and for the most part run a petrochemical company - one that creates *GASP* high paying jobs like chemical engineers. What they're not are ex-banker SlumLords. They may be many things, even arse-holes, but what they're not are ex-Banker SlumLords.

Anyway, the real criminals / Banksters and other scam-lenders, where bailed out - and continue to be bailed out, and will continue to be bailed out. What's done is done. The rich are richer and the poor and middle class poorer. This will continue on for a LONG time to come. One day, the poor will elect a demagogue and the demagogue will usher in the Great Redistribution whereby anyone with something worth stealing, I mean 'taxing', is taxed and taken. Who knows? If we get a real sociopath into office, and if the people are really looking for someone to blame, all those ex-bankers will be sentenced to life in a rape-cage to the voracious cheers of the masses.

 

[Michael]

Without the law,

I didn't say anything about lawlessness. Again, you are not addressing my argument. You may be addressing an argument, just not the one I made.

One more time, I said limited government that enforces basic LAWS which protect private property (beginning with one's self-ownership / body) as well as sees that contracts are upheld.

As for gangs running rampant? See: LIMITED government.
As for corporations running rampant? Okay, Apple is the largest US Corporation. Tell me how Apple Inc is somehow going to both supply me with the things I may want (iPhone as an example) as well as somehow become a 'monopoly' and force me to buy iPhones. The historical evidence shows that it's next to impossible to maintain a monopoly UNLESS you provide extremely high value at an extremely low price. So, in reality, I don't care if a corporation has a monopoly for awhile as it means I'm getting value for money. If not, they'd go bankrupt soon enough. Blackberry had a near-monopoly, bankrupt. GM had a near monopoly, bankrupt. Microsoft has a near monopoly, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't go bankrupt some day.

And, you know what? Neither do you. YOU do NOT care about private corporate monopolies. How do I know? Because the entire electronics industry is supplied high-grade silicon from ONE major company (family owned) in Japan - that corporation has a near monopoly. It even put two Germany companies out of business a half decade ago. But guess what? You didn't know that, and you do NOT care.

And this is the strange thing, free-market monopolies you say you're worried about, but in real-life are not at all concerned with, but the REAL monopolies that we need to worry about are the ones your support!
Make sense of that! As far as I know:
(1) You support "regulated" healthcare - which gives the AMA a massive monopoly, one that has ultimately destroyed healthcare. Healthcare regulation is a massive scam. Government monopoly/regulatory-capture has produced an industry filled with rent-seekers! And what do we see with our government-run healthcare monopoly? LOW quality (and getting worse by the day) and MASSIVELY HIGH costs! Nearly 500,000 Americans will DIE due to medical error this year. Another 3-5 MILLION will suffer life long injuries. This is up 500% from 20 years ago! It's the leading cause of bankruptcy in the USA. Yet, you want MOAR Government regulations!?! What? Half a million dead too low? Want to go for 1 million? Well, we're getting there and will be there soon enough. Unless free-market innovation replaces government healthcare (say, robotics and AI).
(2) You support Government schooling. Which has a near God-like monopoly on pedagogy in the USA. Which is why schooling in 2015 looks like 1970. ZERO innovation. Government schools hire the LOWEST scoring University graduates. Not the highest, the lowest. What's the outcome of this monopoly? Over 20% of Americans graduate certified as competent after 12 YEARS of 'education' and are functionally illiterate! That's 1 in 5 to the innumerate (here, I'll translate for that 20%: Numbers make me boo boo).
(3) You support Government's monopoly on force itself.
(4) You support the Central Bank monopoly on our money.
etc....


So, yeah, I agree with your proposition that monopolies MAY be a bad thing - when enforced by the violence of the State. THOSE monopolies are evil. We should work to LIMIT those monopolies. AKA: Limited Government.

 

[Michael]

Where have they worked?

The USA used to have a small limited government. As a matter of fact, the entire purpose of the US Constitution was to LIMIT government's reach into our lives. In the early 1900's, the ONLY contact most Americans had with the Federal Government - was the US Post. And, guess what? This ushered in the post-modern age. Electricity, automation, movies, lights - all of these and more were invented when government was LIMITED.

Anyway, you needn't worry. We're not getting less government. We're getting more.

 

[Michael]

You say the state shouldn't use force on innocent people, but how does one determine who is innocent if there is no trial? You can't have a trial (without force) if someone doesn't want to show up.

Morally innocent.

 

[Michael]

Want to know what 2% is good for? It's good for people paying off loans. Like a SlumLord. Who it's bad for are the working poor - who will never have a loan, because they'll be forever trapped as working poor renting from a SlumLord, their entire lives.

Here's what 2 - 4% inflation does to the 'savings' of the working poor (if they can even acquire any savings). Which is why the working poor generally never have any savings and often leave their children with nothing. Thanks to State caused inflation, even if you work your whole life for your children - it'll be worthless to them. You'll leave them next to nothing.

Meanwhile:

 

[Billy T]

A comment on point 1 of post 1351:
Yes, the AMA sort of has a monopoly but is more accurately described as a strong labor union that is effectively closed to non-AMA approved entrants. Med school's entrance /acceptance committee is made up of strong AMA supporters. (Usually 100% AMA members).

They have gotten two things from all states:
(1) They, via lobbyists not the state, write the rules / control who can practice medicine (become licensed in the state). For example, Christiaan Barnard did world's first heart transplant on 3 Dec. 1967. His patient died 18 days later due to pneumonia, with new heart pumping fine. He could collected >10 higher fees in NYC, but was not a graduate of US medical school so could not get license to practice medicine there - his application was refused. Critically ill US patients in need of a new heart died as a result.

(2) They limit the number of medical schools (and thus new doctors). There are many more who want and are qualified to enter medical school to become an MD than get in. In every state, the AMA must approve (certify the need for) any new medical schools. They have one of the most effective, if not the most effective lobbyist organizations at the state level.* They essentially write the requirements for being granted a license, by each states. They don't want significantly lower MD fees so limit number of new doctors graduating to replacement rate.

I don't call this a monopoly, but a closed legalized union - The only one in the USA, AFAIK.

* Main use of the AMA's relative large dues.

PS the reason state hospitals have such a high fraction of foreign doctors is they are on salary, not "fee for service." - They are not allowed to work as doctors for the public - They might charge lower than AMA approved fees.

 

[joepistole]

A comment on point 1 of post 1351:
Yes, the AMA sort of has a monopoly but is more accurately described as a strong labor union that is effectively closed to non-AMA approved entrants. Med school's entrance /acceptance committee is made up of strong AMA supporters. (Usually 100% AMA members).

They have gotten two things from all states:
(1) They, via lobbyists not the state, write the rules / control who can practice medicine (become licensed in the state). For example, Christiaan Barnard did world's first heart transplant on 3 Dec. 1967. His patient died 18 days later due to pneumonia, with new heart pumping fine. He could collected >10 higher fees in NYC, but was not a graduate of US medical school so could not get license to practice medicine there - his application was refused. Critically ill US patients in need of a new heart died as a result.

(2) They limit the number of medical schools (and thus new doctors). There are many more who want and are qualified to enter medical school to become an MD than get in. In every state, the AMA must approve (certify the need for) any new medical schools. They have one of the most effective, if not the most effective lobbyist organizations at the state level.* They essentially write the requirements for being granted a license, by each states. They don't want significantly lower MD fees so limit number of new doctors graduating to replacement rate.

I don't call this a monopoly, but a closed legalized union - The only one in the USA, AFAIK.

* Main use of the AMA's relative large dues.

PS the reason state hospitals have such a high fraction of foreign doctors is they are on salary, not "fee for service." - They are not allowed to work as doctors for the public - They might charge lower than AMA approved fees.

The AMA does have a stranglehold on the healthcare profession and has had it for more than a century and that stranglehold has unquestionably hurt and even killed patients. Med school entrance requirements are unnecessarily high, requiring unneeded classes and almost perfect grades and by making medical school education excessively expensive. And that monopolization has led to lower quality of care (e.g. stove piping). That's one reason European healthcare is better than American healthcare.

 

[spidergoat]

But guess what? You didn't know that, and you do NOT care.

I think that's troubling, but I can't control what happens in Japan.

Anyway, you needn't worry. We're not getting less government. We're getting more.

I don't even know what that means. More administrators? More congresspeople? I want whatever size of government it takes to govern a growing country. And as you might know, this country was always able to use force to maintain the rule of law.

 

[Michael]

RE: Japanese made high grade silicon. I used that as an example of a free-market monopoly that has benefited everyone who purchases electronics. However, over time, they're losing their market share to Taiwan and Korea. Japan also used to have a near-monopoly on spinning discs HD. Guess what? You didn't know and didn't care. While a technological marvel - once upon a time, no one wants an HDD now. I just replaced two HDD with SSD's made in Korea a month ago - best thing I did and extended the life of that PC by years. There's LOT'S of high end monopolies in existence you don't know about. Because the expertise is in house and cannot be written down, it's implicitly learned through practice and the markets are small.

Free-market monopolies only last as long as the market participants can undercut their rivals while at the same time providing value for money. This means inventing newer and better technologies that make processes more efficient. Or inventing entirely new tech.

Government monopolies on the other hand (or when Private fraternities like the AMA use the Government as their strongman) go on forever with prices rising and quality dropping. Compare the relatively free-market electronics with Government Schooling. Not only does Government Schooling cost us way too much, it is pedagogically stagnant. Worse still - Government schools are unsound! Government Schools were never and are NOT about educating. They're Babysitting Compliant Cog Factories. While this used work fine when said Cogs went off and worked in factories - those factories no longer exist.

Which is why Universities (which are interested in education) are not structured pedagogically like Government K-12 schools. The internet will probably ultimately change education by free people freely uploading information and then being paid by value adding their own expertise. Parents who want their children educated are now, as we speak, pulling kids OUT of 'free' Government school and entering alternate forms of education. Who in their right mind would think it 'sound' to educate children based on age and not competence?! That's asinine. Only in a Teachers Unions are good teachers punished, burned out or give up while bad teachers (that can destroy generations of children) are rewarded with lifetime benefits and pensions, sometimes tripling the local average. Only in a Government school are kids good at math shoveled into the corner to do nothing while stuck in a classroom with kids bad at math getting all the attention. That is absolutely insane. And for what?! I've taught Medical Students in the past who could not multiple 8 by 7 in their heads! But they are damn good at passing entrance examinations. Sure, they may not remember much, but they do have that skill down pat.

Look at what the Central Bank has done and is doing to distort every single aspect of society. Inflation is now 'good'? For whom? Look at electronics - deflation for a decade to all of our (and their) benefit. Too Big To Fail banks even BIGGER under Obama?!? Come on. This is a scam.

Look at the State's never-ending Wars that are now Too Big For Peace. Our economy is now too dependent on War. Eight years of Obama has only brought more war. The same will be true is a GOP is elected or DEM across the next 8 years. The only person who might have ended the Fed and the War was Paul. And while he predicted the housing collapse 15 years before it happened for exactly the reasons WHY it happened - as is on Congressional record, he was derided as a 'Bigot' and a 'Loon', meanwhile the real sociopaths continue to destroy Civil Society.

this country was always able to use force to maintain the rule of law.

And? I said LIMITED government is, at this time, the best most pragmatic solution. However, not all aspects of society require violence against morally INNOCENT humans. I honestly don't get why think it's a good thing to have more violence against innocent people? We have Private courts in the country. THEY can and are used to punish morally and legally guilty people. What's different about the US Government is it can legally kill morally INNOCENT humans. Strangle an innocent man to death for selling a 0.50 cent cigarette. Or forcing an illiterate woman who didn't have a licence to quit selling 'arranged' flowers - you know, because that's dangerous (she died of starvation in a $400 car that she lived in by the way).

Yes, this country has resorted to violence and can continue to do so in DEFENSE OF the morally innocent. That is perfectly fine. There's no need for Government to enforce this. YOU can legally (lawfully) defend yourself from attack. This is your right.

I know this is hard to get your mind wrapped around, but the Government ONLY delineates itself in that it can legally initiate violence against innocent people. Why on earth do you want MORE of that? Why? If you ever hope to live in a society that is not violence, then you need to ween off attacking INNOCENT humans and begin to build the Social Infrastructure needed to cope with our social problems. This means LESS government. If we keep running to government, the most evil and morally corrupt institution in society, then we will never develop the peaceful means of dealing with undesirable people and behavior in civil society.
It's just that simple.
Social institutions don't magically *poof* into existence. But when they're gone - they're GONE. They need to be nurtured, supported and slowly develop into free standing social constructs. And get this, I see them in other countries. They do exist - just NOT in the USA. Why? Because there's no need to develop them when a Monkey in a Blue Clown suite can simply shoot someone in the head instead. Problem "solved". Or, in the infamous words of a POTUS douche bag "Mission Complete".


Example: Ebay. We don't NEED violence to solve every little problem. Sometimes people get away with unlawful behavior. Yes, it happens. Ebay has successfully come up with ways of dealing with that behavior that doesn't involve NSA spying, or State Regulatory Capture and Rent-Seeking, or shooting people in the face. We don't 'have' to resort to violence at every single turn and things somehow do work out just fine. Profitable even.



-o-
Government ONLY delineates itself in that it can initiate violence against morally innocent humans. Try to keep that in mind when it's offering you something that sounds good. The ONLY reason the Government is able to offer you that something (whatever it should be), is due to this immoral (legal) act of violence. If not for this one delineating factor, the Government would just be another group of humans engaged in business.

 

[Michael]

 

[spidergoat]

We have Private courts in the country.

What country is that? I never heard of such a thing.

I'm not talking about attacking people, but using force as a last resort to bring people to justice who are considered innocent until proven guilty. It's not possible to be more fair than that. If you democratically (voluntarily) choose to do this "privately"; congratulations, you just created a quasi-governmental organization that differs in name only from government.

Government ONLY delineates itself in that it can initiate violence against morally innocent humans.

It's called authority. What about a suspected rapist who refuses a trial? What should be done with him? Just shun him like the Amish? Refuse to sell him your goods until he moves away?