Politics, Society etc.

[blixa]

i really enjoyed that article about abolishing both palestine and israel.

"our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people."

khaled meshaal should study the entire history of the middle east. he will find that this is the way that arabs came to control the majority of the land while the indigenous people are left with nothing, no land and no rights.

I do want to make it clear that I for sure don't, and I don't believe that the author support or sympathize with violent-natured Arabs any more than violent-natured Israelis.  I sympathize with the innocent people who have had nothing to do with perpetuating the bloodletting and while I don't profess to know the whole story, from what I've heard and my acquaintance with Libertarian theory, I don't really know what would really prevent deaths the best in the situation besides not allowing anyone in that area to achieve political power over anyone else.

i didn't say whether i agreed or disagreed. i did forward the article to my cousin who is a jew living in israel. she had some interesting things to say. she is rather pessimistic about it all. i find myself scoffing whenever i hear "peace talks" because, let's be honest, it's gotten viciously funny at this point. i don't laugh in disregard to the loss of life and the unstability of the region, i laugh because the word 'peace' has become a joke. i don't know how much disappointment palestinians and israelis can take but so far i can assume they can take just about more than most people.

[alvarezbassist17]

Yeah, I don't know how one could be anything but pessimistic about that situation.  From the US perspective, I think we need to just stop giving out foreign aid and sanctions across the board and just trade freely with countries and set an example.  Then we stop enriching and empowering all of these shit-ass regimes.  Like if anything can be proven to just make things worse in the short and long runs, it's foreign aid and sanctions, but yet nobody can seem to wrap their head around the fact that there is nothing humanitarian about giving money directly to governments, no matter if the regime is considered good or bad by the world.  All that it does is expand the public sector, the sector that will be a net draw on their economies when the aid stops and they have to levy taxes to support them.  I could rant about this for pages, but it fucking blows my mind that we're going down the same goddamn path we always go down with Iran now.  Does anyone think that the sanctions will do anything but empower Ahmadinejad and his regime? 

Ron Paul 2012, for fuck's sake.

[Nailec]

are you saying that we should just trade a nuclear bomb with iran?

so he would say thank you usa and then his antisemitism is gone just like that?

and then suddenly there are no more humanrights violations in iran?

[alvarezbassist17]

No, I'm not saying we should trade nuclear bombs with Iran, der.  But I am saying that #1 the road we're going down with Iran right now is not going to yield any positive results, and #2 that enriching a populace through free trade is far preferable to enriching dictators in money through aid or in power through sanctions.  There's something you have to realize, some people are going to be antisemitic.  That's just the way it is.  But chances are, people on a person-to-person level are going to be far less likely to be militant and commit violence when they have property, a business, a family, etc. to worry about and defend, so that's the kind of environment you want to foster and sanctions and foreign aid (not to mention military action) do the exact opposite.

[Nailec]

agreed. but i heard the recent sanctions really just hurt irans military sector.

[alvarezbassist17]

Okay, anyone who is curious about how the problems with our environment are not failures of the free market and how property rights and free markets are genuinely the solution to help the environment really ought to listen to this.  It's guaranteed to give you a different perspective and hopefully turn you away from all of these Earth First-ers and all of those watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside haha)

Oh and just for Nailec, this professor is Jewish and is from Brooklyn, New York.

http://mises.org/media/1472

[theis]

Alvin Greene for President!

Keith Olbermann Interviews Alvin Greene, Possible RNC Plant! Hilarious Interview.

Alvin Greene Interview with CNN Must See! 6-12-2010

Haha, holy shit.

[lithium]

We can't legislate peace in our hearts.

Somethings gone terribly wrong.

[alvarezbassist17]

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

Lawrence Solomon  June 13, 2010 – 8:50 am

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.  The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen experts," he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

"Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous," the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered "the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism."

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia –  the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK's most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC's co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on 'Climate scenario development' for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme's depiction of IPCC's exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

Financial Post
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the author of The Deniers.

[alvarezbassist17]

Talk to me people.  It's been awhile since I've gotten in a good argument in this thread, I have a hankerin haha.

Something I've been thinking about lately: I just wonder why people so vehemently defend government as opposed to private action all of the time in so many facets of life and why I have to try so hard to convince them otherwise.  It's just really weird to me that our society has become that way over history, to just jump straight to government to solve all of the world's problems, almost like drones.  It's crazy to me that that's how the human condition has evolved, not to always favor freedom and realize that freedom is what we become more able to and should work towards, but to favor more and more control and micro managing of the world.  In the modern era I give Hollywood a lot of credit, but it's kind of like that short discussion we had in the vegetarians thread, that it almost seems like a socio-biological instinct to want to defer to government just as people usually, instinctively like meat (IMHO).

Just something I think about, I'd love your opinions.

[wheresmysnare]

I'd need some examples of the facets of life you mention to put forward any sort of argument. I mean if we are talking in huge general terms, society needs an organision in place to set and enforce rules and regulations that are perceived to be a pre-requisite of a civilised society.

Having a commonly funded Government is probably the most logical model to achieve the above. In some instances a Government is actually required to keep private enterprises in-line in order to protect public interest.

Privately funded organisations, by their very nature, have their own agenda, completely detatched from the needs of wider society. If it was all private organisations pitching for control of a Country you would have a huge mess on your hands and they would be able to set laws and statutes that favour them and penalise their competitors, i.e. a monopoly, you may aswell go and live in North Korea.

To go all neanderthal style:

We are pack animals originally right? one cave man wants to set all the rules, he is the biggest, so he threatens to beat the shit out of the rest of the pack. The other cavemen and women gang up on him and share a common goal which they view to be beneficial to their micro society. They take down mr big ape man and thus act as a democracy. This is what a modern day government is there to do, to keep big time charlies who are only out for themselves in-line and to serve public interest.

[tarkil]

Talk to me people.  It's been awhile since I've gotten in a good argument in this thread, I have a hankerin haha.

Something I've been thinking about lately: I just wonder why people so vehemently defend government as opposed to private action all of the time in so many facets of life and why I have to try so hard to convince them otherwise.  It's just really weird to me that our society has become that way over history, to just jump straight to government to solve all of the world's problems, almost like drones.  It's crazy to me that that's how the human condition has evolved, not to always favor freedom and realize that freedom is what we become more able to and should work towards, but to favor more and more control and micro managing of the world.  In the modern era I give Hollywood a lot of credit, but it's kind of like that short discussion we had in the vegetarians thread, that it almost seems like a socio-biological instinct to want to defer to government just as people usually, instinctively like meat (IMHO).

Just something I think about, I'd love your opinions.

Maybe that "need" is created by people with power so that they can keep some power over the masses ?
I'm not talking about the bullshit conspiracy theories like New World Order, or whatever, but just that from everything I saw in the past (which is not much since I'm not that old compared to governments, democracies, etc.), people in power pretty much never do what's good for the people, but what's good for them to stay in power and benefit from that !

[weakcure]

mmm... Intellectual debate, yummy!

This is a subject that's multifaceted from so many different angles. At its root, it's a debate on the role and organization of authority, so that, alone, can take on a conversation of its own. Coming back to the modern-day phenomena of an idea where government is the cure-all to any solution is interesting in that I don't think most people question why they may automatically assume, "Oh, the government will take care of that." That's a dilemma, and I think it shows that society has grown so detached, that threads of passivity and laziness are the loudest voices.

I consider myself to be a strong advocate for individual autonomy. I agree that human relationships within a greater, communal context necessitate some sort of order, and this isn't unique to humans. "Organization" and delegation of power, even in its most "simplistic" system, can be seen throughout any communal society of living organisms, from an ant colony to the way physiological networks are regulated in our bodies. But what's different in these other systems of organization and power that are at work are their efficiency and objectives. With subjects as complex as human beings, differences in culture, perspectives, location, family origins, or faith (anything or experience that has shaped you and I, as individuals, to think the way that we do, or make the decisions that we make) are all major factors that play into our individual needs and, consequently, affect our expectations and motives. More than anything, I would emphasize the presence of emotions as the main catalyst for our actions; we face feeling greed, resentment, pride, and envy.

Today's society is just a total tragedy. I think the popular passive view on individual responsibility and the without-guilt-and-hesitation assumption of "Oh, that's what the government is for," reflects total ignorance and laziness. If anything, it's a strong indication of people's personal views and how those view work in their own, individual daily lives. Thennn we look into statistics and trends of society - the obsession for convenient, unhealthy food, obesity, high rates of mental illness and the effects on families, the amount of debt the average person has, etc. It's all part of a greater picture.

[E-Money]

How fucking UnAmerican is this.  The people in his district should be ashamed for allowing this man to stay in Congress for over 30 years.   People are concerned about our borders and our security, and this man is mocking them.  What a fucking piece of shit.  What has happened to the Democratic Party?  God i hope its a fucking blowout in November. 

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. Mocks Border Security Advocates: Who Are You Going to Kill Today?

[alvarezbassist17]

I'd need some examples of the facets of life you mention to put forward any sort of argument. I mean if we are talking in huge general terms, society needs an organision in place to set and enforce rules and regulations that are perceived to be a pre-requisite of a civilised society.

Having a commonly funded Government is probably the most logical model to achieve the above. In some instances a Government is actually required to keep private enterprises in-line in order to protect public interest.

See, that's what I always hear from people: the convenience argument.  My belief is that civil society and free markets have their own means of setting and enforcing rules and regulations.  No, I am not arguing against the necessity for courts and other things to adjudicate disputes, but I do believe that what we should work towards is as much possible decentralization of these organizations in order for them to operate in the most ethical manner, and I also do not believe that completely private courts, completely private regulators, etc. should be illegal in a free society, and I don't think it would be ethical for taxes to fund their competitors.  A government is not required to keep private enterprises in order, like for real.  As long as you have a common law code that prevents force and fraud, people will be able to adjudicate their disputes based upon its principles and if any individuals or organizations go against those principles, including, and this is the very important difference between government and private entities, those who regulate and those who adjudicate disputes, everyone will be held accountable for their actions and punished in a manner acceptable by a greater majority of the people than even a democracy could provide.

Privately funded organisations, by their very nature, have their own agenda, completely detatched from the needs of wider society. If it was all private organisations pitching for control of a Country you would have a huge mess on your hands and they would be able to set laws and statutes that favour them and penalise their competitors, i.e. a monopoly, you may aswell go and live in North Korea.

To go all neanderthal style:

We are pack animals originally right? one cave man wants to set all the rules, he is the biggest, so he threatens to beat the shit out of the rest of the pack. The other cavemen and women gang up on him and share a common goal which they view to be beneficial to their micro society. They take down mr big ape man and thus act as a democracy. This is what a modern day government is there to do, to keep big time charlies who are only out for themselves in-line and to serve public interest.

You're absolutely right with most of what you're saying, but your argument leads to the absolute wrong conclusion.

Having a government, which is by definition given a monopoly of force, is truly the only way for a group to achieve lasting power over another.  Read what you wrote again; you're making my argument for me (North Korea?  That's not the government that's despotic?).  These groups that you speak of only came to or only could come to power by being able to manipulate GOVERNMENT to their own ends.  

Seriously, if you're trying to argue that without government somehow some massive corporation is going amass the crazy amounts of resources that it would take to literally take over the whole world, because that's where it would ultimately have to end, then what you're saying is beyond absurd.  Yeah, Wal Mart is going to build a gigantic army of robots and take shit over and nobody will be able to stop them.  Give me a break.  In a free society, where people are essentially allowed to vote multiple times a day with their dollar, there is absolutely no way your paranoid version of reality could take place, on even the smallest of scales.  Nowadays even if somebody is sexually harassed on a corporation's property, with nothing to do with the highest level management, the lawyer's are already up the owners' asses and out their mouths, and if a corporation is found to be doing something criminal, they're investors withdraw their funds almost immediately.  I'm not saying I agree with either the harassment or the reaction by today's litigious society occurring, but you're really trying to tell me that all of these people that advocate for workers' rights and all that will just all of a sudden go POOF?

And also, how the heck do you go about defining public interest anyways?  Have you seen the actions of, I could venture to say, any government around the world from time to time?

Maybe that "need" is created by people with power so that they can keep some power over the masses ?
I'm not talking about the bullshit conspiracy theories like New World Order, or whatever, but just that from everything I saw in the past (which is not much since I'm not that old compared to governments, democracies, etc.), people in power pretty much never do what's good for the people, but what's good for them to stay in power and benefit from that !

Exactly, that's essentially why I argue that we need to shrink government to its smallest possible level, arguably none.  Pretty much, politicians and whoever invest for political returns rather than economic returns, so we need to give away as little power as we can to these people and not let them control our lives or our property.

How fucking UnAmerican is this.  The people in his district should be ashamed for allowing this man to stay in Congress for over 30 years.   People are concerned about our borders and our security, and this man is mocking them.  What a fucking piece of shit.  What has happened to the Democratic Party?  God i hope its a fucking blowout in November.  

Yeah, that's Pete Stark/California for you.  He's a lunatic.  Check this one out.

Pete Stark Blows Up Over National Debt

[alvarezbassist17]

mmm... Intellectual debate, yummy!

This is a subject that's multifaceted from so many different angles. At its root, it's a debate on the role and organization of authority, so that, alone, can take on a conversation of its own. Coming back to the modern-day phenomena of an idea where government is the cure-all to any solution is interesting in that I don't think most people question why they may automatically assume, "Oh, the government will take care of that." That's a dilemma, and I think it shows that society has grown so detached, that threads of passivity and laziness are the loudest voices.

I consider myself to be a strong advocate for individual autonomy. I agree that human relationships within a greater, communal context necessitate some sort of order, and this isn't unique to humans. "Organization" and delegation of power, even in its most "simplistic" system, can be seen throughout any communal society of living organisms, from an ant colony to the way physiological networks are regulated in our bodies. But what's different in these other systems of organization and power that are at work are their efficiency and objectives. With subjects as complex as human beings, differences in culture, perspectives, location, family origins, or faith (anything or experience that has shaped you and I, as individuals, to think the way that we do, or make the decisions that we make) are all major factors that play into our individual needs and, consequently, affect our expectations and motives. More than anything, I would emphasize the presence of emotions as the main catalyst for our actions; we face feeling greed, resentment, pride, and envy.

Today's society is just a total tragedy. I think the popular passive view on individual responsibility and the without-guilt-and-hesitation assumption of "Oh, that's what the government is for," reflects total ignorance and laziness. If anything, it's a strong indication of people's personal views and how those view work in their own, individual daily lives. Thennn we look into statistics and trends of society - the obsession for convenient, unhealthy food, obesity, high rates of mental illness and the effects on families, the amount of debt the average person has, etc. It's all part of a greater picture.

See, and I think about that alllll of the time as well.  It's totally the consequence of people trusting government to regulate and take care of society: then people don't regulate and take care of themselves.  It's truly a simple principle and while it may sound callous at first blush, it's not saying that people can't take care of other people, precisely the opposite.  People should seek care from other people who are willing to give help or organizations that are based on people's willingness to give help, not use government force to take from someone who's unwilling.  And when you go the opposite direction, towards more government help/control, the consequence is the dissolution of these natural means of assistance, most clearly the family, and it becomes a vicious cycle.  A similar principle applies to the regulation of business.  If the government is supposedly all-knowing and all-benevolent, we must only follow their rules, no more, no less.  The problem is, the government regulators are inevitably, by design behind the curve.

[wheresmysnare]

1. A government is not required to keep private enterprises in order, like for real.

2. Yeah, Wal Mart is going to build a gigantic army of robots and take shit over and nobody will be able to stop them.  Give me a break.  In a free society, where people are essentially allowed to vote multiple times a day with their dollar, there is absolutely no way your paranoid version of reality could take place, on even the smallest of scales.

3. And also, how the heck do you go about defining public interest anyways?  Have you seen the actions of, I could venture to say, any government around the world from time to time?

1. Banks would be an example, they are highly regulated by the FSA and the Government, however I would argue that if anything the Government need to impose more control over the banks based on the last decades evidence.


2. Wal Mart no, but if we are talking about letting private companies have carte blanche with finite resources such as oil they will be able to keep entire countries in a finincial choke hold, to a certain extent this is already true and I would even go so far as to say National Governments are already positioning themselves with the future in mind re. energy resources.

3. There are many corrupt Governments, i'm not disputing that but lets be honest trying to control what is basically mass disorder is not easy. Western Govermnments have bailed out banks recently, this was in public interest.

Having a Government is flawed, yes i agree, but suggest to me another workable model.

[alvarezbassist17]

Oh but my friend, you have things so completely backwards.  You need to read some history that isn't completely propagandized.  I don't have a lot of time but I can come back and elaborate more later.

The current financial crisis and every single recession and depression is caused by government intervention into the money supply; in the case of the United States, it is the Federal Reserve.  When they inflate the money supply by printing up money to buy assets, it has effects that ripple throughout the economy, most notably raising prices and lowering interest rates.  The way interest rates are supposed to work in a market setting is like this: when people start saving more money by deferring their consumption to a later point, they start putting more money into the bank.  Because they are not using the money or more specifically, the resources that the money would command right away, more resources are available to invest into other things, and interest rates naturally become lower, telling entrepreneurs that there is more that can be invested.  When the Federal Reserve simply prints more money and gives it to banks by buying up assets on their balance sheet, this lowers the interest rate that they charge for loans because, similar to the first situation, they now have more money to loan out.  As a consequence of this, the same signal is sent to entrepreneurs to take out loans to invest into projects that would not pay for themselves with the higher interest rate.  So now long-term investments that would be too expensive at the previous interest rate now seem viable, but a problem presents itself: people have not actually saved more, deferred their consumption, so in reality there is not enough resources saved to sustain the investment boom that is created in this process.  This usually presents itself in the prices of stocks, as the values of the property held by the companies most affected by the boom becomes more and more in demand and scarce.  For example, during the inflation of the 1990s, the computer/internet industry took off and was the industry most affected.  Computer programmers, silicon, real estate in Silicon Valley, etc. all became far, far more expensive than they could have had the money supply not been manipulated, and this also drove up their prices in the stock market.  Housing was the most recent example: houses would not have been a good investment had the interest rate been at its true level, and the boom could not have been sustained without a constant stream of new dollars being pumped into the banking system.

Whew, I know I said I'd be brief, but hey, now you know the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.  Booms and busts are not created by the market, it is straight up, 100% government intervention.

And to your last two points, you're so totally misled.  There is no conceivable way for your doomsday scenario to play out.  In order for private companies to become rich, they need customers and investors.  Like really, just think about it.  How could one company get a hold of that many resources that they could hold the entire world hostage?  And what would they do if say people found a substitute good?

I also completely dispute that the world would be mass disorder without government.  Just look at the world around you and try to glance beneath the surface.  What good things around you were created by government?  Who do you think is more peaceable, the people that live and work in your town, or any government ever? You tell me one thing that has killed more people than government and I will give you a cookie.  And don't say poverty because then I'll have to explain to you how that is all caused by government as well.

Oh and also, every government is inherently corrupt, or creates the potential for corruption.

[Necrocetaceanbeastiality]

You tell me one thing that has killed more people than government and I will give you a cookie.

Influenza?

Chocolate chip would be nice.

[alvarezbassist17]

Mmmm, doubt it.  I looked quickly and the estimate I found was 262 million deaths in just the 20th century.

It's one of those delectable monster cookies.