globalpolicy.org — The Worldwide control of humanity's economic, social and political activities is under the helm of US corporate and military power. Underlying this process are various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. These US sponsored strategies ultmately consist in a process of global subordination.
Mar 28, 2008 View in Crawl 4
jdenigmaMar 29, 2008
tech42er,I'm a recent convert to "anarcho-capitalism". I was just recently a minarchist, but I've now changed my mind and conceded that the only answer to all of lifes dilemmas has to reside in a free market world with no government. So I'm relatively new to anarcho-capitalism.That scenario and question you propose there sounds like a bit of a conundrum almost. Maybe what you say there is actually an argument against minarchism for as long as one has government around there will always be the inevitable temptation by those who are unhappy with their lot in life to use the tool of government to remedy their perceived unhappniess thus growing that tool.It's an element of human nature that people will always want more and as the cliche goes, "the grass is greener on the other side", so people will covet what their neighbor has and be envious and jealous of someone who has more than what they have. As a result, you then do get that class warfare. I believe that it is the government though that exacerbates that problem and fans the flame of jealousy amongst the "unskilled workers" much like how the government fans the flame of fear over things like global warming and terrorists. Perhaps then if you get rid of a monopolistic government you will therefore solve that problem. With no more government, the inevitability is no longer there. Of course, I know one can also say that people might create governments again in an anarchist world. I don't know, but of course we'll never know if we don't try and everything else has failed. Maybe there could be some truth there to what Marx said. That speaks to a dilemma we have with human nature in which we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. It's not the system "capitalism" that is to blame, but rather human nature. Either way, there is going to be divisiveness and hierarchy amongst segments of the population. If they get their socialism/fascism because they were upset about not being "equal" to everyone else, then at the end of the day, all they've done in the process is made their own life and everyone else's life worse all in the name of equalizing things. They refuse to accept the realities of human nature and that human beings are all unique individuals with unique qualities and differing abilities. They may eliminate the classes, but only by lowering the standard of living for everyone including themself so they'll still wind up unhappy. What they will get instead is a class hierarchy in which all the "equals" are the peasants while the aristocrats are the elites in power who have a much higher class status. So you still get class warfare even with that. It's just a different type of class warfare. Unlike with free market capitalism though, in the socialist/fascist class society, there is no mobility in being able to go from rags to riches or vice versa. So even if you try to create that classless society the problems as put forth there by Marx, still exist anyway. People will be ruled by their elites, living in squalor and will be angry with their rulers and the rulers will terrorize them. So the answer is not to try to create this classless society or accept this "lesser evil" of a mixed economy and quasi-socialism/fascism in the name of preventing Communism from arising from all of that. Just maybe all this speaks to the fact that we need to abolish government altogether as the only answer. Think about this. Liberty can act as an environmental stressor in evolutionary theory to induce a "punctuated equilibrium", a sudden growth spurt in human beings and human nature. Liberty is the condition we need for such an event, but without it, mankind will just devolve instead. If we can get the human race to evolve, it just might cause even human nature to evolve and perhaps relegate our primitive instincts from the reptilian part of our brain to the ash heap of history. Then human beings might learn to get past this knee-jerk reactionary urge to control others and to be angry and jealous at those who have more money. You might consider the fact that the human race had a sort of punctuated equilibrium earlier on in our history during the "Enlightenment". This was a time of great knowledge and learning when people were more questioning the "divine right of kings". Knowledge and ideas were opening up and spreading much akin to our modern day printing press called the Internet and there were great thinkers in philosophy and the sciences. It was out of this fermenting cauldron of ideas in this time period from which sprang the founding fathers with their epiphany they had with their revolutionary new ideas. Coinciding with this period, the human race was starting to evolve in which even with modern day governments existed, they were softer and more benign than equivalent governments centuries and millenia prior. So perhaps that is an example of a punctuated equilibrium having happened once before in the history of mankind and we could be primed for another one at this moment in time, if we make the right choices. Maybe the next evolutionary leap will be towards doing away with these ancient things called government and religion if we have an epiphany about this. For mankind to evolve it needs liberty, but without liberty mankind will stagnate and devolve. Sounds like a catch-22. So I don't see this prevention of Communism as an excuse of the welfare state and government regulation. As long as you have some modicum of socialism/fascism/communism, you will always have a risk of it turning into a runaway form of all of those, which I think is what we're witnessing today. There should be no compromise in accepting any degree of a mixed economy. In our modern day world with our modern day governments and with the way the human race has evolved since the Enlightenment, what we are witnessing today with our government is a more benign, softer form of imperialism. It may not be as outwardly vicious as the sort of primitive imperialism of say Genghis Khan, but it is still imperialism nevertheless. Just because it may be softer, doesn't make it right which is what I saw used as an excuse by some apologists for the empire, in this thread and that just thoroughly disgusts me. Of course, tell that to the Iraqis who have suffered violently from our "soft" imperialism and tell that to the victims of CIA coups. Oh, but they'll says it's all for noble goals and intentions. After all, the U.S. has done many wonderful things so that justifies all the bad things we've done. Pathetic excuses by them. That's all it is, is excuses. This was the exact same mentality that persisted amongst the British in their snooty view of their British imperialism during their reign. Now we're behaving just like that. Anyway, I've gotten off topic there and wasn't speaking directly to you about that tech42er. I was referencing what others have said in this thread. So yeah, in a sense we do have a "soft" form of imperialism. That combined with our increasingly terroristic domestic government is all the more making the idea of no government sound more and more appealing.
Closed AccountMar 30, 2008
The U.S. cleaned up a lot of geopolitical messes in the 20th century. The work continues. It is truly a game of "whack a mole". Would the world be happy if US hegemony were replaced by the Nazis, Bolsheviks, Chicoms, a Muslim Caliphate or one of the other nut case societies festering out there?
jdenigmaMar 30, 2008
I swear, you sound like you're coming right out of the Trotskyite neoconservative, Keynesian playbook. So in other words, the ends justify the means with you. That's your philosophy apparently.Yes, the American government makes an attempt to do some good things with good intentions around the world and I won't deny that, but what you forget are the unintended consequences that occur from the government trying to central plan and interfere with the management of other peoples lives in other countries. In some cases it winds up backfiring by only hurting the people of the country more thus creating resentment and blowback. I suppose you support the idea of foreign aid in which these dictators and bureaucrats benefit from this money we give them while the citizens never see any of that money. As the cliche goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". All of this also doesn't negate all the bad things our government has done around the world. What you're essentially supporting is this big welfare state empire that the neocons want in trying to increase world hegemony. This humanitarian aid also doesn't always bring about good relations as you assume as it doesn't always work the way it's designed and winds up hurting more than it helps in some cases. I'll call this the Dr. Laura Schlessinger or Pat Robertson empire to put it that way. It's a soft form of imperialism, but it's a busybody empire that knows what's best for everyone. It's busybody and goody two shoes. It's mama empire looking out for everyone and watching everyone like a hawk much like a smothering parent and mama empire thinks it is being noble and morally righteous by supposedly helping people and shaping the world in her moral vision, but if dare disagree with mama empire and cross her, why you'll feel her wrath and then she'll get very controlling and violent. Yee haaawww! We CRUSADERS know what's best! You dumb redneck Christian neocons.Listen, if you want to be humanitarian and you want good relations, then the answer is not to be this busybody control freak trying to rule the world and tell them how they must run things. That creates more resentment than help. The answer is to make the U.S. government be neutral with other governments and get out of their entangling alliances and stop brokering all these deals with bureaucrats of other countries at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers who suffer the burden of bigger government as a result of it. Let the U.S. government be neutral, but not isolationist as I support free trade. We can communicate and trade with other countries and thus we can be that shining city on a hill and be a beacon to the rest of the world that they can look up to as an example to follow as we mind our own business. Free market capitalism and trading will bring about what you desire there without having government bureaucrats get involved in aid and other such unconstitutional things. Besides, what you're supporting there, is welfare. It's welfare by any other name and I'm against any kind of welfare unless it is voluntary welfare as in charity. For that matter if you're so high and mighty and pious and think you're such a morally good person, well then let's see you put your money where your mouth is by supporting the idea of voluntary charity and aid to other countries citizens. You can go over to another country on your own terms to help out other people. You can stroke your own check if you think it's such a good thing. However, if you support the idea of government acting as the moral police and think moral acts come about through government and believe in robbing taxpayers in the name of performing these so-called morally righteous, humanitarian acts, then you are the immoral one. You got that right. If that's your idea, then you have a warped idea of what morality is.
jdenigmaMar 30, 2008
There's some truth to what both of you said there.solid is right that it is a part of life that the wealthier, at least early on in the release of something new to the market, get better access and availability to more things because of their wealth. That's not to say that the free market is bad and that's not to say that we should therefore try to create this utopian classless Marxist society in the name of letting everyone have equal access to the same things. What it means though is that in a true free market the opportunity is there for everyone as there is dynamic mobility in being able to go from rags to riches and vice versa. Besides that, in a free market everyones standard of living is raised and even though poorer people might not have access to all the best things that rich people have, at least they're better off than the richest people in 3rd world countries and in the marketplace when something new is released that is initially prohibitively expensive, the price eventually comes down and becomes available to the poor people as well. It's not like the poor people will never have the opportunity to benefit from these things and people can also be philanthropistic and charitable in helping poor people. Early on computers were prohibitively expensive, but now have become so commonplace and cheap that the average person can easily afford to get one.Now where groovemaster is probably right is that we don't have a true free market today and the divide between rich and poor is widening and the middle class is suffering more and probably could get wiped out because of this burdensome growing government. The poorer people don't get to see this opportunity at better medicine because of how much the government has interfered in healthcare and thus prices in healthcare keep skyrocketing instead of coming down as you would see in a free market. You also see technologies developed in healthcare, but they remain expensive and don't come down in price. The pharmaceutical industry in bed with the government benefits from this and wealthy people who are rich or perhaps a portion of the upper middle class can take all this for granted while us peons suffer from all of this. That is where groovemaster is right.
jdenigmaMar 30, 2008
You're right Paulish. I'm really not that surprised at seeing the excuses used by the sycophants for this imperialism. It's disgusting. They think noble, feel good intentions are all that matters and if you have good intentions in your heart, then it's ok to support neoconservative policing of the world regardless of all the bad things that it also causes and all the unintended consequences. The intentions are all that matter to them and they think it's good to have this busybody Dr. Laura Schlessinger style of mama empire looking out for the rest of the world like a smothering parent. Oh she means well and is morally righteous in wanting to do good for the world and thinks she knows what's best for people around the world, but if you dare resist and cross her, why mama empire will lose it and get violent with you. In other words, it's a modern day soft form of imperialism as opposed to the ancient, primitive imperialism of say a Genghis Khan. This is the same sort of snooty, morally pious thought process and rationalization that persisted amongst the Brits during the British empire. They were the upper crust and were better than the rest of the world and knew what was best for everyone. Now we are behaving just like they did. Noses up ;-)They use the ends to justify the means and they think it is somehow moral to force the world to mold to their vision. Sorry, morality requires the ability to choose and one does not have morality come about at the barrel of a gun through government fiat and growing Leviathan and burdening the American taxpayers in the name of all of this, is in itself immoral. All these morally righteous sycophants, I'd like to see how quick they would be to put their money where their pious mouth is by devoting their own time and money voluntarily in the private sphere to help people out around the world. That is the true way we should help people around the world, not through government which just creates more problems in the process. Yup, they're the crusaders! That's what this is! Their true colors have come out now that they can longer rest on the laurels of their old arguments about WMD, etc. :-)
jdenigmaMar 30, 2008
A logical comment meaning someone who says something you already agree with.
omegaredixMar 30, 2008Submitter
I think i remember seeing that exact same story on an article called the most underreported stories of 2006 or something like that. I will try and find it.