What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
6 Comments
- davidjcrouch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7To me the most depressing point made in this well-written article is the absolute deference afforded to the state by the public in most all matters great or small, domestic or foreign.
This collective mindset is completely antithetical to the ideals that led to the founding of this country.
Things will not get better until this collective mindset changes its thinking. - Palmetto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Decentralize!! ;)
- cheapskate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Junkyarddawg:
> It's a matter of perspective: If you hold a sufficiently extreme position, sufficiently far from the mainstream, on any subject, everyone else seem approximately the same.
This is a cliche. How does it actually apply in this situation, and why would this be more true than what the author is proposing?
> Lew Rockwell, like e.g. Penn & Teller, appear to hold minarchist libertarian views.
Lew Rockwell (and the Mises Institute) are not minarchists, they're anarchists: I.e. for market order against "order" by state violence.
> ... strong prey on the weak with impunity. Somalia.
Would you rather be a Somali or an Iraqi? The difference is not the presence or absence of a state, so your point remains to be proven. This notwithstanding the fact that the latest round of violence in Somalia was caused by states (Ethiopian and US state interference).
I think your characterization of Objectivism is incorrect, although I'm not an expert on it. Can you reference where Objectivists propose aggression?
You seem to be insinuating that libertarians hold mere beliefs (or worse, delusions), implying that you have access to more profound knowledge. How is your belief that it is right that government forces me ((by threatening violence) to do things I don't want to more valid than minarchist or anarchist beliefs? - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11) I hate the spiderman movies. I think they are over-CG'd crap. For some reason media still tends to portray the Spiderman movies in a favorable light - does that mean that media are in a conspiracy to further the Spiderman agenda? Or does it mean that the public are deluded sheep who can not see through the propaganda surrounding the Spiderman movies like I do? Or maybe it means that I am wrong, and the Spiderman movies are really great?
Or, and here's a thought, maybe value opinions are subjective.
2) Rockwell has always struck me as a minarchist, but I'll take your word for it. Point still stands, actually doubly so - anarchism is the only political ideology even more based on wishful thinking than communism (which is just a particular route to anarchy anyway).
3) I don't really think Iraq is a good example of anti-anarchy; on the contrary it's a nice example of what fills the power vacuum when a state collapses. Cuba or China or maybe some of the european nanny-states - Norway, say, or Sweden - are probably better examples of statism and collectivism at its best/worst.
Unless you meant Iraq under Saddam, and then yes, I'd rather be a citizen of Iraq under Saddam than in Somalia under the Warlords, because it is easier to avoid insulting one power-crazed oppressor than a dozen different.
4) Objectivists don't propose aggression. They simply invite it by providing a moral justification for oppressing anyone incapable of fending for themselves. The observation that warlords, big corporations, and billionaires can, and therefore will, out-fend everyone else is my own. Actually I consider a repressive fascist dictatorship to be the logical endpoint of objectivism. Objectivists will naturally disagree.
5) Insofar as any ideology hinges on pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking about the Nobility of Man, yes, I consider them deluded. I think I am justified in thinking so based on history, which provides many examples of collapsed states and failed experiments in government.
I like governments small and unintrusive, but it is my opinion that history has shown that weakening your government too much, or completely removing it, equals an invitation to having another one forced upon you. In other words, it is my opinion that anarchy in all its forms is impossible in the real world. - cheapskate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> Or, and here's a thought, maybe value opinions are subjective.
And yours is not? You can keep it subjective, or you can try to communicate, but not both at the same time. If all you offer is your feelings, I doubt anyone would be interested.
2: Sounds like your opininion again, without any explanation or argument. What if I said "Jankyarddawg's opinion is the only political ideology even more based on wishful thinking than communism?" Irrefutable logic, no?
3: You're kidding right? The Iraq fiasco happened without the US government being involved, and in fact, was caused by the lack of government involvement. Novel theory. But if you don't like that example, compare Zimbabwe with Somalia (and there is a lot more where that came from).
4. Your opinion. In my opinion they don't. Who's to say which of us is right?
5. Your opinion, as you clearly state. Nothing there that would convince me, however.
> I like governments small and unintrusive....
But you do like government when it suits you. Again, who's to decide what suits you should be the norm instead of what suits others that really like big government (or no government)?
I'm totally prepared to be convinced by logic of the need of government, if you should offer it. The fact that statists need to resort to force to get what they want, instead of using reason to convince people of their case points to the basic problem: There is no reason for government, it exists through force only. And force means people who refuse to obey get shot. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It's a matter of perspective: If you hold a sufficiently extreme position, sufficiently far from the mainstream, on any subject, everyone else seem approximately the same.
Lew Rockwell, like e.g. Penn & Teller, appear to hold minarchist libertarian views. Minarchists, much like communists, nurture the belief that once the state disappears, humanity will become mature and responsible, so everyone will be free and prosperous. The core belief is that the state is keeping the citizens 'juvenile' by nannying them. I'd say it's been shown over and over that what actually happens when the state and all social security nets are removed is that humans stay the same and the strong prey on the weak with impunity. Somalia.
Objectivist libertarians, on the other hand, hold no such delusions: they *embrace* the dog-eat-dog world. They realize that the strong will prey on the weak, and according to them that is morally *right*. The logic is this: the weak obviously contribute less to "efficiency" of society than the strong, hence in any way supporting the weak against the strong lowers over-all efficiency. Objectivism is heavily influenced by social darwinism, the chief difference is it uses economic efficiency as moral justification rather than, as social darwinism does, evolutionary progress. I'm not aware of any prominent objectivists; maybe Ann Coulter.
You may not have heard libertarianism summarized like this; usually libertarians are simply ignored by mainstream politicians and media, meaning they get to write their own material, and then it's all about freedom, getting rid of regulations, and prosperity for all. Minarchists especially would not agree with my summary (like I said, they believe humanity will become mature and responsible once the state is gone, hence no "dog-eat-dog world" would result) and objectivists would disagree with my assertion that only billionaires and warlords are 'strong' or free in their utopia (because they all identify with the 'strong' and very few of them are either billionaires or warlord material), but them's the breaks.
As for me, I guess I'm a liberal (a real one, not a Fox News one) and I have strong individualistic and libertarian leanings - but as much as I hate collectivism, and as much as I would like to see more libertarian ideas in politics, with e.g. less regulations and smaller government, I'd hate for libertarians to stand unopposed.
It is important to realize that there are consequences beyond "freedom for all" in abolishing the state and the security nets.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is