pinko Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 "The purpose of Government, it's raison d'etre, is fundamentally to ensure the individual sanctity of person and property." Where, in this statement, is there a recognition of the collective rights of the society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) "By small government, I mean a restricted mandate that concerns itself with justice and the maintaining of the sanctity of person and property and the freedom and liberty to act as long as that fundamental premise is not violated by others or groups." Would you please provide some specific examples of this abstract concept. I note your focus is on the greater good. What if these individual rights you preach cause damage to "others or groups". Where is the public interest addressed in your dissertation? Edited February 23, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) "By small government, I mean a restricted mandate that concerns itself with justice and the maintaining of the sanctity of person and property and the freedom and liberty to act as long as that fundamental premise is not violated by others or groups." Would you please provide some specific examples of this abstract concept. I note your focus is on the greater good. What if these individual rights you preach cause damage to "others or groups". Where is the public interest addressed in your dissertation? Your live in your utopian little house... One day a large streetgang moves in next door to you on the right side and opens up a crack house... The next day the Hell's Angels move in next door to you on the left side and makes that house a headquarters for their organization... Your move? Remember you are not allowed to move from your house, you have the RIGHT to stay in it and not the RIGHT to move from it (that would require a beaurocracy of government or at least a lot of money that you don't have)... Your new neighbours have the same RIGHTS you do... What do you do next? Edited February 23, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Your live in your utopian little house... One day a large streetgang moves in next door to you on the right side and opens up a crack house... The next day the Hell's Angels move in next door to you on the left side and makes that house a headquarters for their organization... Your move? Remember you are not allowed to move from your house, you have the RIGHT to stay in it and not the RIGHT to move from it (that would require a beaurocracy of government or at least a lot of money that you don't have)... Your new neighbours have the same RIGHTS you do... What do you do next? Funny you should mention the Hell's Angels. I lived in a comfy middle class neighbourhood in the burbs and several doors down from me lived a Hell's Angel. He actually was a good neighbour. I also have been told that when folks like the crack dealer you refer to in your example come to a neighbourhood where the Hell's Angels locate the crack dealer is given some guidance by the Angels if it is felt that the safety of the neighbourhood is at issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Funny you should mention the Hell's Angels. I lived in a comfy middle class neighbourhood in the burbs and several doors down from me lived a Hell's Angel. He actually was a good neighbour. I also have been told that when folks like the crack dealer you refer to in your example come to a neighbourhood where the Hell's Angels locate the crack dealer is given some guidance by the Angels if it is felt that the safety of the neighbourhood is at issue. Still your move... What's your answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Still your move... What's your answer? I would cozy up to the Hell's Angels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) I would cozy up to the Hell's Angels. Bang you're dead... They didn't like you... Try again? Edited February 23, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Bang you're dead... They didn't like you... Try again? If I am dead then it doesn't matter. Any of these events you describe can and do occur in many neighbourhoods with or without your hypotheticals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 If I am dead then it doesn't matter. Any of these events you describe can and do occur in many neighbourhoods with or without your hypotheticals. Thanks for making my point... If YOUR hypothethis for small government and individual autonomy were ever to occur that would be the result... The difference IS the Goverment along with the ENTIRE system of Government... Thanks for playing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Pliny, and I'm being totally serious and not confrontational... What you have described already exists in MANY "democratic" countries, mostly in central and southern Africa... ALL of those countries you describe so accurately are referred to by the "Modern" world as "third world" countries because they have not and cannot "advance" into modern society which NEED all those things you want to eliminate ie - social programs, health care, foreign relations, etc., etc.... What you seem to want to do is eliminate hundreds of years of progress and take us back to the dark ages... It's the only place in TIME your "system" could hope to exist... 70% unemployment is the norm in such countries thereby eliminating any tax base... People living hand to mouth because it's day to day survival that rules... I just don't understand how anyone in their right mind could even concieve such ideas without being so heartless that they'd make the most ardent Fascist dictator look like Mother Theresa... Honestly, unless you have tremendous difficulty expressing yourself I can't believe what I'm reading from you... It is not uncommon for people, especially leftists, to light their hair on fire when they read anything close to libertarianism and your reaction shows you have not been over-exposed to it. You first equate the basic concept of a limited government to fascism and then you equate it to third world African nations. While I agree that without any knowledge or education or respect for the sanctity of person and property you will wind up with chaotic anarchy or a tyrannical dictatorship. I think the US prior to 1900 properly defines the level of government that is necessary to a civilized society. It's Constitution outlines what limits government should have. I think it was making progress, producing wealth and economic growth at the time. Unfortunately, it's government took a turn toward protecting criminals and allowing them to take control of the economy, with the best interests of the country, society and it's citizens of course and besides Europe was doing the same thing. I don't know why Great Britain didn't turn out like Zimbabwe or Uganda or some other African third world nation. If the truth be known all of the third world countries of Africa have a central government with the exception of Somalia and there are forces that wish to establish one there. Obviuosly, the people of Somalia have no concept of the sanctity of personand property, judging by their criminal-like pirate behavior. You see, Gwiz, people in the west have some level of education and protection of their person and property from illegal seizure. They know they shouold have this right - the sanctity of person and property. You are saying that it somehow disappears if there is no state to enforce it. As though individuals will turn into uncontrollable anarchic neanderthals without the oversight and benevolence of the State. While I can understand that point of view if the people are uncivilized, uneducated, and don't know any better I can't see it if people have some modicum of an understanding of what a civilization is and how it is created. The internet and communication technology is a key to knowledge that the world hasn't had before. The third world can see how the rest of the world lives. They have knowledge at their fingertips to be able to improve their lives. The repression of their governments will no longer serve as the sole engineer of their communities and societies on a national level. It isn't as if I haven't had any struggles with Libertarianism. I still believe in some aspect of a national or federal government as a representative of the people whereas some Libertarians are outright anarchists. Anarchy is often equated with unorganized chaos and that is what people envision when they hear the term. They are, as you are, awestruck that anyone could even conceive of such a thing as "no national government". They light their hair on fire and propound the social progress of our democratic compassionate society. No further inspection or discussion is necessary and the concept is pure idiocy. I will argue with Libertarians against the total absence of a federal or national government as I believe it has some purpose in foreign relations and perhaps as an oversight to justice but one has to be very vigilant about it overstepping it's mandate. If you are like myself, your initial fears of small government are really due to the instilling by society and governemnt of a mistrust of your fellow man. You have no idea what he will do and that unpredictability scares you. Well, what alleviated my fears is the idea that men will act, and they will act in order to improve their lives. It doesn't help to improve their lives if they act unco-operatively, disrespectful, uncompassionately, greedily, or criminally towards others. Would they do so if they could get away with it? No, if they had an understanding of how they would like others to act, that is with respect to the sanctity of person and property of others and if they did not have criminal tendencies in the first place - most of us can be honest and trustworthy. The third world African nations you describe are by no means ready for limited government. They do have to first develop some kind of economy and be productive enough to raise their standard of living. however, they may be content with their standard of living and it would be a very gradual change to improvement. We, as first world nations, cannot thrust upon them our way of life, our society or gift them money out of our surplus and think it will be an improvement for them. They must first desire change and then work towards their own commonly established goals. We have only knowledge that we can pass on it is up to them to decide whether it is of any value to them. Of course, we can envision a great society if they would just follow along and use the techonological knowledge that we have accumulated. But - if they don't wish to have indoor plumbing that is theur decision; perhaps later it might become of greater importance to them. Of course, we want them to have it now. Anyway, I hope that does something to alleviate your shock and awe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 When the super rich get richer simply by the fact that they can leverage more and more money through the simple act of having money and not creating any real wealth...leads to a problem concerning physics..One can not continue to create something out of nothing forever...eventually to have a clean and functioning house - you have to get down on your damned hands and knees and wash the floor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 "The purpose of Government, it's raison d'etre, is fundamentally to ensure the individual sanctity of person and property." Where, in this statement, is there a recognition of the collective rights of the society? What are collective rights? The only thing I can think of is the right of individuals to have freedom of association. What collective exists that should have more rights than another collective under the same government? The collective is the people all together and the people are individuals. There is no necessity for collective rights as long as individuals respect he sanctity of person and property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 I would cozy up to the Hell's Angels. One gang that is considered establishment eliminate you incrimentally...like boiling a frog in water...at least the crimminal gangs are honest and kill you out right...makes you wonder who is more humane? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 It is not uncommon for people, especially leftists, to light their hair on fire when they read anything close to libertarianism and your reaction shows you have not been over-exposed to it. You first equate the basic concept of a limited government to fascism and then you equate it to third world African nations. While I agree that without any knowledge or education or respect for the sanctity of person and property you will wind up with chaotic anarchy or a tyrannical dictatorship. I think the US prior to 1900 properly defines the level of government that is necessary to a civilized society. It's Constitution outlines what limits government should have. I think it was making progress, producing wealth and economic growth at the time. Unfortunately, it's government took a turn toward protecting criminals and allowing them to take control of the economy, with the best interests of the country, society and it's citizens of course and besides Europe was doing the same thing. I don't know why Great Britain didn't turn out like Zimbabwe or Uganda or some other African third world nation. If the truth be known all of the third world countries of Africa have a central government with the exception of Somalia and there are forces that wish to establish one there. Obviuosly, the people of Somalia have no concept of the sanctity of personand property, judging by their criminal-like pirate behavior. You see, Gwiz, people in the west have some level of education and protection of their person and property from illegal seizure. They know they shouold have this right - the sanctity of person and property. You are saying that it somehow disappears if there is no state to enforce it. As though individuals will turn into uncontrollable anarchic neanderthals without the oversight and benevolence of the State. While I can understand that point of view if the people are uncivilized, uneducated, and don't know any better I can't see it if people have some modicum of an understanding of what a civilization is and how it is created. The internet and communication technology is a key to knowledge that the world hasn't had before. The third world can see how the rest of the world lives. They have knowledge at their fingertips to be able to improve their lives. The repression of their governments will no longer serve as the sole engineer of their communities and societies on a national level. It isn't as if I haven't had any struggles with Libertarianism. I still believe in some aspect of a national or federal government as a representative of the people whereas some Libertarians are outright anarchists. Anarchy is often equated with unorganized chaos and that is what people envision when they hear the term. They are, as you are, awestruck that anyone could even conceive of such a thing as "no national government". They light their hair on fire and propound the social progress of our democratic compassionate society. No further inspection or discussion is necessary and the concept is pure idiocy. I will argue with Libertarians against the total absence of a federal or national government as I believe it has some purpose in foreign relations and perhaps as an oversight to justice but one has to be very vigilant about it overstepping it's mandate. If you are like myself, your initial fears of small government are really due to the instilling by society and governemnt of a mistrust of your fellow man. You have no idea what he will do and that unpredictability scares you. Well, what alleviated my fears is the idea that men will act, and they will act in order to improve their lives. It doesn't help to improve their lives if they act unco-operatively, disrespectful, uncompassionately, greedily, or criminally towards others. Would they do so if they could get away with it? No, if they had an understanding of how they would like others to act, that is with respect to the sanctity of person and property of others and if they did not have criminal tendencies in the first place - most of us can be honest and trustworthy. The third world African nations you describe are by no means ready for limited government. They do have to first develop some kind of economy and be productive enough to raise their standard of living. however, they may be content with their standard of living and it would be a very gradual change to improvement. We, as first world nations, cannot thrust upon them our way of life, our society or gift them money out of our surplus and think it will be an improvement for them. They must first desire change and then work towards their own commonly established goals. We have only knowledge that we can pass on it is up to them to decide whether it is of any value to them. Of course, we can envision a great society if they would just follow along and use the techonological knowledge that we have accumulated. But - if they don't wish to have indoor plumbing that is theur decision; perhaps later it might become of greater importance to them. Of course, we want them to have it now. Anyway, I hope that does something to alleviate your shock and awe. Nice rant... You lost.. Live with it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) "By small government, I mean a restricted mandate that concerns itself with justice and the maintaining of the sanctity of person and property and the freedom and liberty to act as long as that fundamental premise is not violated by others or groups." Would you please provide some specific examples of this abstract concept. I note your focus is on the greater good. What if these individual rights you preach cause damage to "others or groups". Where is the public interest addressed in your dissertation? Damage caused by the action of others must be addressed for what they are. If there is damage then obviously, justice must be served. If a corporation is dumping effluents into the environment as a specific example, then they must compensate those who have suffered a loss or damage and be held accountable. No different than you would expect. I believe your concern is with "externalities". You can goolge that for an understanding of it if you need to and here is an excellent article on externalities although I think government intervention is not as necessary as it states. The people are the ones that need to bring, and are bringing, externalities to the attention of corporations so they are being dealt with as concerns. Edited February 23, 2011 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Your live in your utopian little house... One day a large streetgang moves in next door to you on the right side and opens up a crack house... The next day the Hell's Angels move in next door to you on the left side and makes that house a headquarters for their organization... Your move? Remember you are not allowed to move from your house, you have the RIGHT to stay in it and not the RIGHT to move from it (that would require a beaurocracy of government or at least a lot of money that you don't have)... Your new neighbours have the same RIGHTS you do... What do you do next? Is the street gang that moves in criminal? Are the hell's angel's not respecting your sanctity of person and property? Are they engaged in criminal activity? If not then no problem. If so then it is a justice matter. There are different levels of governemnt as well. Is it the federal government that should concern itself with this? Or perhaps on a municipal level or provicncial level? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 I would cozy up to the Hell's Angels. So what is different from whom you are cozying up to now? Just whoever you think takes your interests to heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Damage caused by the action of others must be addressed for what they are. If there is damage then obviously, justice must be served. If a corporation is dumping effluents into the environment as a specific example, then they must compensate those who have suffered a loss or damage and be held accountable. No different than you would expect. I believe your concern is with "externalities". You can goolge that for an understanding of it if you need to and here is an excellent article on externalities although I think government intervention is not as necessary as it states. The people are the ones that need to bring, and are bringing, externalities to the attention of corporations so they are being dealt with as concerns. Talking to yourself won't help... You lost... Period! You are hereby sentenced to LIVING and WORKING FOR the Northern Manitoba Native Reserve of your choice for one full year with no parole to learn whereof you speak... Live with THAT... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Bang you're dead... They didn't like you... Try again? How did they ever get so far? They sound rather criminal to me. Being intimidating is not being criminal however shooting someone is. The fact is that the problem you describe does exist with our current system of justice, police and big government. Does it not? Either government is not doing it's job efficiently or is concerned more with itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Nice rant... You lost.. Live with it... I think I did pretty well. I believe you have your fingers in your ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Talking to yourself won't help... You lost... Period! You are hereby sentenced to LIVING and WORKING FOR the Northern Manitoba Native Reserve of your choice for one full year with no parole to learn whereof you speak... Live with THAT... And my crime? I don't suppose you see any similarity to government and your assumption of being judge and jury making up the law as you go along. Even government today has to inform me of what law I have broken. You seem to be some sort of fascist! Am I a political agitator that has committed a poltical crime? And you call me a fascist? Well, there are none so blind...... Edited February 23, 2011 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) How did they ever get so far? They sound rather criminal to me. Being intimidating is not being criminal however shooting someone is. The fact is that the problem you describe does exist with our current system of justice, police and big government. Does it not? Either government is not doing it's job efficiently or is concerned more with itself. You went to THEIR SPACE to make friends... They took you out to protect THEIR SPACE... No foul there according to YOU... You lost... Period! When are you gonna start the sentence I gave you? You're still bambling and rambling instead of packing so you can learn something... Edited February 23, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) You went to THEIR SPACE to make friends... They took you out to protect THEIR SPACE... No foul there according to YOU... You lost... Period! When are you gonna start the sentence I gave you? You're still bambling and rambling instead of packing so you can learn something... What was the crime I committed against them? What is the crime you are sentencing me for? Criminals do not have the right to the sanctity of person and property. Apparently I had my Utopian house inthe burbs and they moved in? How did I go to their space? We know that Jack Weber is a big Union rep so his position, his political viewpoint, is explainable from that perspective. Are you employed by the government, perhaps? Edited February 23, 2011 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 What was the crime I committed against them? What is the crime you are sentencing me for? Criminals do not have the right to the sanctity of person and property. Apparently I had my Utopian house inthe burbs and they moved in? How did I go to their space? We know that Jack Weber is a big Union rep so his position, his political viewpoint, is explainable from that perspective. Are you employed by the government, perhaps? "Criminals"? What criminals? What crime? Crime doesn't exist in your world... No GOVERNMENT = no laws = no need for jails wasn't it? FYI in MY world it's NOT against the law to be a "Hell's Angel" or belong to the Hell's Angels motorcycle club, in fact they do charity work... Don't you know anything? The crime was you trespassed into "THEIR SPACE"... They defended "THEIR SPACE"... You had no legal RIGHT to do that... According to YOU you'd eliminate all "Government" lawyers and judges anyway ergo no law to worry about in the first place... What don't you understand about loosing? You LOST so get lost to the reservation I sentenced you to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 If your going to talk the libertarian approach, most libertarians would advocate the legalization of all drugs. If this happened there would be no crack dealer next door or Hell's Angels because there would be little to no profit in selling drugs in order for them to continue their operations. They could however open up a shop legally and I am sure then your perception of those neighbors would change, would you feel threatened if a bar tender moved in next door? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.