Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: DoctaFeelgood on October 13, 2012, 01:03 am
-
Its Friday and you know what that means, time for a new reading assignment! :D
This week we will begin Part 2, The Left, and read the first three sections of it.
Part 2 starts on page 95 and we will read to the end of section 3 on page 154. (110-169 PDF page #)
Again, the book can be downloaded for free or purchased at the following link:
https://mises.org/document/3861/The-Left-the-Right-and-the-State
Enjoy!
-
thanks docta. I have to finish up the last bit of #2, then on to hearing Lew bash the Left :) Did you have any takeaways from the last assignment?
-
He took me on somewhat of a roller coaster of cynicism and optimism. When he described the country that America was meant to be, as the framers of the constitution intended, I was surprised at how powerless and small the federal government was supposed to be. I knew we had stomped all over the constitution, but I didn't realize how we turned 180 degrees in the complete opposite direction. That part left me feeling that even if we had a country to start from scratch, there would be nothing we could do to prevent what ended up happening to America. Maybe their only mistake was allowing amendments to be made. :-\ (Besides the bill of rights of course)
On the other hand, he ended Part 1 with a very hopeful outlook for the future, citing the quickly growing number of allies to the liberty movement, and that was before the recent surge in our numbers brought by the Ron Paul r3volution! As Dr. Paul says, "nothing can stop an idea whose time has come", and I think the ideas presented by Rockwell in this book are the ideas whose time is here. Now that the box is open, there's no turning back. :)
-
That part left me feeling that even if we had a country to start from scratch, there would be nothing we could do to prevent what ended up happening to America. Maybe their only mistake was allowing amendments to be made. :-\ (Besides the bill of rights of course)
I have a pet theory about where the framers went wrong. First off, I can't applaud them enough for what they accomplished given the circumstances. It's easy to critique centuries later, supported by the wealth their system allowed to emerge. But I wonder how things would have happened differently had the constitution been 100% voluntary. As in, here are the rules our members live by and how those rules are amended. If you want to be in the club, you must pay your dues and follow the rules, but if you want to go it alone, or join a different club, we won't bother you unless you bother us, and you are free to go at any time. He mentioned how the intent was to give states the right to secede, but that Lincoln crushed that right in the civil war. So maybe this was built in and no one tested it until then.
I hope it isn't just you and me in here docta. We might have to spice things up if people are getting bored 8)
-
Now obviously the way to the changes, towards this freedom most of us know about, are not going to be made with votes. The fact is, in my opinion, that the country as a whole possesses too little collective intelligence to make this sort of effort. Must things get really terrible to the point at which it suppresses the ease of living with idiocy? Well in other countries where things get bad, Greece for example, there are smart people left over in the shit storm, but they lack motivation and the lives it will take to rebuild a new 'lack of government'. On the other hand, over here the government as it is now, overpowered, has every motivation to see the activities this book would inspire to be treasonous and is why they have secured policies like indefinite detainment. I would like to see some foolproof ways to move towards the way we want things to be.
-
Essentially the philosophy of philosophy is to prepare well enough through learning to fight while locked up as opposed to trying to learn while locked up to override your destitute situation
With regards to the "War on Drugs" and someone needing to be psychologically prepared.
Libertarians if I am not mistaken don't believe in no government like Anarchists, Libertarians believe in Minimalist government, only enough to protect the farmers and industry from harm like crimes ect.........basically to protect capital and preserve an environment stable for exchange. That is the extent of government in the libertarian view if I am not mistaken, please correct me if I am mistaken.
-
Must things get really terrible to the point at which it suppresses the ease of living with idiocy?
I don't think it will take converting the masses to see a free society come about. The vast majority just follow the herd instinctively. We all do it to some extent. But people do respond to pain, and if it is more painful to stick with the state and it looks like there are greener pastures elsewhere, people will act.
I would like to see some foolproof ways to move towards the way we want things to be.
Me too! I don't think there is one though. Agorism is a blueprint worth trying though, imho.
-
I believe in the constitution however they bend it to fit there needs. It is actually a constitution right to get high if you want. But the judges the top ones at least are put in by the people that the corporations own. Bush donates a shit load of money to the war on drugs every year even though they make the worst drug of all, they don't want to loose customers. That's whats fucked up! However I don't believe in Anarchy this place would be a shit hole if that was the case, I'm a libertarian, believe in limited govt and not raping and murdering people. What is this book your talking about and where do I download it?? maybe I was lazy and missed it.
-
Must things get really terrible to the point at which it suppresses the ease of living with idiocy?
I don't think it will take converting the masses to see a free society come about. The vast majority just follow the herd instinctively. We all do it to some extent. But people do respond to pain, and if it is more painful to stick with the state and it looks like there are greener pastures elsewhere, people will act.
I would like to see some foolproof ways to move towards the way we want things to be.
Me too! I don't think there is one though. Agorism is a blueprint worth trying though, imho.
I think the failure of Ron Paul's campaign to win him the nomination this time around indicates that the methods of populist democracy will not bring society any closer towards reformation or the achievement of an ideal free state. But I agree with what you said that it is not necessary to convert the masses, and that they will respond better to pain. If there is one thing Ron Paul has done throughout his career it has been to accurately predict the consequences of statist indulgence, (I hesitate to say prophesize because arguably most of Ron Paul's warnings are based on knowledge which is available to everyone). And evidence seems to point towards an imminent financial collapse in the United States marked primarily by a sudden hyperinflation of the dollar, and essentially the eruption of an unsustainable way of life. I realize a discussion of such evidence is absent in this post but I encourage people to apply economic theory to the information readily available on the internet and in the news about the current state of the American economy and the role of fiscal policy.
Should such a scenario unfold I would expect a redrawing of the national borders throughout North America and to find in various regions a necessary reversion to a commodity based economy, in which people will primarily barter various consumable goods for other consumable goods, until some security and resolution is achieved in the aftermath. To put into perspective my claim, which may be arguably unsubstantiated here, there have been many empires in world history which were greater in power, scope and longevity within their own historical context than the United States is in a modern historical context, and none of them lasted forever. The relatively short lifespan of the Soviet Union is an example of the self destructive tendency of negligent statism, over extension and a simple disrespect for the self determination of individuals. Through the complacency of a relatively freer populace, the United States has drifted much more slowly towards political recklessness, the suspension of due process of law, and dependence on a debt which must continually increase over time, and will likely dissolve for very similar reasons as the USSR in the not too distant future.
Critical opportunities to define the course of future history manifest in periods of unrest and revolution. The role of Agorism may be to encourage the rise of a freer, more decentralized order out of the ashes of the old empire. Hopefully however, history will not record that America failed because of the values it was allegedly founded upon, but that it failed because it turned away from those values. Its prosperity created the very opportunity and incentive in the state for maximal expansion as time went on, just like how when life is eradicated from a closed environment it will regrow to fill its former energy capacity, it will simply grow until it achieves equilibrium and the maximum amount of energy is put to use. Here is a good video which may clarify the analogy I just made, its on the normal internet watch out: http://reason.com/reasontv/2012/10/06/stefan-molyneux-on-the-inevitable-growth
-
Yes it's interesting to reflect that the American civil war was unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure that states were meant to be able to leave the union at will, and so the war to keep them in was against the spirit of the constitution. It's probably true that it was less about slavery than it is presented as being. It was no more fought to free slaves than the second world war was to free the Jews.
I've been following this debate with interest still, although I haven't commented for a while. Reading this book is making me think and question a lot of my beliefs, although I dislike the authors tone and manner of arguing. I watched a film "The Four Horsemen" the other day which some of you may have heard of. It examines the financial crisis and the huge sovereign debt incurred. Having been exposed to libertarian arguments, I was a lot more critical of the film than I might otherwise have been. It is somewhat glib.
It suggests that a major cause of recent problems was the vast increase in the money supply created as debt by banks. Basically it regards fiat currency as a major problem and suggests the works should return to the gold standard. But it glosses over the problem that there is nowhere near enough gold in the world, by saying the price of gold is recalibrated! This to me, after reading so much about free markets, seems impossible. You can't just insist that the price of gold increases tenfold! It wouldn't work.
The other two ideas in the film are that land, as the source of all wealth, should be taxed more heavily, and that workers should own their businesses. Theses sound great but there was no suggestion of how this might come about.
It's my belief that whatever institutions and systems we decide to erect in the future will have to prove themselves in the marketplace; they can't be imposed by violence, or by legislation. If the size of government is to be reduced it will be because it is no longer needed.
The film did make one good point, about how the huge national debt we in the west now face is NOT due to government profligacy, but was mostly created when it was decided to bailout the financial institutions that were "too big to fail" It's debatable whether this was the right thing to do; either way the consequences were going to be terrible. However it would have been better if we hadn't got into that situation in first place. The lack of control of the banking industry was a huge problem. I would be interested to hear a libertarian take on how we should regulate the financial industry. Not at all? Or will the banks regulate themselves?
-
Yes it's interesting to reflect that the American civil war was unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure that states were meant to be able to leave the union at will, and so the war to keep them in was against the spirit of the constitution. It's probably true that it was less about slavery than it is presented as being. It was no more fought to free slaves than the second world war was to free the Jews.
It suggests that a major cause of recent problems was the vast increase in the money supply created as debt by banks. Basically it regards fiat currency as a major problem and suggests the works should return to the gold standard. But it glosses over the problem that there is nowhere near enough gold in the world, by saying the price of gold is recalibrated! This to me, after reading so much about free markets, seems impossible. You can't just insist that the price of gold increases tenfold! It wouldn't work.
Correct it is too late for a gold or silver standard to work with how corrupt humanity has become, ripe for the harvest! This has been orchestrated by America as a shock and awe WWIII blitzkrieg. Bill Clinton as one of the last things he did in office in 1999 was repeal the 1934 Great Depression Fraud Regulations.
Barney Frank butt fucking Fannie Mae and or Freddie Mac CEO was charged with the entire government oversight committee. Bush's war is what has accelerated this vastly, otherwise no one would be awake and possibly not even notice what would have happened probably starting now instead of 2007.
Banking is a fraudulent institution run by criminal syndicates. It's back bone is fraud. The Glass-Steagal act of 1934 limited that fraud to only printing 10 dollars per 1 dollar on deposit.
Also, seperating investment banking from retail savings banking and loans was done with the Act due to the fraud running rampant in investment banking at the time. Also there was another stock exchange down the road in an outside unregulated market from the NYSE.
They used the few years interim to build the massive police state started with the forming of The Department of Homeland Security while they secretly planned their mass murder of U.S. citizens and another great depression.
It's my belief that whatever institutions and systems we decide to erect in the future will have to prove themselves in the marketplace; they can't be imposed by violence, or by legislation. If the size of government is to be reduced it will be because it is no longer needed.
It's never needed and only violence holds it together for a short while before it is destroyed it is much like an active military division during a war. Libertarians refer to this as Gun Power. It is the only thing they back themselves with, the psychological war they employ and the poisoning of the food supply is only to keep people weak and them rich. And they will burn the world down to keep it that way. Proven many times throughout the last century.
The film did make one good point, about how the huge national debt we in the west now face is NOT due to government profligacy, but was mostly created when it was decided to bailout the financial institutions that were "too big to fail" It's debatable whether this was the right thing to do; either way the consequences were going to be terrible. However it would have been better if we hadn't got into that situation in first place. The lack of control of the banking industry was a huge problem. I would be interested to hear a libertarian take on how we should regulate the financial industry. Not at all? Or will the banks regulate themselves?
The national debt is in response to fill the void of banks holding the "Fake Bad Debt" they produced using 60 to 1 leverage, the great depression was caused by 18 to 1 leverage IE "Fraudulent Money" circulating. Now instead the Governments of the world are forced to pay for these fake derivatives that have no end to their hole that needs to be filled. So Government Bankruptcy is inevitable and part of their plan as they have the perfect police force and laws to deal with petty civilian terrorists. Homegrown is the best though this I know for a fact.
You must understand it has nothing to do with banks regulating themselves, the only requirement of government is to protect against crime and if your morals are such that Cannabis is a crime than we have no need to ever have a discussion as I am so far above such thinking I would likely have to start in on them again.
If you cannot define something than you certainly can't know how to regulate it much less outlaw it.
-
I believe in the constitution however they bend it to fit there needs. It is actually a constitution right to get high if you want. But the judges the top ones at least are put in by the people that the corporations own. Bush donates a shit load of money to the war on drugs every year even though they make the worst drug of all, they don't want to loose customers. That's whats fucked up! However I don't believe in Anarchy this place would be a shit hole if that was the case, I'm a libertarian, believe in limited govt and not raping and murdering people. What is this book your talking about and where do I download it?? maybe I was lazy and missed it.
There is a link to the reading material in the first post of this thread.
-
Can we just one single discussion thread per book? Multiple threads is making it hard to read what everyone has to say, and I just started, but want to comment, but my comment is only based on the first 40 pages, so it really doesn't belong in reading assignment #3's topic. I want people to read what I have said though, so putting it in #1 would not make sense to me.
Here is my comment though:
I am only on page 37 so far, but am finding this a really easy read as it interests me and I agree with a lot of what is being said here. I also love learning new words and capricious will definitely be in my vocabulary from now on.
What struck me that I never really thought of is the idea of imposing freedom is a bit oxymoron, but most Americans look at freedom as something that you enforce and that isn't true at all. By enforcing it you are by nature taking it away and freedom is intrinsic or should be to life, so the more rules you impose to enforce such freedom the more you are destroying the very nature of what being free is suppose to be. I never really looked at it that way, but now I have a very good argument to make or discussion for whenever it comes up.