Limits of State Power
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 7 of 36
Okay. I'll have to get off the family PC for quite a while, but I have this one question to leave for both you and Frem:
Sarge, you're very wary of government power because government has the gun-power. Frem, you've stated quite often that big business has turned our government's guns against us. So let me ask you both a simple question: If business is inducing and/or coercing government gun-power to their advantage .... who has the most power? Who is running who?
How can you say that gun-power is the determining factor, when you seem to be saying that there is greater power behind it?
(I think we've just defined the de facto limits of state power)
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m actually a little pleased to see that I’m not the only one SigRue does this to.
Originally posted by Geezer:
No. When Rue and SignyM go into tag-team insult mode, you might as well forget it. Too bad. Sorry I missed what could have been an intersting discussion.
And it’s interesting, given how Signym demands immediate answers to her “extrapolated” questions, and yet she won’t answer questions that are straight forward.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay. I'll have to get off the family PC for quite a while, but I have this one question to leave for both you and Frem:
Why would I bother? You've been dodging my question for most of this thread. And I'm not asking as a ploy, I'm honestly interested in how it's supposed to work. See, my biggest concern with socialism isn't that it redistributes wealth, it's that it requires so damned much state control to work. What am I missing?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looks like I have the family PC for a while longer.
Sarge, I don't worry as much about state control as I worry about who's controlling the state. I think I've already answered your question at least partly: I think we should have certain rights which make us able to represent ourselves forcefully and in an intelligent manner in the economic, moral, governmental and intellectual spheres of our lives.
I would go so far as to say that not only should we have the right to free speech, we SHOULD have to right to speak freely to a large number of people. Either the government provides the backbone and service for free internet and media communication, or require that the telecoms and media giants provide free access on a percentage of their forums so that we ALL get to speak out, and not just be propagandized by endless cops and robbers shows and commercials.
Not only should we have the right to vote, but that a viable candidacy must be separated from the need for lots and lots of money... since that is the corrupting factor of democracy.
We should not only have the freedom from government intrusion into our private lives, but also from corporate intrusion into our private lives.
We should have the freedom to shape our economic future, rather than choose from limited options.
I could go on about what I think our "rights" should be, but it involves way more than the government because, quite frankly, I don't see government as the biggest problem right now, since it is very clear that there is a another power behind the government, and THAT is the power that I'm focusing on.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
... I was particularly interested in the socialist explanation of what, to me, seems a contradiction. If we're not willing to let the government tell us where we can live, what career we can pursue, etc.... yet we don't want wealth to be the deciding factor, how do such dilemmas get resolved?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
How can you say that gun-power is the determining factor, when you seem to be saying that there is greater power behind it?
Cause there is, and oddly enough, it's the easiest one to sandbag.
Perceived Legitimacy.
Of course, when you shred that, THEN they bring out the guns, but it is the most applicable factor of "de-facto" State Power, is whether or not the people of that state, corp, or what have you, will actually take it's orders.
The very essence of what Anarchism *IS*, happens to be such a threat to that factor that the idea of folks ever asking the one single question at it's core gives the powers that be the screamin willies.
And that question is...
"And I should listen to you, exactly, why?"
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I said that capitalism can also be coercive through threat of pain and death by other means (altho capitalists have been known to break kneecaps too).
Any system of economics, if backed up by the government in power, can be coercive. The Soviet Union, for example, combined communist governmental and economic systems in a manner that I don't think anyone would deny was quite coercive. Stalin starved to death millions of his own citizens, while food was available, for political purposes. No capitalism was involved. Kim Jung Il does the same thing today.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Any system of economics, if backed up by the government in power, IS coercive.
Fixed that for ya, Geez.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Any system of economics, if backed up by the government in power, can be coercive. The Soviet Union, for example, combined communist governmental and economic systems in a manner that I don't think anyone would deny was quite coercive. Stalin starved to death millions of his own citizens, while food was available, for political purposes. No capitalism was involved. Kim Jung Il does the same thing today
Yup. Economic power is dependent on government power. Without a willing, powerful government to their bidding, big money is essentially neutered. In the face of a government they can't manipulate, they can try hiring goon squads, but without government collusion those can't get very far. (besides, there's always the anti-goon squads - go Frem!
)SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME