Real World Event Discussions

Limits of State Power

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 10 of 36

RUE

Sunday, May 10, 2009 4:13 PM

"Economic power is dependent on government power."

You cannot have a capitalist system - that system you like so much - without government power.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, May 10, 2009 5:27 PM

OK, Signym, I'll skip the question of the thread and dig in to your "economic power is coercive" proposition. But since we're doing that, and since you clearly have no intention of answering my questions, I'll take it as a concession that your position (that under socialism neither wealth nor government would decide the issues in question) was essentially contradictory and a fantasy.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You have both missed the point entirely. Large entities of concentrated wealth with or without government power, by themselves are coercive and I've given you many examples already.

Easy now, don't hurt yourself! So, where are these examples exactly?

Were you thinking this one?

Quote:
They DO hire goon squads yanno.

It's the best one you posted (because it actually does involve coercion), but it's mostly a fantasy. Goon squads happened, and do happen, but they are by far the exception to the rule. No, when a corporation wants to break you they don't send goons squads, then send lawyers. And do the lawyers attack you with "economic power" (by throwing bags of money at you?), no, they serve you up papers that point out the various laws* you have broken, and threaten that if you don't do as they wish the government will take your stuff and put you in jail.

* it's worth noting that these are laws they likely wrote themselves, laws that sounded nice and neat when proposed, all about the public good, but carefully crafted to allow them to be twisted and used to persecute you. This is the real reason I argue so stringently against them.

Or this one?

Quote:
And they can break you- financially- and kill you by witholding medical care.

This brings up a couple of good points. First off, you ever wonder how we got to the point that your health care, and implicitly your very health, came under the control of your employer? Ask anyone who's self-employed how much health insurance really costs. It's not pretty.

We've driven health care price inflation to the point where the only way it is affordable is by joining a large group plan. And with a few watered down exceptions, the only way that can happen is through signing on to be an "employee".

The other point this alludes to is your stalwart conviction that "not helping" is the same thing as "harming", that failing to provide aid, is the same thing as a malicious attack. But they're very different, and it's pretty obvious when you think about it.

The thing is, there are precious few good reasons for harming someone. It's pretty much only considered acceptable in self-defense. But there can be a great many good reasons to "not help" someone. You might not be able to help them. Helping them may mean neglecting other responsibilities (seeing to the well-being of your family, for example). Maybe they've irresponsibly put themselves in a position to need your help repeatedly and your tired of playing along. So that's why we make "harming" people illegal and, while we might consider "not helping" in many cases immoral, leave it up the decisions of freely thinking individuals.

Quote:
One can be compelled to do all kinds of shitty things thru starvation even more easily than being compelled at the point of a gun. Because you can only hold a gun on a person for so long. But if you've got them and their family by the stomach, they'll keep on doing what you want even if you turn your back.

This is substantially no different than the "withholding medical care" argument, but it does characterize a class of arguments you use repeatedly, so I'd like to address it. I'm wondering, how exactly do you "starve" someone? The whole notion seems to imply a captive victim. Either that, or it assumes a situation dependent on some rare emergency. How often is there only one source of food? Or for that matter income? Basing public policy on such rare circumstances is useless and deceptive.

Quote:
You are so wedded to this system that you cannot even im

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SERGEANTX

Sunday, May 10, 2009 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Economic power is dependent on government power."

You cannot have a capitalist system - that system you like so much - without government power.

Exactly

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

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, May 10, 2009 5:49 PM

“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”
—George Washington, 1797

Might I also direct you to a piece written by Harry Browne in 1993.
The 7 Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrinciplesOfGovernment.htm

And one of his end questions is a little similar, but gentler, than mine.

My version: When you consider giving the Gov power to do something, remember that in the end of it all, that is in fact the power of life and death, because in extremis that ends with an agent of the Gov standing over the dead body of someone who would not obey, with a smoking gun in their hand.

So every law, every regulation, restriction, every little stinking nitpick has at the end, THAT force behind it, and as such you MUST consider first before you wish these things...

"Am I willing to kill someone over this ?"

So how about it ?

Parking ticket ? Garage three inches too wide for the building code ? Unsightly yard ?

You willing to kill someone over this bullshit, folks ?

Cause whether or not the weapon doing the killing is in your hand or not, every time you support a decision of Government, that is in the end what you're doing - agreeing that the decision is worth killing someone over.

Once you face THAT reality, fully grasp in detail the very essence and nature of the thing, I don't see how a humane, reasonable, thinking human being COULD support a Government, much less this one, or any one, on the planet today.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, May 10, 2009 6:05 PM

Also, worth a mention...

I know it's upsetting to folk when sacred cows are gettin cheeseburgered by the truckload, but let's us try to keep our cool, all of us, shall we ?

It's just TOO DAMN EASY to blow up an otherwise useful discussion by letting ones emotional responses dictate how they respond, and we should if at all possible abstain from that, cause this discussion is actually productive and I'd really really hate to see it go the way of so many others.

I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that the kind of "socialism" Siggy is working from as a concept, and the "libertarianism" that Sarge is working from as a concept, might damn well BE the same thing wrapped up in different words and viewed from the opposite ends.
(you know the joke about three blind men and an elephant, right ?)

And both of those concepts sound a lot like what happened in Catalonia, which is why I felt the need to mention it.

But lemme ALSO mention just how fast every single government on the entire planet saw that as a threat and a danger far over and above even the dangers presented by each other (come on, when the Communists AND Fascists are allied against you, you know yer pissin off everyone!) and felt the desperate, burning desire to stamp that brushfire out before it started catching...

The reason I mention that, is because in such a system that is the first challenge you WILL face, the "powers that be" everywhere else on the face of this earth will catch the screaming willies and spare no effort at all to destroy you utterly before the idea catches on.

Because if it does, that's IT for them, and you can bet your sweet bippy they damn well know it - that's why even in most Science Fiction, that development happens only once folk are out of effective logistical and military reach of the "powers that be" - and one reason most governments do NOT favor the idea of self-sufficient space colonisation, because certain intel/psych studies even way back when showed that this particular development was all but inevitable even if 70% of the colonists were plants or ringers.

That particular study hangs over their head like an albatross every time the idea of space exploration is mentioned, never forget it, cause they certainly won't.

You re-create such a scenario HERE, where you're in ranges of their military might, you'd best have some plan for dealing with that other than martyrdom - or you'll have an awful hard time convincing anyone else wise enough to think it through to throw in with you.

Just sayin, is all.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KPO

Monday, May 11, 2009 12:26 AM

Quote:
I'm not 100% opposed to laws of convenience* when consensus is very high and the burden (in terms of limiting freedom) is very low. But those types of laws should be the exception, rather than the rule. And the protection of rights should remain paramount.

* Laws and regulations which make a shared commons possible - traffic regulations, pollution laws, etc...

Hmm, well some of those laws and regulations for the common good I guess would be about preserving individual rights anyway, like the right to breathe clean air, etc.

But can I take it from your response that to some extent this question is a balancing act, where 'individual freedoms' is in your view the biggest and most important weight? That you won't necessarily begrudge a small amount of government intrusion into citizens' lives if the good to society outweighs it?

What do you say for example about some scandinavian governments choosing to place a large tax on alcohol to deter problem drinking in their societies, in part due to their country's long winters and short daylight hours?

Heads should roll

SERGEANTX

Monday, May 11, 2009 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
What do you say for example about some scandinavian governments choosing to place a large tax on alcohol to deter problem drinking in their societies, in part due to their country's long winters and short daylight hours?

Heh... we recently finished up a thread on just that topic:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=38112

To summarized I think using the tax code to manipulate behavior is a horrible idea. So, I'd be very much against the example you mentioned.

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

KPO

Monday, May 11, 2009 12:57 AM

Ahh, missed that thread - looks like something I should catch up on.

But let me ask another example, away from tax then. How about government making it mandatory to wear seat belts? A justifiable law for the good of society if it saves hundreds of lives a year?

Heads should roll

SERGEANTX

Monday, May 11, 2009 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
But let me ask another example, away from tax then. How about government making it mandatory to wear seat belts? A justifiable law for the good of society if it saves hundreds of lives a year.

I'm sure you could find a couple a dozen threads on that one too if you dug around. I'm smiling because you've managed to come up with two examples that illustrate what I consider the worst trends in government - manipulation through taxation, and laws that attempt to force the state's idea of what's good for us.

I don't think it ought to be the government's job to go around making sure people do things that are good for them. Laws that protect people from themselves are demeaning and unnecessary.

When I refer to "laws of convenience", I mean laws that might not directly involve protecting potential victims, yet make it easier for us to get along peacefully. Stop signs are a classic example. In the strictest libertarian view, if there are no other cars around there's no reason you should get a ticket for not stopping. But that leads to a lot of vague judgment calls and makes crossing an intersection more dangerous for everyone else. So we pass a law that says you always have to stop. It just makes it easier to manage lots of traffic if everyone agrees to follow the same rules.

But a law that decides what's best for me, on matters that have no bearing on anyone else, is not welcome. Frankly, it gets to the core of what Signym cited (in the rights thread) as the most important right we have, the right to think for yourself.

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

BADKARMA00

Monday, May 11, 2009 6:38 AM

Fremdfirma wrote:
Sunday, May 10, 2009 08:05
Also, worth a mention...

I know it's upsetting to folk when sacred cows are gettin cheeseburgered by the truckload, but let's us try to keep our cool, all of us, shall we ?

------------------------------

I love that! 'Sacred cows gettin cheeseburgered by the truckload! OMG I laughed so hard at that. You always come up with the great lines, Frem. Are they original, or do you have a book you get'em out of. Can I use that somewhere?

BTW, not laughing at your point, just the opening line. LOVED IT!!!

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.