- Kris Rosvold
- Terrebonne, OR
- United States
Commercial Services Specialist, Central Oregon Heating & Cooling
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Do we need to have a discussion with our Governments about the proper roles and, duties of government?
In the USA alone, I have watched the Federal Government take us off the gold standard resulting in my buying power being reduced by over 1/2 dollar for dollar. I have watched "our" congress remove the Glass-Stegall Act which had prevented financial melt-downs for over 45 years. I have watched our regulators ignore the fact that our food supply system is so broken that I must cook all food to well-done in order to prevent food-borne illnesses. I have watched our government mandate the food (corn) be turned into fuel with millions starving. I have watched our government start, support, and force us to pay for wars which are morally wrong, and based on lies. I believe that government, in the USA, as we now know it, is broken. So the questions are:
1) What are the PROPER roles of a government?
2) Has our (US) government over-stepped those boundaries?
3) What are the duties of a government to its' citizens?
4) How can we act to require our governments become moral (ie congruent)?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
"your world view is too narrow. Its a cultural world view"
for example: do not initiate aggression against a fellow man. do not take or damage his property. this is cultural? you think there are any circumstances in which such actions are moral?
"Do I have an agreement to pay my rent? Or am I forced to pay my rent?"
see? you proved again that you can't tell apart coercion from cooperation. you have a contract to pay your rent. no coercion here. if you don't pay, you committed aggression against the lender's property. you are the thief in that situation. we always have to look for agreements of mutual consent, or the lack of it. adult people can do anything with mutual consent. but nothing without it.
"If you want to embrace anarchy, [...] No property ownership, no rent, no interest, no profit."
yeah, that is the usual anarchist view. not my view. it is coercive, as it forbids actions of mutual consent. i am an anarcho-capitalist. anarchists used to hate us more than they hate kings.
"I think you are in love with the idea of a five storey yacht and it is this worship of 'material success' that colours your judgement."
nice imagery. five story yacht is pretty low on my list of wanted things though. but if someone has it on the first place, why would i care?
"Success/fulfillment/happiness comes in many forms"
this is my position, not yours. i'm not telling other people what to do. you do.
"when it is felt on a real level, it usually has little to do with material gain."
see? you try to tell other people that they should not go after material gain. fine, if you are educating them. not fine if you try to stop them.
"This is something that can be cured with meditation and/or therapy."
this is becoming scary, actually. you would make a fine dictator. a remembered one. infamous.
Joanne Donovan 30+
You are smart enough to undestand this. I can only assume there is another reason you refuse to accept the distinction. I think I already mentioned my opinion in that regard. 'five storey yacht' is a metaphor.
I have to take issue with this; 'you try to tell other people that they should not go after material gain. fine, if you are educating them.' May I remind you, it is you who thought to 'educate' a Kalahari bushmen about austrian economics, (shudder). Its you who evangelise.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
wow again. first you mix coercion with contract. now you can't tell apart telling others what to do, and educate them? the difference is exactly the same. education is not coercive (except if government provides, of course). if you don't want to hear what i have to say, you don't have to. that is education. if you listen, but you choose to not follow, it is up to you. if i force you live by some standards i see right, that is not education. that is ruling.
Orlando Hawkins 20+
First things first, how in the world is: "
"No property ownership, no rent, no interest, no profit" coercive?
Secondly, how does it forbade mutual consent? how do you think bartering operates?
I would even go as far as to say anarcho-capitalism is really not anarchism and should not be included in any anarchist system but that is just my opinion on the issue.
nonetheless, I'd love to hear your response because they are flabbergasting on all accounts.
Joanne Donovan 30+
You cant have it both ways and you know it. Either you are against coercive relationships, , and they are all 'immoral' in which case I welcome you (on behalf of others) to the anarchist community, or you do not.
It is not logical, i.e, it does not fit with a process of reason, to say in principe you do not accept the zero or little choice one has when it comes to the rule of govt, but that you are willing to accept a similarily coercive relationship with say, a bank. Either such relationships are immoral or not. Well Krisztian, which is it?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
suppose X has a flat, and rents it out to Y at an agreed upon price of 200 per week. at the end of the first week, Y does not pay. what happened? the rental contract is at this point becomes broken, violated. since Y did not comply with it, he illegally used the flat for a week. that is a damage made to the property, since the legal user could not use it as he pleased. X rightfully drops him out of property even with force (since Y violates his property rights) and in addition he can seek ways to extract 200 from Y as a compensation for his losses. in this case, Y is the violator and X only defends his rights.
we need to do similar analysis in each case. we should not condemn aggression per se. but the initiation of aggression. force as a response to force is acceptable.
btw i start to see that the lack of that insight permeates the occupy movement and the greek protests too. a greek protester said "as a consequence to our government's actions, i will be forced to take a second job": careful analysis reveals that there is no coercion behind that "forced". it is just a weird use of the word. circumstances "force" her, not any persons.
Joanne Donovan 30+
So what we need now is a thing called a 'contract' which gives us this fabulous 'get out of jail free card' when it comes to force and violence. I see why you advocate this idea, its perfect, provided you are one of the wolves.
To speak allegorically; Anarcho capitalist are like wolves who use teamwork to corale the sheep into pen with a sign over the gate,'those who enter here agree to be eaten upon departure.'
Circumstance makes 'force' but not people? Do you understand the concept of exploitation?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
contract has nothing to do with force. violation of a contract is force. that is the part that is not obviously visible, and you need to think like 5 minutes to see it. alas, some people are not about to invest that much, even after someone explains it to them.
but here is another attempt: if you use my property under a certain condition, and you then don't fulfill that condition, you robbed me of my property rights. if i say you can live in my flat if you pay a sum, and you don't pay a sum, you can't live there. if it is about the future, i can prevent it with force. if it happened already, i'm entitled to take the stolen good back, or if it is not possible, get some compensation. i'm not committing aggression here. i'm the one correcting it.
Joanne Donovan 30+
Now you want to try and justify your violent ideology by plugging away at the concept of a 'contract' as an entity that if violated, can justify the use of violence. The 'He who violates a 'contract' has ASKED for it' argument.
In your ideology, one group holds power and gets to weild it against another group using an entity called a 'contract'. Violence/force is not only allowed but also expected in examples of violation of 'contracts'. It sounds like a violent, grossly unfair, nay savage way of thinking to me.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
yes, i believe that initiation of aggression is bad. aggression in order to prevent it or remedy it is fine.
you can occupy the position that any sort of aggression is unacceptable. i don't know what is your plan for the case if someone violates that rule, but it is not the point. the point is, in this topic we discuss the role of government. either you accept force as means of defense against force, or not, you still should refuse governments do as a normal mode of operation. so we seem to be on the same platform here, governments initiate force, thus immoral.
Joanne Donovan 30+
No govt is not immoral. Its the only thing standing between you and the greedy and ruthless of this world. Make members of govt more accountable through proportional representation, remove the corrupting influence of business and their lobbyists, set a ceiling on the amount of money a candidate seeking election can spend so elections actually become democratic. Do all these things and it will start to work just fine.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
without government, business has no "corrupting influence", because there is nobody to bribe. where are the lobbyists now? damn right, they are in washington. ruling is the real problem, lobby is just one of the many negative side effects of it.
Joanne Donovan 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
anarcho capitalist model is moral because its principle is the non-aggression principle, which means that the only crime is initiating aggression. that is the best possible attitude. not having coercion at all is not a real world option. there always will be some people who fall for the temptation, and commit aggression. we will need aggression to stop these people.
Joanne Donovan 30+
My question regarding this was 'So...(why) is law under your anarcho/capitalism model more moral than rule by democratic govt?'. You have replied (sort of) 'it is a defense mechanism against people that are not willing to follow the only one rule' . So because you relable your (theoretical) acts of violence as 'defense mechanisms' they shift from being immoral acts to moral acts? With a simple lable we can create justification? Are you willing to stand for this notion?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
i don't know how many times i have to repeat. in my view, *initiating* aggression is wrong. for example putting someone in jail for smoking marijuana. that is initiation of aggression. putting someone in jail is not per se initiation of aggression. it can be prevention of aggression as well, depending on the case.
yeah, in my book self defense and crime prevention is not immoral. i really can't add anything to that. if you want to live in a world in which self defense using force is not moral, well, good luck with it, advocate that. i don't think it is a good idea, so count me out.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
but my biggest problem is that i have answered all of these points already. goto 10? whenever you don't have answers, you just restart the conversation at an earlier stage, like reloading a computer game to an earlier savepoint.
Joanne Donovan 30+