|
Family feuds are resolved peacefully. The ones provoking and shooting are the statist warlords and foreigners wanting the power back.
Family feuds are not resolved peacefully in political environments where families or clans are the foremost political units. In clan society, family feuds are generally multi-generational, and form the basis of what modern states call political factions.
The histories of Corsica, Renaissance Italy, Sicily, or early-modern Scotland are not only dotted, but painted by the preeminence of violent family strife and semi-vigilante militancy.
I think noble lords were accepted in their claims to power over all land because the Rome that came before them was no less repugnant
The feudal aristocracy did not derive their legitimacy from the serfs but from their lords.
Feudalism was an outgrowth of tribal tradition whereby the relationship between a lord and his followers was not governed by territorial hierarchies, but by tribal loyalty. The feudalism which emerged in Western Europe in the 10th and 11th centuries represented a decentralization of central royal power, when the Kings of the Franks were no longer capable defending their domains against barbarian invasion, necessitating the delegation of defense to either their followers, or to the invaders themselves. The feudal oath was a method of integrating all the hostile elements of a territory into a loose commonwealth framework: the Normans, the invaders of Normandy, were converted into the guardians of Normandy, who defended it on behalf of the Frankish King.
As neither the peasantry nor freemen nor Kings were capable of effective collective defense, this task fell upon the nobility. In other words, their authority was accepted because it was the only effective authority. The legal relationships of a noble were these: he undertook the task of defense on behalf of both his lord and his tenants and serfs, in lieu of which he was granted authority over land by his lord and a tax on the labour of his tenants.
...heavily taxing, enslaving, and setting up the serfdom precedents themselves. The next rulers have no obligation to be any less tyrannical. Freedom is most usually a function of the people, not of the ruler. And I say that with some distaste.
Unfortunately, the experience of antiquity does not lend support to a teleological theory of liberty. Ancient Greece was a furnace of political experimentation and theory, and by the fourth century they gave the world its most enduring insights on politics. Among them, that democracy (rule of the people in the sense that you use it) is generally the antecedental condition of tyranny. The Peisistratan tyranny of Athens is a classical example of this process. The tyrant originates from the democratic faction of the ruling class (Aristotle had the insight to recommend that the demos were ordinarily incapable of supplementing or even challenging an elite, the exceptions occurring when a faction within the elite speaks in their name, or on their behalf.) He gathers the support of the common people (demagogue: "leader of the common people") in a bid to defeat the opposing political faction.
Tyranny in ancient parlance didn't particular mean non-democratic government, (the Spartans were the self-proclaimed enemies of the tyrants,) but arbitrary (non-constitutional, extra-legal) power. Tyranny was government in contravention of law. It was not necessarily oppressive (although it tended to be towards enemy factions) nor was it particularly revolutionary (once in power tyrants rarely destroy the previous social order, but compromise to win its acceptance.) The basis of its legitimacy however was force (often popular force.) The Athenian tyranny ranked among the most prosperous decades of its history, and set the economic foundations for her golden age.
Tyranny is then by definition illegitimate power, a definition which does not govern the relationship between lord and serf, which was a legal relationship of reciprocal duty.
With this in mind, tyranny is not a suitable name to give the transition from Roman to feudal society. The key is to be found not in the historical progress of liberty, but in the circumstances which made a certain transformations necessary at certain times. The relationship is furthermore indirect: the Roman order was supplanted not by feudalism but by tribal kingship, which was in turn supplanted by feudalism. Furthermore, the two processes although occurring under different circumstances, exhibit similar tendencies: enfeeblement of the central authority, and conversion and integration of hostile forces into crutches of the old system.
|
On September 09 2010 23:04 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote:
Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer. 1. There is absolutely no incentive for anyone to make decisions with long-term benefits if they don't gain from these benefits. Especially not if there are short-term downsides. 2. There is no disinterested enforcer of contracts. Not that governments are always disinterested, but codified laws mean that in principle everyone knows the rules going in. Codified laws have to be backed up by threat of force, a glorified better business bureau is not going to cut it.
Realistically governments are not at all disinterested. Yes codified laws have to be backed by force, but that does not imply that they have to be backed by force from ONE organization and that violence must be monopolized.
The so called disinterested government is composed of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world and they do, in fact, use that position to further their own interests.
|
Tyranny is then by definition illegitimate power, a definition which does not govern the relationship between lord and serf, which was a legal relationship of reciprocal duty.
Which opens the door to the most important question relating to this topic: what is "legitimate" power?
If I consent that I want you to have power over me, most would agree that is legitimate.
What if I do not consent, but a group with more power says that I should be governed? Does their power make it legitimate?
What if I do not consent, but a majority says that I should be governed? Do their numbers make it legitimate?
|
On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote:
As far is why it "can't" happen? The biggest set back is the simple fact that the people who benefit most from government also command all the guns and have a license to create money. They have every incentive to keep it from happening and they have every tool needed to prevent it from happening.
Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves.
Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so.
|
On September 10 2010 00:59 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote:
As far is why it "can't" happen? The biggest set back is the simple fact that the people who benefit most from government also command all the guns and have a license to create money. They have every incentive to keep it from happening and they have every tool needed to prevent it from happening. Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so.
So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth.
They have power.
They have personal security for the rest of their lives.
Sign me up for being "dumber" then.
What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money?
You have not done a very good job of thinking this through.
|
On September 10 2010 00:53 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +
Tyranny is then by definition illegitimate power, a definition which does not govern the relationship between lord and serf, which was a legal relationship of reciprocal duty.
Which opens the door to the most important question relating to this topic: what is "legitimate" power? If I consent that I want you to have power over me, most would agree that is legitimate. What if I do not consent, but a group with more power says that I should be governed? Does their power make it legitimate? What if I do not consent, but a majority says that I should be governed? Do their numbers make it legitimate?
Legitimacy becomes legitimate in the same way anything else become legitimate, by custom and by habit. This is not to say that it's left to chance. The trials of history and of experience show what works and what doesn't within the limited span of human memory.
I should also mention that the ancient conception of political movement was circular, not linear. A generation always adapts against the last generation, forgetting why the last generation was that way in the first place. Eventually the last generation adapts itself into the first.
|
On September 10 2010 00:47 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Family feuds are resolved peacefully. The ones provoking and shooting are the statist warlords and foreigners wanting the power back. Family feuds are not resolved peacefully in political environments where families or clans are the foremost political units. In clan society, family feuds are generally multi-generational, and form the basis of what modern states call political factions. The histories of Corsica, Renaissance Italy, Sicily, or early-modern Scotland are not only dotted, but painted by the preeminence of violent family strife and semi-vigilante militancy.
You may hear and read lot about the disputes, but have you read any text that comparatively tries to make the case for or against political decentralization? Like, comparing which one is apparently the least violent?
I don't want to simply object, but historical texts do report on violence more than peacefulness, and there's a natural selection bias in that sense, you know?
On September 10 2010 00:47 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +I think noble lords were accepted in their claims to power over all land because the Rome that came before them was no less repugnant The feudal aristocracy did not derive their legitimacy from the serfs but from their lords.
So the serfs have no say on the subject? They can't revolt, or choose to kill themselves trying to fight evil? There had to be some degree of respect, and that was the point - that is what I use the word 'legitimacy' for.
On September 10 2010 00:47 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Feudalism was an outgrowth of tribal tradition whereby the relationship between a lord and his followers was not governed by territorial hierarchies, but by tribal loyalty. The feudalism which emerged in Western Europe in the 10th and 11th centuries represented a decentralization of central royal power, when the Kings of the Franks were no longer capable defending their domains against barbarian invasion, necessitating the delegation of defense to either their followers, or to the invaders themselves. The feudal oath was a method of integrating all the hostile elements of a territory into a loose commonwealth framework: the Normans, the invaders of Normandy, were converted into the guardians of Normandy, who defended it on behalf of the Frankish King.
As neither the peasantry nor freemen nor Kings were capable of effective collective defense, this task fell upon the nobility. In other words, their authority was accepted because it was the only effective authority. The legal relationships of a noble were these: he undertook the task of defense on behalf of both his lord and his tenants and serfs, in lieu of which he was granted authority over land by his lord and a tax on the labour of his tenants.
Basically, the central planner's bitten more than he could chew? So he loosened the chains a bit for a more efficient rule? Okay.
On September 10 2010 00:47 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +...heavily taxing, enslaving, and setting up the serfdom precedents themselves. The next rulers have no obligation to be any less tyrannical. Freedom is most usually a function of the people, not of the ruler. And I say that with some distaste. Unfortunately, the experience of antiquity does not lend support to a teleological theory of liberty. Ancient Greece was a furnace of political experimentation and theory, and by the fourth century they gave the world its most enduring insights on politics. Among them, that democracy (rule of the people in the sense that you use it) is generally the antecedental condition of tyranny. The Peisistratan tyranny of Athens is a classical example of this process. The tyrant originates from the democratic faction of the ruling class (Aristotle had the insight to recommend that the demos were ordinarily incapable of supplementing or even challenging an elite, the exceptions occurring when a faction within the elite speaks in their name, or on their behalf.) He gathers the support of the common people (demagogue: "leader of the common people") in a bid to defeat the opposing political faction.
I'm very aware of the issues with democracy, even if I didn't know that historical background - I just call it freer for comparison, in the contexts where others think it's a less coercive system.
On September 10 2010 00:47 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Tyranny in ancient parlance didn't particular mean non-democratic government, (the Spartans were the self-proclaimed enemies of the tyrants,) but arbitrary (non-constitutional, extra-legal) power. Tyranny was government in contravention of law. It was not necessarily oppressive (although it tended to be towards enemy factions) nor was it particularly revolutionary (once in power tyrants rarely destroy the previous social order, but compromise to win its acceptance.) The basis of its legitimacy however was force (often popular force.) The Athenian tyranny ranked among the most prosperous decades of its history, and set the economic foundations for her golden age.
Tyranny is then by definition illegitimate power, a definition which does not govern the relationship between lord and serf, which was a legal relationship of reciprocal duty.
With this in mind, tyranny is not a suitable name to give the transition from Roman to feudal society. The key is to be found not in the historical progress of liberty, but in the circumstances which made a certain transformations necessary at certain times. The relationship is furthermore indirect: the Roman order was supplanted not by feudalism but by tribal kingship, which was in turn supplanted by feudalism. Furthermore, the two processes although occurring under different circumstances, exhibit similar tendencies: enfeeblement of the central authority, and conversion and integration of hostile forces into crutches of the old system.
I appreciate the historical passage, but I really have not much else to say about that. When I use tyranny, you know I don't just mean a political system either.
|
On September 10 2010 01:03 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 00:59 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote:
As far is why it "can't" happen? The biggest set back is the simple fact that the people who benefit most from government also command all the guns and have a license to create money. They have every incentive to keep it from happening and they have every tool needed to prevent it from happening. Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so. So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth. They have power. They have personal security for the rest of their lives. Sign me up for being "dumber" then. What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money? You have not done a very good job of thinking this through.
Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on.
I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals.
|
On September 10 2010 01:22 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 00:53 Treemonkeys wrote:
Tyranny is then by definition illegitimate power, a definition which does not govern the relationship between lord and serf, which was a legal relationship of reciprocal duty.
Which opens the door to the most important question relating to this topic: what is "legitimate" power? If I consent that I want you to have power over me, most would agree that is legitimate. What if I do not consent, but a group with more power says that I should be governed? Does their power make it legitimate? What if I do not consent, but a majority says that I should be governed? Do their numbers make it legitimate? Legitimacy becomes legitimate in the same way anything else become legitimate, by custom and by habit. This is not to say that it's left to chance. The trials of history and of experience show what works and what doesn't within the limited span of human memory. I should also mention that the ancient conception of political movement was circular, not linear. A generation always adapts against the last generation, forgetting why the last generation was that way in the first place. Eventually the last generation adapts itself into the first.
You hardly even answered the question, but "custom and habit" only means that if you get away with it enough times, it becomes legitimate. Which is true, that makes reality, but I would not describe that as legitimate.
|
On September 10 2010 01:22 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 00:53 Treemonkeys wrote:
Tyranny is then by definition illegitimate power, a definition which does not govern the relationship between lord and serf, which was a legal relationship of reciprocal duty.
Which opens the door to the most important question relating to this topic: what is "legitimate" power? If I consent that I want you to have power over me, most would agree that is legitimate. What if I do not consent, but a group with more power says that I should be governed? Does their power make it legitimate? What if I do not consent, but a majority says that I should be governed? Do their numbers make it legitimate? Legitimacy becomes legitimate in the same way anything else become legitimate, by custom and by habit. This is not to say that it's left to chance. The trials of history and of experience show what works and what doesn't within the limited span of human memory. I should also mention that the ancient conception of political movement was circular, not linear. A generation always adapts against the last generation, forgetting why the last generation was that way in the first place. Eventually the last generation adapts itself into the first.
I never thought of it like that. Well, my love for whig theory was only superficial anyway.
|
On September 10 2010 01:28 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 01:03 Treemonkeys wrote:On September 10 2010 00:59 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote:
As far is why it "can't" happen? The biggest set back is the simple fact that the people who benefit most from government also command all the guns and have a license to create money. They have every incentive to keep it from happening and they have every tool needed to prevent it from happening. Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so. So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth. They have power. They have personal security for the rest of their lives. Sign me up for being "dumber" then. What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money? You have not done a very good job of thinking this through. Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on. I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals.
And do you also think the people who own the Federal Reserve have no idea what they are doing? Really?
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because it seems you have read a bit, I'm assuming you know all about the Federal Reserve.
So they don't "surpass" free thinking individuals, they just run the currency, the legal system, the education system, the police, and the military. What do you mean by surpass?
|
On September 10 2010 01:32 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 01:28 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 01:03 Treemonkeys wrote:On September 10 2010 00:59 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote:
As far is why it "can't" happen? The biggest set back is the simple fact that the people who benefit most from government also command all the guns and have a license to create money. They have every incentive to keep it from happening and they have every tool needed to prevent it from happening. Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so. So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth. They have power. They have personal security for the rest of their lives. Sign me up for being "dumber" then. What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money? You have not done a very good job of thinking this through. Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on. I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals. And do you also think the people who own the Federal Reserve have no idea what they are doing? Really? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because it seems you have read a bit, I'm assuming you know all about the Federal Reserve.
Yes, but even they could only know so much about what they were doing - manipulating monetary systems; how to fool the legislature, how to portrait the legislation as beneficial for society. It was a great plan on their part, for their own benefit and power, but not even them at the time could know how far it would go. Same for every president that has escalated the state intervention.
Edit: I'm more of a conspiracy theorist than you may think, and as much as I wanted to think that some Rothschild out there has everything figured out, I've been increasingly convinced by Austrian economics that it can't be the case. At most, it's a spontaneous, loosely affiliated power elite on the top, that don't control everything directly as other theorists can imagine.
|
On September 10 2010 01:40 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 01:32 Treemonkeys wrote:On September 10 2010 01:28 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 01:03 Treemonkeys wrote:On September 10 2010 00:59 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote:
As far is why it "can't" happen? The biggest set back is the simple fact that the people who benefit most from government also command all the guns and have a license to create money. They have every incentive to keep it from happening and they have every tool needed to prevent it from happening. Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so. So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth. They have power. They have personal security for the rest of their lives. Sign me up for being "dumber" then. What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money? You have not done a very good job of thinking this through. Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on. I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals. And do you also think the people who own the Federal Reserve have no idea what they are doing? Really? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because it seems you have read a bit, I'm assuming you know all about the Federal Reserve. Yes, but even they could only know so much about what they were doing - manipulating monetary systems; how to fool the legislature, how to portrait the legislation as beneficial for society. It was a great plan on their part, for their own benefit and power, but not even them at the time could know how far it would go. Same for every president that has escalated the state intervention.
And you know this how? If I can consider how far it will go, certainly they can as well.
Gaining exclusive access to the wealthiest country on earth's money supply is not a short sighted get rich quick scam.
|
On September 10 2010 01:41 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 01:40 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 01:32 Treemonkeys wrote:On September 10 2010 01:28 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 01:03 Treemonkeys wrote:On September 10 2010 00:59 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote:
As far is why it "can't" happen? The biggest set back is the simple fact that the people who benefit most from government also command all the guns and have a license to create money. They have every incentive to keep it from happening and they have every tool needed to prevent it from happening. Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so. So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth. They have power. They have personal security for the rest of their lives. Sign me up for being "dumber" then. What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money? You have not done a very good job of thinking this through. Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on. I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals. And do you also think the people who own the Federal Reserve have no idea what they are doing? Really? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because it seems you have read a bit, I'm assuming you know all about the Federal Reserve. Yes, but even they could only know so much about what they were doing - manipulating monetary systems; how to fool the legislature, how to portrait the legislation as beneficial for society. It was a great plan on their part, for their own benefit and power, but not even them at the time could know how far it would go. Same for every president that has escalated the state intervention. And you know this how? If I can consider how far it will go, certainly they can as well.
You have the benefit of hindsight... but okay, they know and are able to predict some more than you do, due to specialization, but the human mind has limits...
It's not, I didn't say it was short term, but it's not something that any single elitist could figure out. It had to be a decentralized development in the greater scope of things. If you want to include media disinformation, the military industrial complex, all the secret agencies, big oil, big pharma, big anything... there can't be a single evil genius to rule them all directly, even if he tried.
|
On September 10 2010 01:46 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 01:41 Treemonkeys wrote:On September 10 2010 01:40 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 01:32 Treemonkeys wrote:On September 10 2010 01:28 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 01:03 Treemonkeys wrote:On September 10 2010 00:59 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote:
As far is why it "can't" happen? The biggest set back is the simple fact that the people who benefit most from government also command all the guns and have a license to create money. They have every incentive to keep it from happening and they have every tool needed to prevent it from happening. Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so. So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth. They have power. They have personal security for the rest of their lives. Sign me up for being "dumber" then. What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money? You have not done a very good job of thinking this through. Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on. I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals. And do you also think the people who own the Federal Reserve have no idea what they are doing? Really? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because it seems you have read a bit, I'm assuming you know all about the Federal Reserve. Yes, but even they could only know so much about what they were doing - manipulating monetary systems; how to fool the legislature, how to portrait the legislation as beneficial for society. It was a great plan on their part, for their own benefit and power, but not even them at the time could know how far it would go. Same for every president that has escalated the state intervention. And you know this how? If I can consider how far it will go, certainly they can as well. You have the benefit of hindsight... but okay, they know and are able to predict some more than you do, due to specialization, but the human mind has limits...
Sure it has limits that that does not mean they are stupider than the general population who spends the majority of their time working to pay them taxes and watching TV.
I agree it is not something a single elitist could figure out, it is something they have been studying and improving for generations the same as any other science.
|
On September 10 2010 01:48 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 01:46 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 01:41 Treemonkeys wrote:On September 10 2010 01:40 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 01:32 Treemonkeys wrote:On September 10 2010 01:28 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 01:03 Treemonkeys wrote:On September 10 2010 00:59 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote:
As far is why it "can't" happen? The biggest set back is the simple fact that the people who benefit most from government also command all the guns and have a license to create money. They have every incentive to keep it from happening and they have every tool needed to prevent it from happening. Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so. So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth. They have power. They have personal security for the rest of their lives. Sign me up for being "dumber" then. What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money? You have not done a very good job of thinking this through. Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on. I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals. And do you also think the people who own the Federal Reserve have no idea what they are doing? Really? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because it seems you have read a bit, I'm assuming you know all about the Federal Reserve. Yes, but even they could only know so much about what they were doing - manipulating monetary systems; how to fool the legislature, how to portrait the legislation as beneficial for society. It was a great plan on their part, for their own benefit and power, but not even them at the time could know how far it would go. Same for every president that has escalated the state intervention. And you know this how? If I can consider how far it will go, certainly they can as well. You have the benefit of hindsight... but okay, they know and are able to predict some more than you do, due to specialization, but the human mind has limits... Sure it has limits that that does not mean they are stupider than the general population who spends the majority of their time working to pay them taxes and watching TV. I agree it is not something a single elitist could figure out, it is something they have been studying and improving for generations the same as any other science.
Yeah, okay, but the opportunity is still open for others to acquire such information as well. It's not iron clad exactly because of that - if there isn't direct command and a structural hierarchy of compartmentalization in a large scale, then it can't be as bad as conspiracists think. Fact at hand being, that it's possible to know what they're doing. Another fact being, that most of their actions in plain sight are explainable by state inefficiency, "human error", and things like that, because sometimes it can be so. People at every point of the pyramid bought and still buy their plans, even those who are aware of the risks. It is not compartmentalization for the most part - it is the spontaneous heritage and desire of... power, for the lack of a better word.
|
You may hear and read lot about the disputes, but have you read any text that comparatively tries to make the case for or against political decentralization? Like, comparing which one is apparently the least violent?
I don't want to simply object, but historical texts do report on violence more than peacefulness, and there's a natural selection bias in that sense, you know?
You know as well as I that there's no real answer to that. As some historian once said: people rarely succeed in adapting circumstances to ideas, but often succeed in adapting ideas to circumstances. If there were really any political system which minimizes violence, the inverse relationship would probably be more powerful: the necessity of violence affects the political system of the involved parties. The point was that most political systems built on theory collapse and fall prey to the weight of circumstances. The most enduring political theories are descriptive, and not prescriptive: they observe the record of how things have generally happened.
So the serfs have no say on the subject? They can't revolt, or choose to kill themselves trying to fight evil? There had to be some degree of respect, and that was the point - that is what I use the word 'legitimacy' for.
A serf became a serf one of two ways: either by being born a serf, or by entering into a contract of bondage of his own accord. This contract generally included some provision of perpetual loyalty, so revolt would have presumably been in violation of that oath. Not all tenants of a lord was a serf, of course. If you never satisfied one of the above conditions, you were a free tenant.
As to why serfs respected the arrangement, respect for hierarchy was embedded in the consciousness of the aristocratic ages. Asking a serf why he respected the authority of his lord would be like a serf asking a democrat why he respects public opinion. It's because manorialism was a system bound by rules and conventions. Revolts are not the same things as revolutions. Revolts object to the way the system is implemented, they do not generally oppose the system itself. A revolt bases itself on some conventional standard of legitimacy which is being violated by the other party. Simply objecting to being a serf wouldn't have been seen as legitimate even by serfs.
|
On September 10 2010 02:43 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +You may hear and read lot about the disputes, but have you read any text that comparatively tries to make the case for or against political decentralization? Like, comparing which one is apparently the least violent?
I don't want to simply object, but historical texts do report on violence more than peacefulness, and there's a natural selection bias in that sense, you know? You know as well as I that there's no real answer to that. As some historian once said: people rarely succeed in adapting circumstances to ideas, but often succeed in adapting ideas to circumstances. If there were really any political system which minimizes violence, the inverse relationship would probably be more powerful: the necessity of violence affects the political system of the involved parties. The point was that most political systems built on theory collapse and fall prey to the weight of circumstances. The most enduring political theories are descriptive, and not prescriptive: they observe the record of how things have generally happened.
That is fine, you would agree with me then, that the most effective law system is one which describes the popular moral sentiments, not prescribes them the way a central planner thinks its best?
On September 10 2010 02:43 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +So the serfs have no say on the subject? They can't revolt, or choose to kill themselves trying to fight evil? There had to be some degree of respect, and that was the point - that is what I use the word 'legitimacy' for. A serf became a serf one of two ways: either by being born a serf, or by entering into a contract of bondage of his own accord. This contract generally included some provision of perpetual loyalty, so revolt would have presumably been in violation of that oath. Not all tenants of a lord was a serf, of course. If you never satisfied one of the above conditions, you were a free tenant. As to why serfs respected the arrangement, respect for hierarchy was embedded in the consciousness of the aristocratic ages. Asking a serf why he respected the authority of his lord would be like a serf asking a democrat why he respects public opinion. It's because manorialism was a system bound by rules and conventions. Revolts are not the same things as revolutions. Revolts object to the way the system is implemented, they do not generally oppose the system itself. A revolt bases itself on some conventional standard of legitimacy which is being violated by the other party. Simply objecting to being a serf wouldn't have been seen as legitimate even by serfs. Well, someone had to someday convince enough people for a revolution, so it's no absolute that they couldn't see an illegitimacy. Good parallels though. One is either born a citizen, or enters the country through a contract with the immigration department... the central planning body aka state claims power over land it hasn't homesteaded itself, and makes anyone who homesteads it their tenants.
|
On September 10 2010 09:36 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 02:43 MoltkeWarding wrote:You may hear and read lot about the disputes, but have you read any text that comparatively tries to make the case for or against political decentralization? Like, comparing which one is apparently the least violent?
I don't want to simply object, but historical texts do report on violence more than peacefulness, and there's a natural selection bias in that sense, you know? You know as well as I that there's no real answer to that. As some historian once said: people rarely succeed in adapting circumstances to ideas, but often succeed in adapting ideas to circumstances. If there were really any political system which minimizes violence, the inverse relationship would probably be more powerful: the necessity of violence affects the political system of the involved parties. The point was that most political systems built on theory collapse and fall prey to the weight of circumstances. The most enduring political theories are descriptive, and not prescriptive: they observe the record of how things have generally happened. That is fine, you would agree with me then, that the most effective law system is one which describes the popular moral sentiments, not prescribes them the way a central planner thinks its best?
I've been following this thread on and off for a while, and never had got the time to post, but for this I will take some time. Surely you don't believe that 'popular sentiment' is a solid base for legislation? Sentiment is by definition irrational, short-sighted and subject to rapid change. Law by popular sentiment leads to dictatorships (the French Revolution, for example), discrimination and genocide.
This problem is a very big one for an ancap - what will ensure a rationally functioning market, that leads to long-term prosperity, when popular sentiment can be so irrational? What ensures that the freedoms that we see as the basis of a civilized society, for example freedom of speech and laws against discrimination, are protected. These rights are generally acknowledged to lead to (to mention one of many benefits) a more productive society, but if a majority of people in an ancap decide that free speech would harm their short-term interests, they could present their case in whatever random law-court would exist. Would economic interests weigh heavier? One can never predict the quality of law in any anarchy - but your proposal of law by 'popular moral sentiment' does not reassure me.
|
On September 11 2010 08:18 Piretes wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 09:36 Yurebis wrote:On September 10 2010 02:43 MoltkeWarding wrote:You may hear and read lot about the disputes, but have you read any text that comparatively tries to make the case for or against political decentralization? Like, comparing which one is apparently the least violent?
I don't want to simply object, but historical texts do report on violence more than peacefulness, and there's a natural selection bias in that sense, you know? You know as well as I that there's no real answer to that. As some historian once said: people rarely succeed in adapting circumstances to ideas, but often succeed in adapting ideas to circumstances. If there were really any political system which minimizes violence, the inverse relationship would probably be more powerful: the necessity of violence affects the political system of the involved parties. The point was that most political systems built on theory collapse and fall prey to the weight of circumstances. The most enduring political theories are descriptive, and not prescriptive: they observe the record of how things have generally happened. That is fine, you would agree with me then, that the most effective law system is one which describes the popular moral sentiments, not prescribes them the way a central planner thinks its best? I've been following this thread on and off for a while, and never had got the time to post, but for this I will take some time. Surely you don't believe that 'popular sentiment' is a solid base for legislation? Sentiment is by definition irrational, short-sighted and subject to rapid change. Law by popular sentiment leads to dictatorships (the French Revolution, for example), discrimination and genocide. This problem is a very big one for an ancap - what will ensure a rationally functioning market, that leads to long-term prosperity, when popular sentiment can be so irrational? What ensures that the freedoms that we see as the basis of a civilized society, for example freedom of speech and laws against discrimination, are protected. These rights are generally acknowledged to lead to (to mention one of many benefits) a more productive society, but if a majority of people in an ancap decide that free speech would harm their short-term interests, they could present their case in whatever random law-court would exist. Would economic interests weigh heavier? One can never predict the quality of law in any anarchy - but your proposal of law by 'popular moral sentiment' does not reassure me.
Vis-a-vis, it can't be the case that one central ruler offers a more stable jurisdiction than as many judges as people want to pay. For the law to change in the former, you only have to persuade a few men; for the latter, tens of thousands, at the very least.
And the question of whether people can be easily persuaded to support mass murder is one of human nature - even if it is the case, then man is doomed to kill itself no matter what - more so with the help of the state I will claim of course. Peace is generally more popular these days I feel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
