|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 16 2012 10:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:49 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:38 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 10:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:28 oneofthem wrote:
if a certain group of people control a lot of the power in a given society, it is not good. extend this to banks and you have it.
not that this coarse analysis applies entirely, but the idea is there.
libertarian conception of free interacting atomic agents has no concept of gravity, or so it seems. It has the most precise conception of gravity in my opinion. Government is a monopoly on force and coercion, and therefore power, they are the central black hole at the center of the galaxy. If the bank colludes with government to extend it's own power, then it is government which is corrupt and to blame, since they hold the power to coerce and therefore the responsibility to the people. Government's are responsible to the people, banks are responsible to the shareholders. It is government which must be controlled, and therefore banks are controlled indirectly. You know, this is the same kind of logic that leads people to conclude that rape is the fault of the victim. "That girl should have known better than to walk alone at night! It is not the rapist's fault he was, well, a guy!" Actually this analogy applies MUCH better to your own logic. Banks offer bribes to government and then government accepts the bribes and use their privileged position of power to benefit the banks, and somehow you blame the banks in this scenario. It is the party which abuses their power which is to blame, whether the case is rape or economic collusion. How in the world is it logical to not put any blame on the bank? And actually I apologize for my analogy, now that I think about it it's a gross over-exaggeration and was incorrect. I would actually put blame on both the politician that accepted the bribe and the banker that dished it out. It's really all there is to it. The reason the blame lies primarily on the politicians is because they've been granted their power by the people and therefore owe a responsibility to the people which a private entity does not have. Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, and the governed would not consent to bribery for private benefit, and therefore their power is unjust, also called corrupt.
It's all good and well for you to hold politicians to a higher moral standard, which I think is totally understandable as I do it myself, but to use merely that reason alone to absolve banks of all responsibility is more than naive. Banks hold more control over the populace than just their ability to bribe politicians. In fact, if it wasn't for government they'd be exerting a lot more of that control way out in the open (regardless of what you may think, the government does try to bring this stuff to light. Wall Street is just really good at hiding their shit). The obvious solution here is to lessen the possible influence of banks (restrict lobbying/campaign donations) while keeping better tabs on politicians and possible links to corruption.
This doesn't even address the issue that something that is bad and should not be done should not be excused just because someone else is doing the dirty work for you.
|
On October 16 2012 10:58 Djzapz wrote:
They start revolving around the biggest star (not sun). Give it some time and. GGplay. You got yourself a centralized power.
You forgot to account for the Freedoms
|
On October 16 2012 11:03 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:58 Djzapz wrote:
They start revolving around the biggest star (not sun). Give it some time and. GGplay. You got yourself a centralized power. You forgot to account for the Freedoms
What are you saying? Who dictates them freedoms D:
|
On October 16 2012 10:58 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:54 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 10:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:49 sam!zdat wrote:
Haha so libertarianism believes in artificial gravity but not real gravity! The power to imprison or put to death with popular sanction is about as "real" as you can possibly get. No, no, in your analogy it's the artificial gravity generator warping an otherwise uniformly smooth space-money fabric Wrong.... In an anarchist society there are competing planets and suns with their own gravitational pull. To create a government is to create a centralized entity holding overwhelming power, ie. a black hole. They start revolving around the biggest star (not sun). Give it some time and. GGplay. You got yourself a centralized power.
Right... And that centralized power is always government. I never said government has to be our democracy. It can be monarchy, dictatorship, monopolistic mafia, etc.
On October 16 2012 11:03 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:58 Djzapz wrote:
They start revolving around the biggest star (not sun). Give it some time and. GGplay. You got yourself a centralized power. You forgot to account for the Freedoms
I feel there's a straw man here somewhere but I can't quite put my finger on where it is. You must be assuming I'm advocating anarchism?
|
On October 16 2012 11:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You must be assuming I'm advocating anarchism?
Mostly I'm just having fun with our hilarious analogy but...
On October 16 2012 10:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:
In an anarchist society
??
|
Anarchist society sounds contradicting but a bunch of people can agree together not to have a leader, thus forming a "society" without a centralized power.
|
On October 16 2012 11:08 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 11:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You must be assuming I'm advocating anarchism? Mostly I'm just having fun with our hilarious analogy but... ??
Right, well anarchism is a chaotic environment among competing entities. As soon as you have a centralized entity dominating the rest, I would no longer call it anarchist, since there is a clear governing power.
|
On October 16 2012 11:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 11:08 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 11:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You must be assuming I'm advocating anarchism? Mostly I'm just having fun with our hilarious analogy but... On October 16 2012 10:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:
In an anarchist society ?? Right, well anarchism is a chaotic environment among competing entities. As soon as you have a centralized entity dominating the rest, I would no longer call it anarchist, since there is a clear governing power.
You could also have a decentralized entity dominating the rest, then you have some kind of collective government.
|
But you believe it's possible to have a system which can remain in a stable state without a centralized entity pulling everything into its orbit, so to speak?
|
On October 16 2012 11:12 DocTheMedic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 11:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 11:08 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 11:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You must be assuming I'm advocating anarchism? Mostly I'm just having fun with our hilarious analogy but... On October 16 2012 10:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:
In an anarchist society ?? Right, well anarchism is a chaotic environment among competing entities. As soon as you have a centralized entity dominating the rest, I would no longer call it anarchist, since there is a clear governing power. You could also have a decentralized entity dominating the rest, then you have some kind of collective government.
I think you lose the title of anarchy the second people are giving away any of their sovereignty at all.
|
On October 16 2012 10:58 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:49 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:38 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 10:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:28 oneofthem wrote:
if a certain group of people control a lot of the power in a given society, it is not good. extend this to banks and you have it.
not that this coarse analysis applies entirely, but the idea is there.
libertarian conception of free interacting atomic agents has no concept of gravity, or so it seems. It has the most precise conception of gravity in my opinion. Government is a monopoly on force and coercion, and therefore power, they are the central black hole at the center of the galaxy. If the bank colludes with government to extend it's own power, then it is government which is corrupt and to blame, since they hold the power to coerce and therefore the responsibility to the people. Government's are responsible to the people, banks are responsible to the shareholders. It is government which must be controlled, and therefore banks are controlled indirectly. You know, this is the same kind of logic that leads people to conclude that rape is the fault of the victim. "That girl should have known better than to walk alone at night! It is not the rapist's fault he was, well, a guy!" Actually this analogy applies MUCH better to your own logic. Banks offer bribes to government and then government accepts the bribes and use their privileged position of power to benefit the banks, and somehow you blame the banks in this scenario. It is the party which abuses their power which is to blame, whether the case is rape or economic collusion. How in the world is it logical to not put any blame on the bank? And actually I apologize for my analogy, now that I think about it it's a gross over-exaggeration and was incorrect. I would actually put blame on both the politician that accepted the bribe and the banker that dished it out. It's really all there is to it. The reason the blame lies primarily on the politicians is because they've been granted their power by the people and therefore owe a responsibility to the people which a private entity does not have. Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, and the governed would not consent to bribery for private benefit, and therefore their power is unjust, also called corrupt. The term corruption isn't limited to that. Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:54 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 10:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:49 sam!zdat wrote:
Haha so libertarianism believes in artificial gravity but not real gravity! The power to imprison or put to death with popular sanction is about as "real" as you can possibly get. No, no, in your analogy it's the artificial gravity generator warping an otherwise uniformly smooth space-money fabric Wrong.... In an anarchist society there are competing planets and suns with their own gravitational pull. To create a government is to create a centralized entity holding overwhelming power, ie. a black hole. They start revolving around the biggest star (not sun). Give it some time and. GGplay. You got yourself a centralized power.
I know you're both arguing semantics... But we do all realize Gravity is one of the fictitious forces (Accepted by a near absolute in the physics community) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force
So the statement "Libertarianism believes in artificial gravity but not real gravity!" doesn't really fit because gravity is a fictitious force.
|
On October 16 2012 11:12 sam!zdat wrote:
But you believe it's possible to have a system which can remain in a stable state without a centralized entity pulling everything into its orbit, so to speak?
"Stable" in terms of equilibrium, sure. That doesn't mean it's a society that anyone would like to live in. You can have an equilibrium in a war during which millions of people die, for example.
|
On October 16 2012 11:14 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:58 Djzapz wrote:On October 16 2012 10:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:49 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:38 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 10:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:28 oneofthem wrote:
if a certain group of people control a lot of the power in a given society, it is not good. extend this to banks and you have it.
not that this coarse analysis applies entirely, but the idea is there.
libertarian conception of free interacting atomic agents has no concept of gravity, or so it seems. It has the most precise conception of gravity in my opinion. Government is a monopoly on force and coercion, and therefore power, they are the central black hole at the center of the galaxy. If the bank colludes with government to extend it's own power, then it is government which is corrupt and to blame, since they hold the power to coerce and therefore the responsibility to the people. Government's are responsible to the people, banks are responsible to the shareholders. It is government which must be controlled, and therefore banks are controlled indirectly. You know, this is the same kind of logic that leads people to conclude that rape is the fault of the victim. "That girl should have known better than to walk alone at night! It is not the rapist's fault he was, well, a guy!" Actually this analogy applies MUCH better to your own logic. Banks offer bribes to government and then government accepts the bribes and use their privileged position of power to benefit the banks, and somehow you blame the banks in this scenario. It is the party which abuses their power which is to blame, whether the case is rape or economic collusion. How in the world is it logical to not put any blame on the bank? And actually I apologize for my analogy, now that I think about it it's a gross over-exaggeration and was incorrect. I would actually put blame on both the politician that accepted the bribe and the banker that dished it out. It's really all there is to it. The reason the blame lies primarily on the politicians is because they've been granted their power by the people and therefore owe a responsibility to the people which a private entity does not have. Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, and the governed would not consent to bribery for private benefit, and therefore their power is unjust, also called corrupt. The term corruption isn't limited to that. On October 16 2012 10:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:54 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 10:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:49 sam!zdat wrote:
Haha so libertarianism believes in artificial gravity but not real gravity! The power to imprison or put to death with popular sanction is about as "real" as you can possibly get. No, no, in your analogy it's the artificial gravity generator warping an otherwise uniformly smooth space-money fabric Wrong.... In an anarchist society there are competing planets and suns with their own gravitational pull. To create a government is to create a centralized entity holding overwhelming power, ie. a black hole. They start revolving around the biggest star (not sun). Give it some time and. GGplay. You got yourself a centralized power. I know you're both arguing semantics... But we do all realize Gravity is one of the fictitious forces (Accepted by a near absolute in the physics community) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_forceSo the statement "Libertarianism believes in artificial gravity but not real gravity!" doesn't really fit because gravity is a fictitious force.
Analogy ffs 
|
You think war is an equilibrium state? Jesus. I need to find a new systems theory.
Actually, Einsteinian gravity works even better for our analogy than Newtonian, but here we are ascending to a lofty height of sophistry towards which even I dare not fly
edit: @below - not you, JD
|
On October 16 2012 11:18 sam!zdat wrote:
You think war is an equilibrium state? Jesus. I need to find a new systems theory.
Actually, Einsteinian gravity works even better for our analogy than Newtonian, but here we are ascending to a lofty height of sophistry towards which even I dare not fly
Who me? I was simply stating that gravity is a fictitious force. I'm not in this discussion, it's to far into it for me to have a contextual opinion of the stance each side is taking.
I was just clearing that specific statement up.
|
Wow! For some reason it does not surprise me that the Starcraft community favors Obama. Obama 2012. Or Johnson 2012. Or, the best option of all (WRITE IN VOTES) Liquid.Sheth 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyways, on a similar topic, can you guys please fill out my brief 10 question politics survey? It's about various political topics and is for my Stats class; we're looking at distribution and probability and so forth.
Link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGVfeTEzbEcxalhOMU9FY2t6MFJNNUE6MQ#gid=0
TYVM in advance!
|
On October 16 2012 11:33 Ry2D2 wrote:Wow! For some reason it does not surprise me that the Starcraft community favors Obama. Obama 2012. Or Johnson 2012. Or, the best option of all (WRITE IN VOTES) Liquid.Sheth 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyways, can you guys please fill out my brief 10 question politics survey? It's for my Stats class we're looking at distribution and probability and so forth. Link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGVfeTEzbEcxalhOMU9FY2t6MFJNNUE6MQ#gid=0TYVM in advance!
For some reason I think your account is full of shit... It's a conspiracy! GET HIM 3 posts!
|
On October 16 2012 11:33 Ry2D2 wrote:Wow! For some reason it does not surprise me that the Starcraft community favors Obama. Obama 2012. Or Johnson 2012. Or, the best option of all (WRITE IN VOTES) Liquid.Sheth 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyways, can you guys please fill out my brief 10 question politics survey? It's for my Stats class we're looking at distribution and probability and so forth. Link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGVfeTEzbEcxalhOMU9FY2t6MFJNNUE6MQ#gid=0TYVM in advance!
You should post this in blogs. The mods will probably give you some leeway there instead of the general forum. I posted my answers for you though.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i want to apologize for introducing the gravity analogy
|
On October 16 2012 11:50 oneofthem wrote:
i want to apologize for introducing the gravity analogy
lol, it's ok. I think it clarified some of our differing perspectives actually. Gravity and power are very analogous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
