PDA

View Full Version : True News - The BP Oil Spill - Brought to You by 5,000 Years of State SNAFUs...




ClayTrainor
06-19-2010, 06:17 PM
YouTube - True News - The BP Oil Spill - Brought to You by 5,000 Years of State SNAFUs... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lu1pJPqHv0)

Petar
06-19-2010, 06:59 PM
If having a government composed of people is an "infinitely regressive" way to manage human corruptibility, then what does having no government at all solve?

People will obviously still exist, so they will obviously still be corruptible, so how is that not "infinitely regressive"?

If Stephen Molyneux was at all consistent, then he would simply be arguing for the eradication of all human beings, but I digress...

What Stephen Molyneux fails to address is the fact that some common rules (government) enable people to coexist in a much more efficient manner, a manner in which they are able to deal with corruptibility much more effectively than with no common rules (government) at all.

This is the basic reason that people will always create some form of government.

So since some form of government truly is inevitable, then it is paramount that limited government which is built around the protection of individual rights is supported.

If people don't support this type of government, then they will always end up with some other much worse form of government.

RCA
06-19-2010, 07:19 PM
Awesome video. Thanks!

ClayTrainor
06-19-2010, 07:29 PM
If having a government composed of people is an "infinitely regressive" way to manage human corruptibility, then what does having no government at all solve?


The point is... aggressive coercion and violence is not a rational solution to anything. That's the only solution the state can offer. They are entirely financed by extortion/taxation, you pay them or you get punished.



People will obviously still exist, so they will obviously still be corruptible, so how is that not "infinitely regressive"?


"If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power." - ozarkia.net



If Stephen Molyneux was at all consistent, then he would simply be arguing for the eradication of all human beings, but I digress...


Please elaborate on this, to me this totally contradicts everything he appears to stand for...



What Stephen Molyneux fails to address is the fact that some common rules (government) enable people to coexist in a much more efficient manner, a manner in which they are able to deal with corruptibility much more effectively than with no common rules (government) at all.


So should we have a coercive monopoly on who gets to decide those rules?

It sounds like you think Stefan is advocating a lawless society, which is a straw man. He simply wants to take the Non Aggression Principle to it's logical conclusion. No one should have the right to use aggressive force against innocent individuals, even if they call themselves a government.

It sounds to like you have more respect for Legal Positivism(man-made law), than the Natural Law. Am I mistaken?



This is the basic reason that people will always create some form of government, so since some form of government truly is inevitable, then it is paramount that limited government which is built around the protection of individual rights is supported.

Show me a limited government that stayed limited.



If people don't support this type of government, then they will always end up with some other much worse form of government.

If people continue to support a coercive monopoly on the right to use force, than they will always end up with a growing tyrannical government.

mport1
06-19-2010, 07:30 PM
Stef hits it out of the park as usual.

heavenlyboy34
06-19-2010, 08:08 PM
Though not very sophisticated, this is a pretty good piece overall. :) (plus, his use of "regression" here seems inaccurate IMHO)

ClayTrainor
06-19-2010, 09:05 PM
(plus, his use of "regression" here seems inaccurate IMHO)

Could you explain why? I'm not sure I understand. :)

Petar
06-19-2010, 09:22 PM
The point is... aggressive coercion and violence is not a rational solution to anything. That's the only solution the state can offer. They are entirely financed by extortion/taxation, you pay them or you get punished.

No, Stefen's point is that government is unable to solve human corruption, because government is itself made up of (corruptible) human beings.

My point is that Stefen's solution (no government) would make as little apparent sense, since human being are corruptible, with or without government.

If your argument is that the whole idea of government is illegitimate, because it relies on a form of extortion, then that is a separate matter.

Here is my response to that argument:

Human society requires minimal government that is built around the protection of individual rights, in order to flourish.

If human society does not have this, then it becomes subject to chaos, and ultimately something much worse.

It becomes subject to totalitarian government that is built around the interests of an oppressive oligarchy.

In order to avoid this inevitable alternative, intelligent people must accept a small amount of taxation, in order to finance a small amount of government.


"If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power." - ozarkia.net

Minimal government that is built around individual rights does not "amplify coercive power".

It minimizes it within a population.


Please elaborate on this, to me this totally contradicts everything he appears to stand for...

Stefen argues that government can never solve human corruptibility because government is itself made up of corruptible humans.

Therefor, in Stefen's world, human beings can never manage their own corruptibility, so presumably we must be eradicated, unless he just thinks that aliens are going to come down and solve all our problems.


So should we have a coercive monopoly on who gets to decide those rules?

The phrase "coercive monopoly" can be interpreted in many ways.

Please cite a specific example.


It sounds like you think Stefan is advocating a lawless society, which is a straw man. He simply wants to take the Non Aggression Principle to it's logical conclusion. No one should have the right to use aggressive force against innocent individuals, even if they call themselves a government.

Stefen claims to be an anarchist, which would make him against the idea of having common laws (government).

If Stefen thinks that we should all just "follow the NAP", as a supposedly robust solution, then he is not even a real anarchist, since even the NAP would be a form of government, albeit a completely toothless one.


It sounds to like you have more respect for Legal Positivism(man-made law), than the Natural Law. Am I mistaken?

I believe that human beings need to create their own rules (man-made-laws) that are designed to protect their natural rights as individuals (natural law).


Show me a limited government that stayed limited.

I think that the USA for example has devolved quite a bit from what was originally intended, but I do believe that it has also improved a lot in some ways.

Slavery is now illegal for example.

Limited government has ushered in the modern age, and the USA has yet to go completely fascist.

Also, I am hopeful for a restoration of liberty on the horizon.

Now, please show me a people with no common laws that have flourished in any sustainable manner.


If people continue to support a coercive monopoly on the right to use force, than they will always end up with a growing tyrannical government.

How else are people supposed to manage the use of force?

Are we supposed to just leave it to every individual to decide when it is necessary?

If people honestly believed that we were supposed to live like that, then you would very quickly learn why anarchy is also synonymous with chaos.

And then you would also quickly learn why the world's tyrants truly believe in "order through chaos".

heavenlyboy34
06-19-2010, 09:29 PM
Could you explain why? I'm not sure I understand. :)

I mean that he seems to have made up a political science term on the spot. I've never heard it used the way he does (I've only heard it used to describe phenomena in physical science and theoretical biology). JMHO.

ClayTrainor
06-19-2010, 09:43 PM
No, Stefen's point is that government is unable to solve human corruption, because government is itself made up of (corruptible) human beings.

His argument is that all human beings are corruptible, and the state is where the strongest power lies. Therefore, the worst human beings will naturally gravitate to state power, while good people will just want to be left alone.



My point is that Stefen's solution (no government) would make as little apparent sense, since human being are corruptible, with or without government.

If your argument is that the whole idea of government is illegitimate, because it relies on a form of extortion, then that is a separate matter.

That's the fundamental basis of the entire argument. No one should have the right to use coercive force against innocent indivudals, even if they call themselves a "government". You obviously disagree...



Human society requires minimal government that is built around the protection of individual rights, in order to flourish.

If human society does not have this, then it becomes subject to chaos, and ultimately something much worse.

It becomes subject to totalitarian government that is built around the interests of an oppressive oligarchy.

In order to avoid this inevitable alternative, intelligent people must accept a small amount of taxation, in order to finance a small amount of government.


And what of an innocent indivudal who has committed no aggressive crime against others, refuses to pay the tax?




Minimal government that is built around individual rights does not "amplify coercive power".

It minimizes it within a population.


The entire concept of taxation is coercive. If you don't pay, you get punished.



Stefen argues that government can never solve human corruptibility because government is itself made up of corruptible humans.


The foundation of the state is taking property from innocent individuals by coercive force (tax)



The phrase "coercive monopoly" can be interpreted in many ways.

Please cite a specific example.


The American Government. The Canadian Government. The British Government, etc.




Stefen claims to be an anarchist, which would make him against the idea of having common laws (government).


Again, you imply that stefan is for a lawless society. This is a straw-man.

Do you think Government = Law?



If Stefen thinks that we should all just "follow the NAP", as a supposedly robust solution, then he is not even a real anarchist, since even the NAP would be a form of government, albeit a completely toothless one.


NAP is not an institution permitted to use coercive force, it is a principle which opposes the use of coercive force.




I believe that human beings need to create their own rules (man-made-laws) that are designed to protect their natural rights as individuals (natural law).


It seems to me that you don't understand that these are opposing theories, not theories that support one another.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is man-made)




Now, please show me a people with no common laws that have flourished in any sustainable manner.


Straw-man. This is not my position, nor Stef's as I understand it.

"Rights may be universal, but their enforcement must be local." - Rothbard

ClayTrainor
06-19-2010, 09:59 PM
I mean that he seems to have made up a political science term on the spot. I've never heard it used the way he does (I've only heard it used to describe phenomena in physical science and theoretical biology). JMHO.

Interesting, you may be right. The only time I've heard of regression before this, is when referring to Cancer.

ClayTrainor
06-19-2010, 10:23 PM
Petar, it's been nice discussing this with you so far. if you're writing a response to my post right now, I just wanted to let you know that I may not get around to responding again for a couple of days.

I'm about to go to bed and I'm leaving for Montreal early tomorrow morning for a business event. and won't have much time to be on the forums. I'll be sure to get back to you when I get back though. :)

Cheers!

Petar
06-19-2010, 10:45 PM
His argument is that all human beings are corruptible, and the state is where the strongest power lies. Therefore, the worst human beings will naturally gravitate to state power, while good people will just want to be left alone.

Minimal government that is built around the rights of the individual will weaken evil power hungry people, as much as possible, while strengthening good respectful people, as much as possible.

Corrupt people will still attempt to infiltrate government, but good people will also attempt to lead government.


That's the fundamental basis of the entire argument. No one should have the right to use coercive force against innocent indivudals, even if they call themselves a "government". You obviously disagree...

Yeah, people require minimal government that is built around the protection of individual rights, otherwise they are fucked.

Yes, I think that the atrocious consequences that no government would result in do justify minimal extortion (minimal taxes).


And what of an innocent indivudal who has committed no aggressive crime against others, refuses to pay the tax?

If an individual refuses to pay some minimal tax to fund a minimal government that is designed to protect the rights of individuals, then that individual deserves some sort of punishment.


The entire concept of taxation is coercive. If you don't pay, you get punished.

The foundation of the state is taking property from innocent individuals by coercive force (tax)

Minimal taxation is justified, as long as the government is also minimal, and protects individual rights.


The American Government. The Canadian Government. The British Government, etc.

Each of these governments has many different components.

For example, British and Canadian governments have official monarchies, which I consider obscene forms of government.

Otherwise, these peoples do each elect their own representatives, which is good in itself, but I do appreciate that the USA (at least theoretically), places very important restrictions upon its representatives, through its Constitution.


Again, you imply that stefan is for a lawless society. This is a straw-man.

No, I do recognize that Stefen imagines a world where everyone can make up their own rules, as long as they don't initiate force on each other, but I also recognize that his "NAP" is completely toothless, making it an inevitable failure.

Do you think Government = Law?

Government = Common laws that societies determine collectively.


NAP is not an institution permitted to use coercive force, it is a principle which opposes the use of coercive force.

Ok, so its a "governing idea" that is totally toothless, gotcha.


It seems to me that you don't understand that these are opposing theories, not theories that support one another.

There is nothing contradictory about humans creating laws that are designed to protect our natural rights as individuals.

You are the one talking about "positive rights", not me.


Straw-man. This is not my position, nor Stef's as I understand it.

Ok, pardon me, you and Stefen must be some of those anarchist that believe in societies creating and enforcing rules collectively, my mistake.


"Rights may be universal, but their enforcement must be local." - Rothbard

"Consistent" would be a bonus....

South Park Fan
06-19-2010, 10:49 PM
Interesting, you may be right. The only time I've heard of regression before this, is when referring to Cancer.

Government is Cancer. ;)

Petar
06-19-2010, 10:52 PM
Petar, it's been nice discussing this with you so far. if you're writing a response to my post right now, I just wanted to let you know that I may not get around to responding again for a couple of days.

I'm about to go to bed and I'm leaving for Montreal early tomorrow morning for a business event. and won't have much time to be on the forums. I'll be sure to get back to you when I get back though. :)

Cheers!

Okey doke, hopefully I haven't gotten too bitchy yet.

ClayTrainor
06-20-2010, 12:30 AM
Haven't gone to bed yet. This will be my last response, for a couple days. :)


Minimal government that is built around the rights of the individual will weaken evil power hungry people, as much as possible, while strengthening good respectful people, as much as possible.


The point of the constitution was to limit government. Since it was written, The American government has gradually grown into one of the biggest governments in world history. Why did/does the constitution fail to limit the American Government?



Corrupt people will still attempt to infiltrate government, but good people will also attempt to lead government.


Which one seems to be more common? Ron Paul is the only politician I've ever had any trust in.

Good people generally don't want power over others, as much as bad people do.


If an individual refuses to pay some minimal tax to fund a minimal government that is designed to protect the rights of individuals, then that individual deserves some sort of punishment.


I believe in protecting individual rights as well as supporting/funding organizations that protect individual rights. I do not think you, or an organization you choose to support is entitled to violate my individual right to private property. I have not hurt anybody, damaged property or stolen anything from anyone.

What kind of punishment should be delivered to me?



Minimal taxation is justified, as long as the government is also minimal, and protects individual rights.


So in order for me to protect my individual property rights, I have to permit someone violate my individual property rights?

Do you see the inherent contradiction, yet?



Each of these governments has many different components.

For example, British and Canadian governments have official monarchies, which I consider obscene forms of government.


All of them can be considered "Democracies" to various extents, and I believe that is an equally atrocious form of government.



Otherwise, these peoples do each elect their own representatives, which is good in itself, but I do appreciate that the USA (at least theoretically), places very important restrictions upon its representatives, through its Constitution.


Important restrictions that even the founders ignored once they took office.



Government = Common laws that societies determine collectively.


I support Universal Laws. I accept the Natural Law as the basis, not the majority/collective opinion. What about you?



Ok, so its a "governing idea" that is totally toothless, gotcha.


There is nothing toothless about being consistent in your defense of individual rights. To me it's flat-out gutless, hypocritical and irrational to advocate granting an organization the right to use coercive force against innocent people that have committed no crime, as a means to protect individual liberty. A free-market on security and property protection services, would be far more aggressive in protecting life, liberty and property than any organization with the right to take your property by force.



There is nothing contradictory about humans creating laws that are designed to protect our natural rights as individuals.

There is when the very basis of your argument involves violating my natural right to private property, in the name of a man-made law you endorse. (taxation)



Ok, pardon me, you and Stefen must be some of those anarchist that believe in societies creating and enforcing rules collectively, my mistake.


No, but you used the term "common law". I accept the law as a universal truth, so it is definitely common. I do not accept the law being determined by collective opinion or any other form of legal-positivism.



"Consistent" would be a bonus....

The NAP with respect to Natural Law is consistent with individual liberty. To support taxation/extortion as a means to protect individual property rights, is not.

ClayTrainor
06-20-2010, 01:01 AM
Government is Cancer. ;)

ahhhh, that does validate his use of the word to me... HB, what do you think of that?

jmdrake
06-20-2010, 06:27 AM
Let's see. Someone makes a youtube that spends 14 minute 30 seconds on the "problem" of government about 30 seconds on his "solution". And his "solution" is to go to his website and get his books? :confused:

Sorry, but he should have at least attempted to roughly map out his solution as applied to the oil spill. Very unsatisfactory. :mad:

Since I'm left to guess what his solution is, I'll assume it the "private ownership of the ocean" argument. So lets assume the oil companies bought up the Gulf of Mexico. Not unrealistic since there is a lot of oil in the Gulf and oil companies have deep pockets. I'll assume the oil companies don't buy up the shoreline. They lease fishing rights and pleasure boating rights, but the economic value from that is far outweighed by the economic value for looking for oil. That solves the problem how exactly? Sure, BP would lose some revenue from lost fishing leases, but that might pale in comparison to the revenue gained over the years from cutting corners in their drilling. And neither BP nor the fishermen would have any stake in the sea turtle population. There isn't a big market for sea turtle meat. Under the current regime sea turtles and dolphins actually cost fishermen money since they have to spend extra to try to avoid catching them.

The commentator complained that about limited liability under the current regime, especially through "corporate personhood". Really that just means that some retiree that has pension funds invested in multiple companies including BP can only lose the value of their BP stock from this disaster. I'm still not sure why that's a bad thing. But let's assume that it is. Regardless of whether liability is limited or not, to enforce liability requires a lawsuit. Where do you sue in that new regime? And how do you enforce a judgment? (Oh yeah. Go to his website and buy some books to find out.) I guess you hire a private police force. Maybe BP willingly gives all of it's cash to the gulf shoreline owners, but that's not enough. So they go after stockholders like "big daddy warbucks". But warbucks has his own private army that's bigger and he says "Screw you! In fact I'm going to make you give me back some of BPs cash!" So the private police force runs like hell and finds Petuna Pensioner who owned a tiny amount of BP stock along with the rest of her portfolio and they take it all because she's an easier target than warbucks. Path of least resistance instead of "deep pockets".

The commentator complained about the fact that the person doing the inspection also profited under the enterprise. So who inspects under the new regime? Do the gulf shore owners get to inspect the oil platforms? What regime of private property rights gives you the right to inspect someone else's property? Maybe the gulf shores owners say "We'll contract with you to let us inspect in return for limiting liability". But I thought we just decided that limited liability was bad? Of course some hotel owner has no expertise in inspecting oil rigs, so they'd have to hire that out. Are the people they hire incorruptible? If these inspectors end up taking bribes from BP, what's the recourse?

Anyway, it's a fallacy that the reason people accept government is that they think they'll get "good people" to restrain the "evil people". The reason people accept government is because it provides some kind of forum for settling disputes. You don't overcome the legitimate need for a way to settle disputes simply by pointing out that the current regime is flawed.

Travlyr
06-23-2010, 05:09 PM
Stephen Molyneux has the right idea, but eliminating governments from power is "pie in the sky." While it may be the right solution, there is no chance of its implementation for quite some time to come because we are not at a point where we can remove the chains... not yet.

Governments are not the real problem anyway. The heart of the problem is the distribution of the money supply.

"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ... The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply." - Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild

Money controls governments, governments initiate violence... that is what they do, yet 1/3 of the population wants that. They want to be led around (those are the ones screaming for health care, social programs, etc.). They love big government watching out for them. And the 1/3 who are power hungry are more than happy to lead. 66% for government... 33% for liberty... not good odds.

There may be a way to work towards this goal. A solution might involve giving everyone what they desire in the interim with the ultimate goal of ending government oversight completely. Wean the people off the idea. Teach them how to achieve better lives without governments.

First step is agreement. Second step is a plan. Third step is education. Fourth step is promotion. Fifth step is implementation.