The U.S. Goverment

[jorb]

My personal theory is that he put too much trust in Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, who at the time had an idea of a "paleo coalition" where they would win the hearts and minds of the Pat Buchanan people. It turned out to be a big mistake, and I think most people involved realized that before Rothbard died (Rothbard included, but perhaps not Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who loftar and jorb seem to really like, lol). Anyway, Lew Rockwell was the guy in charge of those newsletters and Ron Paul was busy working as an MD, Lew fucked up, but it's old news and I forgive him, even if I wished he was a bit more cosmopolitan.

Nonono. Hoppe grew tired of the paleocons. His final analysis seems to be that the libertarians were willing to learn "their cultural lesson", but that the paleos were unwilling to learn their economic one. He talks about it here. That being said I do believe that the marriage looked very good on paper. Many if not most "libertarians" are just as utopian in their outlook as any old communist, and that is a problem that the "movement" needs to deal with if it is ever to gain traction as anything other than a youth sub-culture.

[Tonkyhonk]

im not liking these options

ha ha, whether you like them or not, they are your options for now
try getting sabinati on the list for the next 4 years!?

I shall further make the observation that those things are wholly necessary if the United States are to avoid the fiscal and moral bankruptcies that the quest for Empire has always implied historically.

with that capital E, as in Hardt and Negri's? how did you like their "Multitude"?
(i just read a very recent interview article on Negri here, and found it pretty interesting.)

do you really see humility as a virtue? I see it as wholly distracting and as an expression of intellectually egalitarian (perhaps even ethically relativistic or ethically apathetic) values that are detrimental to any intellectual debate.

it is/was traditionally the primal virtue in my country.
we are slowly losing that tradition lately though
(the winner mentioning victory proudly in front of the loser used to be "out of manner" long time ago, even for sports.)

Quotes:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

hmm, wiki in japanese mentions that the articles with those quotes were written by a ghost writer and he himself admitted that. (still it is his own fault enough that he didnt check well what he was publishing with his name.)
anyways, what i have read so far makes me think that japanese media do not believe he could win, while he seems to be the most popular candidate among internet users. i hardly find articles on him here, which is, however, mostly on my part.

If you try to force people into agreeing with you by hitting them over the head with your arguments, they will often respond by shutting down completely and remove any chance of a meaningful exchange of ideas.

Thereby not implying that I always follow said advice.

lol i hardly see debate lovers following that advice.

btw, Arvin and jorb, i would never believe you two hate politics.

[Potjeh]

It doesn't, however, come as a surprise to *me* that our welfare systems can be 'sploited to kingdom come. Of course they can. It is a necessary part of any public welfare system that it can and will be exploited. This is precisely why I want to get rid of them.

By analogy: If you hand out free bread in the character creation room, obviously people will spawn alts to get free bread. That is why handing out free bread is a bad idea.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. In this particular case the bread was state-sponsored education, and I think that losing some money to exploitation of the system is a price worth paying for the goal of giving everyone a fair chance at succeeding in life. I guess a libertarian would disagree, though, because public education like all things public is irredeemably evil and should be completely abolished. Screw social mobility, people born into poverty aren't real people anyway.

You mean like how Haliburton benefits from nation-building contracts in broken nations across the seas? Or like how AIG, CitiBank and Bank of America benefits from the bail-outs that the American government has given and continues to give them? Or like how the military-industrial complex in general with its many merchants of death -- Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, &c&c in absurdum ad nauseam -- benefit from the racket that is American military spending? Or like how United Fruit benefited from American intervention in South America? Or like how British Petroleum benefited from Anglo-American intervention in Iran?

None of which is regulation, but rather public projects. And I simply can't see how moving power from federal to state government would change a damn thing here. State governments are just as prone to corruption as the federal government.

Regulation on the other hand is what stops big business from ravaging communities with their processes. The pattern is simple - build factories in one place and then cut corners like there's no tomorrow, pumping the air and water full of carcinogens and exploiting your workers in any way imaginable. Then just sell the products somewhere far enough so your consumers don't see what you're doing. This is something that a small business can't do, because they are by their nature localized.

[jorb]

Regulation on the other hand is what stops big business from ravaging communities with their processes. The pattern is simple - build factories in one place and then cut corners like there's no tomorrow, pumping the air and water full of carcinogens and exploiting your workers in any way imaginable. Then just sell the products somewhere far enough so your consumers don't see what you're doing. This is something that a small business can't do, because they are by their nature localized.

But isn't what you describe here precisely a society that *lacks* in the upholding of adequate property rights? What of all this would not be illegal under any sane system of normal tort law?

[Potjeh]

If there's no duty of care (which comes from regulations) there's no grounds for a tort lawsuit. Well, technically there is, but then you're getting into muddy waters where the most expensive lawyer wins. And guess who can afford that lawyer?

[jorb]

None of which is regulation, but rather public projects. And I simply can't see how moving power from federal to state government would change a damn thing here. State governments are just as prone to corruption as the federal government.

I would argue that they aren't. Corruption tends to breed in anonymous environments where those in charge of the money are far removed from those who actually pay it. The European super state is thus more prone to corruption than my local municipality government. Also, the beauty of decentralization is that you get a risk distribution. Some states may very well become corrupt, but there is at least more than one die roll. Decentralization also leads to institutional competition between state governments, since people and businesses tend to move from corrupt states to less corrupt states. A municipality is also far easier to change and affect for those who live in it than a large, anonymous herd of voters in a superstate.

If there's no duty of care (which comes from regulations) there's no grounds for a tort lawsuit. Well, technically there is, but then you're getting into muddy waters where the most expensive lawyer wins. And guess who can afford that lawyer?

I don't know. That seems like a more fundamental "injustice" of human life that I'm not sure anyone can do much to alleviate. The point I am trying to make is that I don't see what regulation introduces (save regulatory bloat) that a functioning system of tort law wouldn't already cover. Lawyers and their uses seems like a bit of a side-track.

[jorb]

I shall further make the observation that those things are wholly necessary if the United States are to avoid the fiscal and moral bankruptcies that the quest for Empire has always implied historically.

with that capital E, as in Hardt and Negri's? how did you like their "Multitude"?
(i just read a very recent interview article on Negri here, and found it pretty interesting.)

Only familiar by word of mouth. I believe they are avowed marxists, and that usually doesn't sit well with me. I haven't read it, however. I just think that the word Empire looks better when capitalized.

it is/was traditionally the primal virtue in my country.
we are slowly losing that tradition lately though
(the winner mentioning victory proudly in front of the loser used to be "out of manner" long time ago, even for sports.)

Aaah, Japan <3

btw, Arvin and jorb, i would never believe you two hate politics.

I shall admit that I have a morbid fascination with the subject.

[ArvinJA]

btw, Arvin and jorb, i would never believe you two hate politics.

I shall admit that I have a morbid fascination with the subject.

I guess it's like war, some people are very interested in them but that does not mean they like wars, they just think it's interesting to study them.
I think politics is a dangerous thing, especially since we're pretty much wired to take sides without looking to closely at the logic behind the viewpoints that we are supposed to be siding with.
This is a pretty good article, and a big reason for why I now monitor how political I get in certain contexts. I will always defend science though, regardless of context, but one shouldn't discuss politics in all contexts as people tend to be way more irrational when they discuss politics compared to when they discuss things such as how to make good Pasta Carbonara (even though I have gotten into some heated discussions because I firmly believe peas or any vegetable for that matter should not be included in Pasta Carbonara).

[jorb]

I firmly believe peas or any vegetable for that matter should not be included in Pasta Carbonara).

I couldn't agree more. Why do people put peas in them?

[Jackard]

I will always defend science though, regardless of context, but one shouldn't discuss politics in all contexts as people tend to be way more irrational when they discuss politics compared to when they discuss things such as how to make good Pasta Carbonara (even though I have gotten into some heated discussions because I firmly believe peas or any vegetable for that matter should not be included in Pasta Carbonara).

Bacon?

Vomit.