Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Some comments in the ongoing debate regarding the candidacy of Elizabeth Warren got me to thinking about our political system and people’s reactions to it. Warren is criticized by the Right for obvious reasons, given her strong stances on managing the economy and controlling the excesses of the Corporate Culture. In a sense she offends their sense of political purity, but then that is but a given because she is a Democrat. We have seen though on the Right that such conservative stalwarts as Richard Lugar have gone down to primary defeat because he failed the Tea Parties test of what a “true” conservative should be. Richard Lugar failed the “purity” test even though his conservative history is impeccable. In my conception political purity conforms to “party line” thinking, punishing those that fail to adhere in all respects to the standards of a given faction’s concept of standards their candidates must adhere to in order to retain enthusiastic support. I use “faction”, rather than “party”, because our two party political system actually represents an amalgam of various factions imperfectly coalescing under the rubric of a “Political Party”.
From a Left, or even Centrist perspective, there has been both amusement and trepidation about how the “Tea Party” faction has exerted control over the Republican Party. Then too, there is the same reaction to the power exerted by Fundamentalist Christians, a group that at some points overlaps with the “Tea Party”. A human trait is to see the foibles of groups we define as “other”, while being oblivious to the idiosyncrasies of the groups we are aligned with. Liberals, Progressives, Radicals and even Leftist Centrists like to believe that they are immune from the turmoil that they see in their Right Wing opposites, yet the “Left” and even the “Center” also routinely define people in terms of litmus tests of political purity. This was highlighted by certain comments on the Warren thread where people who were seemingly in tune with her domestic policy views, disliked her positions on the Middle East and appeared to hold them against her. This has definitely been true with many progressives and/or civil libertarians in viewing this current Administration. My purpose here is not one of castigation for anyone’s perspective; rather I’m interested in exploring the phenomenon of the belief that political figures need to meet all of our expectations in their positions, or be unworthy of our support. My own perspective is that tests of political purity are self defeating because it is impossible for any particular political figure to be in perfect agreement with all that any of us individually believe and politics becomes oppression without the ability to negotiate. The process of real negotiation requires compromise. What follows is why I believe that is true. Before my discussion though, I think a definition of perspectives would be helpful. There are some of us, including myself to a certain degree, who believe that we are living under a corporate oligarchy and as such the common pretense that our national fate is in the hands of the majority’s vote, is but pleasant mythology. I wrote about this in my guest blog Published 1, March 17, 2012: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/17/a-real-history-of-the-last-sixty-two-years/ .One logical conclusion that can be drawn from believing that democracy is an illusion, is that voting is a wasted effort, since whatever person we choose will either be a corporate stooge, or unelectable. I can respect those who draw that conclusion since the evidence of its truth is quite convincing. My own conclusion is not quite there yet, even though I do believe that we are under the rule of a coalition of the Military Industrial Complex and of the Corporate Elite. The redeeming feature to me is that I don’t believe in the homogeneity of the “ruling classes”. I think that they are made up of various factions and roiled by clashing egos. In my estimation voting for politicians thus has value because the vote affects the competition among our oligarchs. There is a qualitative difference for instance between Buffett/Gates and the Koch Brothers, in the sense that the former believe in more humane social policies and the latter have a draconian social view.
If one believes that Democracy is completely illusory, then why bother voting, since voting is a futile exercise? The logical conclusion of such a belief is to disdain all of American politics and politicians as being tools of the Oligarchy. From that perspective it isn’t a question of particular policy, since almost every player in normative politics is not to be trusted. So the question becomes how do the people change things when the political process is believed to be non-existent? Obviously, if it is ones view that America politics is a total sham, then a massive uprising of the people would be needed to make change. How does that uprising occur? Will its’ nature be peaceful, or violent? While I know there are “militias” out in the hills of places like Idaho, are they capable of banding together to overthrow our current government, I think not. Violent revolutions always seem to breed unforeseen and unpleasant excesses, which make their original aims moot. So the question becomes how do we effect a peaceful revolution? The answer is simple, but the process itself is immensely complex. A peaceful revolution can come about when you are able to convince an overwhelming majority of the people that the current system needs change and that they need to refuse to cooperate with it. Think of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. When the media is in the hands of corporations though, the issue is one of how does the message of change come across to reach the populace? It’s a question I’ve pondered for years.
Back in the 60’s there was the idea of “dropping out” of a corrupt system. Its problem was that it was espoused by many and practiced by few. The truth was that for those “dropping out” the system didn’t miss their participation, nor would it now. A current conservative stratagem is to make voting harder, thereby limiting turnout of voters negative to their cause. We solve nothing by not voting. We could vote, but cast our votes for nascent opposition parties. This is not a bad premise in my estimation, even though in our loaded political system, minority party effectiveness is more limited than under parliamentary government. Let us think though about a minority party legislator’s ability to be effective once elected, since I assume that the process of gaining political power through organizing a minority party opposition would be slow and could be violently opposed. Think of the police reactions to Occupy Wall Street. However, OWS does show that the elite can feel threatened by a mass movement.
When we discuss the election of someone whose political views are outside of what the “mainstream allows”, we need to take into account how much positive influence they can have on the political process, if they are unwilling to compromise their “political purity”. Let us take the real instance of Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist, as he does his job in the Senate. I believe that Bernie is the most ethical and perceptive Senator we have had in the Senate in a long time. He is also an effective Senator in terms of being able to not only put forth a progressive point of view, but to actually influence Senate activity. In order to be effective in the Senate, Bernie has had to compromise on certain issues and thus would certainly be seen from the orthodox socialist perspective to have sold out. In contrast let us take another man whose career I’ve admired, Dennis Kucinich. Dennis has been an aggressive/effective spokesman on a national level for unpopular, yet valid causes. Within the house though he has not been able to effectuate change simply because Dennis does not do compromise well
In today’s world a political change process is mainly effectuated in four ways:
1. Violent revolution, which is highly problematic at best.
2. Massive non cooperation with the system, ala Gandhi and King, which can be very successful based
upon the right circumstances.
3. Organizing and creating an opposition political movement, a possibly fruitful, yet hard process to carry
out with success..
4. Working within the system, imperfect as it may be, to effect slow change.
All of the above can be work to effect change in a given context, but one factor is a given no matter which method is chosen. To build a mass movement in a diverse population the need to compromise is paramount. This need to compromise is called “coalition building”. The Right has been effective at this for years when you think of the coalition between religious fundamentalists, lukewarm objectivists and outright corporatists. What would Jesus, Ayn Rand and even Adam Smith think of the ways their teachings have been presumably melded? In the past the Left also coalesced around certain issues, bringing together groups that were hardly homogeneous. However, from the 60’s onward building of coalitions on the Left has broken down. “Centrists” and “Liberals” became anathema to “progressives” and “radicals”. After all that he had accomplished Martin Luther King became an “Uncle Tom” in the minds of “Black Power” advocates for his refusal to entertain the concept of violence as a tool.
The Left coalition also began to break down in the 60’s over the issue of Viet Nam. Working class union members generally supported the war that was drafting and killing their children. The leadership of the AFL-CIO, who had striven to disassociate themselves from Marxism during the McCarthy era, had become part of the country’s establishment. As George Meany, the AFL-CIO President, began to play golf with Eisenhower and major industrialists, the Union movement swung away from its Left Wing roots. The fact that the labor movement was overwhelmingly “white working class” in an era where Blacks were demanding equal status also took its toll on the coalition between Big Labor and the Democratic Party. The AFL-CIO and Teamsters supported Richard Nixon in 1968..
The labor movement’s departure from coalition with the Democratic Party was to have devastating consequences for its strength. Their workers, doing well financially aspired to a scaled down version of the American Dream. The threat that competition with Blacks for jobs and with the Left’s critique of muscular foreign policy, helped drive white workers into the Republican Party. The fact that their leadership had become cozy with Management and Republicans led the way. The power of the labor movement waned until today it is a shadow of what it once was. The Left coalition forged under FDR and informed experientially by the “Great Depression”, began to fight amongst themselves. The battles increasingly became issues of “purity of political belief”. When a person’s political value is weighed on only specific issues that are politically “black and white”, coalition becomes almost impossible. Without the ability to coalesce “Movements” face severe limitations in their ability to grow.
I believe that in the desire for reforming our governance to work for the interests of all the people, all viable methods must be used. Of the four methods I list above I believe that only the latter three are really viable. A violent revolution in this country will only hasten the totality of oppression, since violent revolutions never seem to work out the way people have planned and that the people once having risen find themselves ruled harshly by those they so hopefully followed. Refute this premise if you will, but please don’t cite the American Revolution. While it certainly had violence it was a rebellion of colonies against an overseas colonial state. By revolution I mean the rebellion of a people in a certain geographical area against their own government.
Methodologically, none of the three methods can work without bringing together people of differing standards via a coalition that accepts deviation from a “party line”. This seems obvious to me since rarely do those who wish change agree on all issues. Are there “deal breakers” that cannot brook compromise? That depends upon the individual, the perceived threat and the current circumstance. I have my own deal breakers, certainly, but I invoke them in context of my reading of the perceived threat.
What do you the reader think of the argument I’ve made? If you disagree please let me know, since I understand that on any given subject I can be wrong and I am really willing to learn. If you agree with me then what are your “deal breakers”? Perhaps if you show me yours, I’ll show you mine.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
skip,
Not at all. I’ve displayed that you once again don’t know your ass from a hole in the wall when it comes to law. What you believe and the facts of how the social compact work are not the same thing. Part of the social compact – the part which you and that idiot Rothbard think is thievery but isn’t – pays for the operation of government by which mutually derived benefit is gained. That part of the social compact is a limit on your absolute rights to property which exist only in the state of nature. That limitation is called “taxes”. So right out of the gate, you see an agreement to limit absolute rights in exchange for mutually derived benefit which is the very core of the idea of the social compact and the theoretical heart of any form of government and/or its attendant society. Got that? When you join a society via the social compact, you are sacrificing the absolute liberties you have in the state of nature for the mutually derived benefit of society as manifested by government.
“One of the very premises of individual rights, is that you cannot take away the rights of others.”
Actually that has nothing to do with the premise of individual rights, skip. In the state of nature (i.e. without society and government to protect your rights), you are absolutely free to act however you like, including stealing from others. That you may choose not to is a personal ethical constraint on your actions – a self-imposed law. But in the state of nature, there is no laws – no rules – to constrain your freedom of action. That is the very definition of an absolute right.
“Individual rights are supposed to protect us legally from such things as involuntary survitude, slavery, from being physically harmed and from people harming our property such as stealing it or damaging it.”
Individual rights as they exist in the state of nature don’t protect you from a damn thing other than what you are personally bad enough to protect for yourself. That’s part and parcel of one of the many flaws underlying Libertarianism. Without laws and enforcement of laws to protect your rights, you are left with only the rights you are strong enough to keep from being stolen from you by those who want what you have.
“The idea, that I have to protect you from tyranny, is in fact interesting.”
The idea that you have to protect me from tyranny is ridiculous. That is what our specific form of government is supposed to do by the terms of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (an oddity in the legal world as it specifically spells out the terms of social compact in re tyranny). Just so, no one expects you to protect my contractual rights. That is the job of the government should I bring suit against another in breach, win on the merits and receive a judgment. One of those mutually derived benefits of the social compact; I don’t have to rely on self-help or asking Skippy for help.
Skip, we’re never going to agree on anything because you operate in a fantasy world of Libertarian dogma that has nothing to do with reality. Like most Libertarians, you have a very loose grasp on the idea of liberty and how liberty works in society under the social compact. Freedom and liberty does not mean you are not free to do as you please and not contribute to societies upkeep. You are subject to the rule of law including taxation. If that “infringes” on “your freedom”, as Tony pointed out, feel free to live in a lawless region where you owe no taxes and have no constraints on yours or others actions let alone remedy other than self-help should you be wronged and let’s see how much protection your “individual rights” provides you when the warlord from the next village over decides he wants your TV and shows up to take it with a .50 cal. Too bad you didn’t want to pay taxes for a military or cops to provide for public defense and safety, because unless you’re bullet-proof, you’re screwed.
@Bron — So what your telling me Gene, I don’t have a right to choose which social compacts I want. I have to agree with yours. If I think the government is corrupt, I have to leave if I’m unhappy, I can’t get rid of teh scondrels. Do you really think that you and I could agree on what contitutional rights could and should be protected? Your a fucking morron, why would I want to associate with you. Do you ever reread the stuff you write. You have yet to give me one source of knowlege that agrees with you. Yea I want to see some of you straw men. Ninety percent of the stuff you write is ludicris and when I challenge you, you can never answer a single friggin question. I sincerely doubt that if I had to rely on you to protect me in conflict, that you would be there.That’s what it’s about dude. Watching one anothers back and helping one another and not by force. The only thing I would expect form you is for you to steal from me. That what socialist do and you are surely a socialist and communist. You advocated the 5th platform of communism, a central bank, as did Matt advocate the income tax, 2nd platform for communism. If it quacks like a duck it is one. Bron, there are better sites to be on if Turley allows the advocacy of communism. It’s his call.
Matt Johnson, some crazy people DO know they’re crazy.
Pay-Back, by James Brown:
Don’t do me…no damn favor,
I don’t know karate, but I know ka-rayzee.
Gene, I am puzzled by Bron’s response. I saw no contradictions at all in your presentaton. Logical and tightly reasoned. Must be because your observations contradicted his world view, which is skewed by being a disciple of Rand.
Bron,
Your failure to comprehend, as usual, is completely expected.
Gene H:
your post, as usual, is a mass of contradictions.
Actually someone displaying sociopathic tendencies characterized by asocial or antisocial behavior or exhibiting antisocial personality disorder is a sociopath. Agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with it. For example, your insistence that property rights are absolute in society is simply factually and legally wrong although it indicates that you don’t understand the concept that others have rights too and that includes the right to be free of all forms of tyranny including economic tyranny. Lacking empathy and thinking you’re above everyone in society (let alone based on a property right) and deserving special treatment is a symptom of sociopathic behavior. If you don’t like that some might think you’re a sociopath, Bron, I suggest that you get fleas when you lie with a diagnosable dog of a sociopath like Rand and her “philosophy”. That would be your bad choices in action. Her “philosophy” and the economics that accompany it are based in fundamentally antisocial ideas and display a stark lack of understanding about how the social compact works.
Gene, you’ve just displayed that you do not understand the basic concepts of individual rights. Here ‘s what you wrote :”For example, your insistence that property rights are absolute in society is simply factually and legally wrong although it indicates that you don’t understand the concept that others have rights too and that includes “”””the right to be free of all forms of tyranny including economic tyranny.””””””
First of all, I “beleiveeeeeeee” that it is of the upmost important to protect individual rights. Individual rights are supposed to protect us legally from such things as involuntary survitude, slavery, from being physically harmed and from people harming our property such as stealing it or damaging it. Long established legal concepts. That is supposed to apply to government agents as well. To bad they don’t really adhere to the concept.
One of the very premises of individual rights, is that you cannot take away the rights of others. I cannot legally harm you are you property or that takes away your ability to have life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Do you recall that phrase?.
However, If you agree to being under some form of governmental tyranny as you do, how would I be able to stop that and am I responsible for your actions, contracts and associations? If you are not willing to fight for your own rights, somehow I’m responsible?
The idea, that I have to protect you from tyranny, is in fact interesting. So if you wife desides to go to a bar where there are known sociopaths then I’m somehow responsible for her actions and associations. That is an interesting legal concept. I would like to see that hold up in a court of law even in some fascist court like in Liberia. I used Liberia, because reportedly, that is where honest Abe Lincoln wanted to sent all the freed slaves, so as to keep the races segregated, after their emancipation. Not quite the exceptional character we were taught in elementary school. Obviously the winners of the war, wrote the history but also obvious, the abilility to read his actually speeches and letters on the internet is changing all that.
You’re going to have to be a little more specific as to what you beleive my liabilities are, as it relates to protecting you. Example, would I protect you, if you are placed in harms way. Most likely I would. That would depend though if I were able to trust you, if I were placed in harms way, to protect me. Would you protect me from tyranny? We don’t even agree on what tyranny is and you say that you have the right to be protected from tyranny, by me.
Define what is tyranny and what has to occur in a sociaty for there to be the evidence that tyranny exists. Maybe we can agree on something.
Bron 1, June 7, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Matt:
take your own advice.
====================
You still aren’t being specific. Are you a pussy?
Bron 1, June 7, 2012 at 6:57 pm
It must have been easier back then.
============================
Try it now, asshole.
Matt, You’re most likely the psychopath. You have yet to say one intellegent thing since you entered this blog. We don’t want to hear you childish morronic comments anymore. Leave dude. Stop writting your stupid ignorant crap. I can’t beleive I even commented on you BS. I can guarantee it won’t happen again. What a loser…..
Matt:
take your own advice.
skiprob 1, June 7, 2012 at 6:44 pm
I don’t know if I would call myself a political commentator. Matt called me a psychopath. I’ve looked that up as well as sociopath and in my opinion and my friends opinion, it doesn’t fit me at all. I can’t remember the last time I caused somebody harm, especially on purpose. I do many things for people for free, without asking anything in return. I don’t know what he thinks that would make him think that I’m a socio or psychopath.
=====================================================
Crazy people don’t know they’re crazy.
It must have been easier back then.
skiprob:
to a liberal anyone who thinks the money they earn is theirs is a sociopath or psychopath.
they tell people that to back them off, I mean who wants to be thought of as a sociopath. It is like racism, that isnt working anymore so they are now calling people sociopaths or psychopaths when they dont agree with them or dont have any clue as to how to answer them.
You know you are winning an argument with a liberal when they call you a sociopath. It used to be a racist, same methodology they just upped the anty.
It is really pretty sad considering most if not all the violent demonstrations in this country have been conducted by the left. They cant seem to get away from that Marxist philosophy.
Agreed, it appears there is little difference between a thief and a sociopath. When you can’t understand that taxation is theft, that apparently pretty much discribes a sociopath. I’m somehow responcible for someone elses liabilities. Interesting legal concept. I must also be responcilbe when a prostitute gets herpies, of when a drug gang member is shot. According to the sociopaths, I’m responciple when corrupt polticians get together and spend more money then the raise in tax revenue. I’m obviously therefore responcible when the Central Bankers exspand the money supply to create irrational exurberance and then contract the money supply to cause the real estate bust. I must also be responcible when a cop beats a unarmed citizen.I’m starting to feel that I’m responcible for everyones safety, their health insurance and their education. Perhaps I should become a sociopath too. It seems the better deal and is why all democracies fail.
“When you can’t understand that taxation is theft, that apparently pretty much discribes a sociopath.”
When you make up the meanings and connotations of words to suit your own beliefs, without examining the common usage then you are the victim of propaganda’s delusion.
“FNMA and Freddie Mac are both Government “guaranteed” private companies called GSEs or at least they were until they were nationalized by the government after they financially failed.” Skiprob
“FNMA, commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal.” Skip’s answer is wrong because this company was not nationalized.”
“The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac, is a public government sponsored enterprise. The FHLMC was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in the US.” Skip again has given a wrong answer since this Agency was not nationalized.” Mike above.
Skip,
You are dishonestly avoiding the point I made which is that neither company was nationalized. The truth is that you can’t name any companies that were nationalized, so that the point you were making about private vs. government competence was a false one. At first I thought that your problem was just that you had been sold a line of bullshit, but after this performance I think that you are also being dishonest in your arguments. You still are unable to explain what you would replace government with are you? As a trained mental health professional I would say definitely though that you are not a sociopath. My basis for that is that usually sociopaths are convincing and intelligent. You’re merely a dumb follower of someone else’s sociopathy and so hooked you can’t even follow, much less counter, arguments that make you seem shallow. You only tactic is basically a variation of a ten year old arguing: Nyanhh!, Nyanhh! Nyanhh! You bore me.
Mike, I admire and have learned from such people as Jefferson, Paine, Rothbard, Rand, Bastiat, Friedman, Buchanan, Spooner, Von Mises. Two of which are Nobel Prize winners. Calling these people’s “You’re merely a dumb follower of someone else’s sociopathy” perspectives on political economy, sociopathy is the stupidous thing you’ve said yet.
Also Mike, check your facts again because I’m 99% sure the government is now the principle owner of both FNMA and Freddie. The U.S. government has not “fully” nationalized any other companies that I know off. However, there are many companies around the world including US companies that were nationlized by other Governments. I don’t know what point your trying to make but criticize, often times using lies which is one of the few thing you appear to understand how to do. Talk about boring, What have you said that is really providing anything of interest.
Your only intent appears to be purely trying to discredit a philosophy which is embraced by 10 of millions around the world and your methods are horrible, demeaning and mean spirited. Seldom providing any validated or logical analysis. It’s like Genes opinions. He never supports them with any facts or reference. He thinks his opinions are supported by his own logic and although he appears to be a pretty smart guy his arguments are very imperceptive and unclear. He appears to be using socialogical terms that aren’t commonly understood. He is not doing a very good job selling his position.
Skippy. Skippy. Skippy,
You made a statement which I proved wrong and now you want to switch premises. Your point was that every time the US government nationalizes a country it screws it up. The only problem is the US government doesn’t nationalize companies. When I called you on your stupid statement you came back with four examples none of which were nationalized. You only made a weak effort to defend two of your choices and ignored GM & AIG. Now the reason I asked you specifically about the US is because your entire litany of criticism is directed at the US government.
Face it Skippy you probably seem wise when talking to your friends, quoting asses like Rothbard and Buchanan, but here you look puny, not because you’re dumb, but because you lack the logic to make a strong argument. You still can’t succinctly tell me what you would replace goverment with and that’s because you have no idea, never having drawn your thoughts out that far. By the way if one of your heroes is the racist, Jew Hater Buchanan, then maybe that adds another piece to the jigsaw puzzle of your profile. Seriously, the best you can do is blow s moke out your ass. Bron defends your position better than you can because he tries to stivk to the subject and admits when he’s wrong. You are just a lame bullshit artist who is finally being called on your lack of substance. You are the propagandized puppet I called you out as being. Boring.
No Mikey, Mikey, Mikely I said nothing of the U.S. and in each subsiquenct post I mentioned other countries. You’re the one that mentioned the U.S. in your question to me. South American is the best place to study the nationalization of companies.
Mikey, Mikey, Mikely, James Buchanan, the nobile prise winner, not dick head Pat.
Logic. like Gene continually stating that law must have the government force of effect when the body of law called the Law Merchant, that was created by private enterprise has worked for 100’s of years.
You’re correct in that I do have a difficult time writing down to your guys level in short posts.
I did tell you what I want to replace governemnt with. I’ve even desigened a system. I even asked you to tell me how free enterprise works; remember the automioble question. I was trying to get you to answer your own question Mikey.
Propagandized Puppet: You guys are the ones that obviously need big brother taking care of you. Why: only because you believe their (the oligrachs) authority and the main stream media propaganda they control. You really can be responcible for governming and protecting yourself guys. You don’t have to buy into their unethical authority to rule your lives or you will forever be complicit in the economic inslavement of the majority. Government authority is almost always derived by unethical force. Thinking that will just all of a sudden convertgovernment to an ethical institution has been shown to be illogical.
And then you have Tony C.: The revolutionary war was won with the use of militias and privatiers. He said somthing about a group of bikers taking out militia groups. The miilitia group here is west palm is about 3,500 strong. I don’t think a littler biker gang is going to take out militia groups especially when you add in the armed citizens of the communities that aren’t part of the militia groups.
How can I logical argue with you guys???? You’re just to good for me!!!!! Sarchasm.
The real point of all this though was supposed to be how to improve our world and coming up with viable solutions. Gene has suggested campaign finance reform which hasn’t been successfully done in our lifetimes. I’m sure he has a system though and can show us all how to implement it. He’s very logical like that. Sarchasm again.
If you want to discuss something constructive, I will continue even though I don’t think that you guys can contribute anything of value. Hopefully you can prove me wrong on this one.
Peter Dragon. Under the bleachers? I passed the CPA exam over twenty years ago.
skiprob:
I think Matt may have a bad case of CR or cranial rectumitis, we probably ought not engage him.
Cranial rectumitis is most typically diagnosed in people who have their heads up their asses.
Matt Johnson:
Do you know Peter Dragon?
That is certainly all right with me, if you think I am a piece of shit then I am doing something right.
Are you a real accountant or just a para-accountant like the ones who cant pass the CPA exam. I’m thinking para-accountant.
By “mercenary state” I mean a lawless region where the person that can hire the most fighters will prevail. It is just gang warfare, written law means nothing if you can’t afford to back it up, so the written law really NEVER means anything, all that matters is who has the most money, guns, bullets, or ruthlessness. It is anarchy.
In a real society, the entire populace is obligated by membership to enforce the written law, and the way we ensure that obligation is met in large societies is by hiring professionals that we train to do the job without charging people, fairly and impartially, using mandatory taxation.
We make sure the law enforcement works for everybody equally, and thereby can remain unbiased and fair. That can never be true in anarchy.
Bron,
I don’t need my mother’s permission. Do you?
I still think you’re a piece a piece of shit.
It’s up to you to define the specifics.
Skiprob, if I got this correctly, you said to Matt Johnson: “Matt, your out of control dude. Your acting like a little girl who had her feelings hurt. I’m done with you.”
Hmmm. Now, if you were posting around on this thread and you somehow managed to hurt a little girl’s feelings, what would you do about that? Would you, f’rinstance, try to figure out what had caused her that kind of pain?
Just checking. I want to understand the behavior of political commentators.
First of all, I try very hard not to hurt womens feeling. I’ve got a daughter and a significant other that keep me on my toes. I would try to find our what caused her the pain. I don’t know what I did or said to Matt and I asked him what I said to offend him and apologized. I’ve tried to treat him with respect, perhaps kidding him at times. So assassinate me if I’ve acidentally offended someone.
I don’t know if I would call myself a political commentator. Matt called me a psychopath. I’ve looked that up as well as sociopath and in my opinion and my friends opinion, it doesn’t fit me at all. I can’t remember the last time I caused somebody harm, especially on purpose. I do many things for people for free, without asking anything in return. I don’t know what he thinks that would make him think that I’m a socio or psychopath.
Matt Johnson:
Does your mother know you are using the computer without permission?
I guess you are what is called the vitriolic left?
By the way, how do you know I am a piece of shit?
What sort of specifics are you looking for?
@skiprob: The evidence is in the logic of it. The mercenary state is precisely what you described in your post; fighters for hire to the highest bidder, and the only people that are protected are the people that can pay for it, and everybody else can forget any hope of justice. If people cannot form a militia to protect their property with guns, then their property can be stolen forthwith, and nobody anywhere will do a damn thing about it. If a gang of bikers with AK-47’s shows up and mows down the militia, they can rape and pillage the town, burn it to the ground, and never be punished.
That is the mercenary state. There are no rights, there is no obligation of anybody to protect anybody else. That is what you advocate, and apparently what you admire, some macho adolescent male fantasy of Rambo Justice.