WoW! I got banned from FTL

[Dylboz]

Let's be gentle, he's just barely starting to catch on, which is more than I had hoped for. Authoritarians rarely see themselves as enemies of freedom, just think of Giuliani's "Freedom is Submission" routine. They usually think they are protecting freedom from the bad guys, and they fail to see what little freedom is left after they've "saved" it. But, you've got him thinking about the illegitimate mandate these folks claim, which is a chink in the armor of neo-con "Democracy." Good work, folks! Carry on.

[Free libertarian]

 Poptarts are a gateway food, you think you'll never get hooked, but then they lead to frosted poptarts soon you start stealing stuff and next thing you know you're crushing up girl scout cookies and main lining them, it's a horrible thing.

[srqrebel]

Let's be gentle...

Yeah... this has definitely erupted into a firestorm. I was thinking, too, that we should be careful not to gang up on him too much... browbeating only tends to alienate.

[Luke S]

Well...

There have been a lot of responses here, and this is going to be a lot for me to take in.

Anyway, for this post that I'm about to write right now, I'm going to skip any "intro" and just cut right straight to what is on my mind.

When I was a little boy, I thought that direct democracy would be the freest, purest government possible, and I thought that the USA should switch to being a direct democracy immediately.

But when I got older, I began to realize the dangers of what Dalebert was talking about wrt tyranny of the majority. And then I read works of Plato and Aristotle regarding government, and Plato and Aristotle provided very convincing arguments that direct democracy was folly.

So by the time I was about Tyler Stearns' age, probably even a little younger, I was thoroughly convinced that direct democracy would lead to disaster. So thus I thought that the best thing to do would be to remain having the republic that we have now. And in fact, I thought that it was a mistake to have the Senators be elected through a direct vote of the people, and I thought that it should go back to the way it was before, with the state legislatures electing them.

But recently I thought about things again, and what I realized is that I agreed with a higher percentage of Michigan ballot initiatives that "the mob" had passed than legislation that "the philosopher-kings"* had passed in the Michigan state legislature. And I asked my dad about it, and my dad said he thought the same thing too.

And you might say "Oh, well that's just you and your dad's opinions, and besides, you and your dad are Conservatives, not Libertarians."

But even from a libertarian perspective, the ratio of pro-libertarian legislation to anti-libertarian legislation passed by the mob in MI seems to be greater than that passed by the legislature. And for certain things, such as restriction on use of eminent domain, it's unclear whether it would be passed at all if it weren't for the mob. Think about it. Would the gov't restrict its own ability to use eminent domain? Maybe, maybe not. But it seems unlikely, and it seems like one of those things where they would have to absolutely be dragged kicking and screaming. But thanks to the mob's concern that it might one day be their turn to have their property taken away, it's finally been restricted at least a little bit in Michigan (by initiative). Thank you mob. No thank you philosopher-kings.

So I suppose this raises the question: I know direct democracy is bad. But perhaps the philosopher-kings are doing an even worse job of being a government than the mob would have done? If we were living in a tyranny, as some libertarians claim, (and as I believe Russell Kanning himself has claimed, only he used the phrase "police state", but for all intents and purposes a police state and a tyranny are one in the same), then that would be the case by default, at least according to Plato and Aristotle. Since the only thing lower down on the chain according to those two legendary political philosophers than a democracy (mob-rule) is a tyranny.

Now I wish I could say more, but I have to go now.


*For anyone here who is not familiar with Plato's Republic, the "philosopher-kings", also called the "guardians", were to be the elite ruling caste in Plato's ideal city. My reference here to state legislators and other members of government as philosopher-kings is an allusion to Plato.

[srqrebel]

...But recently I thought about things again, and what I realized is that I agreed with a higher percentage of Michigan ballot initiatives that "the mob" had passed than legislation that "the philosopher-kings"* had passed in the Michigan state legislature...

Indeed... no argument there.

You seem to recognize that both approaches to government have distinctly undesirable qualities. You have also identified that philosopher-kings often (though not always) make wiser choices than the mob of political voters.

Has it occurred to you that the very concept of legislation, of one individual or group of individuals usurping other individuals' wills and judgements, could be the ultimate source of our greatest problems?

Have you ever ventured way outside the box, and considered truly innovative approaches to establishing order, peace and prosperity in our interactive existence?

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Luke, have you listed to or read the (audio)book "The Market For Liberty"? I think that's a really REALLY good book.

I've found myself often at a loss for words on how to explain liberty, and the reason is that I've found a LOT of people have some kind of flawed thinking (flawed in the sense that despite being "open minded" there's only so much room for abstract though)... They're willing to accept alternatives but not aware that self-government is one of those alternatives.

At the VERY least, "The Market For Liberty" addresses the ideas of morality and human nature like nothing I've ever really encountered before. It's a positive, uplifting and empowering perspective into human behavior and why we DO have the capacity (even the imperitive) to persue things that are benefitical rather than destructive.

Laissez-faire books (the copyright holder) has given permission to distribute this book freely, so PLEASE take a look at it. It is an introduction to some of the premises that we (As voluntaryists) take for granted (for instance, we beleive that people default to doing good rather than harm - the book goes into why) and why those beliefs affect our views on politics, government and social interaction. If you beleive "people without a moral compass" will go out and rape, rob and pillage then I can see why your arguement against drugs might hold but that belief is something we challange and the book will do a good job of putting things in perspective, I think.

You can download a zipped archive of the files http://media.libsyn.com/media/ftl/The_Market_for_Liberty.zip

[Jan]

I'll say it again...Luke, you need to read Harry Browne's "Why Government Doesn't Work."

[Cyro]

Maybe it's just me, but saying "read this" or "listen to that" isn't actually addressing his point, I believe he wants to debates the merits of various methods of tyranny... err, I mean "government systems" with the people here.

'Cause, that could just me.

[Free libertarian]

Well...

There have been a lot of responses here, and this is going to be a lot for me to take in.

Anyway, for this post that I'm about to write right now, I'm going to skip any "intro" and just cut right straight to what is on my mind.

When I was a little boy, I thought that direct democracy would be the freest, purest government possible, and I thought that the USA should switch to being a direct democracy immediately.

But when I got older, I began to realize the dangers of what Dalebert was talking about wrt tyranny of the majority. And then I read works of Plato and Aristotle regarding government, and Plato and Aristotle provided very convincing arguments that direct democracy was folly.

So by the time I was about Tyler Stearns' age, probably even a little younger, I was thoroughly convinced that direct democracy would lead to disaster. So thus I thought that the best thing to do would be to remain having the republic that we have now. And in fact, I thought that it was a mistake to have the Senators be elected through a direct vote of the people, and I thought that it should go back to the way it was before, with the state legislatures electing them.

But recently I thought about things again, and what I realized is that I agreed with a higher percentage of Michigan ballot initiatives that "the mob" had passed than legislation that "the philosopher-kings"* had passed in the Michigan state legislature. And I asked my dad about it, and my dad said he thought the same thing too.

And you might say "Oh, well that's just you and your dad's opinions, and besides, you and your dad are Conservatives, not Libertarians."

But even from a libertarian perspective, the ratio of pro-libertarian legislation to anti-libertarian legislation passed by the mob in MI seems to be greater than that passed by the legislature. And for certain things, such as restriction on use of eminent domain, it's unclear whether it would be passed at all if it weren't for the mob. Think about it. Would the gov't restrict its own ability to use eminent domain? Maybe, maybe not. But it seems unlikely, and it seems like one of those things where they would have to absolutely be dragged kicking and screaming. But thanks to the mob's concern that it might one day be their turn to have their property taken away, it's finally been restricted at least a little bit in Michigan (by initiative). Thank you mob. No thank you philosopher-kings.

So I suppose this raises the question: I know direct democracy is bad. But perhaps the philosopher-kings are doing an even worse job of being a government than the mob would have done? If we were living in a tyranny, as some libertarians claim, (and as I believe Russell Kanning himself has claimed, only he used the phrase "police state", but for all intents and purposes a police state and a tyranny are one in the same), then that would be the case by default, at least according to Plato and Aristotle. Since the only thing lower down on the chain according to those two legendary political philosophers than a democracy (mob-rule) is a tyranny.

Now I wish I could say more, but I have to go now.


*For anyone here who is not familiar with Plato's Republic, the "philosopher-kings", also called the "guardians", were to be the elite ruling caste in Plato's ideal city. My reference here to state legislators and other members of government as philosopher-kings is an allusion to Plato.

Luke, maybe in your attempt to find the "best" form of government, you will consider limited or "no government"?
For instance the very term "government" indicates authoritative direction or control. What if there was less governing?
Do you think chaos would ensue and people would throw garbage in the streets at will? (sorry old habit)  Think of almost any time there's a war, did the "people" start the war or did a government?
Talk to some old war vets, many felt like they were shooting an enemy that was very much like them, all they wanted to do was go home and have a life too. Yet, they were all told their cause was just, god was on their side and they were protecting their country, go kill the bad guys son. Both sides were told this.
 
I'm of the opinion that more cooperation, respect and a live and let live would be more successful for people than finding the "best" form of government. I'm a small government person, and often side with the logic of those who are no government types. While far from perfect I try not to harm anyone , I hate having to kneel to kings, deciders and others who know what's best for me, I simply want to live a life where I can interact with those I choose to and vice versa. Is that a bad thing?  Leaving people alone and expecting the same? What if more people felt that way and acted that way...would we need a government or anything like the one we have?

Don't you find just a little bit of hypocrisy in a government "bringing freedom" to foreign countries whether they want it or not while ratcheting down our few remaining freedoms here in this country?   
Do you think propaganda is only something the bad guys use? Do you think the USA is god's favorite child and we are supposed to be the man of the house, policing the world while he's off creating other worlds? 

Also since people are recommending books for you - The Emperor Has No Clothes, it's about the hemp prohibition etc.
  I know, I know...    but I am determined to convince you that there are many reasons for the Hemp/Pot prohibition and the ones you have been indoctrinated with are not exactly accurate. You could continue to drink the kool aid or you could dig deeper. I challenge you to dig a bit.  If you read this book, I promise to try to stop throwing garbage in the street too and will stop eating poptarts cold turkey.

[Free libertarian]

 Luke, sorry make that title of the book I recommended - The Emperor Wears No Clothes...earlier I said Has no clothes...occupational hazard of having grown up in the early 70's...you forget things. 

[Luke S]

Maybe it's just me, but saying "read this" or "listen to that" isn't actually addressing his point, I believe he wants to debates the merits of various methods of tyranny... err, I mean "government systems" with the people here.

'Cause, that could just me.

I don't see a problem with it. If they think that those books speak to them, and they want to recommend them to me, then that's fine, and I'll read them when I get a chance.

I've read libertarian books before, and here's the thing.

On one extreme, you have Thomas Hobbes, who has an overly dim view of human nature, and believes that government has to be a Leviathan (i.e., absolutely huge government with very little in the way of individual rights) in order to harness those parts of human nature which cause violence, unrest, and agony, and to provide security against them.

On the other extreme, you have the libertarian authors, who have an overly optimistic view of human nature, and think we would be just fine under libertarianism, "voluntaryism", or if we had no government at all. And you also have Jean-Jacques Rosseau on this extreme as well.

The truth, of course, is in the middle of those two extremes.

And in fact, certain elements of the truth lie closer to one extreme than other elements.

In other words, when dealing with those parts of human nature which are associated with humanity's potential for evil, the government needs to take a more Hobbesian stance, so as to curtail them, and when dealing with those parts of human nature which are associated with humanity's potential for good, the government needs to take a more Lassiez-Faire stance so as not to curtail them.

[Caleb]

How does one judge, Luke? How do you know that you aren't inadvertently doing just the opposite?

I think that laws are the single biggest contributer to the decline of morality. Because people subjugate their minds to the "law". If a law says it's ok, they think it must be ok. And if a law says that it is wrong, they think it must be wrong. The most moral person is a person who is fully conscious of his freedom to choose (and hence his responsibility for his choices). Laws deaden that, and turn the issue into simply obedience or rebellion, as if subjugating our decision making process to "authority" is somehow a virtue.

[Cyro]

In other words, when dealing with those parts of human nature which are associated with humanity's potential for evil, the government needs to take a more Hobbesian stance, so as to curtail them, and when dealing with those parts of human nature which are associated with humanity's potential for good, the government needs to take a more Lassiez-Faire stance so as not to curtail them.

Care to offer your definition of "evil" and why we need one evil to combat another?

[dalebert]

What Caleb said, and to expand, how do you know the people who happen to be in charge are picking the right things to do? This is at the root of the problem. We hand power over to regular people, just like us, who have those inherent good things AND EVIL THINGS just like us. Power attracts the most evil among us. People who are more inherently good don't want power over others. I was just watching Lord of the Rings on DVD again recently since I don't have TV and was thinking about Aragorn who's spent his whole life, like 80 years so far, trying to avoid becoming king to the point of becoming a stealthy woodsman and hiding under cloaks when he's in a pub. If you must have a king, that's the kind you want.

This corruption of government is inevitable as long as government is made up of regular people, which of course it must be. That's why we need a voluntary model as Menno suggests, which doesn't hold any special power over people. That way the market becomes a real checks and balances on them.

[Dylboz]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau is no libertarian. In fact, his notion of the social contract has been used to justify the very worst aggressions of the state, as if everyone in some geographic area, who have no choice but to interact with their neighbors, and is subject to the depredations of their local thug-ocracy, has, by their very existence there, approved of what's being done to them.