- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Messages
- 8,247
- Reaction score
- 2,713
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Many people owned houses under monarchies. The issue is not capital (like in houses), but land. A person oppressed under a private government is no different than a person oppressed under a public government.
Who would nominate them?
Nope. I did not include any. They occurred during the original NSA secret monitoring revelations. I assumed them to be common knowledge. I still do. Tuff nuggies.
It would seem that your fall back excuse of COMMON KNOWLEDGE actually means "sorry but I an't got squat".
I was asking for the mentioned poll results - not the formula to the atomic bomb or how many aliens are under Fort Knox.
It would seem that your fall back excuse of COMMON KNOWLEDGE actually means "sorry but I an't got squat".
I was asking for the mentioned poll results - not the formula to the atomic bomb or how many aliens are under Fort Knox.
Houses typically sit upon a piece of land.Every person who owns a piece of land is not a monarch.
Again, I think you're making up definitions, and then using your made up definition to claim that Hoppe favors monarchy. He doesn't.
He proposes a government that legally protects people and the goods they own from invasion by others. That is not a monarchy.
If the Constitution was actually followed we wouldn't be in this predicament.
Of course not everyone who 'owns' the land his/her house sits upon is a monarch. But that is not the issue I have with Hoppe. He advocates for a select elite to control territories and shape society to their elitist vision. See the following quote:
"In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other." ~ Hans Hermann Hoppe
Of course, Hoppe ignores the fact that this has essentially already happened when we transitioned from hunter-gatherer societies to States. But hey, as long as they're "private" states its all good and 'libertarian!'
Also, anyone who disagrees would be "physically removed" whatever that means:
"There can be no tolerance toward democrats ... in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society." ~ Hoppe
"There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order." ~ Hoppe
He certainly favors it over democracies/republics:
He wants a select few elites to appropriate the land, control societies, and pass on authority to their descendents. How is that not monarchy?
off topicHe certainly favors it over democracies/republics:
Don't know. What do you think?
I just think partisan influence on SC judges should be minimized.
To the first comment, the Constitution was intended and hoped to be upheld by violence every once in awhile to keep the government in check. When the people lose the spine to do so, the laws of the land as written in our Constitution become invalid. Liberty must be upheld and defended by by blood if necessary. Our forefathers were rebels and revolutionaries, so why are we not today? As a people, we have lost what it means to be American.Unfortunately, it is the nature of man to acquire more power, despite what a piece of paper may say (with all due respect to the US Constitution). Personally, I think it would be best to scrap everything and decentralize government to the local communities.
Oh, you're looking for the form of government that causes humans not to behave like humans. I think that may be difficult, but I'll work on it for a few minutes.
If your mischaracterization of Rand is anything like your characterization of government, I'd agree that your beliefs are primarily faith-based (not reasonable).I agree. But the problem I see is that waiting for the "crash" would probably end us up in a worse place. I think our nation is too large and diverse, we can't seem to get a real consensus on anything. The only ones who seem to agree are major Financial interests, and they all agree what turns a profit for them is the only important thing. "Greed is Good!" ala Ayn Rand.
Yup, but note I was commenting on what one (he) thought human behavior is. Behavior is the result of many things not just what we would be like if no one ever influenced us, intended or not. Most of our behavior is based on external influences, especially when young. Then what is more human? Is it less influenced? Growing up with no influences?Depends on what you believe human behavior is. Fascism yielded some interesting results. So did East Asian Communism, but to me it made them act more human than what western society allows.
If your mischaracterization of Rand is anything like your characterization of government, I'd agree that your beliefs are primarily faith-based (not reasonable).
Rand was about individual freedom, not greed. Remember, because surely you are writing from an informed position, that she was differentiating it morally from the "altruistic" liberals who claimed that they could violate individual rights, because they insisted to be doing it for the greater good. In contrast, she demonstrates that protecting individual liberties (she uses the word selfish primarily), is the most common good. Rand opposed corporations using government for the greater good (banks) as much as anything else.
You do understand that your OP is faith-based by your own admission, and you likely don't actually have a really good understanding of what our public officials elected or otherwise are actually doing at their daily jobs? Please admit that realistically you can't really know that. That, is why it's an issue. Not that they are behaving like any other cross section of our population, that's not the issue, and you're wrong to go down that path. It's that they have significant authority over you. If they had zero power over you other than a 5% tax, would it really matter how awful you thought they were? Would it matter more if they charged you nearly 50% of all your earnings?
Convoluted? I sympathize. I'll summarize.Hmmm, I must admit that this was a very convoluted comment. I am going to have to sift through it to see which questions exist and how to provide an answer (if any actually require one). This response is just a place holder so you'll know I am not ignoring it.
Convoluted? I sympathize. I'll summarize.
1. You mischaracterized Rand, it's individual Liberty, not Greed.
2. How well do you *really* know what the lives and work of these public officials is really like in the day to day? If you don't have such evidence, it seems inappropriate to base you beliefs on slamming them as human beings as the OP clearly does.
3. The issues I have with government, in contrast, are not about by imagined belief of their behavior or motives like you profess. It's about the system and it's authority over me. An argument that is clearly evidenced, at the very least by my input on voting, and my income leaving in mass quantity via taxation. I offer this example because I'm telling you in #2 that your opposing is inappropriate, and I'm informing you of my understanding of what a more appropriate opposition would look like, that doesn't suffer from the same fallacy (might have other fallacies though :!)
Then what is more human? Is it less influenced? Growing up with no influences?
These people are not monarchs. They have no authority to initiate aggression as does a monarch.
The Amish remove people from their society. It's called shunning. Are the Amish monarchs?
He claims that, from the point of view of respect for property rights, democracies are inferior to monarchies.
However, favors a libertarian society over either one.
He doesn't want anyone's land taken from them. That would be a violation of property rights.
Also, a monarch controls society via the initiation of aggression. Hoppe does not advocate that sort of control.
People seem to have a lot of faith in Polls and Statistics. Recently, several polls have indicated somewhere between 15% and 20% of the American people still have faith in the workings of our government. If so, why do you think we still support it?
I have almost no faith in the workings of our Federal government, and what little there is resides solely within the Federal Court system which seems to be, despite claims otherwise, the last bulwark protecting our individual liberties.
Both houses of Congress are simply whores for banking and corporate interests, and give lip service to the needs of citizens.
The Chief Executive and his cabinet are puppets, acting out roles to make themselves seem important. The upper-level management of the various agencies under their control are cronies and political hacks of whichever party got them appointed, and work to undermine whichever opposing party holds the executive office. Lower management are simply drones, doing as little as possible in order to keep their positions and move up the civil service ladder.
Only the Judicial branch allows some action independent of special interests. Not in all cases of course, political appointments have some sway, but in the main each Judge is trying to balance the scales of justice honestly.
The moment I lose faith in this last small group is the moment I become fully radicalized.
Until then, I’m still willing to work within the system and hope for the best.
So which option did you pick from the poll?
I didn't know which one to pick. I agree with what you are saying. My position is that the system is corrupt, ridiculously and unnecessarily slow moving and outdated in that sense, it is riddled with problems, it needs revamping etc. With all this said... if there are enough people that feel the same way... lets start renovating. We could start by addressing one issue at a time. There are enough intelligent people on this site, I bet we could do a pretty good job. But how would it get pushed through? This site needs some serious connections with politicians who aren't corrupt, aye? The government should pay us if we come up with plausible solutions. I like the sounds of that, lol! Half joking/half serious
If I recall correctly I believe I picked "I’m among the 80% - 85% but think it’s not the system but the people running it."
I believe I picked it because I still think that the basic system of tri-partite republicanism could be effective if it hadn't been blown up into this colossus of a bureaucratic mess.
Allowing Congress to stretch the Commerce Clause out of all proportion to reality in order to regulate our lives to such an extent was the biggest mistake. Allowing the President to use military forces without a clear declaration of war is another. The list goes on.
When I was very young I used to be an activist. I worked for civil rights, including the rights of 18 year-olds to vote and be given full adult status. After all “They” were sending “US” to war and we had no say in the matter. I was actually so proud of our efforts I joined the Army voluntarily.
Now I don’t see that level of public interest, even after several past and ongoing wars reminiscent of Vietnam. That’s one of the reasons I posted this thread. I want to see what people think is preventing us from corrective action when our government continues to function this way.
UI don't think Hobbes is talking about shunning when he refers to 'forcibly removing' anyone who doesn't abide by his elitist standards.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?