We trusted that the government could control the market. We believed that government regulations would prevent anything really bad from happening. Ever since the government got involved in regulating the market, we have allowed ourselves to relax, not to look into exactly where our money is going. People will always be greedy, but under normal circumstances they are also very wary of risk. The balance between greed and caution normally allows us to prosper without goofing up too badly. Unfortunately market regulation, which was invented to minimize risk has destroyed this delicate balance by lulling people into a false sense of security.
It seems like everyone in the mainstream media, whether they are for or against bailouts, is calling for more regulation, but I think that would be a huge mistake. If we are ever to have any real financial security, we have to get back to a system without any guarantees from above, that must therefore respond to the wisdom of the people. Imagine three hundred million investors looking into every stock they purchase and every mortgage they back with an appropriate amount of suspicion, knowing that they could lose everything if they make the wrong move, because no one will save them from their own mistakes. There would still be ups and downs, people would still make fortunes and lose fortunes on the market, but I doubt if it could ever get as out of control as it is now.
Regulation leads people to put their faith in the government and stop looking out for themselves-- much to the delight of greedy Wall Street hucksters. It's so much easier to defraud the very trusting.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 957 reads
****
the royal "we" ?
"We" means myself and one or more others. Do I have to define the word "is" too? I thought I made some good points in this post. Do you care to comment on them? Or are there any other two letter words you would like me to define for you?
Nice try. We are mildly amused.
so trusting in gov't to protect you from investment mistakes..... Were you really?
There have been 200,000,000+ cars in the US since 1995.
At $1,500 lost to depreciation per car per year that is $300,000,000,000 per year.
That is FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS since 1995. What have our economists said about that?
They define depreciation as applying to capital goods ONLY. Cars purchased by Hertz depreciate. Cars purchased by consumers are treated like bananas. Look for the Net Domestic Product equation. We always hear about GDP but never NDP. Isn't the planned obsolescence of cars the planned depreciation of cars?
The crash of consumerism was inevitable.
Double entry accounting is 700 years old. Shouldn't we all be able to do it on our 8-core computers with 4 gigabytes of memory? When was the last time you heard a Libertarian say accounting should be mandatory in the schools?
psik
makes me wonder if this crash of consumerism be unexpected blowback from decades of advertising that manipulated the human psyche too well.
__________________
Freedom is an inside job
A asset back currency system does not have inflation-deflation cycles. America has had about eleven of them in the last 95 yrs. When currency is backed with value you will have boom and busts. The difference is that boom and busts are more confined within the monetary system to industry or section of the country, and not a currency event affecting the whole monetary system. The world has been operating on fiat monetary system, adjusting inflation between currencies evaluation. This will eventually come down like a house of cards also.
Fiat Monetary system is like a ten second bull ride. Enjoy it while it lasts. Memories will be all you have, till the next ride.
Inflation. Inflation is caused by a government fiat monetary system, allowing corrupt politicians in buying votes with promising services and receiving lobbyists gratitudity for project favors, by using money they do not have through normal taxation. So they create the money to pay for these two endeavours.
This puts in the economy more currency then there is value. Eventually people get tired of working for x wages and can not purchase anymore because of high prices. So they quit buying.
The cards come down in the form of deflation bringing value back to the product. Allowing consumers to afford buying again. Call this deflation. It could be cured by taking money out of the system, to those that would like to donate some back to the Feds. Instead product prices go down to bring the balance with wages staying pretty much the same.
In this situation, because of what this spending congress is doing, and the tight monetary supply already existing. We will end up with deinflation. What? When you thought you knew all the words.
Because of all the spending going on now and no money, the currency will be created to pay for the trillions, causing inflation again down the road shortly. This inflation will most likely be in products that do not use credit. Such as foods, clothing and essentials of everyday life.
Deflation will be happening in housing, cars and products using debt.
This will lead to a frustration of consumers. On one hand they see cheaper products they use to buy with credit, but will not forego because their cash is being spent on higher costs of essentials. So the consumer feels no relief financially and the economy stalls.
------------------------------------
Let me mention oil here as it is playing out. Prior to this crisis. Chavez nationalization of oil took the measure to cut back production 25%. Iran I believed cut back, but no figures can be found on that.
With this economic world crisis even affecting Russia with a run on their banks. Are producing oil to maintain status less they face a rebellion of the surfs. The more they produce, lower the price. They now have a problem of their own, beyond this credit crisis.
-----------------------------------
One more thing that may be of interest. Investing. I am a futures commodity investor. Stock investments for me are restricted to the single stocks on the commodity exchange. I do not trade stocks, because I preferr a higher risk and reward arena.
Three types of investors:
There is the investor that goes out and starts a business and works hard to bring it success and the wealth that goes along with this. Works hard and buys a house or farm and enjoys it the rest of his life. Many stock brokers are of this theory. Your in it for the long haul, just buy and hold.
Then there is the speculator. You buy low and sell high. This investor looks for distrested owner to sell a property that he can buy cheap and sell shortly after for a profit. Or a commodity and some stock investors.
Most people build their wealth by holding. They buy a house, land, farm, coins, stocks and hold them all their life. Depending when they buy to hold, tells how rich they will be on the other end of life. Fiat monetary system creates the odds against the average Joe/Jane six pack with rising and lowering prices of inflation and deflation.
Speculating wealth is created by buying and selling, highs and lows. Creating a profit many times. Of course the inflationary and deflationary times of a fiat monetary system blesses this method of investing.
This wealth can also be had in a none fiat monetary system by buying something when the owner is having a distress sale or going bankrupt. This is another boom and bust and also shows the confined nature of it, but a speculators delight.
>>"centralized state power [has a propensity] to, in the words of James Madison, invoke “the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government”."
>>"The "sub-prime lending debacle" is merely the latest event permitting unchecked government confiscation of more private property and ultimately social power."
Very true. But if the majority of Americans does not object to this, indeed if they demand that it be done, in the hopes that it will make them richer, how will we ever be free? I think at this point we need to appeal to people on many levels. We need to get people who do not yet value freedom as a good in itself to understand that state control and regulation is not in their economic best interest. If those who seek power can use this crisis as an opportunity to get more power, maybe those who want liberty can beat them at their own game and use the crisis as an opportunity to educate people about the dangers of state power, and to promote liberty.
I have written a couple more responses that I am worried will get buried in the thread. Please have a look below.
Thanks :-)
Claire,
Good to here from you. I will get to your other responses in separate replies. Let me start by clarifying a few points: 1) I do not believe anarchism to be a viable form of government, 2) I am not against nation-states, just corrupt, dishonest, bloated, self-serving ones, 3) I am a constitutionalist and believe that many of the powers being exercised by our federal, state and local governments are unconstitutional and finally 4) the preponderance of our fellow citizens are insufficiently aware of the actions being taken by the "Wizards" behind various curtains.
So, I take your point that it is incumbent on right-minded people to band together and share ideas and move purposefully toward action against the state's unconstitutional restriction of our liberties. I like the idea of beating them at their own game -- got any ideas? As for educating people about the dangers of state power and promoting liberty -- the horse must be thirsty and choose to drink. There are any number of fine resources to learn about these concepts, so now I'm back to the point Mr. Jefferson made about ignorance and freedom.
There are some pretty good bottom up things moving at:
www.concordcoalition.org and www.pgpf.org
These sites are focused on our the larger issues of our true national debt and future unfunded liabilities aka Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the debt. I recommend them, if you've not seen their content.
Robert
>>"got any ideas?"
How about a libertarian-oriented site featuring investment advice from financial experts? It will attract people who are concerned about their investments, the "thirsty horses" you refer to. In addition to sound practical advice, the site would offer editorials geared toward educating people about economics, and the value of freeing the market.
We subscribe to a few financial newsletters, and I find that the tone of them is generally a resigned, "here are ways to deal with this new government action" attitude. There is very little critique of business as usual in Washington, and lately I have seen several pieces calling for more regulation of banks and the market.
Lets compete with these guys. If we can give the best, smartest financial advice (and it has to be practical advice), people may be very receptive to what we have to say about freedom. I think it's worth a try. Any great financial advisors out there, who want to raise their profile and promote liberty?
We also have to reach people on a gut level, through films and music. I'm thinking of writing a song. At the very least we can all be open about the things we believe in and to make those around us aware of the freedom perspective.
Claire,
Just a little tidbit from the site I posted earlier. Remember one of the basic tenets of The Art of War by Sun Tzu -- Know your opponent. The money changers are not your friends and probably not receptive to those who would choose to "shine the light of day" on their unseemly manueverings. Tread carefully in their midst.
http://www.financialsense.com/Market/wrapup.htm
I hadn't thought about the extent to which investment consultants owe their livelihoods to the current system. Any honest financial analysts here at BTM? If so, I would like to hear their perspectives.
Claire,
I think these guys may be onto you. Their info is pretty good and seems to reflect a more libertarian view of economics as well as a pretty healthy perspective on the interventionist state. They do not address your idea of reaching people at the gut level through films and music.
http://www.financialsense.com/index.html
As for general education in economics, reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt might do some good, if the horse is thirsty. :)
So many people seem able to forget or just have no connection to reality or the their relationships with their neighbors. Somehow, they don't see regulation as the government using the threat of violence to force people to choose differently than they otherwise would. ONce they've made the first choice against their will, they will try to make the next one in their best interest, which may be to try to undo the first choice. At that point, another threat of violence is needed to prevent them from making that choice, and so on, and so on, and so on.....
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
Unless we are free from coercion we can't live in accordance with reality. We have seen this with the market. Because government regulation has upset the risk/reward balance, the market no longer reflects the reality of what things are worth. That is what got us to this point.
What happens when people are unaware of reality? When our ancestors hunted and gathered for a living, anyone who was out of touch with reality wouldn't have lasted a single season. Say there was a bear in the bushes nearby. If the leader of your tribe said "No that's not a bear in those bushes, this is a safe place" would you believe him? Well none of your ancestors did. If they had, they would have stuck around and gotten devoured by the bear, and you wouldn't be here today. Knowledge of the way things really are is essential to survival, and suspending your own judgment to put all your faith in an authority figure can be fatal.
The worst thing a leader can do is to instill a false sense of security. Why do we spend so much? Why are we in debt? Because our leaders have convinced us that they will take care of us and our families, that they will care for us in our old age. But the bear is in the bushes... And he's mighty hungry.
I love that! Unfortunately, I think he's still hungry after eating the world's largest insurance company and 3/4 of US mortgages. There is definitely something to debt and freedom. I read Robert's response, but I'm not sure that where he departs with you that he really substantively departs - could just be somantics. I also think that the Lockean state of nature is always one step away, no matter how complex society gets. The minute that government ceases to protect your property and instead attacks it, you and your government have entered a state of nature - or more accurately a state of war. At that point, if no one convinces you to wait 10 years, it is time to reclaim the judicial and executive powers individually. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
Tom,
No departure to speak of really...more like a call to more rigor in critical analysis of "reality". The watershed moments of the past several weeks in the finanacial markets are really nothing more than the blind gropings of statist functionaries. Madison's quote in my previous post says it well and the "sub-prime lending debacle" is merely the latest event permitting unchecked government confiscation of more private property and ultimately social power.
If I follow your point above, and assume by "attacks" you mean confiscation and distribution to others, then would you agree we (tax paying citizens) have sufficient cause for reasserting our natural rights?
Not sure I get the connection about reclaiming the judicial and executive powers individually. I do understand that, of late, many actions of the judicial and executive branches of the federal government are not distinguishable from high crimes and misdemeanors. Lest we forget the Congress in this discourse, they play an even more sinister role in the unraveling of our society. Let us chase a Barney Frank or a Chris Dodd around DC for few days to quickly understand just who their true constituencies are. My guess is it ain't the working stiffs!:)
As a new participant (NEOphyte would be a little ironic, eh?) here at BTM, I'm looking forward to some engaging ideas and discussions.
"If I follow your point above, and assume by "attacks" you mean confiscation and distribution to others, then would you agree we (tax paying citizens) have sufficient cause for reasserting our natural rights?"
Disclaimer: I am certainly not advocating any revolts against our government.
Answer: Yes. :)
I agree, Robert, all three of us are really in agreement, and I now understand your clarification - point well taken.
Regarding reclaiming executive and judicial power, I was just using Locke's reasoning that in the state of nature all three powers (legislative, judicial, executive) are held by each individual. He must protect his life, liberty, and property himself as he has no government power to appeal to. I would say that we are pretty much there ourselves now!
Glad to see you've joined us! BTM is a great site/community.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
Claire,
Interesting rationalization regarding coercion by the government. Trust and belief in government as a positive component in the lives of indivduals is pure Utopianism. Modern nation states are essentially built upon confiscation and consolidation of social power within the machine of government; individuals knowingly abdicate their own power by seeking security at the hands of the state.
By way of broadening the discourse, I suggest a couple of original thinkers on the topic. Herbert Spencer wrote in the mid to late 1800s regarding the very nature of the oppressive modern state. His six essays in The Man Versus the State provide a great analysis of the direct confiscation of individual power by the state. Albert J. Nock built on Spencer's ideas and responded eloquently to large scale government intervention during the 1930s. Nock's book, Our Enemy the State, provides insights to events which brought on a non-violent coup d'Etat, the effects of which persist to this day. Nock points out the propensity of centralized state power to, in the words of James Madison, invoke “the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government”.
Comparing our modern societies (particularly Western versions) to tribes of hunter/gatherers somewhat misses the point. Modern states are very complex structures of competing groups and individuals far removed from the notion of the "noble savage". Since the time of Locke, individual rights of life, liberty and property (happiness if you prefer the American version) formed the basis of a new ideal regarding the individual. Assuming one adopts this theory of individual rights, then he or she must accept the requisite responsibility therein. Abdication of that responsibility brings us to where we are; surrendering individual social power to the government has a long history in our nation and it continues wherever citizens blindly accept the government's old tricks.
As for your conclusion that people spend to much or go into debt because they think our leaders will take care of them and their families - paaleeess!? People spend too much and go into debt because they are weak-minded, uneducated and basically running from the reality of living free.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson - 3rd President of the United States
Great reply! I have a few questions/ answers/ comments:
>>"Trust and belief in government as a positive component in the lives of indivduals is pure Utopianism. Modern nation states are essentially built upon confiscation and consolidation of social power within the machine of government; individuals knowingly abdicate their own power by seeking security at the hands of the state."
I think the modern state has some legitimate functions. Providing a framework for the trial and punishment of criminals and the enforcement of contracts, for example, and defending citizens from foreign invasion. I have considered the case for anarchy, and I find it unsatisfactory-- but I am fairly new at this. Can you tell me how people are supposed to punish crimes (or if crimes are to go unpunished, what is to deter them), how business can be conducted with confidence, in the absence of any higher authority? Can you explain to me how, in a lawless society, the weak would not be at the mercy of the strong, and if the only way to obtain justice were to mete it out yourself, how we would not be in constant fear of violence due to vendettas and revenge killings?
>>"Comparing our modern societies (particularly Western versions) to tribes of hunter/gatherers somewhat misses the point. Modern states are very complex structures of competing groups and individuals far removed from the notion of the "noble savage"."
Do you think that our new social circumstances have changed our nature? Aren't we still similar to our early ancestors on many levels? I think we are. I think we still balance a desire for authority against a need for liberty. I think people have always looked to leaders for security, and often at their own peril.
I understand that individualism is a modern concept, but I think it has its underpinnings in our nature. That is, I think that on a psychological level, our early ancestors would experience much the same feelings as we would today if they were imprisoned or otherwise deprived of their liberty. I am sure that they also valued their own skin over that of others, and their own children over other people's kids.
I also think that fearfulness and submission haven't changed much either. Our early ancestors trusted authority in much the same way as we do today. The form of authority has changed, but the feeling of wanting to entrust your security to someone in charge is the same.
I happen to think that not wanting to be free is a sign that a person has not reached full maturity. Submission to authority is a useful trait in children, but they are supposed to outgrow it. But maybe that is kind of a fruity idea. I'm not a psychologist or anything. Just thought I'd throw it out there.
I guess my point was more psychological than sociological. I certainly don't buy into the idea of noble savages [which is why I think anarchism is hopelessly utopian-- but that is beside the point].
>>"People spend too much and go into debt because they are weak-minded, uneducated and basically running from the reality of living free."
Do you think people's IQ's are lower today than they were in the 1920's? Or is there some other cause for their weakness of mind and the lack of education? I think you can blame welfare, social security, medicare and the like for these defects; because of these government entitlements people don't need to fear the consequences of their behavior. On the other hand, unaltered (un-coerced) interactions with nature and with other people teach us most of what we need to know in order to live properly. The truth (in the context of freedom) is that life is risky, and that providing for yourself takes some effort.
Free people would have learned this truth by the time they reach adulthood. Free people are wise people, and it takes wise people to maintain freedom. It's a virtuous circle. How do we get back into it? Can we jump-start it somehow? With Break the Matrix?
Getting back to my earlier point about anarchy, it is true that if you rely on the state for protection you place yourself in danger. But I think that is why self defense is an important exception to the rule that you can't use force against another person. I think people need to be self reliant in every possible way, but there also needs to be law and order-- not to protect all people from any harm, but to provide justice that is as impartial as possible. I would be very interested to hear what you have to say about this if you disagree with me.
Thought I'd close out regarding the last few paragraphs from last Sunday. IQ, a fairly inexact measure of intelligence, is more a measure of test taking as opposed to true intelligences (note plural). Assuming, as most psychologist and intelligence researcher do, that intelligences in humans is normally distributed, then 50% of us are below average:). I don't believe people are any less intelligent now than they were a hundred years ago. If you look at some of the research on comparative IQ levels, decade over decade, there seems to be some support for increases with time.
I do believe, however, that a more coercive government has enabled certain "social engineering" to take place in the form of our social welfare/warfare state. To wit, the corporate oligarchy sought out "educators" to devise a system of indoctrination which produced a semi-literate, compliant, docile individual ready for the monotony of industrial factory work. They delivered and what passes today for education is at best either "training" or mind numbing prattle (BTW, this is a hot button of mine).
The programs you mention are surely contributing factors along with mediocre childhood education and, perhaps more importantly, the persuaders on Madison Avenue. The power of advertisement, particularly through visual media, is enormous. There was a great Frontline documentary a number of years back that really spelled it out. So you remember the talking screen in the movie version of 1984; we've arrived. These influences haven't made people less intelligent; just more susceptible/maleable to the message. Lenin said "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
It is helpful for individuals to experience enough of life to learn to distiguish between perception and reality. Freedom certainly is fraught with risk, however abdication of one's individual social power is even riskier. Never submit!! Jefferson said "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Vigilance is necessary to maintain freedom and liberty. Our fellow citizens are beginning to stir after a long sleep; let us hope they can become fully awakened before it is to late.
I think I clarified the whole anarchy thing in an earlier post. Our Constitution provides sufficient and necessary legitimacy in a framework for people who desire "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." These are tough times and I maintain we will prevail. Not sure the length of the journey to come, but we will get it back!
Look for leaders among you. You may be surprised to find them in reflections very near.
Thanks for your thoughts, Claire. Look forward to discussing other ideas at BTM.
Thought I'd close out regarding the last few paragraphs from last Sunday. IQ, a fairly inexact measure of intelligence, is more a measure of test taking as opposed to true intelligences (note plural). Assuming, as most psychologist and intelligence researcher do, that intelligences in humans are normally distributed, then 50% of us are below average:). I don't believe people are any less intelligent now than they were a hundred years ago. If you look at some of the research on comparative IQ levels, decade over decade, there seems to be some support for increases with time.
I do believe, however, that a more coercive government has enabled certain "social engineering" to take place in the form of our social welfare/warfare state. To wit, the corporate oligarchy sought out "educators" to devise a system of indoctrination which produced a semi-literate, compliant, docile individual ready for the monotony of industrial factory work. They delivered and what passes today for education is at best either "training" or mind numbing prattle (BTW, this is a hot button of mine).
The programs you mention are surely contributing factors along with mediocre childhood education and, perhaps more importantly, the persuaders on Madison Avenue. The power of advertisement, particularly through visual media, is enormous. There was a great Frontline documentary a number of years back that really spelled it out. So you remember the talking screen in the movie version of 1984; we've arrived. These influences haven't made people less intelligent; just more susceptible/maleable to the message. Lenin said "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
It is helpful for individuals to experience enough of life to learn to distiguish between perception and reality. Freedom certainly is fraught with risk, however abdication of one's individual social power is even riskier. Never submit!! Jefferson said "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Vigilance is necessary to maintain freedom and liberty. Our fellow citizens are beginning to stir after a long sleep; let us hope they can become fully awakened before it is to late.
I think I clarified the whole anarchy thing in an earlier post. Our Constitution provides sufficient and necessary legitimacy in a framework for people who desire "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." These are tough times and I maintain we will prevail. Not sure the length of the journey to come, but we will get it back!
Look for leaders among you. You may be surprised to find them in reflections very near.
Thanks for your thoughts, Claire. Look forward to discussing other ideas at BTM.
Wow! What a week. Looks like the clown show in DC has reached a fevered pitch. As a graying member of our society, I have persistent memories in my mind of the wonders of statist intervention in the economic lives of its citizenry...can't forget stagflation in the 70s. It was a wonder to behold. Back in the day another Fed genius (Paul Volker) was forced to intervene to save us all. Was it Santayana who said "To be interested in the changing seasons is a happier state of mind than to be hopelessly in love with spring." So now another generation gets a booster shot against freedom and liberty.
OK. I wanted to get back to your post from Sunday. Modern nation states are a sensible form of oganization for large groups of people. You are correct that it does have legitimate functions, many of which you touch on. As a strict constitutionalist myself, I believe the enumerated powers in our Constitution are pretty close to necessary and sufficient to address most of your questions regarding law and order, protection of property, national defense, etc. So we have our framework of government and it has been under attack since its inception in 1787. Many of our government's current interventions - education, war powers, income taxes and the like - are fundamentally unconstitutional. If fear is to be part of your life, then fear your government at all levels; they are not here to help.
Not sure what you mean by our new social circumstances. While we have made some progress on the racial, gender and sexual preference fronts, we all still stand naked facing the east hoping for a new day. Some primordial parts of our nature remain intact, however I believe we are significantly changed, generation to generation, by the effects of societal influences and personal experiences.
I think, of late, that technological progress has passed the "knee of the curve". Knowledge creation is conforming to an exponential growth curve; the amount of knowledge will double in seven years - that is something to ponder. Advancing technology in the hands of primates only slightly more advanced than chimps is a bit scary. Don't get me wrong - I have been a technologist for 3 1/2 decades - however the more advanced stuff is well beyond the capabilities of average humans. The science and technology of prosecuting warfare in the hands of fewer and fewer scientific elite (backed by a facsist corporate state) makes my blood run cold some days.
Your point about individualism being part of our nature as humans raises an interesting thread. I believe the nature and nurture argument applies here. Children raised in loving families and functional communities develop strong sense of self and belonging. Children raised in unhealthy settings with little to no sense of self or community fail to rise above the lowest level on the hierarchy of needs. My point here is the importance and, as I think about it just now, the privilege of becoming a viable human without fear.
Your thought regarding "Submission to authority is a useful trait in children, but they are supposed to outgrow it." is interesting as well. I may be a rare duck, but I don't remember being very submissive to authority; as a matter of fact I generally found very rational reasons not to submit but rather outwit authority. Nothing criminal mind you, but given a rule, I looked for the loophole...still finding ways to outwit the rule makers:). Some folks are by nature submissive to authority; I sympathize with their plight but refuse to submit.
Mencken wrote about the common citizens' need for security over liberty. This plays right into the hands of the modern state and I personally think the state is winning. Fewer and fewer citizens concern themselves about the abdication of natural rights to life, liberty and property. I say to any who will listen, "Never submit!" Goethe mused "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." I'm guessing a lot of people believe themselves free - against much evidence to the contrary.
Enough for now. I'll put forward a few thoughts about IQ and education in another post. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
>>"Wow! What a week."
I know... I am very disheartened by the recent events, but then I don't have your sense of perspective. Did it seem this bad back in the '70s?
I'm not scared, it's just that I can't imagine how we will ever be free in this country, the way things are going-- the way people are angry about the 700 billion dollars, not because it's theft or because it is handing over more power to the government, or even because it is going to make the current problem with our economy worse in the long run, but because it's not being distributed to Americans "in need", or to everybody.
Some times I feel hopeful about the citizens of this country, but not right now. Maybe I listen to too much NPR, but it just seems to me like socialism is gaining by leaps and bounds, fueled by this financial crisis.
I want to live in a free country one day. I want it for my kids too.
Maybe I'm being too pessimistic. Please tell me I'm blowing this out of proportion, that things were just as bad in the 70's-- that this is only temporary because the American people won't allow the government to get any more powerful...
Robert, it has occurred to me that if you have a problem with nation states, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are against all forms of government. So what about city-states? Could we live free and prosperous lives if the land between Canada and Mexico were not a nation at all, but instead a collection of city-states?
I don't think so. For one thing, in the absence of a large scale system of defense, we would be vulnerable to attacks by nation states. Another problem is that I don't think a libertarian city state could remain free with an authoritarian one next door. In the absence of a higher authority there would be nothing stopping plunderers from an authoritarian city state from banding together to raid their more peaceful and prosperous neighbors, and eventually people who love freedom would be constantly at war with people who don't.
Until the establishment of nation states, life for the average man was incredibly violent. During the 20th century in North America and Europe the odds that a man would die in violent conflict are many times lower than they were in earlier times, and that is including all the deaths from the two World Wars and communism.
But weren't we more free back then? I don't think so. I think it is impossible to be free in the sense that I want to be, if I am under a constant threat of violence. In a condition of anarchy, or as a citizen of a city-state I might be free of a national government, but that would be cold comfort if my husband and son were constantly having to go out and risk their lives to protect our family, or if we were all slaves to plunderers from a foreign nation or a neighboring city-state.
Certainly greed, or even ambition, is held in check by risk. I wish Chairman Mao, er I mean, Bernanke and Comrade Paulson would have read this before they came in and "saved" the market today. If you haven't seen it, they promised to create a "bad debt fund" to allow companies to sell off their bad debt. OF course, to buy into this you have to completely forget everything you know about the concept of money (I know you squandered trillions on bum investments, but we'll just pretend it never happened!). LOL! The Risk/Reward scenario just became the Reward/Reward system. Sounds great! Takes a lot of the sport out of it, though.
I sent out an e-mail to my "peeps" last year predicting bread to go to $17 a loaf. I was exaggerating for effect. I'm not so sure anymore.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
US Weighing Plan to Set Up Facility to Hold Bad Debts
http://www.breakthematrix.com/Economy/US-Weighing-Plan-to-Set-Up-Facilit...
Government seems to act as if it controls everything(which it almost does), but they can't control the weather, nor can they control the market, try as they like. When people say "more regulation can fix this", “more government input is what we need”, ask them if regulation can stop a hurricane, a flood, or an earthquake. If they still argue, tell them to stand in front of a tsunami, and tell it (the wave) to stop... *evil grin* Regulation in the market place can do no more to help then lining up government officials and citizens in front of a tsunami wave. In fact it can cause even more destrution since it effects the world.
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true." -Terry Goodkind
Well said, Claire! :)
But an entire generation has been taught to fear and despise freedom. R
Regulation is a way to get people to depend on the government.