Anarchy = True Freedom?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And everything they came up with is mindless speculation. Left leaning economists would have come up with similar 'evidence' if a right wing US government had been in charge. No hard facts there I'm afraid. Try harder.

Denerick

Those who are the most talented and who work the hardest reap the most rewards—I think that's pretty fair, personally.

And herein lies the whole problem - because that is very clearly not the case. Talented hard workers are in the poorest sections of society and spoiled idiotic brats are in the very highest. What determines how well they do in life? Mammy and Daddy, thats what. (For the most part)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

And herein lies the whole problem - because that is very clearly not the case. Talented hard workers are in the poorest sections of society and spoiled idiotic brats are in the very highest. What determines how well they do in life? Mammy and Daddy, thats what. (For the most part)

That is not true.
You'll find both idiotic and talented people in both sections of society quite equally.
What determines how well they do in life is how hard they work to achieve their goals.

There are tons of examples of rich people ending up in rehab all the time and dying alone having ODed on some drug.

There are also tons of examples of poor people with no social and economic background ending up becoming millionaires.

In a communist and socialist world such wouldn't happen. The idiots would end up getting the same rewards as the intelligent hard working people all in the name of "equality"!


Oh and if you want facts, actually more people in the rich classes have high intelligence and are hardworking cuz they've had better education and parenting.
While people in the low classes are usually not as intelligent as the ones in the middle-high class.
Mostly cuz they're poor because they're lazy and didn't pay enough attention in school.

Ruskie4Rent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is an opinion based on convincing research. There have been equally convincing conclusions reached by economists of different political leanings.
My point was that you saying that the New Deal prolonged the depression as if it was a matter of fact may not be the right thing to do. The speculation might not be 'mindless', but it is still speculation.

Those who are the most talented and who work the hardest reap the most rewards—I think that's pretty fair, personally.

I'd like to believe that's true most of the time, but it certainly isn't all of the time. There are other factors that can determine who reaps the most rewards.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

af_thefragile

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

I'd like to believe that's true most of the time, but it certainly isn't all of the time. There are other factors that can determine who reaps the most rewards.

Thats just people rationalizing for the lack of significant achievement in their own lives...
He became a millionaire cuz his dad helped him get his first job, he became successful cuz he was a selfish prick who got to the top by stepping on other people etc. etc.
Lance Armstrong won the tour de france cuz his one testicle overcompensated for the lack of the other one which gave him and unfair advantage over others...

No, stop complaining. If you work hard, you can make it too!!!

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please re-read my original post. Economics is a social science which can only in a very limited way be calculated as an exact science. If we could figure everything out in an exact scientific way then life wouldn't be so difficult! Chill out! All I'm saying is that it is an opinion AKA speculation based on evidence. AND a left leaning economist could have come up with an entirely different list of results with the same evidence. Its precisely that I am not trained in economics that I'm not prepared to take their findings on face value. I don't know. I tend to read as broadly as I can though to get a bigger understanding than simply accepting the most radical statement made.

Mostly cuz they're poor because they're lazy and didn't pay enough attention in school.

No comment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

silverharp wrote: »

who said what now? , Part of wanting to be rich is to pass on the benefits to their offspring. A Libertarian doesnt have a problem with this in a free market. If the offspring are not good custodians , they will run their inheritance into the ground and the assets will be sold on to be used more efficiently.

fundamental flaw in your 'free society'

two people born on the same day, one a peasant, the other the son of a millionaire. For the peasant to become financially successful, he has to work remarkably hard and be extraordinarily lucky (or ruthless and dishonest)
while for the millionaire to achieve the same level of success, all he has to do is not become crack addict.

The son of the millionaire could grow up to be a greedy, unproductive, spoilt man, and he might use his wealth to frustrate and hinder the productive activities of other more hardworking people, but by virtue of his 'ownership' of that inherited wealth, under your ideology he is legally and morally entitled to spend it in that way if he pleases.

This individualist control over the means of production is not that different from the inherited titles of nobillity and monarchy. The power from owning land through 'capitalism' and owning land as a monarch is essentially the same if not worse (can dictate the 'rents/fees'/taxes, can dictate the living conditions through lease agreements and 'free contracts' no pets, no structural alterations, no parties, no jews, no irish .....)

Ruskie4Rent

af_thefragile wrote: »

Thats just people rationalizing for the lack of significant achievement in their own lives...
....No, stop complaining. If you work hard, you can make it too!!!

But people need the means to work hard. It would be ignorant for anyone to think that without a good home life, a good education, having a few risks pay off -ect. that they could be in the postion to make signifcant achievements.

Its rather simplistic to not think that IMO.

As do I. Ultimately, I tend to accept the viewpoint that is most rational and that is best supported by the evidence. In this instance, I'm quite prepared to accept the evidence that FDR's interventionism distorted wages, prices, unemployment, and GDP enough to prolong a recession that would have ended naturally at an earlier point.

You can only accept that evidence if you are already of the position that the market was able to recover naturally, and AFAIK there is evidence to suggest that it wasn't.

Maybe you could tell us how the economy could've recovered without intervention, given its condition at the time?

Akrasia

af_thefragile wrote: »

Thats just people rationalizing for the lack of significant achievement in their own lives...
He became a millionaire cuz his dad helped him get his first job, he became successful cuz he was a selfish prick who got to the top by stepping on other people etc. etc.
Lance Armstrong won the tour de france cuz his one testicle overcompensated for the lack of the other one which gave him and unfair advantage over others...

No, stop complaining. If you work hard, you can make it too!!!

Actually, there is significant evidence to support the charge that Lance Armstrong was a long term user of performance enhancing drugs and that this in no small way helped him to get the 'edge' over the compeition. (the same 'competitive edge' that Michelle Smith had)

The ownership of capital gives the privelleged the same kind of unfair advantage that drugs cheats have in sports over those honest enough to refuse to cheat.

Without regulation to prevent doping in sports, it becomes almost impossible for an honest sportsperson to be successful as the unscrupulous will always have an unfair advantage.

af_thefragile

Akrasia wrote: »

Actually, there is significant evidence to support the charge that Lance Armstrong was a long term user of performance enhancing drugs and that this in no small way helped him to get the 'edge' over the compeition. (the same 'competitive edge' that Michelle Smith had)

The ownership of capital gives the privelleged the same kind of unfair advantage that drugs cheats have in sports over those honest enough to refuse to cheat.

Without regulation to prevent doping in sports, it becomes almost impossible for an honest sportsperson to be successful as the unscrupulous will always have an unfair advantage.

So you're saying if you're born in a poor family you might as well kill yourself cuz you're never gonna make it anywhere in life?

There are tons of examples of people who have made it to the top starting off with very little on the basis on the wits and hard work alone.

So now you want to punish every one who becomes successful for not being lazy to settle for the mediocre life?

Its all bull crap.
As i mentioned it before, there are tons of examples of rich people ending in rehab and there are tons of examples of poor people making it to the top.

Ultimately it comes down how well you utilize your resources and how much hardwork you put in.


Here, we here in Western europe have an unfair advantage over people in Africa too. What do you suggest we do about that? Increase our taxes so that we "uplift" the people in Africa?
Or those people aren't that important...

Denerick

We're just suggesting that its dishonest to suggest everyone in the world starts out with equal opportunity. They very clearly don't, and talented hard workers invariably are in sections of society which do not utilise their natural abilities, while others are in sections of society due to their family background.

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

We're just suggesting that its dishonest to suggest everyone in the world starts out with equal opportunity. They very clearly don't, and talented hard workers invariably are in sections of society which do not utilise their natural abilities, while others are in sections of society due to their family background.

And I'm saying, yes some people are born with less resources than others but it all comes down ultimately upto the individual's wits and hardwork as to where he ends up in life.

Some people who are born in rich families end up becoming too comfortable and lazy "dad will sort it out". They end up not working hard and when the time comes for them to take responsibility, they fail and end up close to the bottom.

Some people who are born in poor families, get excited by a dream of becoming successful someday. They start working hard. They pay attention in school, they get good grades, they don't get lazy or distracted by the bright lights around them. Eventually their hardwork pays off and they become some of the most successful people around.

Its this that balances out the difference in status quo.


Equality is a fantasy which will never be achieved.
There can never be equality in the world cuz we humans by our very nature are unique from one another. Some are hardworking, some are lazy, some are intelligent, some are dumb. You can't uplift the lazy and dumb while restricting the hardworking and intelligent to find your equality.

Akrasia

af_thefragile wrote: »

So you're saying if you're born in a poor family you might as well kill yourself cuz you're never gonna make it anywhere in life?

No, I am saying if you are going to have competition, you need to have independent regulation to prevent cheating and unfair advantage. If the rules are biased, then some people are never going to be able to work hard enough to overcome the systemic bias

There are tons of examples of people who have made it to the top starting off with very little on the basis on the wits and hard work alone.

and for every one of those examples, there are hundreds of people who worked very hard and never got a break.

Niall Keane

For my two pence worth,
In Libertarian systems unless inherited wealth is banned, first monopolies then monarchies would be established. This is only natural. Every animal on the planet tries to establish hierarchy over its rivals, and control over resources, ensuring the success of its offspring, which if they are the strongest or craftiest will dominate, and as efficient exploiters of their environment, ensure the survival of the species.
Conversely Anarchism, though established with good intentions, results the tyranny of the weak. Here “play nicely” groups band together to ostracise any threatening thinker who can “simply” lump it if they don’t like it. In my punk days in various informal communes I recall again and again certain strong personalities (often far more sincere in their anarchist beliefs) being set upon by the majority out of fear of their latent potential to convince people through nothing more than logical argument. Someone with strong logical and convincing attributes represents a threat for the more manipulative personality unable to inspire people but well capable of working in the shadows turning opinions to their advantage. I saw one father being ostracised by his lover and the commune, in effect losing access to his child due to the machinations of another member. At first I was too idealistic to recognise what was actually going on at a group psychological level. Now I’d agree with Rotten “Never trust a hippie!”
Does either theory actually deal with the genetically programmed survival of the species instinct I have illustrated in a “fair” way? One sets the stage for perpetuation of inequity under the guise of freedom for the individual; the other is basically an anti-meritocracy, condemning us to live under local Pol Pots!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

af_thefragile

Akrasia wrote: »

a. No, I am saying if you are going to have competition, you need to have independent regulation to prevent cheating and unfair advantage. If the rules are biased, then some people are never going to be able to work hard enough to overcome the systemic bias

b. and for every one of those examples, there are hundreds of people who worked very hard and never got a break.

a. True. So who creates these rules?
How can one cheat in nature? It might be easy to cheat in school and college and get ahead, but then again whom are you cheating at the end of the day? If you managed to get ahead in life through cheating your way up and then you've managed to find a job where you have to build rockets. How are you gonna do that when you don't have a clue about any of it as you cheated your way all along? You can't cheat there now. You will end up doing a lousy job and get fired.
At the end of the day, you got exactly what you deserved.

b. There are only two reasons why those hundreds haven't made it to the top. 1. Cuz they were good but good is not enough. Everyone is good. To get anywhere you've gotta be outstanding.
2. If they were outstanding, there was someone who didn't let them get to the top. Usually its the government. That is not capitalism. If you were good, you never give up and find a way to the top no matter what comes in your way.

And its true, not many people are capable of doing that. Its the same in nature too. All the chicks who aren't capable end up being eaten. Its only the strongest and the most capable that makes it to the top.

Capitalism rewards that one special person out of the group cuz he truly deserves it.

Capitalism creates heroes and idols.
Communism and socialism can never achieve to do that.

Niall Keane

I don't know how you can possibly argue that libertarianism would lead to monarchism! Today's libertarians are the ideological descendants of the American and French revolutionaries who set out to abolish monarchism.

I think I have already offered up a reason, perhaps there won’t be a crown but there will be dynasties, cartels and monopolies, as already exist just beneath the surface in our present democracies. Look at the Movie and Music business - a relatively new industry, which should be in an ideal world based upon raw talent and hard work, now look at the amount of celebrity families sprouting up there. It's called "pull".
Even now we have business referal groups and other masionic style lodges that walk a fine line re. cartel type activities. It is human nature to seek to guarantee ones continued success.

You seem to be describing the mindset of communism here, not anarchism.

No, I describing the human mindset, as much as we try to deny it.

af_thefragile

Niall Keane wrote: »

I think I have already offered up a reason, perhaps there won’t be a crown but there will be dynasties, cartels and monopolies, as already exist just beneath the surface in our present democracies. Look at the Movie and Music business - a relatively new industry, which should be in an ideal world based upon raw talent and hard work, now look at the amount of celebrity families sprouting up there. It's called "pull".
Even now we have business referal groups and other masionic style lodges that walk a fine line re. cartel type activities. It is human nature to seek to guarantee ones continued success.

Everyone is a king in his home.
There can't be two monopolies in the same region. Or else thats not a monopoly.
You speak about movies and music. How many people actually do listen to the mainstream designed artists? Yes, a lot do. But there are also many musicians and artists who have made it big cuz they were simply really good. What about them?

It is human nature but you see, cartels can't last. Sooner or later there will be the rebel who'll fall out of the cartels. Also cartels should be illegal and the government should make sure they don't exist. I never said there should be no government!!

No, I describing the human mindset, as much as we try to deny it.

You see, human mindset is variable.
There is no set human mindset.
Compare a business man on 5th Ave NY to a Buddhist monk on the slopes of the himalayas. You'll find they have very contrasting mindset about things.

You can't say humans have one collective mindset. Its societies that determine the mindset of the person.
A couple of decades ago everyone was against socialism and communism saying it was a ridiculous way to live.
Now everyone is saying capitalism is evil.

People's mindset changes with time and the society they were bought up in. This is why people from different societies behave differently. Its nothing to do with race (like the BNP like to go on about), its to do with the society they were bought up in.

And this is what i say, before people can understand and become ready to live in the libertarian society, they need to change their mindset first. They need to become aware of their liberties and freedom and understand that liberty does not come without responsibility.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Niall Keane

But there are also many musicians and artists who have made it big cuz they were simply really good. What about them?

Maybe there are musicians etc. who have made it to the top without using well connected managers or knowing some journalists etc. but if some do exist they are the exception that allow for the naive delusion that suppresses the masses, that is the concept that good things happen to good people. If at first you don’t succeed try, try again……good lad!

It is human nature but you see, cartels can't last. Sooner or later there will be the rebel who'll fall out of the cartels.

Yea, then they’ll be a hero, a revolutionary, ready to start their own gang, until the cycle repeats itself. Revolution as we hear means 360, but its function is to prevent the perpetuation of single ruling establishment. I guess biologically it might prevent too much inbreeding? Look at the royals!

There is no set human mindset.
Compare a business man on 5th Ave NY to a Buddhist monk on the slopes of the Himalayas. You'll find they have very contrasting mindset about things.

See this is what political ideals fail to encompass, the difference and the relationship between mindset and action. Ever met the cliché who was a genius but didn’t know how to talk to girls? Basically you’ll find that in his upbringing he was rewarded for his ability in science etc. above all else, and in effect was nurtured towards that result.

It’s quite simple, like a budget, your body has a certain amount of resources, gained from food etc. if you are nurtured by being rewarded for a scientific ability, your body will divert more resources into the part of the brain which strengthens this area, to continue the learned behaviour, setting up what psychologists call “reward-pathways”. So rewarded behaviour tends to continue.

Your business man was nurtured to be such;
Johnny is a bright kid, excellent at commerce, give him a gold star. Johnny is the man, he just knows when to buy and sell shares, give him a raise. Hi honey, is that your jag outside?

Your monk has been nurtured to be such:
Lung is a credit to his parents expressing devout Buddhism; his parents receive praise for this and pass it on to the child. The priest speaks with them elevating them in the eyes of the locals, and in their own minds.
Lung continues and becomes a monk, convincing himself that he is a selfless individual, but all the while feeling good about himself, every local who seeks his advice or help validates his existence, sending endorphin through his brain rewarding him.

Neurologically, at a chemical level there is no difference between Johnny and Lung, they both do what they do for that rush of endorphins.

Now reward-pathways are there to help an animal learn behaviours that are beneficial to it, and the species. The most fundamental drive of any species is survival, ever notice the impact a distressed child has on adults that are not even related to it, how much more so your own child, a genetic extension of the self. Ask any parent, people would die and indeed kill for their children. The establishment of a hegemony guarantees privilege and offers the best opportunity for ones child. Given the opportunity, I believe this is what every human animal will seek, hence the inevitable corruption of every revolutionary leader.

And so voluntary Anarchism would never work, because it proposes that people cooperate, to the benefit of all. My position is that deep down, maybe even concealed from the self every human animal is programmed to be selfish. Cooperative and beneficial systems could be created, but someone will seek to take advantage by corrupting them.

The traffic of this city is regulated by bus lanes, 95% of people obey this, but reward in the way of shaving ½ hour from your journey awaits those who break the rules. If everyone broke the rules we would have chaos, but great rewards can exists for those who do when most act as sheep. Such is life.

We've had dynasties, aristocracies, guilds, castes, etc., for most of human history, from the ancient Mesopotamians onwards. Liberals over the past 250-odd years have done a great deal to abolish inherited privilege and to open up what were previously closed guilds to open-market competition.

In our recent history look at the planning tribunal! Overtly a highly regulated “transparent” planning system existed to protect public interest and deliver sustainable development. Although public consultations were used to placate the public, the real planning decisions were based upon the potential value of contributions and rates to be earned by the local authorities. The more rates the more money in local government, so the safer your job and larger your bonus. This was helped along by the elected members contravening zoning due to decisions and arguments based on brown envelopes. It is stated by Liam Lawler that 1/3 of the elected councillors in DCC were on the take. Events like the Galway Races tent and the Quantity Surveyors Ball existed to promote “networking” or to put it another way they provide for the creation of an oligarchy of power. Nothing can be proved of course.

This HAS happened in a, some would say, overly regulated society; politicians (those supposed to be working for the public) have been bribed, and with their self managed expenses set their children up as their secretarial staff. Of all western countries save perhaps the USA Ireland clearly displays nepotism in the political field. What can we expect from a less regulated Libertarian Society?

af_thefragile

long long post... but lets start...

Niall Keane wrote: »

Maybe there are musicians etc. who have made it to the top without using well connected managers or knowing some journalists etc. but if some do exist they are the exception that allow for the naive delusion that suppresses the masses, that is the concept that good things happen to good people. If at first you don’t succeed try, try again……good lad!

That is the elemental rule of nature. You can't run half the marathon and expect to win it. The one who doesn't give up is the one who wins.
And these are no exception. This is how it works.
You can apply for X-Factor. You have to get better than others to win. If you lose, you can't blame the system but only the fact you weren't as good as the others.

Even the one's who made contacts and all to get to the top, well, they made the effort of all of that. Why didn't you? Why didn't you try to make any contacts, get into the marketing and PR game? To win the game you've gotta know all moves.

Yea, then they’ll be a hero, a revolutionary, ready to start their own gang, until the cycle repeats itself. Revolution as we hear means 360, but its function is to prevent the perpetuation of single ruling establishment. I guess biologically it might prevent too much inbreeding? Look at the royals!

What has inbreeding and royals got to do with this?
Tell me a single cartel that exists in this world which is a true monopoly. There is always someone outside working hard to do a better job and not rip people off.

Also businesses (and government and everything) need competition to survive. If there isn't competition, the business will eventually self-destruct (look at HSE!). This is quite complex. But its basically when businesses don't have competition, they get lazy, they start ripping people off, their scientific and technological development halts.
So when a new business comes up (which it is free to in a free market but not in a socialist state) which has managed to leap frog the monopoly with a better, newer and cheaper product, everyone is gonna buy this new product and the monopoly will start to fail (look at GM).
Now if the government decides to bail out this monopoly then its screwing over the whole natural process. The small emerging efficient business cannot take off because the inefficient monopoly giant is being kept alive by the government.

See this is what political ideals fail to encompass, the difference and the relationship between mindset and action. Ever met the cliché who was a genius but didn’t know how to talk to girls? Basically you’ll find that in his upbringing he was rewarded for his ability in science etc. above all else, and in effect was nurtured towards that result.

What about the genius who was good with science and women?
Things don't have to be so black and white.

It’s quite simple, like a budget, your body has a certain amount of resources, gained from food etc. if you are nurtured by being rewarded for a scientific ability, your body will divert more resources into the part of the brain which strengthens this area, to continue the learned behaviour, setting up what psychologists call “reward-pathways”. So rewarded behaviour tends to continue.

There are equal number of psychologists who have proved your body/mental capacity has unlimited potential locked in it. You just need to know how to unleash it all. Too bad in our modern world we are provided by so many things and looked after so much that we barely ever get to use any of our mental potential and we end up caught up in the very basic human pathways.

Back in the old days you were left in the forest to go fend and survive for yourself. You had to use your mind and body to the fullest of capacity to survive and so has mankind survived so long through even the toughest of times and terrains.

Your business man was nurtured to be such;
Johnny is a bright kid, excellent at commerce, give him a gold star. Johnny is the man, he just knows when to buy and sell shares, give him a raise. Hi honey, is that your jag outside?

Your monk has been nurtured to be such:
Lung is a credit to his parents expressing devout Buddhism; his parents receive praise for this and pass it on to the child. The priest speaks with them elevating them in the eyes of the locals, and in their own minds.
Lung continues and becomes a monk, convincing himself that he is a selfless individual, but all the while feeling good about himself, every local who seeks his advice or help validates his existence, sending endorphin through his brain rewarding him.

Neurologically, at a chemical level there is no difference between Johnny and Lung, they both do what they do for that rush of endorphins.

Over here you have only addressed one human need which is of pleasure.
But infact there are six basic human needs. Certainty/comfort, significance, growth, uncertainty/variety, connection/love and contribution.
These are the human emotions that drive us to do what we wanna do.
Yes you can generalize what and why people do what they do according to these emotions/needs but they give rise to a huge diversity in human actions and behavior which you can't just summarise in one paragraph.

Now reward-pathways are there to help an animal learn behaviours that are beneficial to it, and the species. The most fundamental drive of any species is survival, ever notice the impact a distressed child has on adults that are not even related to it, how much more so your own child, a genetic extension of the self. Ask any parent, people would die and indeed kill for their children. The establishment of a hegemony guarantees privilege and offers the best opportunity for ones child. Given the opportunity, I believe this is what every human animal will seek, hence the inevitable corruption of every revolutionary leader.

We humans try to fulfill those six needs in our life. We want to be comfortable/certain of our future and so we find a good job we know will support us for life. We want to feel significant and so we try to stand out at our job, at school, between our friends, we do funny things, tell jokes, we work hard to get the raise, we go on internet forums, we become leaders, rule over nations, gives us the sense of significance. We wanna grow in life, we wanna get better at what we do, and so we work hard for the promotion. We want some uncertainty in life, or else we get bored, so we go on a holiday, we watch a movie, we find a new hobby, all cuz we don't wanna live a monotonous life. We need love, if we can't find it in person, we get a pet, if not that we go onto the internet, if not we find God. Finally we have a need to contribute back to society, we want to contribute to our kids, our friends, others on the internet, we think about it before we die, we write books, write music, all to get that final sense of contribution before we leave this world.

And this is why we do what we do and this is where we are so different from our animal cousins.
We aren't just driven by the need for survival and reproduction. If it was that we'ld all just be looking for food, water, shelter and someone to screw. But we don't. We look for a lot more from life.
They did experiments between apes and human kids. Apes are only driven by food. They don't do things unless they know they'll be rewarded by some food treat at the end of it. Human kind don't go that way, food will rarely work on kids, they want toys. A slight difference which makes all the difference between humans and animals.

And so voluntary Anarchism would never work, because it proposes that people cooperate, to the benefit of all. My position is that deep down, maybe even concealed from the self every human animal is programmed to be selfish. Cooperative and beneficial systems could be created, but someone will seek to take advantage by corrupting them.

And this is why voluntary Anarchism will work.
Cuz we humans, we like to destroy, yes. But we also like to build. We need a society, we can't be too selfish or else we'll be left out.
Ya know, everyone thinks everyone is so selfish but we're so not. We're always doing things to impress others, to make others feel better around us. Why is that if we don't care so much about anyone else other than us?

We need a society. Thats why we go to the pub or restaurants. Left in isolation we'll go crazy. This is why many millionaires, they end up getting to the top by stepping on others, when they get to the top they have no proper friends or anything. They end up self destructing, they end up taking drugs to occupy their mind, they end up sabotaging everything they've got and eventually after losing it all end up in rehab.
Where as ole joe from down the street hasn't much going on but he's a happy bloke as he's become the pub hero over the years and everyone loves his company there. He couldn't ask for anything else!

The traffic of this city is regulated by bus lanes, 95% of people obey this, but reward in the way of shaving ½ hour from your journey awaits those who break the rules. If everyone broke the rules we would have chaos, but great rewards can exists for those who do when most act as sheep. Such is life.

And this is where humans learn from their mistakes. We realise roads are too small for us and we build a motorway!!
Its not breaking the rules but to enhancing our resources. This is why we still don't go about in horse carriages. Cuz there's always someone out there who wants to find the short cut. Who wants to break the rules. He developed the car. Then he developed the black top road. Then he developed faster cars and he developed motorways and this isn't the end.

We need people who are ready to break the rules for humanity to progress!

If everyone just followed the convention, as sheep, we wouldn't have had made any progress. Sure there was nothing wrong with riding around on horses. It was safe, it was rewarding enough. But then came a man who said he developed this whacky thing with an engine that runs on steam which turned these wheels and the only way to control it was by a couple of levers. If there was such a thing as health and safety back then, that would never have had passed it and we'ld still be riding around on horses.

In our recent history look at the planning tribunal! Overtly a highly regulated “transparent” planning system existed to protect public interest and deliver sustainable development. Although public consultations were used to placate the public, the real planning decisions were based upon the potential value of contributions and rates to be earned by the local authorities. The more rates the more money in local government, so the safer your job and larger your bonus. This was helped along by the elected members contravening zoning due to decisions and arguments based on brown envelopes. It is stated by Liam Lawler that 1/3 of the elected councillors in DCC were on the take. Events like the Galway Races tent and the Quantity Surveyors Ball existed to promote “networking” or to put it another way they provide for the creation of an oligarchy of power. Nothing can be proved of course.

This HAS happened in a, some would say, overly regulated society; politicians (those supposed to be working for the public) have been bribed, and with their self managed expenses set their children up as their secretarial staff. Of all western countries save perhaps the USA Ireland clearly displays nepotism in the political field. What can we expect from a less regulated Libertarian Society?

Here's a counter question. What makes you so sure this bureaucracy we like to call government composed of politicians with individual ideals they'ld like to see imposed upon the population, are working for the best interest of the population?
Or let me put it this way, what makes you think that even if they are working in the best interest of the population, that they're doing the right thing?

You want to get rid of greedy businessmen, what about greedy politicians? Who's gonna stop them?
If there was a business you knew was exploitive, like Nike, all you needed to do to protest against it was to stop buying its products. If you don't approve of Nike, stop buying Nike stuff, the company will soon be forced to change its values.

How are you gonna do this with the politicians? Especially in a socialist state where they own everything. You have just suddenly replace the business cartel with a state monopoly. How different is that?

Its the libertarians who have progressed the world forward.
Its capitalism that has bought you and me all this technology we take today for granted.
The greatest scientific and technological advances happened in the 19th and the 20th century. It was men working in sheds who created the first engine, the first light bulb, the first telephone.
They were driven by an idea, a quest for knowledge and a vision to see their idea take shape that can revolutionise the way of life.
These were free men, not under pressure from any government or monarchy. But they were driven by a dream.
This is capitalism.

All socialism got us was the atomic bomb.
Something that could be used in a progressive way, the government used it in a destructive way.


Libertarianism is a step towards the dream of free men doing their things, living their dreams and progressing society.
Socialism/communism is a step back towards the monarchy/kingdom state we humans can't just seem to manage to step out of.

All it needs is a change in mindset. But don't worry.
We libertarians will get our way anyway cuz freedom begins with the mind.
When you're free to believe you can do it, you will do it.

Imagine what would have had happened if Thomas Edison was a sheep and believed there was no possible way to create a light bulb that could last over 1000hours. Did you know it was after more than 3000 failed attempts that he finally managed to crack the light bulb?
What if he just gave up after 100 attempts?
You see, nature doesn't work that way. Its only the ones who never give up who succeed. The one's who aren't bound by any rules or boundaries created by others.

Of years athletes tried to break the 4min mile record. It was said the human body wasn't capable of breaking that barrier. It was the limit. But then in 1954 came this guy Roger Banister who was determined to break the rules. Who freed himself from all these imaginary barriers and manage to run a mile in under 4mins. He changed histroy.

This is the power of a free mind. And you wanna constrict it back to make everyone act as sheep?? What great rewards lie there?

Human aren't made to be sheep. Thats why we repeatedly rebel against those who try to make us one.

Anarchy is the law nature and its the only law that works.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Niall Keane

“Your complaint is that in a highly regulated society, those doing the regulating frequently engage in bribery, corruption, nepotism, fraud, extortion, and graft. So what do you think would happen in a less regulated society?”

What we would presently consider overt corruption, i.e. open incontestable unfairness at every level.
A hoarding of wealth and privilege, stifling freedom and indeed the broader economy (as the consumer society would have less spending power), leading to hopelessness where most people think “what is the point?” Think feudalism. When I say freedom, I do not mean directly and overtly, we have evolved much more subtle ways of control, after all those holding power would not find it beneficial to incite a revolution, I mean that most would become wage-slaves, at first, even if all would be equal, economic leverage would quickly (within a generation I would imagine) rest in the hands of a few. All others excluded from this point on would be in conflict with an establishment solely concerned with its own survival. India and the vast difference between rich and poor springs to mind.
Now I suppose we could all console ourselves and celebrate such a system as long as we could all still make it, by working hard and applying for the X-Factor or maybe winning the lotto? Maybe we could even capitalise on the misery and make another “Slumdog Millioneer”? So much for Libertarianism. Maggie’s Britain should be example enough. Or the Dickensian conditions of Laissez Faire Workhouse Ireland. Only those from a world of privilege could support such nonsense.

By the way in response to af_the fragile:

“Even the one's who made contacts and all to get to the top, well, they made the effort of all of that. Why didn't you? Why didn't you try to make any contacts, get into the marketing and PR game? To win the game you've gotta know all moves.”

I see you are now projecting the shadow, and have decided as most politicians would, that those with other views cannot possibly be successful. In 1994 I did indeed live in squats for a time, Ballymun for a time etc. Now I am a well paid qualified professional with a wife and home, living the dream so as to speak, along the way, if you go to the “self defence and martial arts forum”, you will find that as for being self-made and hard working, I reached a ranking (where 87 countries had registered and entered fighters) of 4th in the world in pro level sanshou (full-contact Chinese kickboxing) along with winning countless internationals. In this capacity, I now, in my free time, without financial reward, act as a board member for both the PWKA and ICBA organizations promoting the sport at a national and European level. But far from being an aserhole and believing that if I did it, by devoting so much time and energy, so can everyone, I always remember a good friend who gave up school at 15 to support his 8 year old sister and chaotically alcoholic mother, at least I had the opportunity to finish school which allowed me to later go to college. So although some who know me think what I’ve done with my life exceptional, I still consider myself far more fortunate than others. Only an aserhole who fell out of bed into riches would consider life fair, and opportunity available to all.
Libertarianism was the new fad some years ago championing “freedom”, but by now I think most people recognize that it means freedom to fcuk people over without pesky regulations getting in the way.

Anarchism which has nothing to do with Libertarianism would be a fantastic system, but that’s just it - “fantastic”, unfortunately we’re dealing with human beings, who despite the elitist and naive opinions of some are fundamentally animals. A political idea will never counter millions of years of evolution.
I see no evidence provided in the above posts that contradicts my initial argument, speaking of toys and not food is a moot point, it does not successfully override the theory of reward pathways and conditioned response.
Cartels and monopolies are equally as bad for the ordinary citizen; I cannot believe you are even arguing about this point. Are you going to keep picking pedantic points or actually get to the heart of the issue? This kind of arguing is something I would expect from a Fianna Failure politician.

There are equal number of psychologists who have proved your body/mental capacity has unlimited potential locked in it. You just need to know how to unleash it all.

Are you for real? No proper scientist would ever suggest that any resource is “unlimited”. Anyone who has, for example, seriously competed in international sports will attest to the importance of diet and sleep, for recovery, and on focusing on training exercises that enhance the particular skills used in that particular sport. The same is true for mental abilities. Whole areas of real science devote themselves to these fields. Your statements are the unfounded “catch phrases of the clown”, based on populist romantic desire and not fact.
It is the refusal to deal with the points I have already brought up in a rational non-personal way, and the lack of any convincing evidence that indicates otherwise (by this I mean don’t highlight the exception that proves the rule) that has always weakened both the Anarchist and Libertarian arguments.

af_thefragile

Niall Keane wrote: »

I see you have now projecting the shadow, and have decided as most politicians would do, that those with other views cannot possibly be successful. In 1994 I did indeed live in squats for a time, Ballymun for a time etc. Now I am a well paid qualified professional with a wife and home, living the dream so as to speak, along the way, if you go to the “self defence and martial arts forum”, you will find that as for being self-made and hard working, I reached a ranking (where 87 countries had registered and entered fighters) of 4th in the world in pro level sanshou (full-contact Chinese kickboxing) along with winning countless internationals. In this capacity, I now, in my free time, without financial reward, act as a board member for both the PWKA and ICBA organizations promoting the sport at a national and European level. But far from being an aserhole and believing that if I did it, by devoting so much time and energy, so can everyone, I always remember a good friend who gave up school at 15 to support his 8 year old sister and chaotically alcoholic mother, at least I had the opportunity to finish school which allowed me to later go to college. So although some who know me think what I’ve done with my life exceptional, I still consider myself far more fortunate than others. Only an aserhole who fell out of bed into riches would consider life fair, and opportunity available to all.
Libertarianism was the new fad some years ago championing “freedom”, but by now I think most people recognize that it means freedom to fcuk people over without pesky regulations getting in the way.

Anarchism which has nothing to do with Libertarianism would be a fantastic system, but that’s just it - “fantastic”, unfortunately we’re dealing with human beings, who despite the elitist and naive opinions of some are fundamentally animals. A political idea will never counter millions of years of evolution.
I see no evidence provided in the above posts that contradicts my initial argument, speaking of toys and not food is a moot point, it does not successfully override the theory of reward pathways and conditioned response.
Cartels and monopolies are equally as bad for the ordinary citizen; I cannot believe you are even arguing about this point. Are you going to keep picking pedantic points or actually get to the heart of the issue? This kind of arguing is something I would expect from a Fianna Failure politician.

You have failed to tell me how a socialist/communist system would be much more "fair" and "equal" than the libertarian system.
You have ignored many points i have stated in the post. How can you be sure sure these bureaucrats/politicians aren't ****ing people over? Don't you see what they've done with the HSE and the education system?!

You keep saying humans are like animals when we so are not. There are few fundamental differences between humans and animals which makes us completely different from them.

And no life is not fair. And it will never be.
Take example of the Olympics.
There are thousands of people who train to compete in it. Out of those 1000's who've given their everything over the years, all the rewards go to the best person.
The fastest person in the world gets the gold medal and all the rewards.
The 2nd and 3rd fastest person in the world get little rewards.
What about the person who came 4th? What does he get?
You're the 4th fastest person in the world and you don't get **** for it!!!
How that for fairness??

Now you could say the olympics shouldn't be held cuz its a very unfair system.

But thats how nature works. Only the best wins.

What you have done is pretty impressive. Fair play to you.
Now you've gotta ask the honest question. What made you go this far?
Yes other people have obstacles in their paths. You probably had yours too. And yes i believe you were no "lucky soul" cause anyone could have done what you have done if they would put as much time and effort as you have done too. But they didn't and you did. Which means you got the rewards while day didn't.

People always see be realistic you'll never make it. But such a mentality will get you nowhere. People say if you're 5'6" there's no way you can win the slam dunk championship. Cuz you're too unlucky to be short and life in a bitch like that.
But then comes this guy Nate Robinson who's 5'6" and wins the slam dunk championship.

What about that??
How did he manage to do it when he was so much disadvantaged??!

Do you still say life is unfair? It probably is.
But if you can still make it regardless of all the obstacles in your path, you will reap exceptional rewards.

This is how anarchy works. It is survival of the fittest. And it breaks barriers and progresses humanity.


And if you wanna know my story, i'm wouldn't consider myself advantaged. Though i'ld say i'm much more advantaged than a person living in a 3rd world country. But for someone living in Ireland, i'ld say i've got many disadvantages. But I don't say there's no way i can make it with all this crap around me and give in to my crappy life. Nope. I believe no matter what, my disadvantages strengthen me more. They make me less lazy and work harder to achieve my goals. And i guess i'ld prefer it this way cuz if i was born in a richer family with more resources, i'ld get too comfortable with my life and i'ld probably lose my drive. Lose the fire that drives me so hard to achieve my goals.

And I don't complain. I don't complain I have no car or I live in a ****ty small home and I've got no job or I'm not big enough and strong enough or I'm not good looking enough. Nope. I don't. I just focus on my goals, see how i can make the most of the little resources i've got and then work hard towards achieving it. Cuz although my physical and economic resources are limited, my mind is free.

Are you for real? No proper scientist would ever suggest that any resource is “unlimited”. Anyone who has, for example, seriously competed in international sports will attest to the importance of diet and sleep, for recovery, and on focusing on training exercises that enhance the particular skills used in that particular sport. The same is true for mental abilities. Whole areas of real science devote themselves to these fields. Your statements are the unfounded “catch phrases of the clown”, based on populist romantic desire and not fact.
It is the refusal to deal with the points I have already brought up in a rational non-personal way, and the lack of any convincing evidence that indicates otherwise (by this I mean don’t highlight the exception that proves the rule) that has always weakened both the Anarchist and Libertarian arguments.

Scientists always keep saying the human body is only capable of so much and all and then every few years someone comes and proves science wrong.
Every olympics records are broken. People run faster, people jump higher, people lift heavier weights. If the human body was only capable of so much then we would have had hit the limit some 1000 years ago. Athletes would never be able to break any olympics record ever.
But thats not the case. Athletes push themselves beyond these imaginary limits every olympics to create now boundaries for what is humanly possible.
What has science got to say to that?? If human potential was limited then how is it possible for every few years someone to come and smash those limits in the face of science??

The 4 minute mile story is a perfect example of humans breaking the limits in the face of science. For centuries people thought it was not humanly possible to run a mile in under 4mins. Then came this guy Roger Banister and smashed the limit in the face of science. Now if you say he was a freak and an exception to science, then he should have been the only one to have broken the 4 minute mile barrier.
But no, now even high school kids can manage to run a mile in under 4mins. What happened to your "exception"?

The only thing that weakens the Anarchist and Libertarian arguments is the people's mindset that cannot see beyond the limits of humanity. They keep coming up with arguments such as we humans are animals and we'll always keep behaving in the same black and white patterns.

We anarchists and libertarians don't. We see humans as the most exceptional of animals who know how to push the boundaries and evolve. If we bound ourselves by these imaginary limitations, humanity will never progress. For humanity to progress we need to push ourselves onto the next level.
We need to become independent and responsible and learn/realise than we can only survive when we look out for one another. We need to realise that ourselves, not have some state to do it for us. We need to realise the country belongs to us and not the government. We need to realise we can do better ourselves what the govrenment is trying to do for us.

And for all that to happen we need to first get weaned off our government to be left to travel the forests on our own. Only then can we grow as humanity.

Niall Keane

You have failed to tell me how a socialist/communist system would be much more "fair" and "equal" than the libertarian system.

I have no intention of doing so, because I don't believe that a communist system works either. Please re-read my posts if you have this impression?

If the human body was only capable of so much then we would have had hit the limit some 1000 years ago. Athletes would never be able to break any olympics record ever.
But thats not the case. Athletes push themselves beyond these imaginary limits every olympics to create now boundaries for what is humanly possible.
What has science got to say to that?? If human potential was limited then how is it possible for every few years someone to come and smash those limits in the face of science??

No, we haven't flown in the face of science, quite the opposite, we have used sceintific methods and aplied them to training, in short we have learned how our bodies work, and how to become more efficient with the preparation for and execution of tasks we wish our body to preform.

af_thefragile

Niall Keane wrote: »

I have no intention of doing so, because I don't believe that a communist system works either. Please re-read my posts if you have this impression?

So you're saying nothing will work?
Well something's gotta work. I know you'll never find the perfect answer. But you've gotta keep thriving to find the better answer. Thats how science works. You can never find the perfect answer. Just the better answer to things around us.

No, we haven't flown in the face of science, quite the opposite, we have used sceintific methods and aplied them to training, in short we have learned how our bodies work, and how to become more efficient with the preparation for and execution of tasks we wish our body to preform.

Look, i'm not saying the potential of the human body is literally unlimited (although the potential of the mind can be classified as unlimited) but we have consistently been proving that the human potential is more than what was previously assumed to be. The athletes in the Olympics are the best example of this. And i'ld say every healthy human is capable of reaching the levels of performance of these top athletes. It all depends on how much he's willing to put in.