Black Swans, Butterflies, and the Economy
The Economy is a Complex System that Cannot be Planned, Designed, or Regulated into Perfection
One side blames the market. The other blames government. We get two causal stories going in opposite directions and a lot of animus. But both perhaps are missing something important in this titanic debate about our current financial crisis. It’s time we exposed a complicated truth about the economy of the 21st century.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb is famous for introducing us to black swans. Though these rare creatures have long been used among academic philosophers to explain the shortcomings of reasoning by induction (“Every swan I’ve ever seen has been white, therefore all swans are white.”), Taleb uses the black swan as a stark metaphor for the inevitability of highly improbable events. In other words, black swans are rare, but one will swim by eventually.
As far as Wall Street—particularly the people with a large stake in getting things right—is concerned, this financial crisis involved a confluence of events. Some of these black swans were set in motion by government, like flexible lending standards to extend home ownership, Fannie and Freddie, and a mortgage-friendly tax code. Others were set in motion by willfully ignorant bankers, big shot risk-modelers, and people believing they could live beyond their means. It all came together in a fantastic cascade of failure. The trouble is, no one—neither government nor market actors—can predict such a large-scale event. Black swans happen.
The other important thing to remember is that the economy is a chaotic system. Most of the time chaotic systems achieve a sweet spot between order and chaos, which is a good thing if an economy is to be robust. Chaotic systems, though, change constantly and involve dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.
An Ecosystem, Not a Machine
Sadly, we’re getting a whole lot of precisely the wrong kind of thinking in response to this crisis. Indeed most of the bad thinking arises from viewing the economy through the lens of a false metaphor: economy as machine. We’ve heard pundits accuse the government or banks of being “asleep at the switch.” But in a complex system, there is no switch. We’ve heard people ask how to “fix it,” “run it,” or “regulate it,” suggesting if just the right sort of genius controlled the rheostats, we’d get just the right sort of economy.
The economy is not like a machine at all. It is rather more like an ecosystem that no one can run, fix, or regulate. The hubristic sort of person who thinks he or anyone can run an economy is the victim of what Hayek called the “fatal conceit.” If given power, the planner will end up making the rest of us the victims of his false metaphor.
It is ironic that Alan Greenspan—once adored by the press but now pilloried by it—is being blamed not only for wielding a laissez-faire ideology that supposedly caused the crisis, but also for failing to predict a black swan. Greenspan was a single, powerful government bureaucrat in charge of gathering enough data to determine the “right” interest rate for a multitrillion-dollar economy. Given the size of that task, he did pretty well for many years. But he was one man. He was housed in a government building. He held an unelected office and made decisions in a bureaucracy that has a monopoly on money and influences the price of credit, at least in the short run. One can hardly call that free-market fundamentalism. Whether Greenspan offered artificially cheap credit or not, interest rates were only one factor among many. To have asked him to predict the best of all possible worlds and adjust interest rates accordingly would have been to ask him to be an oracle channeling the knowledge only God would have. Greenspan is not omniscient. Nor is Bernanke. No one is. But to “run” an economy would require not only omniscience, but omnipotence as well—a power that would bend the actions of millions to its singular will.
Whatever your ideological persuasion, the economy is a complex system that cannot be planned, designed, or have its black swans regulated away. Far from the caricatures sketched in the papers, this is precisely what serious free-market types have been saying for years. That’s why it’s a little more than silly to blame free-market ideology for the current mess, and a little more than mendacious to claim that government fingerprints won’t appear all over the crisis when the postmortem is done.
Hunting Black Swans with Shots in the Dark
The timeless nostra of the politician are to prime the pump (machine metaphor) and to regulate. It seems so simple. But that response is deceptively linear. If you could ask FDR, might he now concede his policies stretched the Depression out for a decade beyond what was necessary? He listened to J.M. Keynes and a coven of interventionists. If we agree that our mixed economy is a complex system, then we also have to agree that the benefits the partly free market confers are an emergent property of that system. If we attempt to regulate away the rare, unforeseen black swan event, the costs of our hubris will be terrible, for we will regulate away untold benefits, too.
In the real world the question may come down to whether we should accept a couple of years of painful market adjustments or decades of recession caused by the blunt instrument of politics. Devastating unintended consequences and unseen effects will follow government attempts to clean up a mess made in great measure by its own hand. Why? Because no one possesses a God’s-eye view of the economy. Government intervenes within the system as part of it, not from outside of it. Nor is the economy an instrument to be manipulated to positive effect—at least not over the long term. That is why Keynes got it so terribly wrong and why the economy must heal itself from within in a distributed, holistic way.
People want government, like God, to come down and fix the unfixable, or explain the inexplicable. That’s why they’re finding it easier to blame greed for our current financial crises. But greed is rather more like gravity: When you fall, you can blame either Newton or the banana peel on the ground.
The profit motive is a good thing when it operates in an environment where bad bets are punished with losses and good investments are rewarded. Only government can distort that healthy profit-and-loss system, giving people incentives to make bad decisions. And it’s in this environment that greed is no good to anyone. It turns out, however, that greed—or better, rational self-interest—can help our economy stabilize faster than government ever could. As the lubricant of our economic system, self-interest will cause a million market actors to recalibrate and to direct resources to projects that create value in our society. We the people will temper our irrational urges and mitigate our risks if government restores the rules that let profit and loss bring discipline. But if government continues to change the rules to bias the market in favor of irrational behavior, rent-seeking, and corporatism, the chaotic aspects of the system will continue to wobble out of equilibrium. Black swans will become commonplace.
Comment by pilgrim1776 on 5 March 2009:
personally, the above article is just more double-talk. The economy, so to speak, is practically destroyed because the government has been allowed, by the people, to squander away our heritage with false and fraudulent paper money. The unfederal noreserve is a creature of the banks and is controlled by the banks and they determine how much wealth they wish to steal.
The parable of Jesus throwing the money changers out of the temple was the precursor to the present world domination by the bankers.
Disengage the bankers from controlling – and stealing – the wealth of the world and the economy will slowly return to solvency!
Comment by Don Capone on 5 March 2009:
the fiat paper money must go broke before the masses will understand the source of the problem. If we can withstand that we have a chance. Right the scum is at the top. Quite an ingenious invention you must admit…this paper money.
Comment by Robert Ronstadt on 5 March 2009:
Max Border has written an excellent, thoughtful article with many “spot-on” observations. Black swans exist. No one is omniscient. We shouldn’t be playing the “blame game.” These and other observations make a positive contribution to the discussion. If the article fails in any way, it gives too much credit to non-regulation and rational self-interest. Greed does get out-of-hand. We see it in this financial crisis and others throughout history. Similarly, history shows that governments have become increasingly better a striking the right balance between regulation and non-regulation to level the playing field. We need to put our idealogies aside and find what works. That is the American way.
Comment by jon on 5 March 2009:
paper in and of itself is of no evil.
to the extent that contracts are voluntarily made and kept with mere paper, it is a good for the parties involved. it is indeed an ingenious invention, for it allows vast quantities of other goods to change hands with the stroke of a pen.
capitalism can only be bolstered by the exchange of paper to the extent that it is done in a capitalist — voluntary and mutually beneficial — fashion.
it is currency, indeed <i>anything</i>, brought into the market by <b>fiat</b> that is the direct threat to liberty. it is <b>fiat</b> or force alone that is the negation of liberty, and not moral hazard, which is as inescapable as the market is.
Comment by Pat on 5 March 2009:
Quoting from above: “We need to put our idealogies aside and find what works. That is the American way.”
If putting our idealogies aside has become the American way, then we have drifted hopelessly from our founding principles and that is precisely why we have become the statist behemoth we are today. Very sad.
Comment by Gary Barnett on 5 March 2009:
While a useful article, and one that offers relevant findings, two things stand out. Firstly, while banks and financial institutions certainly played a major role in this debacle, they would not have had this opportunity without government’s blessing and guidance. The federal government and the Federal Reserve are the main culprits behind the economic collapse.
Secondly, the notion that “no one–neither government nor market actors–can predict such a large-scale event” is a false assumption. “Black Swans” do exist, but there are many among us who see clearly the risk of ignoring their rare presence. Of course, Austrians come immediately to mind. Most Austrians did see this coming and predict that this “large-scale event” was imminent.
Comment by Andrea90814 on 5 March 2009:
With respect to being able to “predict such a large-scale event”–my first year economics students “predicted” collapse of the real estate market when shown the incentives set up by the Community Redevelopment Act plus the 1995 changes which COMPELLED banks to make riskier loans than they wished to hold in their portfolios. Tell banks they must lend to less credit-worthy borrowers, lower the standards (raise the risks) for lending, then use FDIC and mortgage insurance to cover 100% of the downside. That will send the banks to the baccarat tables every time. All that was necessary for the “event” to occur was a fall in property values–even a small decline would do if the borrowers held 95% loan-to-value. Chris Dodd must be impossibly dense if he couldn’t see this coming.
Comment by Warren Norred on 5 March 2009:
Excellent piece. The article is good intro for people who just don\’t seem to understand that a law can\’t be passed to just fix everything. Too many people want to believe that any action is better than no action, when \"no action\" is just exactly what is called for, when dealing with severe corrections. Even worse are the people that just won\’t understand that the best action is reducing government interference, rather than increasing it.
Comment by Nad on 5 March 2009:
I second the latest commentator’s view. A good stimulating intro for most people.
Comment by Paul Wescott on 5 March 2009:
An article in Wired suggests that parts of the financial system may have fallen to a virtual black swan:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all
Comment by Fred Foldvary on 5 March 2009:
Why doesn’t The Freeman publish real economic analysis instead of fluff pieces like this?
Comment by Steven Hankin on 5 March 2009:
Responding to Mr. Foldvary: When you say you desire \"real economic analysis\"I assume that what you require is a scientific paper filled with graphs and studies. Yet, by insisting upon this, I think you have failed to grasp the central point of this article. The US economy is not susceptible to scientific analysis–there are too many variables to be identified, it is impossible to filter out all of the variables that one seeks not to influence the results of the variable that one wishes to study (i.e., experiment), the impossibility of being able to gather the data with regard even to variables that you can identify; hence, the impossibility that those variables can be controlled, and the further problem that these variables, and the data, with respect to any identified variables, may be constantly changing: some variables cease to exist and new ones arise. Economics is not susceptible to scientific inquiry and, therefore, any government attempt to manipulate macro-economic factors: such as aggregate demand and money supply are at best shots in the dark and at worst self inflicted wounds. This, I contend, is the central point of this article, which you appear not to have grasped. If this is fluff, I\’ll glad take more of it.
Comment by Stephen Mosier on 9 March 2009:
Responding to Steven Hankin:
Thank you, Sir. You took the words right out of my mouth and said exactly what I would have said.
Bureaucrat’s attempts to control the economy always do more harm than good and I fear their attempts to conrol the climate (global warming) will do the same.
Comment by David on 18 March 2009:
I heard Mr Foldvary speak at Santa Clara University. I thought he was a free-market guy, but when he started talking about his “solution” to the current economic crisis it sounded like he was reading Krugman’s weekly vomit. He thinks the government ought to send a check to everyone, and he knows just the right amount that the check needs to be in order to fix all of our problems. I think it was $5000. So, there you have it – Mr Foldvary knows the solution to our problems and it all lies in the magnificent printing press.
Comment by Andre on 18 March 2009:
Great, compelling piece and a refreshingly honest approach, in stark contrast to the shrill garbage spouting from the mouths of bureaucrats and those engaged in the blame game.
Comment by David on 20 March 2009:
I have to agree with pilgrim on this one, the only reason we have the current economic crisis, is that the state has allowed private banks who neither build anything fix anything nor feed anyone, to create and profit from a national asset, these being our currency and credit, and rape the population for 60-80% of everything they earn in mortgage and other interest, and then when they got greedy and wanted 90 % and got themselves in trouble they simply took all the money out of the system.
Our production capacity hasn’t changed one but, and there is absolutely no reason for there to be an economic crises, except for the fact that it has been artificially created by removing an artificial means of exchange which if it were created for the benefit of the people instead of the profit if parasites, would make any form of economic crisis impossible.
In order to create and maintain a free market economy, you have to control the means of exchange on which that economy operates and ensure that it is available in sufficient quantity at all times in order to keep that economy operating at full capacity and generate economic growth instead of stagnation. This was proven by the 13 colonies, prior to the revolution, whom, when King George forgot to provide them with money, simply printed their own “colonial script” and distributed it in sufficient quantities to pay for what the people could produce. This resulted in the highest standard of living of any place in the world at the time, and when the British banks discovered this and got King George to outlaw the colonial script and replace it with the British Pound, controlled by the banks, the highest standard of living changed to 75% unemployment overnight. Once again, Abraham Lincoln, when the banks wanted to charge him exorbitant interest rates in order to finance the civil war, simply took control of the currency out of their hands and began creating it on behalf of the people, and the war was paid for with no problems and no economic repercussions, and as a result they managed to have him killed as he was a threat to their power, and if anyone thinks the confederates were behind this your and idiot as the war had already been lost and they had nothing to gain, only the banks stood to profit from Lincolns death, as from the first and second world war as well, and i strongly expect that the Kennedy assassination was arranged by the same people for the same reason. Lastly, Adolf Hitler, who was elected chancellor of Germany in 1934 (yes, elected. So much for those who are depending on democracy to ensure their freedom and security) took a bankrupt country with almost 100 % unemployment and in the space of 5 years turned it into a major power that almost conquered the world, even though they were outnumbered 30 : 1. Again, this was done simply by taking the banks out of the money system and printing currency to pay for what the country could produce, only in this case it was done to fulfill his ambitions for power and not for the benefit of the people, and he had the support of the people for the simple reason that now they could work and they could eat, which they couldn’t do before.
At the outset of this economic crisis, our government had the perfect opportunity to tell the banks that since they could no longer handle the matter they would take the matter out of their hands and begin creating currency and credit for the benefit of the population, which would have resulted in prosperity for the entire country, such as none of us could possibly imagine at this point, but since the banks pay a large portion of the campaign funds of the politicians from both parties, and then pull their strings in order to get what they want, they were given $ 750,000,000 and more in bailout packages at the expense of the American people, in order to allow them to continue to enslave the American population as they have always done.
In order to establish and maintain a free market economy, you need a free, adequate and reliable supply of currency as well, where that currency will remain in circulation and not be incrementally removed from the economy by interest, only coming back into circulation with more interest. The single and only thing that we need the state to do is provide that supply of currency on behalf of the population, so that money will no longer buy power and become a simple means of exchange to fuel the economy and provide equal opportunity to each person in that economy according to their intelligence, ability and effort in order to establish success for themselves. That is a free economy, what we have now and what is being perpetuated at the present time amounts to nothing more than involuntary servitude which has been created by a bunch of thieves and scam artists by charging us interest in order to use something that belongs to us in the first place, and under the circumstances, things can only get worse instead of better.
Stupid people, wake up and think, stop believing the bullshit you’ve been told by those who would establish power over you and destroy your freedom and figure out whats being done to you. Problem is that 99 % of the people in this world and in this country are absolutely terrified of having to think for themselves, and need to be told what to do, and thats why the enemies of our freedom and prosperity are so successful, and this is after all the definition of a “normal” person, as its the one thing they all have in common.
Best Regards; Dave.
Comment by David on 20 March 2009:
Correction to my last, the bailout package was 750,000,000,000, i missed the extra set of zeros. Assuming that about 1/3 of the population is working productively and actually paying for this, each of you that is just paid $ 7,500.00 so that you could continue to be screwed up the ass, and it will be much more by the time its done, so bend over, or tell the politicians who are helping them do this to you, and whom you supposedly elected to represent your interests, that you’ve had enough, and do what you have to to make it stop. A good solution would be for everyone in the country to simply stop making their mortgage and credit payments all at once and defend their homes if and when the banks came to foreclose, that would effectively put the culprits out of business and force the state to act for our benefit, but it isn\’t going to happen either as people simply aren\’t intelligent enough to act collectively for their own good.
Dave.
Comment by Gernot on 26 March 2009:
I got a good intro out of the article to back up my other readings. Thank you.
@David: read Carl Menger’s “On The Origins of Money”. It’s on the Mises Institute website. That should give you food to change your thoughts somewhat.
Comment by Jerry Wells on 27 March 2009:
Is a 1776 Revolution the answer?
Comment by Meg on 1 April 2009:
After looking at our economic system, I’ve drawn a few conclusions. If the reader can solve the problems stated below, I would be very interested to hear the solutions.
A free market has never existed on earth. There are no “good old days” when America had a free market.
The proponents of a free market say government regulation causes all the problems. If we could just get government off the backs of business and industry and have an unregulated free market, wow, the economy will boom.
Solve this:
A regulatory agency (regulation) is the method by which industry and government collude to create the rules of misconduct. Result: crony capitalism or socialism for the wealthy and connected (bottom up socialism).
An unregulated free market is the method by which industry colludes among itself to create the rules of misconduct while government stands by idly. Result: crony capitalism or socialism for the wealthy and connected (bottom up socialism).
In either scenario of a free market (regulated or unregulated), the people get the short end of the economic stick.
Adam Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise the prices.”
So for those of you who delude yourself into thinking government is the bad guy and industry is the poor shackled good guy, let me remind you of the “revolving door between industry and government”. They’ve merged, it’s inevitable.
No matter how a free market operates (regulated or unregulated) it will always result in crony capitalism or socialism for the wealthy and connected (bottom up socialism).
There has never been a time in our history when the wealth hasn’t been concentrated in the hands of 5% of the nation’s people.
It’s an economic system that uses the same psychology as the lottery. Every so often one of the little people makes into the top 5%, and all the other suckers keep buying tickets.
Point to any time in history where “real wealth” was attained by other than the top 5%. There isn’t. We have boom bust cycles for a reason. Credit expansion is how the middle and lower classes are sedated into thinking they are gaining wealth. Credit suppresses wages, industry gets to keep a larger and unfair amount of profits while collecting interest on the money loaned. It’s really clever.
This last boom in our economy people were able to buy all kinds of stuff, homes, cars, big screen TVs using credit. At the same time, real wages flat lined, but nobody noticed because they could use credit and get second mortgages on falsely inflated housing prices.
We’re suckers. Again, who got richer, the top 5%.
Government won’t protect citizens who become zombies or cower in fear behind their TV sets. Industry surely has no interest in anything other than profit. If you doubt that, look at HMOs. The only check to the inevitable imbalance tilted toward industry and the rich is a strong empowered labor movement and a citizenry who takes to the streets in protest.
We constantly hear our law makers and captains of industry sneer at the thought of America becoming like a “European socialist democracy”. Well, have you checked out France lately? They have their economic problems, too, but all of the French people have health care (socialized health care insurance), 30 vacation days plus holidays paid, guilt free sick leave (a French person can’t even relate to showing up at work sick and infecting everyone else), 35 hour work week.
Thier health care is the “best” in the world and it cost less than our current system. They have socialized health care insurance and complete freedom of choice when it comes to the doctor they choose and the treatment they receive. Do they pay high taxes, yes. Do we pay high taxes, yes. Who are the suckers?
I think it’s about time we have top down democratic socialism in this country the way the founding fathers intended. Since an out of balance economy is inevitable, damn, why are we too dumb to shift the balance toward ourselves?
I’ll end with these quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
“We are all the more reconciled to the tax on importations, because it falls exclusively on the rich, and with the equal partition of intestate’s estates, constitutes the best agrarian law. In fact, the poor man in this country who uses nothing but what is made within his own farm or family, or within the United States, pays not a farthing of tax to the General Government, but on his salt; and should we go into that manufacture as we ought to do, he will pay not one cent.” –Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1811. ME 13:39
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a
trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1812
Source:Liberty Quotes
Comment by David on 3 April 2009:
Thank you Meg;
You hit the nail on the head, in order to have a free market we must have a free currency which is created and distributed and regulated for the benefit of the people. This is the single and only thing that we actually need any form of government to do, and the one thing that they simply won’t do as our elected officials are either believing the bullshit thats being perpetuated by the 1 % of the 5 % that control our banking and money system in order to maintain their power over us, just as most people on this site seem to believe as well, or because they have had bribes and campaign funds paid by these interests and are simply doing as they are told since favors are owed.
Of this 1 % of the 5 %, there is not a single one of them that actually builds anything, fixes anything or feeds anyone and they are simply parasites which consume the vast majority of what those of us do produce, and force our government into taxation in order to pay for things that should be paid for simply be creating and distributing our currency. The only reason this is possible is that they have been allowed to have control of our currency, credit, and its distribution, which has given them power over our economy and where there is power, freedom can’t exist because the two are opposites and can’t occupy the same space. The current economic depression, as well as every other this country has ever experienced has been created by them simply by removing the money from circulation that people need in order to trade with, and this is single and only reason for it, as our production capacity hasn’t changed one bit. In view of the current president “they” managed to elect, who considers himself a “citizen of the world” in his own words, as opposed to an American, i expect that the purpose in this is to try and drive the American population down to a point where they will be willing to give up their constitution and their political freedom in order to become part of some UN sponsored “New World Order”, in order to be able to eat. If successful America will cease to exist and become like every other miserable country on the planet in which no one has a hope in hell of every accomplishing anything in their lives that could possibly make them a worthwhile thing.
Gernot, what is the point in debating and studying a complicated and badly designed machine that simply cannot function, keeps breaking down over and over again, and then putting our time and effort into getting it going just so that it can break down another time ?. Best to simply get rid of it, and design and build a new one that will actually work, and preferably make it simple enough to not give us problems. Money is not real nor does it have any intrinsic value, its simply an artificial means of exchange that allows a diverse range of people to trade with each other and it can be created and managed in any manner we choose. It should be created and managed simply to fulfill its single and only useful function, and for the benefit of the entire population and not as a means to power for 1 % of the 5 % at the expense of everyone else. If this nation would get simply get rid of it’s parasites, then it would once again have a healthy body, and that is also the only way it can ever become so, if it doesn’t, then it must inevitably die as the parasite will just continue to grow and consume more and more until there is nothing left to feed the body, and it seems we are approaching that point very quickly now. The problem is that the parasites live in terror of us figuring that out and are doing all that they can in order to eliminate our political freedom as they have our economic freedom before enough people understand this and decide to do something about it while they are still able to do so.
Jerry, i wish this was not the case and i hope that i’m wrong and that it wont be necessary, but i expect that before then end of the next 8 years, we will either have another 1776 revolution, or that America, it’s constitution and what freedom is left here now will cease to exist. In this past election, they had two candidates in place who’s first priority was to take away any and all means that our population might have to defend their freedoms (forget the campaign promises and other bullshit and look at their voting records on past issues, they speak for themselves, problem is that only 1 in 100,000 people who voted actually did that and knew what they were voting for, and most of the ones who did would not have voted because they were not given a choice). The single and only thing which gives me hope that America may yet survive is the fact that the day our current President was elected, people were flocking through the doors of every gun shop in this country and buying up every handgun and “assault weapon” that they could get their hands on. This means that a good percentage of the American people are on their guard, see something coming, and are willing to spend their last dollar to make sure they have the means to defend what freedom they have left, and for this i am very proud of the American people, as regardless of what level of ignorance may exist among the general population, they may yet survive out of love for their country and their desire for freedom.
We will always have the 5 % that you spoke of Meg, and thats about the percentage of the population that actually has the will and ability in order to accomplish something in their lives, but that is a good thing too, as if we did indeed have a free economy, the only possible way to become part of that 5 % would be by producing something that people can use, and its because of this 5 % who create the work, the products, the trade and the business that the 95 % are able to survive. The trick is eliminating the 1 % of the 5 % who have used their use control of our countries currency to enslave its population and establish power for themselves, which they have done economically, and are attempting to do politically as well, and give each and every person an equal chance to become part of that 5 % according to their own ability, effort, will and determination. Then maybe that 5 % could become 10 or 20% and possibly even more. If this could be done, each and every one of us, from the least to the greatest could experience prosperity such as we have never imagined. Unlike France, i expect that we could also have a universal health care system, and do it without the 75 or 90% taxation that exists there and in every other social democracy. (If anyone thinks were paying high taxes here, you haven’t a clue what they can be and what they will be very soon, and don’t believe everything you are told about socialized medicine either, i come from one of these places, and its all bullshit being perpetuated by the people who would like to establish the same power over us as their counterparts in these countries have over their populations. People here have no clue what actually goes on in the rest of the world and if they did they would live in terror of it happening here. When you see your 18 year old children killing themselves the day they graduate from high school because they know its the only good option they have for themselves, you’ll know what i’m talking about and not until then). This, and everything else could be paid for simply as a means to put the currency we needed into circulation to make up for the perpetual economic growth that simply having enough would generate. Lol for those who say this couldn’t work, just look at the annual profits of the banks compared to the national budget, get rid of them and that money is ours to use for our own benefit, a 6 year old could figure that out, why can’t you ?.
Free market, free economy ? bullshit, they never existed here, except for the short time prior to the revolution that i mentioned in my previous, and a short time afterwards until “big money” became established and figured out how to buy power for itself. Can we have them ?, yes we can, simply by doing the same thing the 13 colonies did back then today, and creating money for the benefit of the people, and keeping enough in circulation to pay for what we can produce. Will we ever have them ? probably not, i expect that eventually the 99 % of the population who are too stupid and too lazy to think for themselves will get pushed to the point of defending their political freedom, and i expect that if they do they will win, and that freedom will survive for a short time longer, but they will neither be wise enough or responsible enough to actually think and figure out how to properly secure their freedom and make things work for their own benefit, and once again allow those seeking to establish power over us and our economy to do so and let the cycle begin again.
With that being said, we do still have our constitution and a degree of political freedom which does not exist anywhere else in the world at this point, and this is the only country left in which it is still possible for a person to accomplish some of the things in their lives which would make them a productive and worthwhile thing. Only problem is that our banks have now taken all of the money out of the system that we all need in order to do so, and our politicians won’t put it back.
Good quotes from Thomas Jefferson Meg, all of his fears have come to pass, and in violation of our freedom, our county, the will of its founding fathers and everything it represents. While we are sending our military to fight enemies oceans away, we are making monthly payments to those who will truly destroy us, and our politicians, when they had the perfect opportunity to take control of our monetary system and solve the problem once and for all, chose instead to further tax us, and give the money to the same people who have created all of our problems in the first place, so that they can keep on doing so, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense does it ?, but then for sense and reason to come into play people actually have to think and figure out what is going on instead of believing what they are told, and that is the difficulty.
Best Regards; Dave
Comment by sunstar on 21 April 2009:
The phrase \"free market economy\" is central to the discussion here. And the word \"free\" is at the core of the phrase. Almost by definition we assume any restriction, regulation, guidance from the government would therefore be counterproductive. Perhaps the phrase was an unfortunate one from its inception, since most disagreements about the subject seemed to be based on an ideal of \"absolute freedom\". In the real world, among real human beings, with real human foibles, the idea of absolute freedom fails of its own weight.
We have, in this country (Is America a machine or an ecosystem?) freedom to bear arms. Yet we\’ve found that even that freedom requires government control. (Don\’t, please, argue the point. If you truly believe that arming to the teeth every citizen in the US would eliminate or even lessen armed robberies, murder, and mass killings, there\’s really no reasoning with you.)
How and by whom is it determined that regulation could not be an effective, useful part of an \"ecosystem\"? Or that an ecosystem cannot be affected for better or worse by outside forces? Is anyone here willing to predict that there will be fewer black swans if the government would step out of the picture and treat the \"free market ecosystem\" as untouchable?
Comment by Dean West on 21 April 2009:
Sunstar,
You say, \"the idea of absolute freedom fails of its own weight\" but neglect to say why. Frankly, there\’ve been many books describing how a free society could exist without a government (eg. \"The Market for Liberty\" by Morris and Linda Tannehill) and history shows that societies have existed without governments.
You may have found that in speaking of guns \"even that freedom requires government control\", but not everyone else has found that. Many thoughtful and intelligent people have proposed systems wherein men and women could live in peace, even with no restrictions on what arms they bear. I do not believe that our Founders – who penned no \"excepts\" in the 2nd amendment – were men who could not be reasoned with.
Would there be fewer black swans if the government stepped out? Well, what there\’d be principally is fewer instances of institutionalized injustices. Sure, there\’d still be bad people doing bad things, but at least we\’d all know they were bad, and not have to deal with the majority of the population thinking the bad people were really okay since they had government titles.
Take care,
Dean
Comment by sunstar on 22 April 2009:
Dean,
\". . . history shows that societies have existed without governments.\" I\’m trying to stay grounded in the real 21st century world here. Before government existed,societies existed:That\’s true. But what kinds of societies existed before government? What progress has government enabled that lack of government did not?
I\’ll stand by my statement that \"In the \’real world\’, among real human beings, with real human foibles, the idea of absolute freedom fails of its own weight.\" It has to. We\’re a nation of laws because without laws we couldn\’t be a nation. Some of the laws are imperfect as are some of the people applying them (real human foibles). But would we be better off with absolute freedom? You say a free society \"could exist\", but he key word there is \"could\". It\’s theory. Not real world.
The way I understand it, the only way the \"free market\" really works as promised is without regulation. Add a regulation and the first words you hear are \"Well, the \’free market\’ isn\’t working as it could because of regulations.\" It\’s an all-purpose excuse. Prayer can heal. But when it doesn\’t, you hear \"Prayer didn\’t fail. You failed. You didn\’t pray long enough, or hard enough, or sincerely enough.\" Same thing.
\"Well, what there\\’d be principally is fewer instances of institutionalized injustices.\" There\’d be more \"instances of [non-]institutionalized injustices? And I don\’t buy the idea that there are too many people left in this country who believe government is made up of only good people. Sure thing now is there aren\’t too many who think any of the Wall Street moneymakers can be trusted to do the right thing. My question still stands: Would there be fewer Black Swans in an absolutely free free market?
Re: The Second Amendment. I look at the \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed\" as a clear statement. Requiring registration does not \"infringe\" on your right to \"keep and bear\". It would be an infringement if that registration would be used to keep weapons out of the hands of \"law-abiding\" citizens. But the Second doesn\’t say \"the right of [law-abiding] people to keep and bear arms.\" Should criminals be allowed to possess weapons? Should there be an exception? Without laws/regulations,like the Gun Control Act of \’68 criminals of all types would be legally allowed to \"bear arms\". Is the act wrong? Did the Founders use the right wording? Is the Constitution, the core of our \"government\", with the legislative branch penning laws appropriate to the times, and the judiciary branch deciding whether the laws are constitutional the right or the wrong way to go?
sunstar
Comment by David on 25 April 2009:
I stongly disagree with Sunstar on this one, the simple philosophy that freedom must fail under its own weight is typical of a person who is completely and totally incapable of thinking for themselves, fails to look and see what is going on around them and in the rest of the world, and is simply accepting and believing politically correct nonsense being perpetrated by exactly those groups and individuals who’s objective is to take away our constitution and our freedoms and establish absolute power and control over us, as they have in virtually every other country in the world.
In regards to the gun control issue, Firstly, the purpose of the second amendment was to give the population the military capability to overthrow any government that would attempt to pose a threat to their continued freedom, it has nothing to do with crime, and that is the least of our worries as well. According to this, the population should be in possession of every military arm in existence short of weapons of mass destruction, and in Switzerland, which is the only country in the world where our second amendment has actually been put into practice, they are as well (or at least were, i don’t know if the remaining countries in the EU have managed to bully them into giving up this right or not by now,i know they were trying), and in fact the state issues the arms to the population for them to keep in their homes, so they will be immediately available for the defense of their homes and their country and fellow citizens.
In regards to the crime issue we do not have a crime problem is America. Crime is caused by gun control and depriving the population of the means to defend against it, and in the process secures power for a state that would act against the freedoms and the interests of its people, and that is the real worry. Any F*cking idiot can look at the crime statistics from Canada, the United Kingdom, Mexico or any other place you care to name where the population is denied he right to keep and bear arms and figure them out per capita according to population and you will see that they are 5, 10 and 100 times higher than they are anywhere in the United States, and the highest crime rates in America, as insignificant as they may be compared to other places, also occur in the cities and states with the most gun control regulations as well. If you want to get rid of crime then eliminate all gun control, let the criminals have them and in the process make it easy for everyone else to get them as well, just let them buy the damn things with no paperwork involved, we outnumber the criminals 1000 : 1 and in a year they will all either be dead of out of business, simple solution. The entire concept of modern gun control was invented by Adolf Hitler for the purpose of securing his power, and any politician who believes in or attempts the same has the same purpose in the matter, but as long as stupid people don’t look and think and figure out whats going on or whats being done to them, and simply believe what they are told and that its being done for “our own good” then they will be successful and our freedom and country will not survive, and there are a great many people who are too afraid of having to think in order to do that.
In regards to laws, well we are dealing with two very simple concepts here, freedom and power, they are exactly opposites, as are good and evil and are in fact the same things, and one can only exist at the expense of the other. Under our current economic system, money buys power, and this is exactly the cause of our current problems as well, as the people who have bought the power with the money are manipulating it to buy more power for themselves at the expense of our freedom, and as per my previous, if the currency in this country was simply created and administered for the benefit of the people and by the people this problem and threat to our freedom would be eliminated as well, so it all comes down to a very simple thing. On the political end of things, Laws only serve to create power at the expense of freedom, so why should anyone have the power to make them ? Why do we need laws, when we have individual rights and freedoms ? If someone kills me, he has violated my right to life and justice becomes enforceable, we don’t need a law that says you can’t kill. If someone steals from me, he has violated my right to acquire and hold property, again, justice becomes enforceable based on my right, you don’t need a law that says you can’t steal. Where someone has the power to make laws that say you cant kill and steal, they also have the power to make laws that say you can’t possess the means to defend your freedom and security, and they can make laws that say you cannot do, say, read or think pretty much anything else as well. They can also make laws that deprive you of means and property that you have legitimately earned in order to ensure that you will remain dependent on them and further subject to their power, which is the fundamental basis and function of socialism. I can see the need for minor traffic regulations established by consensus in order to ensure reasonable order and safety on our roadways, but beyond that, i don’t seen any reason why we should need laws establishing any form of major crime. Laws can be established to enforce our rights and freedoms, but they already exist without the laws, and since they can be enforced on the basis of those rights and freedoms themselves, laws seem completely redundant. Since laws can also be used to establish major crimes simply because they represent a threat to someones power, they become a very dangerous thing to our freedom and without anyone having the power to make them our freedom would be secure. Think about it, think long and hard, and think about all the other incredibly stupid things that are done by society simply in order to secure power for someone or because they have always been done that way and how they can be changed and made to work, with our freedom becoming more secure in the process. Another thing to consider here is the crime created by laws themselves, organized crime was established simply and only because of alcohol prohibition in the 1930′s and is currently sustained by the illegal drug trade and its exactly the laws making the drugs illegal that keep them in business. I would be willing to bet money that if they were simply legalized, there would not be one single additional drug user over what there is today, and probably fewer, and each and every criminal organization from the smallest street gang to the largest drug cartel would have been instantly put out of business, and since these are the ones responsible for the vast majority of murders in this country, and the drug users they sell to are forced to steal to support their habits because of the exorbitant prices resulting from the drugs being illegal we would also have eliminated the vast majority of murders and property crimes in this country as well This makes an awful lot more sense than depriving people of the means to defend against the crime, and thereby making it easier for the criminals to create more of it, but again if this is done it will be at the cost of someones power. Laws accomplish two things and two things only, they create crime and cost us freedom, and there is absolutely nothing that can be accomplished that cannot also be done by simply enforcing the individual rights and freedoms that already exist without them.
The great men who established this wonderful country were the first and also the last in human history to ever launch an experiment in establishing individual freedom and we are the first and only population in the world who has ever experienced what that actually is, and they were also the only men in human history whom i truly admire, as their cause was just and their intentions pure. It was an experiment though and they knew this as well, and if you’ll look at some of their statements they were very worried that the freedom they had established would be corrupted by power and lost, and they were also well aware that they had not done enough to secure it, they just didn’t know how at that time. They left it to us to watch and learn what would develop from their efforts, and add our own efforts to theirs in securing the freedom they attempted to establish for us, by eliminating threats to it that would develop in the course of time which they could not anticipate, and making that freedom secure as they knew it was not.
Each and every one of the problems we experience can be broken down to very simple things and made easy to solve in the process. The more power we allow, the less freedom we will have, and to establish more of it instead of less will involve eliminating someones power. This should be the universal purpose of everyone who values what freedom. Once we are rid of the power we are rid of the problems as well, as its the power that invariably creates them in order to secure more power, and this is the source of every evil thing that exists in this world. Conversely, anything good that has ever existed has been established by destroying the power that would have prevented it from happening.
People like Sunstar pride themselves in offering complicated analysis of the problems we are experiencing in our country at this point as they think it demonstrates the intelligence and knowledge they deceive themselves into thinking they possess. All Sunstar has done is believe and memorize politically correct nonsense which has been established by the very people that are his / her own worse enemies, and there has not been a single ounce of independent thought or reason going into this persons conclusions, as these conclusions would not be possible were this the case. It is the realm of a fool and an idiot to complicate a simple thing and it is exactly such complication that will deceive the remaining 99 % of the population who are afraid to think and reason for themselves into believing that our problems are too complex to resolve except at the cost of their freedom.
The problem is like Sunstar, 99 people in 100, are absolutely terrified of having to think and simply believe and follow what they are told, and since they will not think, and they will not learn, and want instead to be told what to think and what to do, the people who would wish to establish power over us and destroy the freedoms that have been established are ready and willing to tell them, and the believe and obey. When the freedoms are gone, and their children are killing themselves the day they graduate from high school as they know they have absolutely no hope of accomplishing anything in their lives that could possibly make them a worth while thing, these people will wonder why, and they themselves will be the cause of it. As am immigrant, i have seen this happen and know the process through which it comes, and it is happening here right now, and will happen in a very short time unless someone does something to stop it. The problem is are the 1 % of us who think enough to accomplish this ?. I don’t think we are and i cant see how America is going to survive at this point, and that will be the end of the only country left in the world where a persons life can possibly be a worthwhile and productive thing.
Best Regards; Dave
Comment by sunstar on 27 April 2009:
Thank you David. But I’ve given up trying to untwist your syntax. I spent about five minutes trying to discern the antecedent of the first “this” in the second sentence of paragraph 2, and having found none I was left with the ridiculous conclusion that you’re somehow equating how restrictions succeed or fail in a country of 9M (Sweden) with how gun restrictions might succeed or fail in a country of 300M. And there was some silly reference to giving all citizens the right to the “possession of every military arm in existence short of weapons of mass destruction.” Again, for lack of clear context, I couldn’t see the bearing of that proposal on anything else in the paragraph. And why, exactly, should we draw the line at “weapons of mass destruction.”? If we can “keep” them, and “bear” them, what, from your point of view, is wrong with all of us having them?
Sorry, I had to stop at paragraph 2. I couldn’t read further. I cannot spend more time responding to you on this topic.
Comment by David on 28 April 2009:
Hehehehe, yes Sunstar i thought so, to read further would cause you to think and actually force you to draw some of your own conclusions as opposed to what you\’ve been taught to believe. You just continue to believe and trust and i will continue to doubt and question, and hopefully somewhere in the process something good and useful can be established from it, and we will see whether we will secure more freedoms in the future or lose the ones we have, but your side who would cause us to lose them are definitely in the majority. It works fine in switzerland (not sweden), which has one of the most diverse populations of any place in the world and 4 official languages, and whether 6 9 or 300 million the principles are still the same, and crime, while we have very little here in America compared to other places, is virtually non existent there. The reason i draw the line at WMD\’s is that they are of absolutely no possible use in defending the freedom of the population if it should become necessary, no purpose in destroying what you are trying to save. The purpose again is to for the general population to pose a significant enough threat to those who would establish power over them to prevent them from doing so, but then you love the idea of power don\’t you ?, it makes you feel like a very great and important person to be able to dictate to someone what they may and may not do. Personally id rather help them accomplish something good or useful that they wanted to do themselves and have their blessings instead of their hatred, and if i can\’t do that then i\’ll just leave them alone.
Dave
Comment by sunstar on 28 April 2009:
David–
Aren’t the amendments aimed at “individual” rights? Are WMD’s, properly wielded, always ineffective in defending the freedom of the “individual” who possesses them?
In your application/interpretation, isn’t the greatest threat actually posed by the few who can purchase and use the most powerful weapons? There will inevitably be bad guys in a “real-world” scenario; some of them will be quite wealthy. Watch out for the Mr. Richie Riches and their armed-to-the-teeth armies of mercenaries.
Back to that second paragraph of your previous entry: Before you go on with another lengthy entry, try to clarify the word “this” I pointed out , would you?
Comment by David on 29 April 2009:
Hi Sunstar;
The “this” (which would have seemed pretty clear to me in view of the preceding sentence, but maybe not) is in reference to the second amendment giving the people the military capability to overthrow a government which would establish itself as an enemy of the constitution. Actually the modern practical application of this, what i would like to see but will probably never happen here, and would fulfill this intent perfectly is exactly what Switzerland has done. They have essentially organized the entire population into their military, were the state issues their equipment (ensuring the arming of the entire population) the smaller items are kept at home and the larger artillery, tanks, aircraft etc., are stored locally where the people have access to them. This pretty much guarantees that the ultimate power is in the hands of the population itself and that the state has none, except to act with their approval, and those who are not willing to participate in the system have a choice of paying defense taxes in support of those that do or leaving, its considered an obligation that each citizen has toward maintaining their collective freedom which is exactly the case. They involve themselves in the affairs of no one, and have survived two world wars without any foreign power setting foot on their soil. They leave everyone else alone and their system ensures that they will be left alone as well, as their system poses a great enough threat, both to foreign powers and powers within their own state, in order to ensure this. To me this would constitute the definition of freedom, on a individual, national, or international level, simply to be left alone to live as we choose provided we allow everyone else to do the same.
Since this has not happened though, the best and only hope we have is that our population is still well enough armed to at least pose a significant threat to those who would establish that power, and a great percentage of the population here has at least some means along with the will to do so, and this is the single and only reason that the freedoms we still have in America have survived thus far, and this is absolutely essential if they are to continue as well.
What i’m seeing now, is large banks, conspiring with our politicians, whom they have “bought”, in an attempt to establish a political system where the single and only purpose of each individual will be to serve the state, which in turn will be controlled by these banks, as has happened in virtually every other country in the world thus far. At this point all of our lives will be something we would be better off without. They have no choice but to progress toward this end, as their fear is that eventually enough of the population will figure out that we simply don’t need them, decide to get rid of them and start administering our currency for the benefit of the people. Again, the single only thing that has prevented this from happening already is that, even though it would currently be a situation of small arms going up against aircraft and artillery, the population still has the military means to make this very expensive for them. It’s a simple world that operates on a few simple principles and the only means to keep power under control is fear, and thus far enough of the population has maintained the means to instill that fear.
Dave
Comment by sunstar on 29 April 2009:
David
Personally, I\’d be hesitant to oversimplify the explanation behind Switzerland\’s past few war free centuries. I \’believe\’ money (esp.) and trade have played major roles that you seem more than willing to ignore.
You\’ve pretty much avoided all the questions in my most recent post, so here\’s a variation. If you have five hundred semi-automatic rifles, would you feel safer because some guy, perhaps your neighbor, who has an inherited fortune and also earns three times as much as you do, decides to purchase 1000 semi-automatic rifles and a large enough army to fire them at you or anyone else because that\’s the way he wants to express his freedom this week?
The Militia Act of 1792 wasn\’t a bad idea–for its time. Followed precisely, gun ownership and use would probably be right where it should be now. But things change, as things are wont to do, and, because of the growth of local police forces and our present National Guard that old militia went the way of the dodo bird–as did, I assure you, the possibility that the population or any part of it could successfully revolt against government forces and survive.
The Constitution wasn\’t a bad idea–for its time. And fortunately, with a mostly functioning system of checks and balances, a congress to make laws as necessary, an decent executive every once in a while, and the framework for amending the document, it still serves us well. It\’s not a dodo bird, and so far it\’s handling the gun question as well as it can in the face of 50 states each enforcing different regulations.
But the country and its constitution are facing politically powerful and self-interested organizations that do what they can to knock down whatever worthwhile gun regulations may surface. These organizations are playing a dangerous whackamole game with the lives of Americans. They use the ridiculous slippery slope argument that any law, no matter how sensible, will bring about the ultimate confiscation of our arms.
Cheers
Comment by David on 29 April 2009:
Okay Sunstar;
Theres little point in you and me debating this back and forth on here, because neither one of us will change each others minds, we belong to opposite segments of humanity and have absolutely nothing in common, and i dont have time to do this repeatedly either, but i will answer this.
The situation you described with the guy and the army and 1000 automatic weapons is exactly what exists right now, the only problem is that it is many times worse than what you describe. We currently have a situation of large and powerful banks who have established themselves by maintaining control of a commodity that does not belong to them buying our politicians, rigging our elections so that we have no choice as to whom or what to vote for as both will yield the same result, and this last one was the perfect indication of that, attempting to control our government and make our laws through the control they have established over our politicians and media, and thus also controlling our military and police forces and the weapons that that entails, and in the process attempting to pass the laws you so strongly support in order to first restrict and then eliminate any means that the population might have to defend against them so that they can force us into a state of complete and total servitude, before the population simply figures out that we don’t need them as they perform absolutely no useful and practical function, and simply decides to get rid of them while they still can so that they can have for themselves the prosperity they have been taking from us.
One guy with 1000 semi automatic rifles and a small private army ?, no he doensn’t worry me in the least, we have much greater things to fear than that (btw that’s exactly what exists in Mexico at the present time with the drug cartels who are executing people by the dozens per day, because of the gun controls you would like to see here as on one there has the means to defend against them, read the news and see for yourself). Even if the guy with the 1000 rifles and private army decides to kill me (and this is unlikely as i would have no intent of giving him any reason to do so as long as he is leaving anyone else alone as well), he would have done me a good turn as this is infinitely preferable to living with the end result that your gun controls will bring about. But, you and your kind will continue to make laws, and will remove our freedoms one freedom at a time by doing so and in the end the end result will be exactly that for the American people, and our children will curse us for having brought them into the world, just as me and my generation cursed our parents for having done so where i came from, only then there will be no place for them to escape to as you will have made America the same as all the rest.
I don’t know if i have the exact wording right here, but to quote/paraphrase Benjamin Franklin. “Those who would sacrifice their freedom for security, deserve neither freedom nor security” and for those who believe as you do this will be exactly the end result once your ambitions are accomplished, no freedom, and no security either as our means to establish and enforce both will no longer exist, and we will simply be slaves to, and completely at the mercy of those who wish to establish this power.
Dave
Comment by sunstar on 30 April 2009:
If we are to believe wikiquote, Franklin’s statement comes in many variations. I’d be very interested to know where you stood as the previous administration pursued illegal wiretaps and sacrificed the concept of habeus corpus when the country was seeking “security”.
“you and your kind will continue to make laws”
Should we stop making laws? And what will “you and your kind” be doing? Complaining about the laws? Another Founding Father, John Adams, said we’re “A government of laws and not of men.” It’s a government of laws “because” men, and women, (in the real world where most of us live) can’t always be trusted– even if they go to church every Sunday.
Here’s the “funny’ thing. We, the “electorate”, (Does that include you?) choose representatives every two years and senators every six and a president every 4. And we elect local and state government officials. Yet somehow, you say, the banks and powerbrokers control everything. . . .
If this be true, how so? How. . . does. . . this. . . happen? Is it because we don’t have enough guns? Or is it because it’s a real world and we (including you?), the electorate, are human and subject to human weaknesses. We re-elect our guy/woman because he does more for our district or our state. So, our guy stays in office for years, gets more power year after year, and becomes a more attractive target for lobbyists. Voila–you get the source of corruption. Coming from where? The electorate wanting better things for themselves. Being selfish. Being human. Being real.
Likely if we lived without laws and without government we wouldn’t have all these problems. . . Then I’ll bet all those weapons would really come in handy. . .
Congrats! You were really on a roll in your second paragraph, second ‘sentence’.170 plus words.I could hardly catch my breath reading it. In that one screed you outlined the entire conspiracy as you see it. I’ve outlined in my third and fourth paragraphs above my theory of why we end up with some bad laws and some corrupt politicians who are the targets of all kinds of creepy lobbyists from corporations and organizations like Bank of America and the NRA.
You’re right about one thing. We don’t have anything in common.
Comment by David on 30 April 2009:
Sunstar;
This is actually worth responding too, not for your sake but for some of the others who might be reading this here, as were getting into some of the basic definitions of what constitutes a free society.
Well Re: the previous administrations efforts in the name of “security” i object to them as strongly as i object to your gun controls. I also expect that in view of some of the administrations other efforts which have been very effective in preventing further terrorist attacks on our country, albeit, very expensive and economically destructive, that these violations of individual rights have accomplished very little in terms of their designed objectives, and were completely unjust and also unnecessary in view of the other and sufficient actions being taken.
Re: our political / electoral system, yes, it does work very well, and this, and the fact that our population is prepared and willing to defend their freedom, are the reasons that we still have an acceptable degree of it as well. In other countries once elected with a majority, the head of state generally becomes god, so then it is easy for the banks and power brokers to control one man. Here, in order to gain the control over our political system they would seek, they would have to control not only the president but the voting majorities of the senate and congress as well and thus far this has been impossible, but they keep trying. This past presidential election was the perfect example of the control they are able to exert already as the people were denied their choice as to whom they wanted to vote for. Anyone who was watching the initial straw poles will have seen as i did, that Ron Paul was consistently coming in with around 40 % of the popular support VS a 9 – 15 % range for all of the other candidates. He was the only one running who was not owing his political career to the people who have created the majority of our problems and people participating in the staw poles knew this and where choosing him overwhelmingly. The republican party also knew that if they had let him run as their candidate they would have won the presidency with an 80 % majority, and most likely full control of the senate and congress as well, as he represented the change that the people wanted. Its blatantly obvious to any thinking person however, that they were told to throw the election rather than give him a chance, as he certainly represented a very dire threat to the existing powers in this country, and the media was also told not to give him any coverage as these people did not want the general public hearing what he had to say, so even though he stayed in the running right tell the end, the vast majority of people in America weren’t even aware of him. The simple fact that they already have the power to exert that kind of influence over our political system should be a cause for great alarm, as if they have this much now, what happens if they manage to gain more of it ?
All i can say is that thank God Obama won, as at least this way people are on their guard and are taking precautions against any further abrogation of their rights and freedoms. Obama himself knows that any action to prevent them from doing so would be political suicide, and himself has stated that any form of gun control measures at this time would not be politically viable, as much as he would like to bring them about. There is no arguing that the majority of the population concurs with me and would rather maintain the right to defend their homes and security themselves than trust some law in order to do that for them, and for this i am very proud of them and if they are to remain free it will be for this reason.
You envision a society where the actions of an individual are regulated and controlled by laws, and in this country to a certain extent they are, and the only reason that we have any freedom at all in America is that there are aspects to our constitution that have prevented laws being made in violation of the freedoms they establish, so thus far they have worked. As long as the power to make laws exists though, these freedoms are not secure either, as those who would take them from is are constantly trying to figure out how to circumvent the constitution and the freedoms it guarantees, as with the standard “socialist” interpretation of our second amendment, which has now been struck down by the supreme court.
I would think that in any truly free society, the single and only purpose of any form of government should be to establish control and regulate for the benefit of the people the things that we need collectively in order to function as a society. The most important of these is a currency which we need as a means of exchange so that a diverse range of people can trade with each other and thereby obtain the things they need, and as per some of my previous, they have given control of this essential commodity to private banks who have been manipulating it in their own interests and not the peoples, hence all of the economic problems we have been experiencing. There are also things like maintaining the public roadways so that we can travel efficiently from place to place, education, and many other functions that are absolutely essential for government to fulfill, and many of which they do fulfill very well at this point.
With that being said, if this society is to be truly free, then each individual comprising that society must have the absolute right to live his or her own life as they choose, without interference from society or anyone else, and when this right is violated, then it is the responsibility of society, on whatever level to enforce that right for each individual so that it can be maintained for all the others as well. This was the obvious intent of the founding fathers of our country, and is also something that the vast majority of the American public believes in and supports. The basis of many of our laws is exactly that, to enforce a persons right to life, liberty, to acquire and hold property, and so on, but since these rights already exist then justice is enforceable based on those rights alone, and the laws would seen unnecessary. Since laws can also be made that establish a crime without a victim and can be used to infringe on and abrogate our existing freedoms and the fundamental right to live our lives as we choose, i do believe that if this had occurred to our countries founding fathers they would have considered it and most likely have adopted such a principle in the establishment of this country. It would be an extremely effective way to secure our freedoms from people like yourself, and they all had a great concern over whether the freedoms they had established would last, as they knew they were not secure by any means.
The gun control issue is a perfect example of this, and you simply refuse to look and acknowledge the effects of it, both in this country and the rest of the world. When you deny any person or segment of the population the right and the means to defend their freedoms, person and property, you give anyone else who still has this means the power to take them away. Its a self regulating thing as if everyone has them they no longer establish power, and if someone decides to abuse this right and bring harm to an innocent person, then there will also be many others capable of dealing with him as well. Anyone’s best hope in a situation like that is that if they are left in a position where they are unable to defend themselves that one of their neighbors will have the means to do so, and be able to come to their aid. Under your system they have the right to call the police and by the time they get there whatever is going to happen will already be done, so i think its time for a little reason and common sense here. You also completely ignore our own statistics, which indicate a massive increase in private firearms possession in the past number of decades, the majority of which constitute handguns and your dreaded “assault weapons”, along with a correspondingly steady decline in the crime and murder rates across the board. As i said earlier, you are also simply not willing to acknowledge the effects that the legislation you propose has had in other countries that have enacted it, nor the effects of the lack of it here, and there is no reasoning with you, but as i said, i’m posting for the benefit of the others who may be following this thread.
Now in my own instance, i spent the majority of my life admiring the principles of freedom which were established and existed in America and wishing that i could have them for myself, so that i would be free to live my life as i chose, and could use that freedom to accomplish things that could be of benefit to others, both toward their needs and toward their own continued freedoms as well. In doing so i left behind a home that i had known all my life and a wonderful family, so there was certainly great personal sacrifice involved, in addition the time and effort it took to make coming here possible, and my commitment to this country also extends long before as well, as i joined my own countries military in the days of the cold war, for the express purpose of defending the United States and the freedom that existed here, as part of my countries NATO commitment, even though i did not enjoy that freedom myself at that point. This was also the case with 90 % of the others in my regiment at the time, as our love was for America and the freedom that existed here, and for our own country we had nothing but hatred. For the most part, at this point i still have the freedom and the right to live my life as i choose that i came here for politically, and the economic difficulties we have at this point which are interfering with our ability to use that freedom to accomplish some good, are a result of problems created by private interests and not the country itself, so if these things can be dealt with somehow so that things will result in less power for these interests instead of more, then we will have created more freedom for ourselves in the process as well.
My question for you is, since you oppose the basic principles on which this country was founded, and desire to take away the freedoms which are enjoyed and supported by the vast majority of this countries population, why not simply do what i did, and immigrate to a place where things already are as you would want to make them here ? That would seem to solve the problem for everyone as you would have what you wanted and the rest of us could be left in peace. I can promise you that if you show up at the border of any social democracy in this world today, and request political asylum on the grounds that you are afraid of all the guns in America, that they will give it to you. They will then take you and make you part of their propaganda machine so that they can use you in order to perpetuate the same excuses in their own countries in order to justify the power they maintain over their population as you are trying to put forth here. You will be put on their i’m a good little communist social welfare system and be given a much finer house, a much better car, and far more money than the poor souls who are working to support this could ever dream of for themselves, and you will have it made. Things just as you want them to be and there will be no more need to worry about having to take away the freedoms from the American people that you so fear.
That sounds like a very peaceful and happy conclusion to things for both of us, don’t you think ?
You can come back if you wish and criticize my grammar, syntax and sentence structure, but my point has been made and enough has been said.
Dave
Comment by David on 30 April 2009:
One final thing Sunstar, and this further demonstrates your complete and total lack of reason in your political opinions, but you made a comparison between the lobbyists of the National Rifle Association, and those of bank and corporate interests. This is the most ludicrous statement that anyone could possibly make as the NRA exists and represents such a powerful lobby interest simply and only because of the membership and support it receives from the American public, and because a massive percentage of the American people, including myself, are members of and agree with and support the objectives of the organization. To me it would seem that they are one of the very few lobby organizations that we have in this country who actually do support the will and the interests of the American people and working against all the others who do not.
Once again, what are you doing in America ?. This country does not exist so that you can feel powerful by restricting the freedoms of it’s population against their will, you need to go somewhere else for that, a place that is established on principles that will allow you to do this.
Dave
Comment by sunstar on 30 April 2009:
David
\’. . .since you oppose the basic principles on which this country was founded, and desire to take away the freedoms which are enjoyed and supported by the vast majority of this countries population\’
I don\’t oppose the principles; I interpret them differently than you do. My God, man, if you\’re so aware of this country\’s basic principles, you must know that from the beginning opposing sides existed on even the smallest decisions made during the Constitutional Convention. You must know that compromises were made to achieve the final agreements that made the signing of the document possible. Don\’t preach to me \"opposing basic principles\" and \"tak[ing] away basic freedoms\" until you understand that we\’re a nation that thrives on opposing principles.
The \’First\’ Amendment (it comes first for a reason) deals with, among other things, the right to freedom of speech. But that freedom, is not absolute. For example, I do not believe one has the right to slander or libel another person. And the sane ones among us don\’t believe that child porn is protected speech. There are, believe it or not, those among us who feel the right is absolute. Maybe that works for them. But society, so far, has decided to make laws that limit slander, libel, and child pornography.
I\’ve never proposed taking away the \"right to bear arms\". But I do not believe the \"right to bear arms\" is unconditional. I do not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees psychotics the right to bear arms.I do not believe there\’s any language in the amendment that precludes gun registration or background checks.Your posts indicate that you think there should be no constraints on gun possession.
You see, we differ. I differ with people about taxes, in that I have the sense to understand that a country, from the ground up, needs money to function. And I know that money doesn\’t grow on bushes. Now those taxes may be misused to an extent, and I\’ve explained in my last post why I think that is so. But, believe it or not, there are those out there who think there should be no taxes. None. Talk about people who should go find another country to live in.
I differ with some about abortion. I think it \’should\’ be da*n hard to draw a line and say the life of the unborn comes first, no matter what. Some would require a woman of thirty, in the prime of her life–your wife lets say–to complete a pregnancy even though the act of giving birth would likely kill her. For some, everything must be black or white;there are no shades of gray. Because \"gray\" requires too much thinking.
Got to cut this short. You say: \". . . a massive percentage of the American people, including myself, are members of and agree with and support the objectives of the organization.\" David, the NRA has, by its own count, 4 million members. America\’s population is currently 304 million. Mathematics is a pretty straight forward discipline, wouldn\’t you say? It\’s not a foreign language. I would call to your attention that 4 million NRA members represents a mere 1.3% of the American population. That is not, I repeat, not \"a massive percentage of the America people\". Yet that organization, wields lobbying power in Washington way beyond its numbers. My comparison between business lobbying and NRA lobbying stands.
\"Now in my own instance, i spent the majority of my life admiring the principles of freedom which were established and existed in America and wishing that i could have them for myself. . .\" I apologize for any comments I\’ve made about your writing. I wasn\’t aware until this post that English is a second language for you.
sunstar
Comment by Quercus on 1 May 2009:
Both of you have done a lot of yaking. But the article is about black swans. Max says that black swans just happen, that maybe the frequency of them happening can be predicted to increase in parallel with government intervention in economics. He says that they \"happen\" along other debris created by conflicting elements within the \"ecosystem.\" Folks like Alex Jones, 911 Truthers, and North American Union and One World (new world order) alarmists, all build their messages around the idea that the current turmoil is designed to set the stage for fascist dictatorship. In other words, the black swans are actually \"genetically engineered\" so that we can marvel at their unusualness. While we marvel, the enemies of freedom prepare by constructing camps and mass graves, and create fear with disease germs, while formulating all of the means, directives, public relations and media manipulations (psych-ops) to build their case for the public\’s acceptance of martial law. What they are saying is that there will be a takeover–and it won\’t be in a generation or two. Maybe it will be in a month or two. Look at the disinformation: 90% of the guns the Mexican cartels use are from USA straw buyers who smuggle them out. It is really more like 15% to 18%. So why is the govt lying? To get us to concede that we need to give up our freedom to bear arms. Two \"swine flu\" deaths, and boom, forced vaccinations and what? maybe martial law. but create the fear. Get your neighbors in trouble for not going along with the program. It is ominous. My border patrol friend says to buy ammo and toilet paper–what you can\’t use yourself will be as good as gold when the \"time\" comes.
Comment by sunstar on 1 May 2009:
Quercus
Faith-based end-of-world predictions have been floating around for centuries. Many with specific dates attached have passed without event. To the extent that money seems to be our religion these days, it’s no surprise that economic doomsayers abound. I’ll take a skeptical view of “Alex Jones, 911 Truthers, and North American Union and One World (new world order) alarmists. . .” et alia. Let’s talk about them and their predictions a year from now.
I entered the discussion back on April 21 with the following: “The phrase \’free market economy\’ is central to the discussion here. And the word \’free\’ is at the core of the phrase. Almost by definition we assume any restriction, regulation, guidance from the government would therefore be counterproductive. Perhaps the phrase was an unfortunate one from its inception, since most disagreements about the subject seemed to be based on an ideal of \’absolute freedom\’. In the real world, among real human beings, with real human foibles, the idea of absolute freedom fails of its own weight.”
David and I couldn’t agree on that. Since then we’ve been “yakking” about many things–we don’t agree on. It’s like a TV program, Quercus: If you don’t want to watch, turn to another station.
Comment by David on 2 May 2009:
Hi Quercus;
Actually i wouldn’t worry too much at this point. Yes, there are many conspiracies that exist in this country, some very real and a great many more imagined, and many times its very difficult to tell the difference, so we just have to wait and see. I do agree that the current economic problems were an attempt by those who have the power to control our money system to beat the American population down to where they would be willing to give up their freedoms in order to be able to eat, but it has already backfired on them and would be impossible to effect at this time as they have already realized as well. The problem is they will keep trying again and again, unless we do something to take away the power that enables them to do so.
In view of some of my previous, before Sunstar came on here, the term “free market economy” is a myth established by those in control of our banking and money system, in the same manner as they have most of the population convinced that we actually need them in order to function as a society. With the means of exchange on which the economy functions being created, manipulated and controlled by private interests, who’s only desire is to create more and more power for themselves, how can that economy be free ?. If enough people ever figure this out and simply get rid of them, and manage to elect a government who will create, manage and distribute this means of exchange on behalf of the people and for everyone’s benefit, then we will have a free economy, where everyone who is part of it has an equal opportunity to establish success according to their ability, intelligence, and the amount of effort they put in. Then it will be you and me creating that currency by increasing our capacity to provide goods and services, instead of currency coming into circulation in the form of debt and then later removed with interest. If this ever did happen then our economy would simply continue to grow and generate more and more prosperity for the American people every year, instead of continually collapsing on itself. The problem is that the banks and the power brokers live in absolute terror of us figuring it out and are continually trying to establish the political power and control over our population to prevent us from being able to do anything about it, and creating unfounded fears and politically correct nonsense for people like Sunstar to believe so that they can help them do this.
The bottom line here is though, that by and large the people of America value their freedom above all else. They have no respect for power, and very little for laws, and instead value justice, and their right to live their lives as they choose without interference from government or society. Since they were denied what would have been their choice to vote for in our past presidential election, they voted for one bad thing to replace another bad thing, and then proceeded directly to their local gun shops and began buying up every weapon and round of ammunition they could get their hands on in preparation for defending their right to be left alone if it should become necessary. 6 months after the election this is still going on, as you have a very difficult time even finding a box of ammunition now as it is being snapped up as quickly as it can be manufactured and the instant it arrives at the dealer.
The bottom line is that the people have already solved the problem, by simply instilling the fear that they need to instill in those who would wish to remove our freedoms and striking terror into the hearts of those like Sunstar as well, who believe the propganda they have established to justify their power. Obama himself has stated that any further gun control measures at this time are not “politically viable”, and as much as he would like to bring them about, he knows full well that the American people will not line up at the door of the police station to turn in the guns that he outlaws as they have in every other country in the world, but will instead attempt to kill anyone who tries to take them from them. Quite simply, he is afraid that there are enough of us that he would have to kill in order to do this and that he might lose.
I simply cannot tell you how pleased and proud i am of the American people at this time, the words simply do not exist, and unlike the rest of the world, instead believing the lies of those who would promise to secure their freedom, and only establish more power at its expense, they have now, and have always, secured their freedom for themselves against and imminent threat. Thank you America !. Now if they can only think and figure out how to secure their economic freedom and establish what really will be a “free market economy” than that threat will cease to exist, and they will know the success and prosperity that they truly deserve.
There are only two kinds of people in this world. There are those who take pleasure in seeing others happy and successful, who will do what they can to establish this for themselves and those around them, and serve a cause greater than themselves. Then there are those who take pleasure in controlling and manipulating others, telling them what to do, denying them the things they want and a chance at success they would strive for, and inflicting whatever hardship, strife or misery they can on them so that they can “feel” powerful and in control.
There is no sense or reason to this thing, and their sole purpose in existing is to feed this need to “feel” powerful, sort of like sex and a 14 year old boy until he’s actually experienced it for the first time. Everything they say and do, as with Sunstar here, is said and done in an attempt to try and justify their need for power, they will do absolutely anything in order to try and secure it for themselves, and the single and only thing that will prevent them from doing so is fear. That fear has been established by the people themselves, and once again, thank you America.
Best Regards; Dave
Comment by sunstar on 2 May 2009:
Ever heard of the either/or fallacy,David? Yours is a classic example: “There are only two kinds of people in this world.” You then compound the problem by narrowing the choices two or three times within each choice. Let me walk you through your problem(s).
First, from Column A, “There are those who take pleasure in seeing others happy and successful, who will do what they can to establish this for themselves and those around them.” Some may call these good leaders. Would you? Then from Column B we have “Those who take pleasure in controlling and manipulating others, telling them what to do. . .” Let’s call them employers. You’d admit, I hope, that it’s difficult to be an employer without “controlling and manipulating others” and “telling them what to do”–else little would ever be achieved in the workplace. So the boss takes pleasure in that: Could you rightfully deny him enjoying his work? Don’t you want to enjoy the work you do?
It should come as no surprise that I don’t see a conflict between the leadership trait, and the employer trait–in fact, I believe most employers are leaders, but not every employer is a good leader. But one comes from Column A–your ‘either’ column) and one comes from Column B–your ‘or’ column. Are you beginning to see the problem?
Let’s use Ken Lewis, ex-CEO of BofA, to illustrate.
From Column A: Lewis,was a leader and an employer who, one could argue was “. . .serv[ing] a cause greater than [himself]–BofA, its shareholders and its board—just as a general in the USMC would follow the commander-in-chief for the greater cause.
From Column B: One might also argue–but it’s more of a stretch– that Lewis “. . .inflicted whatever hardship, strife or misery [he could] on others so that [he could] “feel” powerful and in control.”
In each of the preceding two paragraphs, you’d have to be inside Lewis’ mind to know the ‘truth’ of the matter. It’s like trying to prove “intent” in a court of law. You’ve reached conclusions in both cases for which you simply don’t have any evidence other than your own black/white theories.
Into this mix, throw in the fact that Lewis’ is the classic all-American story. His mother was a nurse, his father was a sergeant in the armed services. He started working off and on at age twelve. Like too many Americans, he’s divorced and remarried, has two children and two grandchildren, has basically worked within the same organization all his life, and worked his way to the top.
So can you give me a sensible explanation why he must be from either Column A or Column B but not from somewhere else, like Column C or Column D?
“They have . . . very little [respect] for laws, and instead value justice, and their right to live their lives as they choose without interference from government or society.
I think you’re trying to have it two or three ways at the same time here. If you want justice without laws, historically you’d likely have to depend on community approach to problem solving: arbitration,mediation,religious ritual, etc. And that’s darn hard to accomplish “‘without’ interference from . . .society” since community and society are virtually synonymous.
Question: If you take away power from the “forces” you identify, what happens to the power? Does it simply disappear? What was the last society that existed without power?
Finally: David wrote on(April 3)that “Free market, free economy ?[is] bullshit, they never existed here, except for the short time prior to the revolution that i mentioned in my previous, and a short time afterwards until until “big money” became established and figured out how to buy power for itself.”
On May 2 David wrote :”In view of some of my previous, before Sunstar came on here, the term “free market economy” is a myth.”
I said (April 21)”The phrase \”free market economy\” is central to the discussion here. And the word \”free\” is at the core of the phrase. Almost by definition we assume any restriction, regulation, guidance from the government would therefore be counterproductive. Perhaps the phrase was an unfortunate one from its inception, since most disagreements about the subject seemed to be based on an ideal of \”absolute freedom\”. In the real world, among real human beings, with real human foibles, the idea of absolute freedom fails of its own weight.”
You quibbled about the last 6 words, but we’re not far from general agreement on this. I say it can’t work because of human weaknesses, and you say it’s myth (pretty much what I’m saying).Your statement that I’ve quoted above from April 3 supports what I was stating. The “free” in “free market economy” is an unreachable ideal. As in the example you provide, you can aim at a “free market economy” you can try to put it into operation, but, in your words, “Free market, free economy ? bullshit, they never existed here, //except for the short time// prior to the revolution that i mentioned in my previous, and //a short time afterwards// until , in your words, “‘big money’ became established and figured out how to buy power for itself.” I’d put it differently: Greed, pure and simple, won out. And “that’s” why a free market economy won’t work without controls.
What, no responses to my previous post concerning the 1st and 2nd amendments?
Comment by David on 2 May 2009:
Yes Sunstar;
Actually this is the one thing that i can see us agreeing on, the problem is that you\\\’ve been believing and supporting the same bullshit that has been used by those who would prevent a \\"free economy\\" from happening, and the same things that have been used as an excuse to secure their power in every other place in the world to the extent where no one could ever make it happen.
As i stated, to have a \\"free market economy\\", you need the currency, the primary means of exchange, to be created, controlled and regulated by the people (the governments they elect), and for the benefit of all the people as well. Not by private interests that will use it to establish progressively more power for themselves. As i said, freedom and power can\\\’t exist in the same space, its always one at the expense of the other, so free economy = free currency, administered only and solely for the benefit of a free population. In this case the need is for the state to administer a \\"public\\" asset, so that it can benefit the population and not be used by \\"private\\" interests to establish \\"power\\" and \\"control\\" to deprive the population of their \\"individual freedom\\", as it has everywhere else. It\\\’s funny too, the people behind this use the philosophies of socialism to generate hatred against people like themselves, and fool populations into giving up their freedom, thinking they will be better off, and once that\\\’s done they remain the slave masters behind the scenes pulling the strings of the governments they created to enslave them, and by the time people figure it out its too late to do anything about it, and they are infinitely worse off than ever before.
I think we\\\’ve actually agreed on something here.
Re: the first and second amendment or any of your other statements (most of which are complicated way beyond description and impossible for me to make any sense out of), what is the point in responding ?, i\\\’ve said all i need to say and since we will always be on opposite sides of the freedom issue it\\\’s a waste of time.
Dave
Comment by sunstar on 3 May 2009:
You haven’t responded to the Ken Lewis example I provided. Do you or do you not agree, based on my explanation, that posing a Column A/Column B (either/or) view of that situation –or saying things like “There are only two kinds of people in this world.”– grossly oversimplifies the way things are in the ‘real’ world?
So. . .the amendments. Why bother discussing them? Indeed, what would be the point? Many times, either/or, black/white thinking is where disagreements arise in Supreme Court decisions and public opinion regarding the entire Constitution, amendments included.
“. . .controlled and regulated by the people (the governments they elect), and for the benefit of all the people as well”
And therein lies the rub, David. Let me repeat, in different words, what I’ve said before. Human beings–and “the governments they elect– are imperfect. And they –humans and governments–are imperfectible. If this were Utopia, your ideas might succeed for more than a brief time in a bygone era.
Comment by David on 3 May 2009:
Sunstar,
This will be my last response to you, your simply trying to complicate simple issues here in an attempt to justify your philosophies, and i think most of those reading the posts will have that figured out for themselves as well. I’ll only deal with a couple of the most ludicrous ones as i don’t have time for the rest.
Firstly, there is one hell of a difference between controlling and regulating a public commodity that a country needs in order to function and controlling and regulating the individual lives of the population, its apples and oranges, and your statement is ridiculous.
There is also one hell of a difference between an employer instructing an employee in the performance of his duties, where the employee has agreed to perform them in exchange for payment, as opposed to forcibly imposing laws and regulations on individuals against their will, again, apples and oranges, and your statement is ridiculous.
As per my previous, i’ve said what i needed to say for the benefit of others on this site. Your philosophies are very familiar to me, and are exactly what was responsible for destroying the lives of a great many people where i came from, and your simply playing a game in order to attempt to confuse simple minds with the complexity of your statements and responses in order to get them to marvel at this complexity and think that they need you to help them manage their lives. Needless to say, i’m not impressed, i’ve seen it all before along with the end result of it, and i’m thankful that enough of the American people at this point have been wise enough not to believe the bullshit and take the measures they needed to in order to keep it from coming about as well, this must frustrate you to no end.
Freedom is absolute, as is the responsibility to respect the freedom of others, and when one fails to do that, this is where justice and society comes into play. Aside from that, each and every one of us has the simple and absolute right to be left alone, including yourself. As i said, its a simple thing, and the world is a simple place, which can function on simple principles. The only thing that keeps it from working is people like yourself who make things so complicated that they can no longer work, and 95 % of the problems that we have in this world are created by people like yourself in order to justify their need for power.
The difference between us is that your need is for power and control, and if you have it, or ever obtain it, you will also be completely subject to the power and control of whoever gave it to you, and your willing to be subject to this as well. In my instance, i am not willing to be subject to anyone’s power, nor do i have the desire, or the right to establish it over someone else, and this is both the right and the obligation of any free person in any free society which is something you simply don’t seem to understand, and will never be willing to accept.
I really don’t have time for this, but some of your responses have been so ridiculous it was fun to point this out one last time, hopefully someone here will be entertained.
Dave.
Comment by sunstar on 3 May 2009:
Paragraph 1: a/ \". . .complicate simple issues. . .\" There\’s nothing at all simple about these issues, David, and your attempt to treat them as such has, I\’m sure, been entertaining to anyone foolish enough to continue following our discussion. b/ \". . .i don’t have time for the rest.\" Are you sure you don\’t mean you don\’t have more simplistic answers for the rest?
As to your second paragraph: Are you saying the either/or fallacy doesn\’t apply to thinking about a \"public commodity\"? Also, it would be useful if you\’d provide the actual quote from my text so we could see if I actually wrote what you\’re attributing to me or if you simply made it up to deflect the argument. Something \"specific\" would be most helpful.
Paragraph 3:David, I was talking about Ken Lewis as both leader and employer (either \’and\’ or, A \’and\’ B, and thus, not one \’or\’ the other). In both cases he was dealing with people who were working for him willingly. Those who didn\’t left the company, I assume. Your apples and oranges are more like ants and goblins here.
Paragraph 4: \"Your philosophies are very familiar to me, and are EXACTLY what was responsible for destroying the lives of a great many people where i came from,\" I emphasize the word \"exactly\" to highlight the either/or , black/white thinking that runs through your posts. Your statement is simplistic and offensive.
Paragraph 5: \"Freedom is an absolute\". . . This I wish to be true–and you, David, \"erroneously\" believe to be true. The \"concept\" of freedom is an absolute; in practice–in the real world– it hasn\’t existed since first man encountered another man –or woman. The moment limits were created–my land, your land, my wife, your wife-, etc. \"absolute freedom\" ceased to exist.
Paragraph 6: a/You never did tell me what happens to the power you wrest from someone who has it.
b/\". . . i am not willing to be subject to anyone’s power\". In your third paragraph you wrote \"where the employee has agreed to perform them [duties]\" Are you employed? If so, I hope you see the conflict between your two statements, in particular in the phrases \"has agreed to\" and \"i am not willing\". If you\’re self-employed, you don\’t honestly believe you\’re not subject to someone else\’s power. Do you live off the land? Do you live in that magic land you continually describe where men,obviously, men must be perfect for life to go on?
Paragraph 7: \"one last time\"–One can only hope and pray. Paragraph #1 redux.
Comment by Thomas on 8 May 2009:
Interesting reading in the comments section here, but God Almighty — what is the deal with this infernal slash mark that appears next to many of the quotation marks?
It’s infuriating after a while. Why does The Freeman put up with it? What in the world is wrong with your commenting software?
Also: Some of you folks could stand a few more paragraph breaks. If you’re writing important stuff — and I presume you think you are — then you should be more intent on communicating it effectively.
You want an audience, not glazed-over eyeballs.
Comment by sunstar on 10 May 2009:
Thomas\\\\\\\\How do you like these here slash marks, podner?
I couldn’t find a snazzy synonym for “crappy” to describe them, so I’ll just use the word: They’re crappy.
Comment by Lee Magnini on 12 June 2009:
Dear Dave,
It is with tears in my eye that i sincerely say thank you. I know that what you\’ve written takes a great deal of time. I\’ve lost many friends who were defending the freedom and liberty that you so succinctly define. I fear that many may not have takin the time to read and more may not understand…everything we\’ve come to expect from years of government education. spelled propoganda.
I\’m an old crippled guy. I\’ve watched my country slip into socialism for the better part of my latter life. It\’s been very hard for me. I\’m mostly reclusive and very cynical. But reading your responses brings me great hope.
On the other hand I am surprised that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton would have the time to get together and respond to your writings under the psuedonym of hmmm sunspot? just another flare up in the road to seductive socialist perfunction.
I have been a card carrying libertarian since 1982…after much studying and wondering how the whole German nation could be so soundly propogandized I came to numerous conclusions. I read the planks of the \’national socialist partys\’ platform and have watched our government follow them plank for plank. I studied the Soviet Socialist agendas. Inconceivable how it desribes what i see taking place in my countrys\’ government these past fifty years. I know, it\’s been going on longer than that. But this has been my own experience and witness. The cycles of human nature in sociatal organizations. With all the history it\’s just incredulous to me that hoo man beings can continue to make the same mistakes of absolute conceit.
ok..gettin long winded….I don\’t know the words to express my deep gratitude for your writings here. I read a lot on this computer. I seldom read liberty as desired by our founding fathers so well defined.
thank you.
Lee
Comment by David on 15 June 2009:
Lee, thank you so much;
I figured this was making sense to some of the people on here, and its good to see that someone understands this and shares my concerns.
What i’ve tried to do here is break down some of the bullshit and politically correct propaganda, and propose solutions to some of the problems we have, which would have a chance of working, and creating greater freedom and prosperity for the American people. I have no doubt that many others might have workable solutions to these problems, and as long as the purpose in them is greater freedom and prosperity for our people then we need to hear them as well.
Sunstar (Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton Lol, that’s great, i would have made the same comparison), in her / his last “criticism” was curious what i do for a living, in an attempt to try and portray me as some backwoods hick who lived off the land (god i wish i could, that would be wonderful in my estimation). Well i solve problems for a living and i’m very good at it and get paid to the tune of several thousand dollars a day for doing so. Anyone who has actually lived in the real world, knows that in order to solve a problem, no matter how complex, you have to think, and break it down into its simplest components, determine the cause of each, and solve them on that level, then it becomes possible and there is not a single problem that exists in the world which cannot be solved that way as well.
Sunstar on the other hand, although he / she has criticized my solutions incessantly, has not provided a single solution to a single problem in the process of doing so, and instead says that the problems are too complicated for us to solve, and that we must trust and give power to people like him / her in order to allow them to solve them for us. The question that still remains is “HOW ?”. Since the motivation behind the entire socialist philosophy is pure and simple envy, and its purpose is to establish power for a few so that they can “feel” like a big man of woman being able to bully, control and victimize the rest of he population, the only thing that can be accomplished in trusting someone like this is that they will inevitably create more problems with their “solutions” in order to establish further power for themselves so that they can “feel” like an even bigger person in doing so.
Again, this is all perpetuated by the people who control our financial system. At first they end up enslaving a population through debt, and once they get the notion that people are beginning to realize that they would be better off without them and might want to get rid of them, they institute a socialist government which they can control, which in turn controls the population on their behalf and eliminates any means they might have to pose a threat to their continued existence. Whether our current style of “capitalism” or “socialism” it all comes from the same place and one must inevitably lead to the other if things are allowed to take their intended course with this. These are also the only people with the money and power in order to create and promote the “socialist” propaganda to the point where they can fool enough of the population into thinking that it might be palatable in order to succeed with it. Again, the single and only motivation is pure and simple envy, as they just can’t stand the thought of anyone being happy and successful other than themselves, and will do all that they can to prevent this, and as such is an incredibly evil thing as well. This is also their only option, as since they exist as parasites, and contribute absolutely nothing of any tangible value to anyone or anything, the only way they can exist is to use deception, threats, and power in order to force people into supporting them.
In regards to how Adolf Hitler came to power, i can understand this perfectly. You had an entire nation with enormous resources and the some of the greatest abilities and potential of any nation in the world, who’s population has been completely beaten down by artificially created economic circumstances, to the point where people were grasping at straws in order to be able to work and to eat. Hence they were desperate enough to give Hitler power, as he was the only one proposing a solution to the economic problem and little else mattered to them at that point. Had it not been for this, he would have gone down in history as the little corporal with dreams of becoming a tyrant, and to his own population would have been little more than a bad joke. He was put in power by circumstances created by the worlds banks, which are identical to the ones they have been trying to create for us here now, and they are now following the blueprint he created to secure their own power to the letter, as they’ve seen it work, and their motivations are identical.
As i said before though, the good thing is, that you still have an awfully hard time buying a box of ammunition in this country, as it is being snapped up as quickly as it can be manufactured, and is still back ordered for months in advance by all of the standard suppliers. Its been many months since the last presidential election, and this is still happening, so rather than a temporary reaction, its obvious that the American population are steadily and progressively arming themselves in preparation of having to defend their freedom should it become necessary. Both Obama and the people who put him in power know this as well and are living in absolute terror of the American people, as they know that if they attempt to accomplish the full extent of their power ambitions that they will have a war on their hands and they will lose. I believe that the American revolution was fought and won by about 5 % of the population, and we certainly have a far greater percentage preparing to fight and win it again as we speak. That percentage would probably include a good portion of the US military as well, as their primary oath of allegiance is to the constitution, with the secondary being to the president. When the two are in conflict i think its a safe bet that most would follow the first. Once again, thank you America, i love you and you may yet survive.
The one problem is that these bastards will keep trying to secure this power for themselves, again, and again and again, and it just isn’t going to stop, until the American population gets pushed to the extent that they will decide to forcibly eliminate them and solve the problem permanently. I’m hopeful that this might happen at some point, if not in my our lifetime then in that of future generations. As long as the population maintains the same love of freedom that it has today today, eventually it must.
Thanks again Lee, its good to see that someone is making sense of this and shares in some of my views, which i believe, as you say, were the views of our countries founding fathers as well. It will be interesting to see if Sunstar comes back and tries to criticize your sentence structure and grammar, and rails on and on with more unintelligible nonsense about the complex problems that exist in our society which neither you or me are able to understand, as that’s all that he / she seems to be able to do, as sense and reason simply don’t apply in this persons situation Lol.
You take care and i’m wishing you the very best
Dave
Comment by Tom Rossman on 17 June 2009:
meg made some very interesting insights, but she needs to be a little more careful about here exigesis. smith warned of buinessmen\’s intentions to say that govt needs to add that to the list of things impeding honestly free markets, not to justify govt intervention in everything.
also – jefferson hated corporations because he was a plantation owner and hamilton\’s plan of developing an industrial base would have been bad for his slave-owning interests. so , if you\’re in that camp, then embrace it like the dickens.
Comment by viagra on 18 February 2010:
Hello!
viagra , viagra , buy cialis , viagra , viagra ,
Comment by viagra on 18 February 2010:
Hello!
viagra , viagra , cialis , cheap cialis , viagra ,
Comment by cialis on 18 February 2010:
Hello!
cialis , buy cialis , viagra , cialis , viagra ,
Comment by cialis on 12 March 2010:
Hello!
cialis ,
Comment by Asus on 31 March 2010:
This is one of the pernicious effects of affirmative action. In our PC/affirmative effectiveness culture, we verge to discern the achievements and promotions of minorities as a consequence of affirmative effectiveness policies preferably of individual diligence and talent. This undermines these vastly achievements.
Another ungovernable here is that it sets altruist morality at odds with the higher splendid morality. If the higher fairness is contemporary to conclude the Extermination, fatal infection outbreaks, etc, as good, while benignant moralness whim adjudicator them immoral, then the ‘righteous’ in each of these moralities are different. Satisfactory on the higher morality is not what we with the help nearby good.
Comment by Flash on 8 June 2010:
But from time to time I arrange come to believe that the all in all community is an riddle, a innocuous enigma that is made terrible on our own mad as a march hare effort to interpret it as allowing it had an underlying truth.
Comment by dumbbells on 16 June 2010:
A gink begins icy his discernment teeth the earliest often he bites eccentric more than he can chew.
Comment by Craig Wright on 30 June 2010:
The problem here is not induction, but a misapplication of the same. The following quote can not be validly induced:
“Every swan I’ve ever seen has been white, therefore all swans are white”
It should be something such as:
“Every swan I’ve ever seen in the limited location I have visited has been white, therefore it is highly probable that all swans in the give locations are white and I can state this with 95% certainty”.
The former statement is logically unsound. It is not inductive. The later still allows for risk.
A poor comprehension of inductive processes and meaning does not make these logically valid.
Comment by Jacob Boulogne on 27 July 2010:
I enjoyed the origianal article, as well as the debate it generated. I am a moral philospher and in my latest and sixt book “Just Government An Impossible Dream?” I show, using careful logic, that a just government is indeed possible, and that the idea of a “good” government must accept a certain amount of injustice is an idea we can dump safely. I sent the Freeman a copy, which has not been acknowledged, and I am still hoping to have it reviewed, but I may be in conflict with established libertarian biasis. Government as a binding contract amongst citizens is indeed a sound justification for collective government. No other concept is. In my book I suggest many possible reforms but the main two are (a)Public education–paid by taxes-is indeed unjust and should be dumped, by the simple rule that if your children are in a public system taxes make sense, but if they are not you may not be taxed for the education of other people,s offspring. What I promote I call “the ten percent solution” a constitutial amendment the limits the total sum of governments, feds and lower, to 10% which must include printed cash. Feds get 5%, states get 2%, cities 3%. This will cut the politicians off at the knees as they should be. More difficult is getting civil servants de-unionized. I am very anxious to get feedback on this proposal, which, if put to referendum, has a good chance to meet with public support. Just government, amongst 15 different different definitions “does only those things all desire.
Comment by Rower on 19 September 2010:
Child labor and poverty are inevitably likely together and if you endure to exercise the labor of children as the treatment on the social complaint of want, you purpose have both destitution and descendant labor to the supersede of time.
Comment by charles on 9 December 2010:
Now and then you hear not opinions, not positions (either supported, or as often the case in these articles, unsupported), not policy prescriptions, not even knowledge, but rather…an observation based on wide-eye wisdom. This article is a case in point. The importance of such wisdom is that it provides perspective required to analyze knowledge, positions, prescriptions.
Well, to follow on Craig Wright’s careful and also-wise correction listed in the comments here, I will be more careful in saying that maybe 95% of the article is wise. The other 5% is conjecture subject to uncertainty because it is actually unknown. Nobody’s perfect
Comment by Leah on 13 June 2011:
This post is very usefull thx!
Comment by ugg australia on 4 February 2012:
Good post. I learn something tougher on different blogs everyday. It would always be stimulating to learn content from different writers and observe a bit one thing from their store. I’d desire to use some with the content material on my weblog whether or not you don’t mind. Natually I’ll offer you a hyperlink on your net blog. Thanks for sharing.
Comment by Telecharger skype on 6 February 2012:
Why didnt I think about this? I hear exactly what youre saying and Im so happy that I came across your blog. You really know what youre talking about, and you made me feel like I should learn more about this. Thanks for this; Im officially a huge fan of your blog