• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Statism is a religion

Quik said:
Dutch East India Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I see .... You do realize that the Dutch East India Company was a STATE CHARTERED CORPORATION??? (Like all corporations), you also realize that private property, capitalism and markets are all essencially state institutions. You also realize that these mega corporations cause just as much missery and tyranny in the name of profits, and exploitation as state do.

And if you want to replace the state with private capitalists you're essencially replaceing public democracy with unaccountable private tyrannies.

I get where youre coming from here, you're from the cult of Capitalism.
 
obvious Child said:
This is a stupid argument.

Couple things wrong here. The electric light bulb, even in its early stages was a superior product from the alternative, the kerosene lamp. It didn't need to be refueled. It didn't give off smells or gases, it didn't require you to store dangerous fuel. Aside from the availability of electricity (which was expanding), it was a much better choice for consumers. The commercialization and profitability weren't going to be measured in decades, but a few years.

The internet, however, is something very, very different. I'd actually argue past Rathi and flat up state we would not have the internet without the US government. At least how have it now. The internet was designed primarily as a communications tool for military use. It was never intended to be a profit generator. The costs to build and maintain this system are immense. And it took decades to get the point where private industry actually stood up and said "hey, this is a good idea." While private industry has created their own intra-networks, they never would have promoted the largely open system we have now. And considering how much Russia, the Chinese and the Europeans love to control things via government, if they had backed it, they would have made it very restrictive compared to what we have now. We would have gotten SOMETHING, it just would be smaller, slower, less efficient and far more regulated then what we have now, and thus far less useful. Thus, back to my point that we would not have the internet without the US government.
Click to expand...

Now you are just comparing it to "what if another GOVERNMENT created it" which doesn't really make sense. There are lots of ways the internet could have been created and followed a different path.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/28328/459191.aspx#459191

obvious child said:
And to build on Rathi's argument, central governments can provide benefits. For instance, the orphan drug program. There isn't a market for those drugs because the number of people who need it is simply too small to recoup costs. Yet central government provides research and money for it and thus we get drugs to ease or completely cure diseases. Furthermore, the Modern State of South Korea is essentially a central government set of 5 year plans. The economy of South Korea, which I last checked was either 11 or 17th largest is directly due to the steps that the central government under President (but really dictator) Park's administration took.

And if you need ANOTHER example, the entire road way system. When private companies and individuals set up road ways, they do so in small amounts and charge people plenty to use them. The impact upon the economy is immense. If every time you cross a half mile of road way and had to pay $8 like you do on the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge, shipping basically wouldn't have taken off and exports would languish or be built directly by the docks. Huge amounts of crops would never get planted, or food prices would be crazy high to recoup the transportation costs. The highway system in America (and frankly everywhere) exists because of government. Private industry (Rightfully) can never recoup the costs. Thus, they don't do it.
Click to expand...

First of all, you, like all Keynesian logic, fails the economic calculation problem, and each example you cited is merely a different version.

With the orphan diseases, we don't know how much money was diverted from other productive enterprises and placed into researching these diseases, thus there is no true way to measure the full costs. It could be that more people actually died as a result of this diversion, the truth is that we will never know. Nor do we know how many private charities were not created due to these government subsidies.

With Korea, everything always looks great in a bubble. The central government still suffers from the economic calculation program. Central planners at the fed thought everything looked great right before housing crashed. Same thing with the dot com bubble. And the same thing is true right now with the current bubble they are creating in the finance industry. As the Soviet Union learned, governments can't determine who "needs" what better than the free market can. Do people really "need" cell phones? What about laptops? How is a central planner to make that call? Using what information? The free market uses prices.

Roads are perhaps the easiest one to refute. They have created the unique problem of Peak Oil and global warming, not to mention a whole host of other issues like war and poisoning our food. The creation of suburbia is almost ENTIRELY the result of government road building. Otherwise, people would probably live closer to where they work, food consumption would be more localized and there would probably be a lot less poison and chemicals in what we eat as well. Road building is a direct subsidization of the internal combustion engine, a very outdated technology that shouldn't even still be in use, but is thanks to the government.

Who knows what technologies never came about due to the governments meddling? Maybe we would be flying to work. Maybe we would live much closer. Maybe public transportation would have taken off like monorail systems. Maybe tires would be a lot stronger and able to handle rugged terrain? Maybe we'd be carpooling. Maybe we would be driving massive monster truck buses. Who knows? There is really no way to tell because the government ensured that we are still driving more or less the same technologies that were around 100 years ago.
 
RGacky3 said:
1. Statism isn't really defined, is it patriotism? What is Statism?

2. taking part in collective society isn't at all "religion," it's just ... well ... taking part in it so you can survive and be neighborly and live in a decent society.

3. I'd say patriotism is somewhat a religion, since you believe that because you're parents happened to pop you out on a certain piece of land that that piece of land is somehow better, and yo ushould be loyal to people on that peice of land rather than another (not to mention that patriotism is unchristian since it goes directly against christian universalism), but even that isn't a religion, you're making a piece of land or a government transcendant, i.e. it's intrinsically good.

4. No one IS a statist ... it's just a derrogatory term people throw around, on both the left and the right, it doesn't really mean anything.
Click to expand...

1. Yes, patriotism is a form of statism. Basically it's "faith in state." People who believe in governments and think their lives and happiness are dependent upon it.

2. Which does not require a government.

3. I agree with your sentiment on patriotism, it is one of the highest forms of statism. You might call these "patriots" the religious zealots of statism whereas the majority of people are passive statists because they have been brainwashed and simply don't know any better.

4. Most people are statists.
 
RGacky3 said:
I see .... You do realize that the Dutch East India Company was a STATE CHARTERED CORPORATION??? (Like all corporations), you also realize that private property, capitalism and markets are all essencially state institutions. You also realize that these mega corporations cause just as much missery and tyranny in the name of profits, and exploitation as state do.

And if you want to replace the state with private capitalists you're essencially replaceing public democracy with unaccountable private tyrannies.

I get where youre coming from here, you're from the cult of Capitalism.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. While it is true that the Dutch VOC was state chartered, that's about as useful as saying your marriage is legally recognized by the state. Does that mean that without the state you can't get married? Nope, marriage predates the existence of all current governments, and so does commerce and free trade. The government is not a requisite to trading any more than it is a requisite to getting married.

Property, capitalism, and markets are not "state institutions" and I would love to see you elaborate on that point. I imagine it's probably some other formulation of the above, which I've already refuted.

As for the mega corporations, I think most of them would not be able to exist in their current form without the existence of the state. Things like patent and copyright laws for example, wouldn't exist without the state. The state exists to protect the biggest corporations, not harm them. You misunderstand the point that I was trying to make, which is that significant investment can be made over time by entities other than governments, that's it.

Oh and by the way, in what way are governments "accountable?" What recourse do you have if a politician promises you something but fails to deliver? Can you sue him in court for breach of contract? What means do you have for holding politicians accountable?

"I can vote!"

You theory works great, in theory that is. In reality your vote is completely meaningless and you are brainwashed if you believe otherwise (statism). Your vote changes absolutely nothing. Boycotting a corporation is more effective at changing corporate policy than voting is changing public policy, this is a demonstrable fact. Have you ever met anybody in real life who supports CISPA or SOPA? Me neither. I wonder why it has such widespread support if politicians are allegedly accountable to the public. Who here supports the Monsanto Protection Act? What about agricultural subsidies to corporate corn farmers? What about the bank bailouts?

The truth is that politicians are completely unaccountable to the public, whereas with private entities we have greater access to legal remedies.
 
Quik said:
Incorrect. While it is true that the Dutch VOC was state chartered, that's about as useful as saying your marriage is legally recognized by the state. Does that mean that without the state you can't get married? Nope, marriage predates the existence of all current governments, and so does commerce and free trade. The government is not a requisite to trading any more than it is a requisite to getting married.

Property, capitalism, and markets are not "state institutions" and I would love to see you elaborate on that point. I imagine it's probably some other formulation of the above, which I've already refuted.

As for the mega corporations, I think most of them would not be able to exist in their current form without the existence of the state. Things like patent and copyright laws for example, wouldn't exist without the state. The state exists to protect the biggest corporations, not harm them. You misunderstand the point that I was trying to make, which is that significant investment can be made over time by entities other than governments, that's it.

Oh and by the way, in what way are governments "accountable?" What recourse do you have if a politician promises you something but fails to deliver? Can you sue him in court for breach of contract? What means do you have for holding politicians accountable?

"I can vote!"

You theory works great, in theory that is. In reality your vote is completely meaningless and you are brainwashed if you believe otherwise (statism). Your vote changes absolutely nothing. Boycotting a corporation is more effective at changing corporate policy than voting is changing public policy, this is a demonstrable fact. Have you ever met anybody in real life who supports CISPA or SOPA? Me neither. I wonder why it has such widespread support if politicians are allegedly accountable to the public. Who here supports the Monsanto Protection Act? What about agricultural subsidies to corporate corn farmers? What about the bank bailouts?

The truth is that politicians are completely unaccountable to the public, whereas with private entities we have greater access to legal remedies.
Click to expand...

State Chartered means limited liability, enforcement of contract through state, state protection and so on.

property is a state institution (private capitalist property, to the point of absentee ownership, which is what is required for capitalism didn't and couldn't exist without state enfrocement and chartership), Capitalism is dependant on property and markets, to the point of capitalist markets are dependant on that as well.

NO CORPORATIONS would exist without the state ... they cannot exist.

in a government (obviously not the one in the US but perhaps some more democratic form), you can vote in and out the lawmakers, if you don't like your boss you have NO VOTE, nothing, if you don't like something in your company, no vote, you just have to leave, leave all you have helped build up, all the profits you helped aquire (taken by the capitalist as profit, since he controls the capital), and sell yourself in the labor market and hope to be valued enough by a controler of capital that you can work for him, bring him profits and get a pitense of your labor .... THAT is more tyrannical, I'd much rather have a vote in the affairs that I have to live under or live with.

Boycotting a corporation has never reallly changed anything, one many corporations have a near monopoly, two, it almost never works since it requires having many options, disposable income and so on, also it's totally dependant on your wealth, it basically puts the policy in the hands of the wealthy.

You're complaining about the corporatiosn that corrupt the government who should be accountable for us, your solution is what? Hand it over to the corporations ... essencailly.

It's like saying the referees are being paid off by the mafia, so instead of attacking the mafia we should just fire the referees and hand the game over to the mob .... its rediculous.

You're faith in Capitalism, dispite all evidence and reason, far outweighs the average patriot.
 
RGacky3 said:
State Chartered means limited liability, enforcement of contract through state, state protection and so on.

property is a state institution (private capitalist property, to the point of absentee ownership, which is what is required for capitalism didn't and couldn't exist without state enfrocement and chartership), Capitalism is dependant on property and markets, to the point of capitalist markets are dependant on that as well.

NO CORPORATIONS would exist without the state ... they cannot exist.
Click to expand...

This is false as I have already demonstrated. Property can and does exist independent of state recognition, provided that society continues to recognize the institution - and civil/just societies would.

I've already stated that corporate power would be seriously reduced in the absence of government, which is a good thing in my opinion. I'm not really sure why you want to keep them so powerful by using the state to prop up their profits, but whatever.

RGacky3 said:
in a government (obviously not the one in the US but perhaps some more democratic form), you can vote in and out the lawmakers, if you don't like your boss you have NO VOTE, nothing, if you don't like something in your company, no vote, you just have to leave, leave all you have helped build up, all the profits you helped aquire (taken by the capitalist as profit, since he controls the capital), and sell yourself in the labor market and hope to be valued enough by a controler of capital that you can work for him, bring him profits and get a pitense of your labor .... THAT is more tyrannical, I'd much rather have a vote in the affairs that I have to live under or live with.
Click to expand...

I've already addressed this point by point, and now I'm just repeating myself. Voting changes absolutely nothing as I've already demonstrated. With private entities you have legal recourse like suing, and ultimately leaving. These legal recourses are not available with governments. When they make bad policies you simply have to live with them even if they cause untold death and destruction. You are living in a fantasy land if you believe that voting somehow empowers you to enact meaningful change, and that only demonstrates my point that you are a statist. You in fact believe in something that is demonstrably false (voting gives you power) because of your faith in the state.

RGacky3 said:
Boycotting a corporation has never reallly changed anything, one many corporations have a near monopoly, two, it almost never works since it requires having many options, disposable income and so on, also it's totally dependant on your wealth, it basically puts the policy in the hands of the wealthy.
Click to expand...

This is false, and I might add that the only reason corporations are so powerful in the first place is because the state protects them from competition. Boycotts would be much more effective in a stateless society because corporations would be a lot less powerful, if they even existed. Or are you telling me that you don't have an option and you HAVE to buy Remington brand razors, or Nike brand shoes? Why wouldn't boycotts be effective in a stateless society, give examples. I've put many years of thought into this, it's time you put at least a few minutes.

RGacky3 said:
You're complaining about the corporatiosn that corrupt the government who should be accountable for us, your solution is what? Hand it over to the corporations ... essencailly.

It's like saying the referees are being paid off by the mafia, so instead of attacking the mafia we should just fire the referees and hand the game over to the mob .... its rediculous.

You're faith in Capitalism, dispite all evidence and reason, far outweighs the average patriot.
Click to expand...

Let's examine your position first. The corporate controlled government is corrupt, therefore we need to give the corporate controlled government more power to regulate the corporate controlled government is corrupt, therefore we need to give the corporate controlled government more power to regulate the corporate controlled government.....etc. etc. etc.

Let's also take a look at your governments selection for key positions. To regulate the finance industry, we have the executives from Goldman Sachs. To regulate food and drugs, we have the executives from Monsanto. To regulate the FCC, we have a telecom lobbyist. Do you see a pattern here? Do you see why your theory that "governments are accountable to the people" falls apart in reality? It's based entirely on your faith in the government. Once you stop believing that to be true, you will see that it clearly isn't. In fact it's demonstrably false. YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THAT IS PROVEN TO BE FALSE.

As for my position, it's based on a moral argument. Freedom from coercion and non-initiation of force. All government is based upon the threat of force. It's forcing people to do what you think they should do under the threat of violence. ACTUAL violence is used if you refuse. There are no exceptions to this rule.
 
Quik said:
This is false as I have already demonstrated. Property can and does exist independent of state recognition, provided that society continues to recognize the institution - and civil/just societies would.

I've already stated that corporate power would be seriously reduced in the absence of government, which is a good thing in my opinion. I'm not really sure why you want to keep them so powerful by using the state to prop up their profits, but whatever.
Click to expand...

Except it's historically not true .... property (in the form of actual capitalist property, such as absentee land ownership) NEVER existed before the state.

Also if you take out the governmental democratic state, all that would happen would be either Capitalism collapses (no property laws), or corporaions would just create their own private government to enforce their power.


I've already addressed this point by point, and now I'm just repeating myself. Voting changes absolutely nothing as I've already demonstrated. With private entities you have legal recourse like suing, and ultimately leaving. These legal recourses are not available with governments. When they make bad policies you simply have to live with them even if they cause untold death and destruction. You are living in a fantasy land if you believe that voting somehow empowers you to enact meaningful change, and that only demonstrates my point that you are a statist. You in fact believe in something that is demonstrably false (voting gives you power) because of your faith in the state.
Click to expand...

You can't sue them unless you have a state ... also you can LEAVE the country, or vote. ALso voting CAN change many things especially if we work to make a government more accountable, or to have a more accountable form of government.

This is false, and I might add that the only reason corporations are so powerful in the first place is because the state protects them from competition. Boycotts would be much more effective in a stateless society because corporations would be a lot less powerful, if they even existed. Or are you telling me that you don't have an option and you HAVE to buy Remington brand razors, or Nike brand shoes? Why wouldn't boycotts be effective in a stateless society, give examples. I've put many years of thought into this, it's time you put at least a few minutes.
Click to expand...

Thats nonsense.
1. Its a dialectic, corporations get richer and they influence government, who help them get richer, who in tern exert more influence on governement.
2. Boycotts wouldn't work, also what difference would it really make? all corporations are the same in structure, profit making private tyrannies.
3. Without the state CAPITALISM WOULD'NT EXIST.
4. I think we should get rid of Capitalism AND the state.

Let's examine your position first. The corporate controlled government is corrupt, therefore we need to give the corporate controlled government more power to regulate the corporate controlled government is corrupt, therefore we need to give the corporate controlled government more power to regulate the corporate controlled government.....etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

No, we have to make government more accountable .... I never said "give it more power" I want to give the people more power ... as opposed to you, who want to give it to the capitalists.

Let's also take a look at your governments selection for key positions. To regulate the finance industry, we have the executives from Goldman Sachs. To regulate food and drugs, we have the executives from Monsanto. To regulate the FCC, we have a telecom lobbyist. Do you see a pattern here? Do you see why your theory that "governments are accountable to the people" falls apart in reality? It's based entirely on your faith in the government. Once you stop believing that to be true, you will see that it clearly isn't. In fact it's demonstrably false. YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THAT IS PROVEN TO BE FALSE.

As for my position, it's based on a moral argument. Freedom from coercion and non-initiation of force. All government is based upon the threat of force. It's forcing people to do what you think they should do under the threat of violence. ACTUAL violence is used if you refuse. There are no exceptions to this rule.
Click to expand...

1. The ONLY example your using is the UNited States government, which is a very bad example, since the US is extremely undemocratic.
2. Your solution is just to hand over the financial regualtion right to Goldman sachs .... and the FDA right to Monsanto .... That isn't a solution.

3. Ok freedom from coercion, that's fine, then lets also apply that to property, since property is essencially coercion, it's fencing off a peice of teh earth and arbitrarily saying "THIS IS MINE" and anyone who picks an apple or something, I can kill, or inprison, its nonsense and requires a state to enforce, and for capitalism to exist you need enough of this coercive property control for people to be willing to sell themselves to have access to the resources. property is as arbitrary and tyrannical as monarchy.
 
RGacky3 said:
Except it's historically not true .... property (in the form of actual capitalist property, such as absentee land ownership) NEVER existed before the state.

Also if you take out the governmental democratic state, all that would happen would be either Capitalism collapses (no property laws), or corporaions would just create their own private government to enforce their power.
Click to expand...

You are saying two different things at once. In one hand you are saying property did not exist prior to the state (false). But then you redefine property into "actual capitalist property such as absentee land ownership." You claim that it couldn't exist without governments but this is an unsupported assertion.

As is your assertion of what would happen without the state.

RGacky3 said:
You can't sue them unless you have a state ... also you can LEAVE the country, or vote. ALso voting CAN change many things especially if we work to make a government more accountable, or to have a more accountable form of government.
Click to expand...

Not true on any accounts. Sure you can leave the country, I guess that is a solution. But how is that a better option than what you have available in private life? It isn't, and you are just being unreasonable.

Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society - YouTube

Thats nonsense.
1. Its a dialectic, corporations get richer and they influence government, who help them get richer, who in tern exert more influence on governement.
2. Boycotts wouldn't work, also what difference would it really make? all corporations are the same in structure, profit making private tyrannies.
3. Without the state CAPITALISM WOULD'NT EXIST.
4. I think we should get rid of Capitalism AND the state.
Click to expand...

1. Exactly, which is why it doesn't make any sense to give the government more power.
2. Now you are just repeating yourself and not listening to a word I'm saying. You haven't addressed my argument in any way, you simply repeated what you stated previously.
3. False, free trade exists independently of the state, as Somalia demonstrates.
4. How would you propose getting rid of freedom (people freely trading with one another)? I'd like to see a detailed, thorough analysis of the subject.

No, we have to make government more accountable .... I never said "give it more power" I want to give the people more power ... as opposed to you, who want to give it to the capitalists.
Click to expand...

I want to give all the power to the people, and none to the state. All the people are capitalists, because everyone by definition engages in trade.

1. The ONLY example your using is the UNited States government, which is a very bad example, since the US is extremely undemocratic.
2. Your solution is just to hand over the financial regualtion right to Goldman sachs .... and the FDA right to Monsanto .... That isn't a solution.

3. Ok freedom from coercion, that's fine, then lets also apply that to property, since property is essencially coercion, it's fencing off a peice of teh earth and arbitrarily saying "THIS IS MINE" and anyone who picks an apple or something, I can kill, or inprison, its nonsense and requires a state to enforce, and for capitalism to exist you need enough of this coercive property control for people to be willing to sell themselves to have access to the resources. property is as arbitrary and tyrannical as monarchy.
Click to expand...

1. Which is why your theory falls apart.
2. Completely false. That makes zero sense, absolutely zero sense. No rational person could have derived that conclusion from what I said.
3. You just keep repeating thoroughly debunked arguments and refuse to address actual arguments that have been made. This is silly.

Property is not "coercion," it's an extension of freedom. In the same way you might say "this is MY body and I have the right to defend it" you also have the right to defend things that you've created, like your home, or the fruits of your labor. If I labor all day in my farm and grow 100 tomatoes are you seriously gonna argue that you have a right to eat my tomatoes? Yes, they are MINE. This is the fairest system. Nobody has a more legitimate claim to these tomatoes than me. It's not perfect, but it is the fairest system.

No, it does not require a state to enforce and I've already demonstrated why.

Property is not arbitrary, state power is. What is more arbitrary, me deciding how to use the tomatoes or you?
 
Quik said:
This does not demonstrate your point. Just because corrupt governments have taken root on every geographic location of the Earth doesn't somehow mean that the world would be worse off without them. That's like saying venereal disease is a good thing because you can't name a society that lacks it.
Click to expand...

Your analogy is flawed because VD works on the individual level. To be honestly compared, you must look at one individual with the disease and another without. Medical evidence has demonstrated that lack of STDs is in fact healthier based on that comparison. A government works on the societal level and thus one may compare societies. The fact that wealth and stability have a 100% correlation with central government in the modern era is a very strong indicator.

This makes sense in theory but falls apart in real life. In reality you have a government which can control the media and manipulate public opinion, deciding which issues are important (chic fil a, VAWA) and which aren't (domestic spying, internet spying, war). An extremely disproportionate amount of time is spent on petty issues that distract people away from their continuously eroding civil liberties.

That happiness is maintained is almost completely independent of the existence of the government. The government doesn't "keep us happy." We are happy DESPITE the misery that they create.
Click to expand...

The only reason the U.S. governments gets away with all that crap is because the populace is too happy to care. Nothing you described impacts the daily life of the majority of this country in a noticeable way. We are engaged in war, but there is no draft, no rationing, no air raid shelters. Your average citizen is more worried about what happens on their favorite television show than the war itself. There would be a far bigger backlash from trying to ban pornography than killing citizens without due process. The only reason the system works is because the majority of citizens basic needs are met to the point where they don't really care, and thus politicians are required to maintain said basic needs to maintain power.


Dutch East India Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

The Dutch East India company went bankrupt in the 1800 and never engaged in the large scale research and development projects to create advanced technology. Furthermore, you would be a fool to claim them as example of private entity capable of replacing the state. The Dutch East India company engaged in the worst kind of coercive behavior used by the state like war, execution and pillaging. They massacred the locals on the Banda Islands in Indonesia and then took their lands to gain a monopoly on nutmeg. They had all the worst qualities of the state with even less accountability and no goal other than greed.
 
Quik said:
It carries basically all the same signs as any other religion. Faith in state, faith in government, the (unfounded, unwarranted) belief in the necessity of the state for life to continue on. People believe all these things without a single shred of evidence to support it.

You have your religious leaders like the President, Congressmen, or other government bureaucrats.

You have religious institutions like schools, police stations, and the military.

You have a blind faith/acceptance that this is the only way possible.

Should statism be considered a religion?
Click to expand...

Very well said! Yes, it's a religion of sorts.
 
Quik said:
It carries basically all the same signs as any other religion. Faith in state, faith in government, the (unfounded, unwarranted) belief in the necessity of the state for life to continue on. People believe all these things without a single shred of evidence to support it.

You have your religious leaders like the President, Congressmen, or other government bureaucrats.

You have religious institutions like schools, police stations, and the military.

You have a blind faith/acceptance that this is the only way possible.

Should statism be considered a religion?
Click to expand...

Let's see if we can modify your posting a little:

Libertarianism carries basically all the same signs as any other religion. Faith in market, faith in enterprisers, the (unfounded, unwarranted) belief in the capability of markets to create the best distribution of resources. People believe all these things without a single shred of evidence to support it.

You have your religious gurus like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Ron Paul and other ideologues.

You have religious institutions such as the stock exchange, the banks and interest-based economy.

You have blind faith/acceptance that this is the only way possible.

Should libertarianism be considered a religion?

;)
 
Last edited:
polgara said:
Good evening, Pero. :2wave:

Lots of people do, and good luck to them when the gravy train stops...as it eventually must, due to economic reasons alone! Then what? Greece and countries like that provide a glimpse of a possible future, and I find that both sad and unsettling to think about! :shock:
Click to expand...

Greece's worst problem is that their citizens refuse to pay taxes.
 
German guy said:
Greece's worst problem is that their citizens refuse to pay taxes.
Click to expand...

As we have learned so tragically in the United States, EVERYONE must have some skin in the game or the state and culture fail. Huge percentages of the American population pay no taxes at all, but still get a tax refund. They're happy to be here.
 
rathi said:
Your analogy is flawed because VD works on the individual level. To be honestly compared, you must look at one individual with the disease and another without. Medical evidence has demonstrated that lack of STDs is in fact healthier based on that comparison. A government works on the societal level and thus one may compare societies. The fact that wealth and stability have a 100% correlation with central government in the modern era is a very strong indicator.
Click to expand...

Really? Correlation implies causation? Interesting logic. Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also a 100% correlation between wealth and crime. Name one wealthy society where there is no crime. Therefore, wealth REQUIRES crime!

Am I understanding your logic correctly here?

rathi said:
The only reason the U.S. governments gets away with all that crap is because the populace is too happy to care. Nothing you described impacts the daily life of the majority of this country in a noticeable way. We are engaged in war, but there is no draft, no rationing, no air raid shelters. Your average citizen is more worried about what happens on their favorite television show than the war itself. There would be a far bigger backlash from trying to ban pornography than killing citizens without due process. The only reason the system works is because the majority of citizens basic needs are met to the point where they don't really care, and thus politicians are required to maintain said basic needs to maintain power.
Click to expand...

Our needs are met DESPITE the government, not BECAUSE of it. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between society and government.

rathi said:
The Dutch East India company went bankrupt in the 1800 and never engaged in the large scale research and development projects to create advanced technology. Furthermore, you would be a fool to claim them as example of private entity capable of replacing the state. The Dutch East India company engaged in the worst kind of coercive behavior used by the state like war, execution and pillaging. They massacred the locals on the Banda Islands in Indonesia and then took their lands to gain a monopoly on nutmeg. They had all the worst qualities of the state with even less accountability and no goal other than greed.
Click to expand...

Point = flew right over your head. Was my point to demonstrate that the VOC was a model citizen? Nope. You asked for an example of long term investment yielding profit. It doesn't get much longer term than setting up colonies. The point is that long term investment is possible in the absence of government.
 
German guy said:
Let's see if we can modify your posting a little:

Libertarianism carries basically all the same signs as any other religion. Faith in market, faith in enterprisers, the (unfounded, unwarranted) belief in the capability of markets to create the best distribution of resources. People believe all these things without a single shred of evidence to support it.

You have your religious gurus like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Ron Paul and other ideologues.

You have religious institutions such as the stock exchange, the banks and interest-based economy.

You have blind faith/acceptance that this is the only way possible.

Should libertarianism be considered a religion?

;)
Click to expand...

Except there is plenty of evidence to support the notion that free markets work. I support freedom as a moral argument. That it happens to be the most utilitarian is just an added benefit, but not the reason that we should support it.

Force is fundamentally immoral because it relies on violence. Whether you are willing to admit it or not, the system you advocate is fundamentally dependent upon violence.
 
Quik said:
Except there is plenty of evidence to support the notion that free markets work. I support freedom as a moral argument. That it happens to be the most utilitarian is just an added benefit, but not the reason that we should support it.

Force is fundamentally immoral because it relies on violence. Whether you are willing to admit it or not, the system you advocate is fundamentally dependent upon violence.
Click to expand...

What system am I supporting? I was just making fun of the hyperbolic, over-simplifying strawman slaughterfest which was the OP.

And yes, free markets are most efficient. But efficient =/= normatively, ethically good.
 
German guy said:
What system am I supporting?
Click to expand...

The existence of the state.

German Guy said:
And yes, free markets are most efficient. But efficient =/= normatively, ethically good.
Click to expand...

It's the most ethical system because it's the only system that is not dependent upon violence.
 
German guy said:
And yes, free markets are most efficient. But efficient =/= normatively, ethically good.
Click to expand...

Efficiency doesn't hurt, but most liberals (libertarians) are liberals because of the "ethical goodness" of free markets. Freedom of choice vs coercion, you know.
 
Cyrylek said:
Efficiency doesn't hurt, but most liberals (libertarians) are liberals because of the "ethical goodness" of free markets. Freedom of choice vs coercion, you know.
Click to expand...

Freedom is important, without doubt, but it alone won't fill your belly if you're hungry.

And when your only freedom consists of the choice between pestilence and cholera, it's maybe that much worth after all for you. ;)

But for the record: I'm not a socialist.
 
German guy said:
Freedom is important, without doubt, but it alone won't fill your belly if you're hungry.
Click to expand...

Of course not. But being able to live your own life and make your own decisions makes filling your belly worth bothering.
 
Cyrylek said:
Of course not. But being able to live your own life and make your own decisions makes filling your belly worth bothering.
Click to expand...

What about those people whose pure survival costs more than they can possibly make on the market?
 
German guy said:
What about those people whose pure survival costs more than they can possibly make on the market?
Click to expand...

We help them. Freedom of choice is central for morality, but it is not the only thing that matters.

In practical terms, we strive to move, gradually, from more coercive to less coercive arrangements. Should we do it at any cost - for example if it will actually cause children to starve? No, of course not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom