Well, that's probably my deeply hidden fruitfly brain part talking then. The part beneath the olfactory lizzard part. I smell powerful tendencies here... :smile: — Hillary

And its ok. We all have do or have done it at one point in our life. Its a shared human struggle. The thing is, all of us lose time to time, and some of us just give in. In a situation of competition in which there is no outside enforcer, one person is going to slip up (or intentionally) not be fair. And that's all it takes. A game cannot be played correctly unless everyone involved follows the rules.

NOS4A2 believes that the state as a function itself is oppressive. Its a common political refrain, mostly because he seeks dominance himself. He sees the state as dominating people, and his lizard brain doesn't like that. He's likely not thinking about all the circumstances or situations that would arrive if the state was eliminated. People will always have to fight others seeking dominance, whether or not they personally seek it themselves. Without some type of societal rules, and an enforcer of those rules (government) someone else will come in, dominate, then set the rules and enforcement up to ensure they retain their dominance. Its an unavoidable part of humanity.

For every man who would exploit his neighbor is another who would not. This is why I have faith in the absence of state fetters. What prohibits a man from exploiting his neighbor is not the state, but a conscience and a reasonable set of moral principles.

Would you seek to dominate others should there be no state?

Simply that the state ought to mind it’s own business, stop regulating the economy, and let people earn their livelihoods as they see fit.

Simply that the state ought to mind it’s own business — NOS4A2

What, then, is the state's business, and how can it finance itself?

In my mind the proper role for government is to defend liberty, or to go extinct. The moral and just way to fund any institution is voluntarily, whether through subscription, donation, etc.

There's a reason capitalists are obsessed with state capture - i.e. effective control of government and its regulatory apparatus - because they know very well just how much they are dependant upon the state for their continued survival. — Streetlight

This has always struck me as true. Most government regulation is for the benefit of business. Banks couldn't run without banking regulations, but don't stop me from driving the world into economic ruin. Don't make me pay to provide safe workplaces. Don't make me pay the real cost of the products I manufacture, the chemicals I dump out behind the plant.

When people with money complain how rich people pay more than their share of taxes, I think - with government, rich are rich and poor are poor; without government, everyone's poor. Wealth = property = intrusive government.

I don’t want to abolish democracy, nor do I want to completely abolish the government. I just don’t think the task of government is to meddle in our livelihoods.

The abolition of slavery was fantasy. Perhaps given enough time, the abolition of state control over economic activity would come to fruition.

The abolition of slavery was fantasy. — NOS4A2

Please explain.

In my mind the proper role for government is to defend liberty, — NOS4A2

Would that include my liberty to sit on a street leading to a plant that produces toxic waste so that no raw material can get there?

No. One is not at liberty to interfere with another’s liberty.

Most of the time libertarians like NOS are just mad they can't feel up little boys and girls without government interference, which is why they worship sexual predators like Trump.

Fake communists like Streetlight would melt if they lived under communist rule.

Tell me again how much you hate the state while fellating your selected head of state.

The hands of a man who has never worked a day in his life with the fingernails of Karl Marx.

Never heard Trump described that way but OK.

But then you are interfering with my right to sit on the street and the company was interfering with my right to bathe in the river without getting poisoned.
Or are you one of those libertarians who are all for the liberties of the corporations and against the rights of the people?

I just don’t think you have a right to interfere in the movement of others. And no, I don’t think a company has any right to pour poison in a river.

Then we agree. But you realize that you need some kind of police force to enforce those rights?

Yes, and probably courts.

For every man who would exploit his neighbor is another who would not. This is why I have faith in the absence of state fetters. What prohibits a man from exploiting his neighbor is not the state, but a conscience and a reasonable set of moral principles. — NOS4A2

Correct. But what punishes a man and makes them pay for exploiting their neighbors is the state. I don't think you are so naive that you believe everyone is intelligent and of high moral character? Tell me, how does Laissez-faire handle criminals, brutes, thugs, and slavers?

Would you seek to dominate others should there be no state? — NOS4A2

The wrong question. "Would there be people who would seek to dominate others should there be no state?"

Absolutely. There are very real evil people in this world who will lie to your face, pay you pennies, and throw your body quietly in a ditch if it were convenient to them. If people were always perfect NOS4A2, then all forms of economics would work. Socialism and communism in their ideals would end up just as we envisioned. The problem with ideals is they do not factor in evil. I'm sure you would agree that pure socialism or communism does not result in the ideal utopia envisioned. This is because the reality of man is it must always plan with the idea that evil will exploit others if given the chance. Free market capitalism is no exception to this.

The moral and just way to fund any institution is voluntarily, whether through subscription, donation, etc. — NOS4A2

I don't want to pay my taxes this year, is that ok? Can the government properly budget and afford the judges and law enforcement needed to ensure people don't abuse and take advantage of the system?

I don’t want to abolish democracy, nor do I want to completely abolish the government. I just don’t think the task of government is to meddle in our livelihoods. — NOS4A2

You need to clarify by what you mean by "meddle". You seem to contradict yourself here when you also include

No. One is not at liberty to interfere with another’s liberty. — NOS4A2

That's not laisezz-faire. That's regulated capitalism, which is what we have today in America. That takes an enforcer, or in our instance, the state, to ensure this happens.

NOS4A2, instead of defending your argument, for fun and exploration, attack it. Find the holes in it from your perspective. Every idea has pros and cons. If you cannot see the cons in an idea, then you have not thoroughly thought of the consequences of it, and are grasping at something that is emotionally satisfying, and not rationally satisfying.

I just don’t think the task of government is to meddle in our livelihoods. — NOS4A2

the abolition of state control over economic activity would come to fruition. — NOS4A2

Here again you’re separating that which cannot be separated. Without government — without laws, regulations, patents, even the corporation itself (a legal fiction) — there is no economy. It’s not like the economy is something that exists in pure form if only liberated from laws and regulations.

That’s why laissez-faire is a fantasy. I don’t mean it’s an improbable dream— I mean it’s complete nonsense.

All it ultimately does is justify a version of “small government,” which in practice means: Deregulating big business and providing tax cuts — for the corporate sector (i.e., there capitalist class). That’s what all the rhetoric and slogans about “freedom” and “liberty” amount to. (And, of course, continuing to spend billions of taxpayer money every year on industry subsidies and handling externalities.)

The goal should be taking our production of goods and services out of the hands of a small group of owners and into the hands of workers themselves — i.e., to democratize the workplace. If you’re in favor of democracy and “small government,” this should be the goal. In that case, I’m also in favor of small government— because without the government, the elites wouldn’t be looting America. I’d be in favor of big government if it actually helped people other than plutocrats.

No. One is not at liberty to interfere with another’s liberty. — NOS4A2

Like the liberty to produce toxic waste…or accelerate climate change…or allocate 90% of profits to shareholders…or bribe politicians.

So goes this conception of “liberty.”

Or are you one of those libertarians who are all for the liberties of the corporations and against the rights of the people? — ArmChairPhilosopher

Bingo.

Well, no, protecting human rights is not “regulated capitalism”. Preserving human liberty is not a 1-to-1 ratio with regulating the economy, and it is neither rationally nor emotionally satisfying for me to accept such non-sequiturs. There will be instances where protecting human liberty will cross into the economy, such as in the business of slavery, but abolition is concerned with the freedom and dignity of human beings and not with the regulation of the slave trade.

I do believe people can be evil and that people can be good, and that the latter should learn to defend themselves from the former, with violence if necessary. One can and should do that without a state because, if history is any indication, the state is often incompetent in that regard and violates those same rights. According to author RJ Rummel, the body count for which the state is to blame in the 20th century is 262,000,000, and this is only acts of genocide.

I think it is morally wrong to tax people just as it is wrong to steal the fruits of someone’s labor. I think you are morally justified in refusing to pay taxes. That system is little more than a protection racket. The problem is the state disagrees with you, and because they have the monopoly on violence and you are but a serf to their power, you probably won’t get away with it.

Sure, “the economy” isn’t a useful term or idea, and we can quibble about it forever. But the usefulness of the term doesn’t automatically justify regulatory behavior, nor does it negate minding your own business. Anyone can mind his own business, refuse to regulate another’s economic activity, refuse to be an interloper, so I don’t think the principle is as nonsensical as you make it out it to be.

It’s true that many people espouse principles that they refuse to abide by, and it is probably true that they do so in order to dupe others, to achieve power, to benefit themselves and their friends, and so on—this is the history of America—but again, none of these objections justify regulatory behavior, nor do they negate the idea that the state should mind its own business.

Protectionism, mercantilism, subsidies, corruption—this is state intervention in a nutshell. I could be wrong but it appears that you are more concerned about who benefits from state intervention rather then the behavior of state intervention as such. Speaking of nonsense, how many years and how many votes have you spent waiting for a return on your investment?

The problem I have is I haven't heard your well thought reasons for Laissez-faire, but talking points that are generally spouted in pop-culture. I'm unaware of your education background, so I think before we continue, we need some outside references. Laisezz-faire is not an untested ideology, and throughout history, it has often failed.

Preserving human liberty is not a 1-to-1 ratio with regulating the economy, and it is neither rationally nor emotionally satisfying for me to accept such non-sequiturs. — NOS4A2

In Laisezz-faire capitalism, the state gets out of the way of corporations as much as possible. No monopoly regulations. No laws mandating that the vats the company pass scientific sanitary standards. No laws mandating zoning, buy outs, minimum wages, health and safety standards, etc. This is tied directly with what many consider the rights of individuals. Plenty of people don't like their water and air polluted. Here are a few examples to check.

Forbes evaluation of the 2008 crash. https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/18/depression-financial-crisis-capitalism-opinions-columnists_recession_stimulus.html?sh=45acd8d22ef2

When you introduce government regulation, Laissez-faire is over. And you agree that government regulation is needed to preserve the rights and liberties of individuals. Maybe you don't really believe in Laissez-faire, but perhaps a minimal level of regulation? If you believe at times that the government has overregulated, I don't think anyone would disagree with you there. But the moment you allow laws and regulations that business have to follow to preserve the rights and liberties of individuals, the only question is, "How much?"

Here's an article in Forbes 2008 about how Laissez-faire, allowing markets to regulate themselves failed.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/18/depression-financial-crisis-capitalism-opinions-columnists_recession_stimulus.html?sh=45acd8d22ef2

"To paraphrase Churchill, capitalist market economies open to trade and financial flows may be the worst economic regime--apart from the alternatives. However, while this crisis does not imply the end of market-economy capitalism, it has shown the failure of a particular model of capitalism. Namely, the laissez-faire, unregulated (or aggressively deregulated), Wild West model of free market capitalism with lack of prudential regulation, supervision of financial markets and proper provision of public goods by governments."

If you're more interested in a video, this one should explain why regulation is needed to defend human rights and liberties. Of particular note, check the section where leaded gasoline was invented and see what the "free market" did with it.



Finally, there's Upton Sinclair's famous exposure of the meat packing industry. https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-1-b-upton-sinclairs-the-jungle-muckraking-the-meat-packing-industry.html#:~:text=Upton%20Sinclair%20wrote%20The%20Jungle,emerged%20in%20the%20United%20States.

Fairly famous, but you might not be aware of it. Essentially food factories were unsanitary, dangerous, and risky for both employees and consumers who had little alternative.

One can and should do that without a state because, if history is any indication, the state is often incompetent in that regard and violates those same rights. According to author RJ Rummel, the body count for which the state is to blame in the 20th century is 262,000,000, and this is only acts of genocide. — NOS4A2

Have you compared to the body count of entities that are not the state? The number is irrelevant if you don't. Ever studied the death count in collapsed states where its warlords run around? Have you also compared the good that state has done? Developed infrastructure, roads, sewage handling?

Barring that, have you ever studied any society that did not have a tribe, chieftan, or some type of laws and rules? The idea that you can ever live a purely free person from "state" influence only happens if you find a cabin in the woods somewhere and go off the grid.

I would just read for now. To make a fully educated judgement, you must engage in all sides of thought. I think you've seen the pro Laissez-faire side, but its imperative that you see its anti. Now after reading and thinking on these, if you still think Laissez-faire is good, come back and talk. You can use some of the examples I gave, or more of your own. But I feel until you are aware of these other facts about free market and its politics, its more a discussion of faith then one of thought.

As for taxes...we can come back to it after this.

But the usefulness of the term doesn’t automatically justify regulatory behavior, nor does it negate minding your own business. Anyone can mind his own business, refuse to regulate another’s economic activity, refuse to be an interloper, so I don’t think the principle is as nonsensical as you make it out it to be. — NOS4A2

What principle? The pure fabrication of laissez-faire?

Can individuals choose to "mind their own business"? Sure. Can individuals choose to work cooperatively together? Of course. So what?

I'm concerned with looking at the real world -- how the government/the economy/the corporation or any other abstraction functions in the real world.

As I said before, I'm in favor of small government -- because the government has been captured by moneyed interests. I'm in favor of democracy -- including democracy at work.

Protectionism, mercantilism, subsidies, corruption—this is state intervention in a nutshell. I could be wrong but it appears that you are more concerned about who benefits from state intervention rather then the behavior of state intervention as such. — NOS4A2

No, I'm interested in a healthy society. A government "for the people" -- a democracy -- is one way to go. I'm more in favor of that, yes. I'm in favor of people being able to control the major decisions that affect their lives, at every level. So yes, if society as a whole benefits -- rather than the wealthiest .01% of society -- I think that's relevant. Especially when it's claimed we're a government "for the people."

Currently the state "intervenes" for the wealthy. It is owned by capitalists. Capitalism/plutocracy should be overthrown long before government is. There's no reason why governments can't work for people.

Speaking of nonsense, how many years and how many votes have you spent waiting for a return on your investment? — NOS4A2

What investment? You're quite right: this is indeed nonsense.

just as it is wrong to steal the fruits of someone’s labor. — NOS4A2

Nice to know you're anti-capitalist.

Exploiters of the world, fuckoff!

Happy International Workers' Day. :victory: :flower:

Either the state will regulate the economy, or the economy will regulate the state. These are your choices

What enables exploitation? Profit mentality most probably. One way of maximizing profits is to underpay workers and that's exploitation, oui?