In which I wade balls-deep into an anti-state debate on the effectiveness of FEMA and the evilness of US government activities.
I actually
have entered and thoroughly enjoyed several debates with Arthur Gwynne, a
charming anti-collectivist and self-described “alchemist” whose views border on
wiccanism. “There
are only 2 things I do not tolerate: intolerance, and impinging on the rights
of others.” (emphasis most emphatically his)
This
particular thread can be found here, and I’m afraid I have violated Arthur’s
first pet peeve by hating on anarchism.
Here's the full discussion thread:
And I apologize in advance for the poor formatting, but it's late and I've been mocking idealist dreamers, which makes me feel kind of creepy.
…..
Karl B. HilleYesterday 11:39 AMEdit
+1
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/fema-case-study-difference-between-democrats-and-republicans
Brook WarrenYesterday 11:52 AM
+Nick Malone
Oh of course you would preempt anything I have to say by using a more
gentile form of "conspiracy theorist". Use shutdown tactics much?
But please tell me more about how paranoid I am after the government has created perfectly legitimate legislation like the Patriot Act and NDAA. Who could honestly expect a rational justification for the government to detain us? And the escalating censorship of the internet? I mean, they would only do this to protect us right? Not to consistently strip more freedoms and treat us like terrorists or anything right? Who needs open communication after all? There's nothing we need to discuss that the government might not want us to discuss right?
Why would anyone ever question the actions of government after all? It's clearly just there to help us in every way, right? The murdering of innocents in foreign countries is totally about making our lives better too and every time a child is slaughter, it's just acceptable losses, acceptable "collateral damage" that I should root for.
What was I THINKING??? The government is this giant happy fun loving club, not being ran by people with any problems like lusting for power, selfishly growing their personal empire through government coercion of the public, or colluding with big business, or anything at all like that. It's just about happiness and rainbows and goodness.
Here's a little report showing FEMA having problems more than just during Katrina: http://truth-out.org/sites/default/files/FEMA-and-Disaster-by-Leo-Bosner.pdf
Yeah it has some focus on Katrina, but it's not just another one of the divinely inspired government agencies that you expect me to just smile and appreciate no matter what they do wrong.
But please tell me more about how paranoid I am after the government has created perfectly legitimate legislation like the Patriot Act and NDAA. Who could honestly expect a rational justification for the government to detain us? And the escalating censorship of the internet? I mean, they would only do this to protect us right? Not to consistently strip more freedoms and treat us like terrorists or anything right? Who needs open communication after all? There's nothing we need to discuss that the government might not want us to discuss right?
Why would anyone ever question the actions of government after all? It's clearly just there to help us in every way, right? The murdering of innocents in foreign countries is totally about making our lives better too and every time a child is slaughter, it's just acceptable losses, acceptable "collateral damage" that I should root for.
What was I THINKING??? The government is this giant happy fun loving club, not being ran by people with any problems like lusting for power, selfishly growing their personal empire through government coercion of the public, or colluding with big business, or anything at all like that. It's just about happiness and rainbows and goodness.
Here's a little report showing FEMA having problems more than just during Katrina: http://truth-out.org/sites/default/files/FEMA-and-Disaster-by-Leo-Bosner.pdf
Yeah it has some focus on Katrina, but it's not just another one of the divinely inspired government agencies that you expect me to just smile and appreciate no matter what they do wrong.
…
+Arthur Gwynne the pdf I linked touches on the differnt administration's handling of it as well.
One thing the state+govt should do, is seriously tackle greenhouse gas expression. Sandy-type of events are going to happen ever more frequently.
+1
+Brook Warren
calm down and stop putting words in my mouth. The NDAA and Patriot Act
are troubling issues, but so far, quite separate from the paranoia over
FEMA detention camps and training that I've been hearing about for a
decade. THAT is paranoia. I'm a known political dissident and activist,
on FBI watch lists for a certainty, in the middle of both a state and
federal disaster zone. Yet I'm not sending this from a detention center,
I'm sending it from a children's museum on public wifi while I watch my
son play.
I judge these things based on performance, not ideology. FEMA doesn't have a perfect track record, of course, but that's not enough for me to dismiss them entirely - particularly when their current performance is quite good.
I judge these things based on performance, not ideology. FEMA doesn't have a perfect track record, of course, but that's not enough for me to dismiss them entirely - particularly when their current performance is quite good.
+Nick Malone Calm
down man, it's just my desire to stop institutions of coercion so
humanity can start progressing without the drag of government . No
reason to start calling anyone paranoid who questions the legitimacy of
the agencies imposed by an organization that consistently oppresses
people. After all, being distrustful of a violent institution of
oppression is never a bad thing is it?
Are you saying FEMA is not involved in the internment training, or that the training and facilities don't exist at all?
Are you saying FEMA is not involved in the internment training, or that the training and facilities don't exist at all?
…
+Russell Williams it's already been pointed out, no worries
+Brook Warren I'm saying this particular theory has been around for decades, through a number of crises and situations in which an oppressive, tyrannical government might decide to implement mass imprisonment - yet it's never happened. a rational mind might look at this situation and consider what may actually be driving these suspicions, since it's clearly not fact.
+Brook Warren I'm saying this particular theory has been around for decades, through a number of crises and situations in which an oppressive, tyrannical government might decide to implement mass imprisonment - yet it's never happened. a rational mind might look at this situation and consider what may actually be driving these suspicions, since it's clearly not fact.
+1
also,
it seems to me that humanity has made a great deal of progress in the
past, despite the violent drag of government - in some cases, in
cooperation with government.
+1
Oh
oh! I'm all crippled by"Big Government." Please save me from myself
because I can't possibly take responsibility if I'm just sitting here
rolling in entitlement moolah all day. I feel so helpless. Won't any
libertarians come rescue me from my malaise?
+Nick Malone
of course humanity makes progress, just not what it could without
government holding it back. After all, regulation isn't there to
stimulate progress. When a new industry emerges or becomes popular, the
government starts regulating and leeching off of it. Patents alone, a
government program, stifles innovation, not stimulates it. I'm guessing
that will start an entirely new discussion which I'm fine with getting
involved in. As long as we can keep the condescension and insults out
of the conversation.
I think you misunderstand my intention for bringing up internment camps and training. I understand why you lump me straight into the conspiracy theorists crap, seriously I get it. I mean other than it is somewhat typical to do so, it's also really why people generally bring those things up. I'm also assuming that you were including my remark about "soft form of conspiracy theorist" in your request to "don't put words in my mouth," but seriously -- you escalated straight to it, did you not?
I'm not saying the government is planning some sudden and massive attack on the public. I'm saying that the government does have new detention centers under DHS and is training people to run and utilize them. Not only do we not need them, but why am I supposed to be ok with paying for it? But if we're going to get technical about whether or not the government is doing something bad, why am I supposed to just assume they have the best of intentions for their detention centers when they're secretive about it? If you want to just say they're just for ICE specifically and no other part of DHS has access to them, I can see how that's a reasonable argument, but it still doesn't say they don't exist. You're not denying that DHS has private detention centers where illegal immigrants are literally imprisoned and violated are you? We might need to argue about whether or not violation is a description of morality or just a term for justifying govt abuse as well, right? Should we also be denying that military and DHS security personnel have been increasing their domestic warfare training and hardware? Am I supposed to be so terrified with the idea of terrorists that I'm ok with that?
Or should we just write all of this off as paranoia?
Trusting the government was never really in the plan. Forcing the government to be accountable was in the plan. But the government instead turned into a beast that is dictated by big business, is unaccountable, and isn't really listening to the public anymore as new legislation is consistently signed in to strip more freedom and privacy from people. Why am I supposed to be ok with these things and not only ok with them, but trust every secretive program related to detainment and violation of human beings as well?
I'm also not sure why it seems better to some people to accuse the govt of too little instead of too much.
Regardless of what the govt is and does do with their secretive detainment centers, saying people are paranoid for disagreeing with having to pay for their existence is invalid. I don't want to pay for detainment center. I don't want to pay for detainment training. I don't want a govt that is dictated to, to a great extent, by military/security/banking industries to keep escalating spending on violence. It's common for when governments increase their ability to do violence, they increase instances of violence, is it not?
We're talking about a government that has been perpetrating unjust wars for decades, aren't we? Or do we need to disagree on that too, and all the innocent people in foreign countries getting murdered totally deserved it, or are reasonable in the category of collateral damage? Murdering people abroad just goes hand in hand with oppressing people domestically, It's all unjust violence, why be so selective about it? Well, you know, because governments really never have been.
Or maybe I'm completely wrong and the government's immoral willingness to violate other countries is completely unrelated to its immoral willingness to strip more freedom and privacy from its own citizens, to continue militarizing the domestic police force which just happens to be getting more abusive, to continue increasing prison populations with nonviolent criminals, and the increasing violation of travelers. The public isn't asking for these things, but even if they were, imposing those things on a minority is still immoral.
I think you misunderstand my intention for bringing up internment camps and training. I understand why you lump me straight into the conspiracy theorists crap, seriously I get it. I mean other than it is somewhat typical to do so, it's also really why people generally bring those things up. I'm also assuming that you were including my remark about "soft form of conspiracy theorist" in your request to "don't put words in my mouth," but seriously -- you escalated straight to it, did you not?
I'm not saying the government is planning some sudden and massive attack on the public. I'm saying that the government does have new detention centers under DHS and is training people to run and utilize them. Not only do we not need them, but why am I supposed to be ok with paying for it? But if we're going to get technical about whether or not the government is doing something bad, why am I supposed to just assume they have the best of intentions for their detention centers when they're secretive about it? If you want to just say they're just for ICE specifically and no other part of DHS has access to them, I can see how that's a reasonable argument, but it still doesn't say they don't exist. You're not denying that DHS has private detention centers where illegal immigrants are literally imprisoned and violated are you? We might need to argue about whether or not violation is a description of morality or just a term for justifying govt abuse as well, right? Should we also be denying that military and DHS security personnel have been increasing their domestic warfare training and hardware? Am I supposed to be so terrified with the idea of terrorists that I'm ok with that?
Or should we just write all of this off as paranoia?
Trusting the government was never really in the plan. Forcing the government to be accountable was in the plan. But the government instead turned into a beast that is dictated by big business, is unaccountable, and isn't really listening to the public anymore as new legislation is consistently signed in to strip more freedom and privacy from people. Why am I supposed to be ok with these things and not only ok with them, but trust every secretive program related to detainment and violation of human beings as well?
I'm also not sure why it seems better to some people to accuse the govt of too little instead of too much.
Regardless of what the govt is and does do with their secretive detainment centers, saying people are paranoid for disagreeing with having to pay for their existence is invalid. I don't want to pay for detainment center. I don't want to pay for detainment training. I don't want a govt that is dictated to, to a great extent, by military/security/banking industries to keep escalating spending on violence. It's common for when governments increase their ability to do violence, they increase instances of violence, is it not?
We're talking about a government that has been perpetrating unjust wars for decades, aren't we? Or do we need to disagree on that too, and all the innocent people in foreign countries getting murdered totally deserved it, or are reasonable in the category of collateral damage? Murdering people abroad just goes hand in hand with oppressing people domestically, It's all unjust violence, why be so selective about it? Well, you know, because governments really never have been.
Or maybe I'm completely wrong and the government's immoral willingness to violate other countries is completely unrelated to its immoral willingness to strip more freedom and privacy from its own citizens, to continue militarizing the domestic police force which just happens to be getting more abusive, to continue increasing prison populations with nonviolent criminals, and the increasing violation of travelers. The public isn't asking for these things, but even if they were, imposing those things on a minority is still immoral.
+Karl B. Hille Not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying government granted entitlements are good or bad?
+1
+Brook Warren you
are kind of all over the map. I am not in a state of mind to respond to
that entire diatribe, but I do want to respond to a few points I feel
are especially important.
regulations do not exist to stimulate progress - granted. they exist to protect people from businesses which, by the very definition of business and capitalism, do not hold public safety nor the public interest as their highest priority. we do not have to look far into our own history, nor world history, to see what business is very willing to do absent regulation. I believe regulating business is one of the most important roles the federal government must play in modern society, since neither states nor individuals have anything even close to the power needed to do it.
I never accused you of being a "conspiracy theorist" in any way. I posited that you were judging FEMA based partly on paranoia, yes. I stand by that, because these exact allegations - FEMA is building detention centers, FEMA is training jailers, FEMA is going to round up and arrest political dissidents and enemies of the state - have literally existed since FEMA was created. they are always of the same flavor, and have never amounted to anything. if it is not fact that drives this particular, pervasive belief, what is it?
I do not believe FEMA is building, or has built, detention centers. I have yet to see a single bit of evidence I find independently convincing to that effect. if I had - if, even, the accusations were coming from anyone other than the same wolf criers who have been at it for as long as I can remember, and longer - this conversation would doubtless have a different character.
I find it troubling to blame the government for too much for the same reason I find it troubling to blame business, or religion, or individuals for that matter, for too much - you are then basing your criticism on ideology divorced from fact. there is plenty to discuss when criticizing the actions of the government - you have raised many such points already - without resorting to speculation and mud slinging.
as has already been pointed out more than once, disasters do not respect state boundaries, and often do unimaginable amounts of damage in unimaginably short periods of time. the ideal, of course, is for communities to band together to fix the problems in their own backyards. the reality is, even the most wealthy and best organized state cannot reasonably expect to be able to face these kinds of disasters with no assistance. that is why FEMA exists; and why executives who believe the government can sometimes do things right manage it well, while executives who believe government is inevitably incompetent drive it into the ground.
regulations do not exist to stimulate progress - granted. they exist to protect people from businesses which, by the very definition of business and capitalism, do not hold public safety nor the public interest as their highest priority. we do not have to look far into our own history, nor world history, to see what business is very willing to do absent regulation. I believe regulating business is one of the most important roles the federal government must play in modern society, since neither states nor individuals have anything even close to the power needed to do it.
I never accused you of being a "conspiracy theorist" in any way. I posited that you were judging FEMA based partly on paranoia, yes. I stand by that, because these exact allegations - FEMA is building detention centers, FEMA is training jailers, FEMA is going to round up and arrest political dissidents and enemies of the state - have literally existed since FEMA was created. they are always of the same flavor, and have never amounted to anything. if it is not fact that drives this particular, pervasive belief, what is it?
I do not believe FEMA is building, or has built, detention centers. I have yet to see a single bit of evidence I find independently convincing to that effect. if I had - if, even, the accusations were coming from anyone other than the same wolf criers who have been at it for as long as I can remember, and longer - this conversation would doubtless have a different character.
I find it troubling to blame the government for too much for the same reason I find it troubling to blame business, or religion, or individuals for that matter, for too much - you are then basing your criticism on ideology divorced from fact. there is plenty to discuss when criticizing the actions of the government - you have raised many such points already - without resorting to speculation and mud slinging.
as has already been pointed out more than once, disasters do not respect state boundaries, and often do unimaginable amounts of damage in unimaginably short periods of time. the ideal, of course, is for communities to band together to fix the problems in their own backyards. the reality is, even the most wealthy and best organized state cannot reasonably expect to be able to face these kinds of disasters with no assistance. that is why FEMA exists; and why executives who believe the government can sometimes do things right manage it well, while executives who believe government is inevitably incompetent drive it into the ground.
+Nick Malone Thanks for keeping it civil.
Why am I arguing against government?
I don’t feel that is valid to argue about the higher level developments of a system based on moral contradiction, or at least, on an immoral foundation. I find it almost as invalid as arguing red v blue politics.
Initiating violence is immoral. I can probably supply a sufficient logical proof for this, but I’m assuming that isn’t necessary. Do we agree that initiating violence is immoral? Unless you believe initiating violence is moral, I don’t see how you believe government coercion is moral. I’m not given a choice about supporting government programs after all, unless you think giving someone a choice between being assraped in prison or shot resisting going to prison isn't coercion.
So again why do I argue against government? Because it is immoral. If you don’t think it is immoral, I just need to hear some explanation for that, because war, violation of privacy, consistently reduced freedoms, fiat debt, and taxed unborn generations are all pretty damn evil. If you realize it is immoral, but consider it a necessary evil, then ok. But I don’t agree with the concept of a necessary evil, immoral system for exploiting humanity. So let’s be a little more diligent about wielding accusations like who is using invalid ideologies because in my opinion, justifying the initiation of violence on collectivism is the same repeated broken ideology for justifying the worst atrocities in history. It’s the same foundation of moral contradiction that is used to sell every evil thing to the public.
So on with the worthless part:
“+Brook Warren you are kind of all over the map.”
Did I say something that seemed out of place? I don’t recall saying anything that wasn’t directly related to the conversation. You’re remark about my diatribe and how I’m all over the map sound a little like bullying or shut down tactics. I don’t understand why these things are supposed to appear as anything but contrary to virtue.
“granted. they exist to protect people from businesses”
Some regulation is intended to protect people from businesses. Others are not. Here’s a random example: New regulations next year force dishwasher manufacturers to only produce home dishwashers that use 5 gallons of water, down from 6.5, and to use less energy ( I can’t remember the specs ). Past regulation forced detergent companies to almost completely remove the TSP content of dishwashing detergent and laundry detergent due to unfounded studies that claimed phosphates in these detergents were leading to algae bloom. How is this protecting people from businesses? This is literally people being unable to purchase products that they were voluntarily purchasing before the regulation. Is it instead, protecting people from other individuals?
“by the very definition of business and capitalism, do not hold public safety nor the public interest as their highest priority.”
Yet, businesses dictate the direction of government. Revolving door and lobbying have invalidated the concept of public interest being a top priority for government and instead escalate the interest of big business to that slot.
“we do not have to look far into our own history, nor world history, to see what business is very willing to do absent regulation.”
We can look at present day or any day in the past to observe what governments are willing to do to violate humanity. Unfortunately, I can’t think of a time in history that businesses were absent regulation. When a businesses is forced to follow government law at all, it is being regulated. The only way I see to add value to the quoted comment is to ignore the government mechanisms that empower government and to focus on the most common sense regulations that protect people. But I can’t really think of one off the top of my head.
“I believe regulating business is one of the most important roles the federal government must play in modern society, since neither states nor individuals have anything even close to the power needed to do it.”
“I never accused you of being a "conspiracy theorist" in any way. I posited that you were judging FEMA based partly on paranoia, yes. I stand by that, because these exact allegations - FEMA is building detention centers, FEMA is training jailers, FEMA is going to round up and arrest political dissidents and enemies of the state - have literally existed since FEMA was created. they are always of the same flavor, and have never amounted to anything. if it is not fact that drives this particular, pervasive belief, what is it?”
I’m not interested in playing you said I said, and I’m definitely not interested in discussing anything with you if you are going to ignore everything I said on that topic and stick to your ad hominem about my mental state.
“I find it troubling to blame the government for too much for the same reason I find it troubling to blame business, or religion, or individuals for that matter, for too much - you are then basing your criticism on ideology divorced from fact. there is plenty to discuss when criticizing the actions of the government - you have raised many such points already - without resorting to speculation and mud slinging. “
Define “blame the government for too much”. I don’t see how this statement has any value as it is completely arbitrary and baseless, and yet that entire paragraph relies on it.
Essentially you are saying that it is valid for the first principle of “initiating violence is immoral” to be called an ideology divorced from fact. But regardless of the fact that government is based on collectivism, and the empowered collectives justifies their initiated coercive action towards other collectives as moral or at least “legal”, is somehow not ideology divorced from fact?
I don’t blame “too much on government.” I blame the atrocity that government enables on government. I blame the consistent empowering of businesses to exploit humanity on the government. Of course there have been businesses who have exploited humanity against government wishes and even without government assistance, but the government itself impedes people from reacting fully to those businesses and coming up with their own ways of dealing with the situation.
I also blame the continued instances of war on the government. What other organization would be able to justify the costs or even acquire the costs as they require loans paid by people who do not have a choice whether or not they pay, or may even be too young to pay taxes? What other organization would have the ability to use the entire mainstream media to sell their lies to justify the war? What other organization would be able to undertake and completely unprofitable endeavor? Here is your biggest instance in history of business exploiting humanity. The only reason those businesses make money off of war is because we don’t have a choice to pay for it, and new money is always created to pay them. They have guaranteed income for supplying the government with its murder hardware and services and throughout history have racked up the highest tolls of murders recorded. And yet, here we are arguing about businesses needing a government to keep businesses from exploiting humanity.
“as has already been pointed out more than once, disasters do not respect state boundaries, and often do unimaginable amounts of damage in unimaginably short periods of time. the ideal, of course, is for communities to band together to fix the problems in their own backyards. the reality is, even the most wealthy and best organized state cannot reasonably expect to be able to face these kinds of disasters with no assistance. that is why FEMA exists; and why executives who believe the government can sometimes do things right manage it well, while executives who believe government is inevitably incompetent drive it into the ground.”
Why are you bringing up states and state boundaries? Are you under the impression that I want confederacy?
The situation isn’t over yet, so we’ll get to see how well FEMA did this time. At least they haven’t been turning away Wal Mart trucks full of supplies this time. Their big claim to efficiency so far this time is basically staying out of the way and telling organizations where to send supplies, where to put evacuees, funding, and more direction but not so much leg work. I really don’t even see why everyone is so convinced that if it wasn’t for FEMA then it was just turn out to be a complete failure of recovery. The businesses, organizations, and individuals responding to this disaster, and other disasters, do so regardless of FEMA barging in and telling them what to do. I understand that everyone is so terrified of the concept of not having the government to come in and rescue them, especially when they are so wrapped up in the moral contradictions of government that they don’t realize the government is an immoral institution that has a monopoly on violence. But I just wish people could understand the concept of when the government holds you back from developing solutions, it’s not likely that those solutions will get developed. When you try to respond to problems, and a government agency swoops in and tells you want to do, which you continue to do, possibly slightly differently, the agency gets all the credit and then everyone piles on more of their authority worship for government. “Thank you so much government! I couldn’t have done the exact same thing I was going to do anyhow without you telling me how to do it!”
Little article from Forbes this morning on the topic:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/11/01/hurricane-sandy-and-the-invisible-hand-of-disaster-recovery/
Why am I arguing against government?
I don’t feel that is valid to argue about the higher level developments of a system based on moral contradiction, or at least, on an immoral foundation. I find it almost as invalid as arguing red v blue politics.
Initiating violence is immoral. I can probably supply a sufficient logical proof for this, but I’m assuming that isn’t necessary. Do we agree that initiating violence is immoral? Unless you believe initiating violence is moral, I don’t see how you believe government coercion is moral. I’m not given a choice about supporting government programs after all, unless you think giving someone a choice between being assraped in prison or shot resisting going to prison isn't coercion.
So again why do I argue against government? Because it is immoral. If you don’t think it is immoral, I just need to hear some explanation for that, because war, violation of privacy, consistently reduced freedoms, fiat debt, and taxed unborn generations are all pretty damn evil. If you realize it is immoral, but consider it a necessary evil, then ok. But I don’t agree with the concept of a necessary evil, immoral system for exploiting humanity. So let’s be a little more diligent about wielding accusations like who is using invalid ideologies because in my opinion, justifying the initiation of violence on collectivism is the same repeated broken ideology for justifying the worst atrocities in history. It’s the same foundation of moral contradiction that is used to sell every evil thing to the public.
So on with the worthless part:
“+Brook Warren you are kind of all over the map.”
Did I say something that seemed out of place? I don’t recall saying anything that wasn’t directly related to the conversation. You’re remark about my diatribe and how I’m all over the map sound a little like bullying or shut down tactics. I don’t understand why these things are supposed to appear as anything but contrary to virtue.
“granted. they exist to protect people from businesses”
Some regulation is intended to protect people from businesses. Others are not. Here’s a random example: New regulations next year force dishwasher manufacturers to only produce home dishwashers that use 5 gallons of water, down from 6.5, and to use less energy ( I can’t remember the specs ). Past regulation forced detergent companies to almost completely remove the TSP content of dishwashing detergent and laundry detergent due to unfounded studies that claimed phosphates in these detergents were leading to algae bloom. How is this protecting people from businesses? This is literally people being unable to purchase products that they were voluntarily purchasing before the regulation. Is it instead, protecting people from other individuals?
“by the very definition of business and capitalism, do not hold public safety nor the public interest as their highest priority.”
Yet, businesses dictate the direction of government. Revolving door and lobbying have invalidated the concept of public interest being a top priority for government and instead escalate the interest of big business to that slot.
“we do not have to look far into our own history, nor world history, to see what business is very willing to do absent regulation.”
We can look at present day or any day in the past to observe what governments are willing to do to violate humanity. Unfortunately, I can’t think of a time in history that businesses were absent regulation. When a businesses is forced to follow government law at all, it is being regulated. The only way I see to add value to the quoted comment is to ignore the government mechanisms that empower government and to focus on the most common sense regulations that protect people. But I can’t really think of one off the top of my head.
“I believe regulating business is one of the most important roles the federal government must play in modern society, since neither states nor individuals have anything even close to the power needed to do it.”
“I never accused you of being a "conspiracy theorist" in any way. I posited that you were judging FEMA based partly on paranoia, yes. I stand by that, because these exact allegations - FEMA is building detention centers, FEMA is training jailers, FEMA is going to round up and arrest political dissidents and enemies of the state - have literally existed since FEMA was created. they are always of the same flavor, and have never amounted to anything. if it is not fact that drives this particular, pervasive belief, what is it?”
I’m not interested in playing you said I said, and I’m definitely not interested in discussing anything with you if you are going to ignore everything I said on that topic and stick to your ad hominem about my mental state.
“I find it troubling to blame the government for too much for the same reason I find it troubling to blame business, or religion, or individuals for that matter, for too much - you are then basing your criticism on ideology divorced from fact. there is plenty to discuss when criticizing the actions of the government - you have raised many such points already - without resorting to speculation and mud slinging. “
Define “blame the government for too much”. I don’t see how this statement has any value as it is completely arbitrary and baseless, and yet that entire paragraph relies on it.
Essentially you are saying that it is valid for the first principle of “initiating violence is immoral” to be called an ideology divorced from fact. But regardless of the fact that government is based on collectivism, and the empowered collectives justifies their initiated coercive action towards other collectives as moral or at least “legal”, is somehow not ideology divorced from fact?
I don’t blame “too much on government.” I blame the atrocity that government enables on government. I blame the consistent empowering of businesses to exploit humanity on the government. Of course there have been businesses who have exploited humanity against government wishes and even without government assistance, but the government itself impedes people from reacting fully to those businesses and coming up with their own ways of dealing with the situation.
I also blame the continued instances of war on the government. What other organization would be able to justify the costs or even acquire the costs as they require loans paid by people who do not have a choice whether or not they pay, or may even be too young to pay taxes? What other organization would have the ability to use the entire mainstream media to sell their lies to justify the war? What other organization would be able to undertake and completely unprofitable endeavor? Here is your biggest instance in history of business exploiting humanity. The only reason those businesses make money off of war is because we don’t have a choice to pay for it, and new money is always created to pay them. They have guaranteed income for supplying the government with its murder hardware and services and throughout history have racked up the highest tolls of murders recorded. And yet, here we are arguing about businesses needing a government to keep businesses from exploiting humanity.
“as has already been pointed out more than once, disasters do not respect state boundaries, and often do unimaginable amounts of damage in unimaginably short periods of time. the ideal, of course, is for communities to band together to fix the problems in their own backyards. the reality is, even the most wealthy and best organized state cannot reasonably expect to be able to face these kinds of disasters with no assistance. that is why FEMA exists; and why executives who believe the government can sometimes do things right manage it well, while executives who believe government is inevitably incompetent drive it into the ground.”
Why are you bringing up states and state boundaries? Are you under the impression that I want confederacy?
The situation isn’t over yet, so we’ll get to see how well FEMA did this time. At least they haven’t been turning away Wal Mart trucks full of supplies this time. Their big claim to efficiency so far this time is basically staying out of the way and telling organizations where to send supplies, where to put evacuees, funding, and more direction but not so much leg work. I really don’t even see why everyone is so convinced that if it wasn’t for FEMA then it was just turn out to be a complete failure of recovery. The businesses, organizations, and individuals responding to this disaster, and other disasters, do so regardless of FEMA barging in and telling them what to do. I understand that everyone is so terrified of the concept of not having the government to come in and rescue them, especially when they are so wrapped up in the moral contradictions of government that they don’t realize the government is an immoral institution that has a monopoly on violence. But I just wish people could understand the concept of when the government holds you back from developing solutions, it’s not likely that those solutions will get developed. When you try to respond to problems, and a government agency swoops in and tells you want to do, which you continue to do, possibly slightly differently, the agency gets all the credit and then everyone piles on more of their authority worship for government. “Thank you so much government! I couldn’t have done the exact same thing I was going to do anyhow without you telling me how to do it!”
Little article from Forbes this morning on the topic:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/11/01/hurricane-sandy-and-the-invisible-hand-of-disaster-recovery/
+Brook Warren
brook no. I'm saying extremist attitudes and de-humanizing portrayals
of large swaths of the population are a bigger rot on the body politic
than "big government" ... But I'm about as likely to convince anyone as i
am to hit the lottery, so carry on feeling all oppressed in one of the
most enlightened and free societies the world has to offer.
No one chose their origin. No one chose poverty or wealth. But those who would mislead are the keenest to characterize those born to or raised in different circumstances as somehow less capable of appreciating freedom, or success, or hard work, or whatever they value.
No one chose their origin. No one chose poverty or wealth. But those who would mislead are the keenest to characterize those born to or raised in different circumstances as somehow less capable of appreciating freedom, or success, or hard work, or whatever they value.
+1
+Karl B. Hille I
understand where you're coming from, but my argument is that government
is a direct moral contradiction that leads to problems, not avoids
them. No one chose to be a part of this system and to be strapped with
debt before they were born. Saying "it's the best we got" just isn't
valid. You do realize people are being murdered, unjustly imprisoned,
and tortured by our government right? I can appreciate that you have a
pleasant day to day life, but the abstraction of violence doesn't excuse
the violence, and it doesn't justify statements claiming this is a
wonderful enlightened society. I want society to be pleasant AND not be
full of moral corruption and offshore murder. Why is that so much to
ask?
+1
You do realize full anarchy is a bullshit religion that offers little in the way of real value to the world?
And YES, it is too much to ask. Show me one working model for humanity that is free of moral conflict, corruption and murder?
And YES, it is too much to ask. Show me one working model for humanity that is free of moral conflict, corruption and murder?
+Karl B. Hille "Show me one working model for humanity that is free of moral conflict, corruption and murder"
Suicide pacts? Technically no moral conflict as they are quite determined; no corruption, most understand why they are doing it, and sucide technically isn't murder.
Suicide pacts? Technically no moral conflict as they are quite determined; no corruption, most understand why they are doing it, and sucide technically isn't murder.
+Karl B. Hille "You do realize full anarchy is a bullshit religion that offers little in the way of real value to the world?"
No I wasn't ware of that. Please enlighten men. This is an interesting claim you've made without supplying any backing material. Please do so if you would like to bring me around to your understanding. I don't even know how to start doing the leg work on this one because I know what anarchy means and I know what religion means, and I don't see any convergence. Anarchy is actually about removing things such as religion, so... I'm just a little confused. But as it's so self-evident to you from your matter of fact injection of this "fact", I'm sure you'll be able to explain it.
But to answer your demand, to start with, I didn't say "free of". I said founded on. There difference is absolutely critical. If you start with corruption then try to build goodness on it, well, of course you'll have drones flying around your country and the government having arrogate powers to itself for assassinating or indefinitely detaining its citizens, and then waging wars in other countries where people are murdered and here at home people talk about how wonderful their life is - even though their life is producing tax money that literally supports murder. Saying it's the best we got isn't justification.
Next we have this problem: Are you so completely divested from the concept of not supporting a murderous system of coercion that you won't even think about an alternative? I can point you in the right direction and books, but are you going to read them or will you just keep repeating your argument and expect me to lay out a stateless society to you in google+ comments? I mean seriously, what is the answer to this? I'll be glad to spend time explaining what I know about the ideal to you, but let's be up front here, yeah? And also, I want it to be clear to you that my desire for a system that isn't based on corruption isn't because I've seen a better system or have been convinced of a better system. It's because the system is founded on moral contradiction. See how that works? You see, back during the abolition movement, people like me were saying, "slavery is evil! End it!" And people that keep justifying government and expecting everyone else to come up with the solutions were saying, "but who will pick the cotton! It's the best system we have! Keep it forever or until other people put in the effort of coming up with a better way that won't inconvenience me!"
"Show me one working model for humanity"
Do you mind defining what you mean by working model for humanity? That sounds like the ultimate moving of the goal post trap argument initiator to me.
But, at least we're clear here. You're acknowledging that government is immoral and you're calling it a necessary evil and saying it's the best we got. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt her and not accusing you of literally justifying the atrocity of the utterly evil wars this government perpetuates. So that aside: But who would protect us from the businesses right? Even though businesses use the government to exploit us. But would will feed the children, old people, and homeless? Even though those problems are growing instead of being dealt with. But who would protect us from invasion? Even though our government is doing the invasion, and people are literally asking who will protect them from our country invading them. But who will stop the criminals? Even though the government incentivizes criminals by making crime lucrative with things like the war on drugs, and the cops themselves are abusing people as well.
So help me out here. Why should I be ok with this immoral system? Clearly I'm not, and clearly I don't have the convictions you do about it.
No I wasn't ware of that. Please enlighten men. This is an interesting claim you've made without supplying any backing material. Please do so if you would like to bring me around to your understanding. I don't even know how to start doing the leg work on this one because I know what anarchy means and I know what religion means, and I don't see any convergence. Anarchy is actually about removing things such as religion, so... I'm just a little confused. But as it's so self-evident to you from your matter of fact injection of this "fact", I'm sure you'll be able to explain it.
But to answer your demand, to start with, I didn't say "free of". I said founded on. There difference is absolutely critical. If you start with corruption then try to build goodness on it, well, of course you'll have drones flying around your country and the government having arrogate powers to itself for assassinating or indefinitely detaining its citizens, and then waging wars in other countries where people are murdered and here at home people talk about how wonderful their life is - even though their life is producing tax money that literally supports murder. Saying it's the best we got isn't justification.
Next we have this problem: Are you so completely divested from the concept of not supporting a murderous system of coercion that you won't even think about an alternative? I can point you in the right direction and books, but are you going to read them or will you just keep repeating your argument and expect me to lay out a stateless society to you in google+ comments? I mean seriously, what is the answer to this? I'll be glad to spend time explaining what I know about the ideal to you, but let's be up front here, yeah? And also, I want it to be clear to you that my desire for a system that isn't based on corruption isn't because I've seen a better system or have been convinced of a better system. It's because the system is founded on moral contradiction. See how that works? You see, back during the abolition movement, people like me were saying, "slavery is evil! End it!" And people that keep justifying government and expecting everyone else to come up with the solutions were saying, "but who will pick the cotton! It's the best system we have! Keep it forever or until other people put in the effort of coming up with a better way that won't inconvenience me!"
"Show me one working model for humanity"
Do you mind defining what you mean by working model for humanity? That sounds like the ultimate moving of the goal post trap argument initiator to me.
But, at least we're clear here. You're acknowledging that government is immoral and you're calling it a necessary evil and saying it's the best we got. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt her and not accusing you of literally justifying the atrocity of the utterly evil wars this government perpetuates. So that aside: But who would protect us from the businesses right? Even though businesses use the government to exploit us. But would will feed the children, old people, and homeless? Even though those problems are growing instead of being dealt with. But who would protect us from invasion? Even though our government is doing the invasion, and people are literally asking who will protect them from our country invading them. But who will stop the criminals? Even though the government incentivizes criminals by making crime lucrative with things like the war on drugs, and the cops themselves are abusing people as well.
So help me out here. Why should I be ok with this immoral system? Clearly I'm not, and clearly I don't have the convictions you do about it.
Because
we are a fallen people. Without the structure of government, people act
in their own best interest. The strong get stronger, the rich get
richer, eventually they find ways to enforce their view of what is right
and there you have government.
There is no society without structure. We are not going back to a pioneer world where you can walk all day and not see another living person. Where people are forced to deal with other people there need to be systems to solve conflict. Those systems come in the form of government and religion. If you want to proselytize anarchy, you should spend some time living in a place where rule of law is broken or non existent. However I suggest you go well armed.
I also suggest it won't take long before you yearn for good old broken American democracy and the taxpayer-funded police, military, and security forces that execute rule of law.
Anarchy is a little boys religion, owned by dreamers who think "If we could just get rid of our current corrupt system full of flaws, everybody will be civilized and nice because everybody will enforce their own law and justice and you will have to respect your neighbor because 1) he's armed and 2) you may need his help some day.
The flaw is that there are predatory people who won't respect what is right or who won't believe that your view is right and then you will need to band together for defense or rely on a third party to mediate and, voila, government.
There is no society without structure. We are not going back to a pioneer world where you can walk all day and not see another living person. Where people are forced to deal with other people there need to be systems to solve conflict. Those systems come in the form of government and religion. If you want to proselytize anarchy, you should spend some time living in a place where rule of law is broken or non existent. However I suggest you go well armed.
I also suggest it won't take long before you yearn for good old broken American democracy and the taxpayer-funded police, military, and security forces that execute rule of law.
Anarchy is a little boys religion, owned by dreamers who think "If we could just get rid of our current corrupt system full of flaws, everybody will be civilized and nice because everybody will enforce their own law and justice and you will have to respect your neighbor because 1) he's armed and 2) you may need his help some day.
The flaw is that there are predatory people who won't respect what is right or who won't believe that your view is right and then you will need to band together for defense or rely on a third party to mediate and, voila, government.
I
don't for one minute claim that anyone should accept the broken system
we live with. I spent 12 years of my life as a reporter seeking to
expose injustice, corruption and broken systems in local government.
That works. That's actually working to make the system better, but the news industry is in the middle of a 30-year struggle to reinvent itself in the internet age, and I was a casualty of that floundering effort. Now I'm going back to school to try and be part of the solution, because I believe in sunlight and transparency.
As for a stateless society - I've laid out my views on that. Money seeks money, and power seeks power, and that is the human condition, not some system of government.
I actually believe that the founding fathers sought to create the ideal society, not a nation founded on corruption. Yes, slavery was a part of that nation. In time we fixed that wrong with bloodshed.
This was supposed to be a society built to resist the aggregation of power into lasting institutions. It wasn't founded on corruption, unless by corruption, you mean the baseness of the human condition that is part of every system.
Corruption creeps in. That is the law and it has nothing to do with my beliefs or yours. It is the law of human nature against which we must constantly war.
But the opposite notion - to dehumanize those who fail in that inner war - is every bit as corrupt and dangerous as failing in your own struggle to maintain high ideals. It is the flaw of hubris - to howl for the destruction of those who, faced with power, became corrupted.
I know a few police officers, and those whom I know really believe their mission is to help people and maintain a healthy society in which people can realize their dreams through hard work, fair play and integrity.
I've also seen a ring of undercover cops berating and cursing a group of teenagers in ways I don't believe any young person should be addressed.
Nobody is perfect, and that is exactly where anarchism fails.
UPDATE:
That works. That's actually working to make the system better, but the news industry is in the middle of a 30-year struggle to reinvent itself in the internet age, and I was a casualty of that floundering effort. Now I'm going back to school to try and be part of the solution, because I believe in sunlight and transparency.
As for a stateless society - I've laid out my views on that. Money seeks money, and power seeks power, and that is the human condition, not some system of government.
I actually believe that the founding fathers sought to create the ideal society, not a nation founded on corruption. Yes, slavery was a part of that nation. In time we fixed that wrong with bloodshed.
This was supposed to be a society built to resist the aggregation of power into lasting institutions. It wasn't founded on corruption, unless by corruption, you mean the baseness of the human condition that is part of every system.
Corruption creeps in. That is the law and it has nothing to do with my beliefs or yours. It is the law of human nature against which we must constantly war.
But the opposite notion - to dehumanize those who fail in that inner war - is every bit as corrupt and dangerous as failing in your own struggle to maintain high ideals. It is the flaw of hubris - to howl for the destruction of those who, faced with power, became corrupted.
I know a few police officers, and those whom I know really believe their mission is to help people and maintain a healthy society in which people can realize their dreams through hard work, fair play and integrity.
I've also seen a ring of undercover cops berating and cursing a group of teenagers in ways I don't believe any young person should be addressed.
Nobody is perfect, and that is exactly where anarchism fails.
UPDATE:
Karl B. Hille4:10 PMEdit
One final caveat to all of this.
I feel ultimately government should and will fade away, should the human race last that long. Reading Donald Matheson's "What the Blogger Knows" I am struck by this line:
"A picture emerges of a general weakening of deference towards authority (expressed in stronger forms as a distrust of institutions), a strengthening of consumerism as an economic driver and a struggle over corporate capitalism's increasing encroachment upon the cultural."
And the general trend towards weaker and weaker forms of government over time, from the world spanning empires of the Romans, Assyrians, Macedonians, to the geographically limited monarchies who aspired to imperialism, to today's mix of shades of democracies attempting to extend their "influence" abroad - much of what +Brook Warren objects to is waning.
Perhaps the next stage will be corporate empires. Maybe I'm wrong in the natural proclivity of individuals to form collectives and continue aggregating power.
Maybe we'll reach a stage where even corporations fail and individuals amass resources to accomplish great things. Is it fatalism to say we are no closer to that ideal and can no more accelerate society's evolution than we can our genus and species?
I feel ultimately government should and will fade away, should the human race last that long. Reading Donald Matheson's "What the Blogger Knows" I am struck by this line:
"A picture emerges of a general weakening of deference towards authority (expressed in stronger forms as a distrust of institutions), a strengthening of consumerism as an economic driver and a struggle over corporate capitalism's increasing encroachment upon the cultural."
And the general trend towards weaker and weaker forms of government over time, from the world spanning empires of the Romans, Assyrians, Macedonians, to the geographically limited monarchies who aspired to imperialism, to today's mix of shades of democracies attempting to extend their "influence" abroad - much of what +Brook Warren objects to is waning.
Perhaps the next stage will be corporate empires. Maybe I'm wrong in the natural proclivity of individuals to form collectives and continue aggregating power.
Maybe we'll reach a stage where even corporations fail and individuals amass resources to accomplish great things. Is it fatalism to say we are no closer to that ideal and can no more accelerate society's evolution than we can our genus and species?
