Socialism. your thoughts?

[Anonymouse]

Of course these are your definitions - politics = bad, economics = good - but in fact they are very much part of the same thing. Can't you understand that Politics (laws/government/leaders) etc are - in large part institutionalisation of the means of manipulation of (alowable avenues for and restictions placed upon) avenues for influencing human (economic) action....you say "study of politics" - I can't help if others have limited there view as you have perhaps - i am talking about what political action/expression etc really is.

Oh goodie, time to dissect winoman's post as usual. So, first of all you have your first mistaken assumption that I attribute goodness to economics and badness to politics. That is untrue. I merely defined them as they are, and as they are studied. My personal dislike of politics does not in any way alter its definition that it is the study or science of government. So thats your first assumption down the drain. The very fact that you believe politics determines the economic relations of individuals only shows that you have no knowledge of economics, of how capital is generated, or the study of human action, which is independent of political coercion. Individuals always associate economically whether there is politics or not. The fact that you attribute to politics whether people will form economic relations only shows your narrow view, and of course obsession with government. After all you have been an employee of the State (by the way State employees are some of the most laziest people in the world as one trip into the immigration office or the superior court will show). When politics attempts to set "laws" and regulate individuals only find other means of economic relations, such as the black market. Economics exists independent from politics.

And I'm old - all that fine print is too small. But are you trying to tell me that population denisties in the west even begion to approach those we have in most urban/suburban and even most other areas of our nation today? No - they are no really comparable. I can just imagine if my homowners assocation was allowed to make its own laws and have its own (unregulated) army. I have a feeling that some normally OK people would be driven out (maybe all the black people eh? - or Jews - you'd like that eh?) - and a few folks would likely be killed by now. The conditions in the West are so different then what we face now in this country and in most of the world that it is laughable that you try to present stuff as an example of how we should (or could) live today...yeah cattlemens associations - you know these groups still exist - and we have Basque friends living out west who have sheep herds and you wouldn't believe the trouble they have with these cattlemen asssociations - and the violence that has been perpetuated against them/their flocks....yeah - and thats even with laws supposedly to prevent such.

Population densities have no bearing on the matter as by the time referred to the towns were already settled by the thousands. I only showed that the reputation of the West as "unlawful" or "chaotic" is nothing more than the fiction of Hollywood which you buy into, and the actual record indicates something rather different. In the absence of the State and State "laws" individuals got along just fine as I posted this in another thread.

A very interesting study of the orderly nature of anarchy is found in John Phillip Reid’s book, Law for the Elephant. Reid studied numerous diaries and letters written by persons crossing the overland trail in wagon trains going from St. Joseph, Missouri to Oregon and California. The institutions we have been conditioned to equate with "law and order" (e.g., police, prisons, judges, etc.) were absent along the frontier, and Reid was interested in discovering how people behaved toward one another in such circumstances. He discovered that most people respected property and contract rights, and settled whatever differences they had in a peaceful manner, all of this in spite of the fact that there were no "authorities" to call in to enforce a decision. Such traits went so far as to include respect for the property claims of Indians. The values and integrities that individuals brought with them were sufficient to keep the wagon trains as peaceful communities.

So yeah - your "solution" to Democracy...Emperor of the Big Bear nation - self proclaimed Monarch - eh

This statement is about as useful as a windshield wiper on a goats ass.

[winoman]

As I said your defintion of politics is far too narrow. In my political anthropology studies it was always made clear that in any society the political order (be it tribal, based purely on family relationships or more formal as in a government as we know it based on some written contract and laws etc) is intimatly tied to economics - determines the acceptable avenues for such - for commerce, property - and so on and so forth (even in your "wild" west we can characterize political environments and processes that impacted and determined economic relationships (even if informal). It has always been this way. Bottom line - they go hand in hand - and are essentially inseperable (if one really is trying to understand reeality - the way things are/were or what have you - and not just esoteric theory...)

And I contend that population denisties and make up certainly make all the difference in the world. Just didn't have the people and the diversity of peoples then and there as we do now. There was room to spread...you didn't like your neighbors or folks passing through or where you were passing through - you just moved on - easy...can't so much always easily do that anymore. And funny that you would site an obvioulsy flawed (in many ways) study. For those who were in disputes likely would tend to not talk about such (like if they were stealing from someone and got caught etc) - or they might just be dead - and to claim that their was any respect for the property claims of Indians....(what alternate universe are you talking about?)

[Anonymouse]

As I said your defintion of politics is far too narrow. In my political anthropology studies it was always made clear that in any society the political order (be it tribal, based purely on family relationships or more formal as in a government as we know it based on some written contract and laws etc) is intimatly tied to economics - determines the acceptable avenues for such - for commerce, property - and so on and so forth (even in your "wild" west we can characterize political environments and processes that impacted and determined economic relationships (even if informal). It has always been this way. Bottom line - they go hand in hand - and are essentially inseperable (if one really is trying to understand reeality - the way things are/were or what have you - and not just esoteric theory...)

Your political anthropology class is precisely that - anthropology. You can be adamant that politics and economics go hand in hand, but that doesn't change the nature of the systems of thought, nor the society in which the two exist mutually exclusive, even though they can cross paths (i.e. central planning by the State). The existence of black markets explains that economic relationships are not dependent on State "laws" or "regulations" for if they were, they wouldn't exist.

And I contend that population denisties and make up certainly make all the difference in the world. Just didn't have the people and the diversity of peoples then and there as we do now.
There was room to spread...you didn't like your neighbors or folks passing through or where you were passing through - you just moved on - easy...can't so much always easily do that anymore.

First of all this assumes that the artificial nature of boundaries is somehow stagnant. The fact that Los Angeles has millions of people and a small town and because State statisticians take a chunk of their statistics from these fixed zones, that means that today we have "more people". Population does not impact crime, because, boundaries are artificial constructs. That people live in a certain geographic area and maps are drawn and population numbers drawn out and that "proves" that more population = crime, is fallacious. It is only expected that the greater the pool of people in a given artificial boundary, the greater the crime. That only begs the question. But then again if we were to hypothetically take only population of Watts which is 34,830, and compare it to the population of Glendale which is 194,973, and why Watts has more crime than Glendale automatically disproves any erroneous notions of population being the catalyst of crime. Whether or not it is matters not because as I've already established it was not the violence "west" that it is made out to be, and all that in the absence of State "laws". That is irrefutable

And funny that you would site an obvioulsy flawed (in many ways) study. For those who were in disputes likely would tend to not talk about such (like if they were stealing from someone and got caught etc) - or they might just be dead - and to claim that their was any respect for the property claims of Indians....(what alternate universe are you talking about?)

So the study is "flawed" because winoman doesn't like it. And how would you know what they did if they got into disputes. There is obviously a study based on research as opposed to the subjective opinions of what you want things to be. As far as the Indians, I have already stated that the wars against Indians were carried out by the U.S. Government, and Tom Woods' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History not only examines these differences - between private frontiersman, such as Mormon's, who peacefully crossed and respected Indians' rights and traded, but also land purchases that were made by Americans from Indians contrary to the oft-repeated leftist mantra of 'they stole it from Indians', which Tom Woods' makes clear was a government escapade.

[winoman]

Even Black Markets all have their "politics"...and deal with the prevailing (state/locality or what have you) politics. One thing with political-anthropology is you learn to look at political relationships and the mechanisms for plotical action - outside the box - as it were....

[Anonymouse]

Even Black Markets all have their "politics"...and deal with the prevailing (state/locality or what have you) politics. One thing with political-anthropology is you learn to look at political relationships and the mechanisms for plotical action - outside the box - as it were....

I think you are confusing the definitions of "politics".

I think it is always best to look into the dictionary to avoid the fungible nature of language. I think you will find that the definitions we are using are two different things, which is why I already emphasized "political science" and the "study of government" which you, as you conveniently, as always ignore.

Main Entry: pol·i·tics
Pronunciation: 'pä-l&-"tiks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology: Greek politika, from neuter plural of politikos political
1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2 : political actions, practices, or policies
3 a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4 : the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view

[winoman]

First of all this assumes that the artificial nature of boundaries is somehow stagnant. The fact that Los Angeles has millions of people and a small town and because State statisticians take a chunk of their statistics from these fixed zones, that means that today we have "more people". Population does not impact crime, because, boundaries are artificial constructs. That people live in a certain geographic area and maps are drawn and population numbers drawn out and that "proves" that more population = crime, is fallacious. It is only expected that the greater the pool of people in a given artificial boundary, the greater the crime. That only begs the question. But then again if we were to hypothetically take only population of Watts which is 34,830, and compare it to the population of Glendale which is 194,973, and why Watts has more crime than Glendale automatically disproves any erroneous notions of population being the catalyst of crime. Whether or not it is matters not because as I've already established it was not the violence "west" that it is made out to be, and all that in the absence of State "laws". That is irrefutable

Again i never claimed such and at best this is only part of my point. And while I accept - that do to the fact that there just wern't many people - and folks wern't forced to be in close proximity - crime and violence was lessened. i would still say that the West was somewhat violent and certainly was lawless in a manner that just could not work in or society today. that is irrefutable as far as I'm concerned...

[Anonymouse]

Again i never claimed such and at best this is only part of my point. And while I accept - that do to the fact that there just wern't many people - and folks wern't forced to be in close proximity - crime and violence was lessened. i would still say that the West was somewhat violent and certainly was lawless in a manner that just could not work in or society today. that is irrefutable as far as I'm concerned...

Just how pray tell, can a society not function without the States monopolistic laws? It seems that the insight into the American West disproves this notion. When you speak of laws, you don't understand what is a bona fide law and what is mere statute law. According to the State, someone who violates zoning laws (a mere statute law) is a criminal, even though he may be a perfectly moral man. First of all, the American west can be described as one of private or local laws, whereby there was a competition of applying the law, even if it meant vigilante's justice. Second, it must be recognized that the State law is a monopoly on jurisprudence, and there is no way to watch the watchers. From the perspective of consumers and economics, all monopolies are bad, for reasons that will spawn a whole new discussion regarding economics and the public sector.

[winoman]

Certain societies can function with no (formal) state interferrence or such - I could give you multitudes of examples of such - when have I ever claimed that this isn't this case? But we are talking about our society - as it exists today - and clearly your proposals are so totally undoable that aside from acknowledging this there is really no point in discussing such.

And its funny that you make an example attacking property law - as this is essentially the basis of our entire capitalistic economic system (reference same sex marriage discussion)....then you acknowledge that in the American West there was vigilante justice and "competition of applying the law" - - yeah as if we could use more of this eh? Again be real. You really need to get out more.

Oh and I dispute your claim that "there is no way to watch the watchers" - our constitution, the fact that our government is elected and must ultimatly conform to the wishes of the electorate, that the government is explicitly beneath the law, and that even the bueracracy - as seemingly independent and immovable as it is - is explicitly subject to law (and can be disolved in whole or in part - authority stripped - simply by act of Congress in changing the laws regarding/determining the particualr agency/angenies mission(s). This is the real world. Failures on the part of our government are primarily due to the fact that humans are not perfect and are often motivated with self interest that goes contrary to the common good or the good of others. Your proposed "solution" to do away with government would exacerbate this condition (of the strong preying upon the weak and such) and would lead to even greater problems. Again - as bad as government (and our government) is - it is basically the best that we can manage (more or less) at this time - and until someone really comes up with something better (unforseen at this time and - though as theoretically appealing as your no government suggestion is) - there is really no better solution to ensure that our lives (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as it were) can be pursued in the best possible environment. Your issues are no better then philisophical ones. Yes - much is worthwhile ctitique - and I agree with it and that we always have to be watchful for tyranny - but bottom line the "do away with it all" and hand everything over to the corporations (?) is really not the best way to protect the interests of the people. Of course you are an elitist who cares not for humankind but only for yourself. So what do you care if "the masses" (anyone other then yourself) gets xxxxxled on miserably - eh? Yeah this is it - this is the fundemental underpinning of your belief.

You really need to get out more - you know that....

[ArmenianKid]

Government is not an "ideal". It is an institution, that believes it can have ideals by using people in social experiments. That is what socialism is. It cannot work, it has never worked, and never will work, without debilitating effects to the liberty of individuals, property, and capital.

So what would your socialist ideal consist of? People voting for a government that would redistribute wealth? What if hypothetically I did not want your government to take my wealth from me, what will you do, forcibly take it?

what about the group of americans that didnt vote for bush? hes still their president. any and all governments care about hte majority not the minority. i said once again a democratic socialist government. canada has the government i have been trying to talk about this whole dam time. if the majoity votes for the redistribuation of wealth then the minority must follow. its how all governments are.

[Anonymouse]

Certain societies can function with no (formal) state interferrence or such - I could give you multitudes of examples of such - when have I ever claimed that this isn't this case? But we are talking about our society - as it exists today - and clearly your proposals are so totally undoable that aside from acknowledging this there is really no point in discussing such.

Societies have, and can function without a formal State, as it is an artificial entity. It tries to impose artificial order in a world of chaos and anarchy that is constantly moving to disorder. To claim that it can't function for this society the way you say it is silly. Basically it amounts to saying, it can't work in this society because it can't work in this society. By doing this you create a strawman.

And its funny that you make an example attacking property law - as this is essentially the basis of our entire capitalistic economic system (reference same sex marriage discussion)....then you acknowledge that in the American West there was vigilante justice and "competition of applying the law" - - yeah as if we could use more of this eh? Again be real. You really need to get out more.

This is typical winoman without having much substance he resorts to his oft repeated claim of "you need to get out more". I have noticed that in serious times of desperation that has been his hymn. As far as capitalism, you clearly do not understand what the basis of capitalism is, which is private property, not property laws, per se. Property laws are different in different societies, i.e. Soviet Union vs America. In the American West law as we know it, not just dealing with property, was not a monopoly of the State.

There are private solutions to justice. Private courts and judges would arise if the government weren’t making it difficult or illegal for them to exist. Private security forces already exist, and do whatever the government hasn’t made it illegal for them to do. They do it better and cheaper and only for people who voluntarily pay them to do it; and if they do something wrong and hurt somebody, they are held responsible. When’s the last time a police force or government defense unit went out of business for killing innocent people, such as in Waco or at Kent State?

Oh and I dispute your claim that "there is no way to watch the watchers" - our constitution, the fact that our government is elected and must ultimatly conform to the wishes of the electorate, that the government is explicitly beneath the law, and that even the bueracracy - as seemingly independent and immovable as it is - is explicitly subject to law (and can be disolved in whole or in part - authority stripped - simply by act of Congress in changing the laws regarding/determining the particualr agency/angenies mission(s).

I would love to agree with you, but too many real world examples, as you say it, disprove your belief. To bad you don't understand the concept of a paradox. Why do we criminalize individuals for murder, yet it is okay for the government to engage in the same thing. Why do we criminalize individuals for theft, yet okay government stealing in the form of taxation, eminent domain, etc.? These are contradictions that have no answers. They basically mean you either support the immoral acts or you do not. Second of all, the fact that the Constitution has been warped shows that the government is above the law such as the formation of the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and every other bureaucracy not authorized by the Constitution, and most recenty, Homeland Security. The Real ID act exempts Homeland Security and its subcontractors from the Constitution and other laws of land, and even from judicial review. It creates an elite class that is above the law as it operates in the area defined by the bill. That isn't to mention how many times the Presidents dragged America into a war that wasn't a clear and present danger, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, all with pretexts that defy your so cherished reality. So just because you like to believe that no one is above the law, as the forefathers had intended, the myth of Constitutionalism has proven to be that, a myth.

This is the real world. Failures on the part of our government are primarily due to the fact that humans are not perfect and are often motivated with self interest that goes contrary to the common good or the good of others. Your proposed "solution" to do away with government would exacerbate this condition (of the strong preying upon the weak and such) and would lead to even greater problems.

First of all that is incorrect. That the strong or the rich will prey on the weak and the poor is exactly what we have under this current system. After all, how else does a State arise if not for a group of men who decide to create a monopoly of jurisprdence and force, in a given territory? Essentially it is being held by a hostage taker. The hostage taker holds you long enough until you begin to see your hostage taker as your savior and he gradually gives you some liberty here, and a little liberty there and you begin to see your hostage taker as your ultimate savior. That's called the Stockholm Syndrome. There is a list of ten common objections to anarchy, and this is one of them, and it is addressed here. I suggest you have a look.

Again - as bad as government (and our government) is - it is basically the best that we can manage (more or less) at this time - and until someone really comes up with something better (unforseen at this time and - though as theoretically appealing as your no government suggestion is) - there is really no better solution to ensure that our lives (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as it were) can be pursued in the best possible environment.

Who's this "we" you're talking about? Stop speaking in collective identities as if you speak for everyone. You have this need to identify yourself in terms of collective entities or claim collective identities when you respond, as if it makes you feel a little better that you have ten people agreeing with you, as opposed to you being yourself.

Your issues are no better then philisophical ones. Yes - much is worthwhile ctitique - and I agree with it and that we always have to be watchful for tyranny - but bottom line the "do away with it all" and hand everything over to the corporations (?) is really not the best way to protect the interests of the people. Of course you are an elitist who cares not for humankind but only for yourself. So what do you care if "the masses" (anyone other then yourself) gets xxxxxled on miserably - eh? Yeah this is it - this is the fundemental underpinning of your belief.

Again, "the interests of the people". Just what are you talking about? What are the "interests of the people"? Have you met all the people? It is amusing how you, much like State bureaucrats like to speak in terms of holistic entities as if you all know what the "interest of the people" is. These holistic entities are vague and abstract and in no way have anything to do with reality, as you like to constantly use that world 'reality'. The only elitist is you, for you are interested and support and love an institution, the government, that is premised on elitism, of a certain ruling class that is above the law, that rules those below.

You really need to get out more - you know that....

Likewise.