pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @aljaz OP 22h \ parent \ on: Who stands for FREEDOM? BooksAndArticles
can you not imagine a scenario in which you're not owned and ruled? does that give you so much inner peace that you cling to it so desperately? Do you think nothing better can come out of humanity that the current sad state of affairs?
Your position is one of desperation and futility.
How are property rights secure if not via government based rule of law and law enforcement?
You cannot credibly and convincingly answer this because it has never been done on any scale.
You cannot give any example of what you are proposing working in practice because it is simply not workable.
My position is a realistic one based on real world experience, evidence, history and human nature...extending to the nature of life itself.
Complex and wealthy economies rely hugely upon the consistency and rules based enforcement of property rights. This cannot be done via a voluntary 100% 'freedom' arrangement where anyone with greater ability to exert force upon others can seize their property, and inevitably will.
I am all for maximal individual freedom but it cannot exist in isolation and without the presence of good government and property law that is fairly and consistently enforced.
reply
reply
Previously there were bank notes issued by private banks and backed by gold.
Since WW1 fiat money increasingly replaced gold backed bank notes with the final straw when Nixon removed all remaining gold redemption ability for USD.
Since then debasement and inflation firstly in consumer goods and later in asset prices has distorted the economy and reduced the competitiveness of western economies.
Chinas incredible economic revolution using state direction of capital but allowing some competition and private enterprise has resulted in China beating the wests crony capitalists at their own game.
Neoliberal banksters have captured and corrupted western politics owning most major parties via patronage and lobbying.
Bitcoin does provide an alternative to the state imposed fiat debt slavery but whether it can achieve widespread adoption for MoE remains to be seen- its not looking likely with bankers now capturing a growing portion of Bitcoin issuance for use as a speculative commodity. Nearly all governments have obstructed Bitcoin MoE in west via subtle but effective tax impositions and in most of the rest of the world via outright bans on MoE use.
reply
It doesn't look very revolutionary from the outside. It kind of looks like they simply eased up on the statism, and then the economy did what all economies do when the state leaves the private sector alone instead of micromanaging every plot of farmland.
Widespread adoption is a meme. It was never designed to benefit everyone equally. It benefits only the entities who act with rational self-interest. The individual who bought it for $50,000 is happy. Bitcoin works for that guy. If the German government doesn't want any, they don't have to buy it. It's all voluntary.
reply
Wrong.
China experienced what western imperialism does to all others.
And they learned from it.
Because Chinese culture has for millennia been the dominant culture, economy and government of their region they have a belief in their role as the centre of the world.
That belief was severely challenged from the Opium Wars and the following 100 years, but since regaining self determination after WW2 China has gradually adopted a stance that recognises westerm imperialism and makes possible China determining its future without the hegemony of western powers over riding Chinas self determination.
Their current economic program is revolutionary in that it does not operate subservient to western imperial dictates- it organises Chinese capital and labour to produce goods and services in a very competitive manner by maximising Chinas natural advantages of manpower, scale and geographic positioning.
China rejected the patronising 'help' of western power and determined its own development is best advanced with a mixed economy where the government provides strategic leadership while Chinese entrepreneurs are able to operate and compete as long as they do not start to exercise undue market dominance or influence- ask Jack Ma what happens if you do.
The west used to operate in a similar manner- regulating and limiting anti competitive rentseeking by corporates- until the corporate bought and owned the politicians and came to direct the governments.
In China the government directs capital allocation toward productive purposes and infrastructure- their now global infrastructure construction capability is unsurpassed. Decadent neoliberalised Britain can no longer build its own nuclear power station- it contracts Chinese engineers working with French to construct Britains first new nuclear power generator in more than 30 years.
The west led industrialisation but crony capitalism has taken over with wests politicians now nominees from banks and corporate interests- in China in contrast the politburo is composed of over 70% trained engineers- building a global empire that is beating the wests decaying crony capitalist economies.
USA has had 60 years of trade deficits and fiscal deficits- China enjoys annual trade surpluses of over $1 Trillion and growing.
The mixed economy was what delivered the best results for the west and now China has adopted that model to its advantage.
Corrupt neoliberal west is ruled by wealthy capital and is in decay.
reply
I promise you central planning or a mix of central planning isn't what made the West rich. Whenever any state attempts to manage capital, it means someone is taking a cut of what someone else produced, or someone is dictating to someone else what to produce. The parts of the West in the worst states of decay are those that trusted their governments to manage the economy. The richest countries in 2100 will be whichever ones adopted Bitcoin first, because that alone is a dismantling of state influence.
reply
Read some history and discover you are wrong.
The British Empire for example was built upon the strong state apparatus that built a strong navy and dominant military capacity which enabled Britain to rule the seas and seize whatever territory it wished to.
Without a strong state, well defined and coherent laws and law enforcement internally and the ability to project power externally free market cannot perform to their best potential.
The mixed economy of the state providing the ideal supportive environment for free enterprise is precisely what has built virtually all dominant empires throughout history.
Blind faith in 'the market' alone does not deliver a strong economy.
reply
you haven't replied to my yesterdays question about definition of government for you.
its a structure of governance yes, but at what scale? what are its roles? you're throwing the word government around but there's a lot of governments out there.
theres governments that are fairly laissez faire, and theirs governments that are up your fucking asshole for everything.
your position is lack of imagination and indoctrination into the way things are. going from first principles you don't need anything remotely what resembles todays western government for society to exist
reply
If you want the agreed and commonly understood definition of government look up a dictionary.
That is the definition I am happy with.
As I have more or less said several times already, governments develop to a large extent in response to the apathy or activity of citizens.
We are all the government- but many, usually most people fail to be active in keeping their governments honest- its easier to bleat and moan and dream about 100% freedom than to deal with reality and fight for what freedom can be achieved realistically considering the apathy and self interested nature of most of humanity.
Without government of some form most people would suffer- this is why if there is ever a lack of government people clamour to construct one.
Most people want to be governed as it is a lot easier than managing your own security, infrastructure and rule of law.
If you don't want government then go somewhere there is little or no government- but you won't because you know it would be at the very least uncomfortable and quite possibly fatal.
reply