Comments for The Rational Anarchist

Comment on Manners Run Amuck by markross

markross — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:58:30 +0000

I don’t really agree with any of the policies that Barack Obama espouses; and many of the things he says, have often really upset me; however, the hyperbole and hyper-partisan speech is also very ugly, and equally as bad as the policies being proposed in Washington D.C.

Instead of attaching labels on each other, and attempting to destroy and discredit each other, why can’t we just have a little more intellectual honesty?

That being said, we do also need to end this “excessive” political correctness that has also taken over rational decision-making in our nation.

Comment on Conservative Versus Liberal by markross

markross — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:14:55 +0000

“the world they are creating”

That line is so relevant:
It seems like The liberal mindset has trouble seeing clearly, or dealing with, certain world realities; therefore, they try to alter the reality, or create an altered worldview.

You simply can not filter, or legislate out all things that could be perceived as painful and hurtful.

Comment on Conservative Versus Liberal by rationalanarchist

rationalanarchist — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:47:48 +0000

I’m afraid that I was not all inclusive in my statement. Whereas the liberal children are looking for a permanent parent; those who would supply for this need consider themselves as gods to the world they are creating.

Comment on Well, Duh! by David

David — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:18:10 +0000

When I say the state is an organ of oppression I mean it as not the oppression itself, but part of it (cog in a system). You have the state that are effectively middle men to the rich. Then you have standing armies, police that work in keeping control rather then protecting people, that act on the interest of a few very rich people. The media that either work for or against the state depending on the interests of the rich again, then the Monarchy even in a constitutional monarchy like ours still works to maintain an order of sorts. It’s the entire system I disagree with, not just the state.
Ultimately you wouldn’t want a state, i.e. an authority from above. You’d want work places being planed, and run by workers themselves, this has proven an effective system, when people feel they are important, get job satisfaction then they work much better then when they feel like a cog in the machine. I feel like a cog in a machine myself just being told what to do, and consequently I probably don’t work as hard as I could, I should be working right now in fact :)
But the point being that I’d want to see a real democratic system (I don’t think we have one) in which we see real accountability of anyone with any sort of power. That’s the problem I see with individual power and ownership. You can argue that with competition if someone is doing a bad job then we can simply move onto a different company to get that product or service. But, that only goes so far. Indeed, when a market is new that does kind of happen. However as a good example, the communications industry, a very mature market now, for any competition to move into that market would take huge investment that could be crushed very easily by the effective shared monopolies we see in the communications market. These people have huge power and no way, through the free market, to get rid of them.
I keep up with most of the mainstream media outlets just to see what their saying, I wouldn’t call it news though. I prefer to get my news from grassroots movements, people involved in the news I am interested in.
Daniel Hannan, I thought so. I suspect it wasn’t published the massive backlash in the UK that happened after he went on Fox News, all his claims were proven wrong, and he was condemned as a liar and a nut job by most, even in the Conservative Party, including their leader David Cameron said as much,
There has always been some sort of regulation in the US though, the wild west is often claimed as a time without regulation from the state, but this simply isn’t true, there was, lots! Also when we look at the times of the big crashes the current one and 30s they were during times when we have seen less regulation in the market. Now before you say it, I’m not saying there is no regulation, but over the last 30 years we have seen less, and this is when the crashes have occurred!
Finally a word on public services, just because they don’t have to make a profit doesn’t mean they don’t make money. For instance as a couple of examples, here in the UK, the Met Office makes a profit and is a public corporation, the Post Office made a profit until they started privatizing it (oh the irony!), you could fund the Rail Service through ticket sales, but cheaper as you only need to fund it not make money on top. However some services just can’t make a profit or even break even from full stop, or shouldn’t, but are vital services and would be no different in the private sector.
Take utilities, I don’t know what it’s like in America but electricity and heating costs have soared in recent years here. The elderly, especially who need good heating to survive, without much money can’t afford to heat their houses in the winter, so have gone without risking death or live in one room in their houses, it’s outrageous in a supposedly advanced capitalist nation that this happens. Yet the utilities are privately owned, no competition is possible because it’s a mature market so the majority suffer.

Comment on Well, Duh! by markross

markross — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:27:47 +0000

Hi David,
So, what you are saying is, thus far, no Socialist system has worked efficiently? I will give that to you, there may not be an example as to where Socialism has operated in a vacuum, however, I can make the counter-argument with Capitalism: due to government intervention, central banks, income tax etc., the free-market has also been screwed up. That being said, prior to these progressives etc. intervening into our economy, with unprecedented amounts of power, in the 1920s, The US lasted many years, and thrived under the free-markets. Not to mention the great entrepreneurs, and inventions this country has also generated. All of which were due to the ability to take risks, except failure, while being able to get up and take risk again. That is The American way, and that is the system that our country was founded on, and we desperately need to get back to.

In a past comment, you mentioned the downside to government control, and we totally agreed on that… It is a known fact, throughout history, power does corrupt. So, of course, when a government is controlling the means of distribution, you will end up with mass corruption, and oppression. Again, since our government took control of taxes through income, in 1913, they too have assumed WAY too much power over the states, and seriously breached our Constitution: which made it clear, “no direct taxes shall be laid”.

Also, in our Constitution, our founders went to great lengths to separate power, in the government, so that one branch can not (usurp) overtake another branch, or the people, or the sovereignty of the states, which is being lost daily. Again, if the people could repeal the sixteenth amendment and income tax, the federal government would get put back into their rightful place in this country.

“You have been watching too much Fox News…”

And what news stations are you watching? A “government-controlled” station perhaps? Actually I have heard about The NHS through Daniel Hannan, but I will assume you don’t really care for him, as he too is a conservative that believes in free-markets. I have also heard from doctors in England and in Canada. Certainly you can find people who will espouse your beliefs, if you search enough; however, numbers and facts do not lie.

“Well that’s the point in a public service, it doesn’t have to make a profit, it can run at a loss because you are providing a service…”

David, in all due respect, this seems to be the key element that you, and others who espouse these systems, don’t seem to understand… Yes, public services are not expected to profit, however, they do have to be funded. And how are they funded? They are funded because the private (profitable companies and people) sector is paying enormous tax burdens to fund these monstrosities. And this is a key element: If the public sector had the potential to lose it all, the way someone like me and you could lose it all if we start a small business, then there would be “incentive” to operate efficiently, or they too would fail. However, how can an entire public sector fail? After all, the people are too dependent on government; therefore, we are forced to fund the incessant failings and bureaucracies. Also, keep in mind, we are in this current recession because of policies the government facilitated, and the dishonestly of a few in some of these so-called “too big to fail” companies. You know, at one time, in The United States, regular banks were not allowed to engage in securities sales because of the intrinsic risk, and that was probably the much better way to handle it. Look, if these idiots on Wall Street want to bet their homes on speculation etc, then be my guest; but when our homes are in the crossfire of their risky business, we then have a problem. I personally don’t like vapor paper, and speculation. I am definitely into more tangible assets, as opposed to these incessant boom and bust, bubble economies that have been allowed for the past few decades, in The United States.

My skepticism, and history tells us, the more you invest wealth etc into a centralized power, the more corruption and oppression is likely to follow. I could not see The American people, as a whole, buying into some one-world type governing body.

That being said, we seem to have one large point of agreement…
Big government bureaucracy, and inefficiencies, coupled with corruption and oppression, has screwed up Capitalism, and according to your theory, socialism has never really had a chance because of these these government factors; therefore,…

I would be interested to hear how you would do it if you were approached and asked for your opinion?…

Comment on Well, Duh! by David

David — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:10:20 +0000

Which socialist countries, can you name one? To save time there hasn’t been one. Russia, China, North Korea, etc are/were Stalinist states, not Marxist states. because we saw the raise of fascism instead of communism in Germany, Russia was left isolated and ultimately Russia descended into a nationalist nightmare, when socialism has to be international to work.
I’m sure there are reports that say the NHS is failing, like there are reports that say a range of contradictory things, it’s not perfect that’s for damn sure, and would be better under a real socialist system, but it’s certainly better than not having it, and better then the American system. I think you’ll find most people here in the UK would prefer it, even when the media attack it all the time. How can it be a relic left over after WW2, it was created after that, as people could not stand to go back to the way life was like before the war. You have been watching too much Fox News…
Well that’s the point in a public service, it doesn’t have to make a profit, it can run at a loss because you are providing a service. A private business has to make a profit to work, a public service doesn’t, which is why it’s cheaper and if run correct much more effective and less bureaucratic.
But the inefficiencies and bureaucracy that people always attack the public sector for (and don’t get me wrong does exist) also exists in the private sector. It is the system as a whole that is fault, not one aspect of it, i.e. it’s an organ of oppression rather then being the source of it.
So what what the American constitution says, you shouldn’t blindly follow anything, whoever wrote it, that’s just silly.
Re handing over your business, I’m not suggesting that as a transitional demand, no. You’d put major industry, banks, transport into public ownership and make sure minimum wage was an actual livable wage.

Comment on Tax Of The Day Anyone? by uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:19:12 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by ConTchr: @therationalman RT: Tax Of The Day Anyone? http://bit.ly/3eCEzj // I want to give this poem to students as extra credit to memorize #tcot…

Comment on Choices by markross

markross — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:54:45 +0000

Very good analogy!

Agreed, the crime, morally speaking, is the same.

Comment on Choices by BJ. Grifman

BJ. Grifman — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:41:10 +0000

Very good! Thanks, BJ

Comment on Well, Duh! by markross

markross — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:04:42 +0000

Hey David,

So, basically, you are saying, if you do not own your own business, then let’s just hand it over to the government? I’m sorry, I can not buy that premise.

Firstly, the (public sector) government is not a profitable entity, they only survive through the tax-payers, therefore, every time the government hires even one person, or gives any raise etc., it is the tax payer that is financing it. The government is wealth absorbers, not wealth creators.

At this point, I would not call our president a socialist, but I would say, he leans hard left and toward Socialism. The United States, sadly, has had quai-Socialism since the early 1900s and the inception of Social Security, under FDR. Which, over the years, and despite the government’s initial projections, is becoming social insecurity for our economy.

Also, we have Medicare, which has an unfunded liability of app. 37 trillion dollars; and it has been recently reported that our military hospitals are not so good either. We have a Constitution, in our nation, that never gave our federal government any mandate for any of this. I have also heard that The NHS is also failing, as it is a relic, left over from just after WW2, where, in England, it can argued that rationing of resources was necessary.

I am all for free-thinking, and I don’t knock someone who feels more safe, or comfortable handing their money and freedoms over to the government, however, there is not one model in The United States to where the government has run anything responsiblity. And subsequently, has cost the private sector and hard working citizens far more money then had they never enacted any of these foolish programs.

In case you are thinking, your government runs a military… The answer is yes, and they were granted that duty in our Constitution. Also, our Department of Defense, not Congress (thank God) is in control of our military budget.

Have you also noticed, the leaders of Socialists countries are the biggest hypocrites? While they are bashing the free markets and Capitalism, most, if not all of them, are very rich; while their populations lose all incentive to become rich themselves.

Sorry, I hate Socialism and all it stands for… From my point of view, it is the absolute nemesis to freedom and liberty. People can control the free markets through boycotts etc., however, people can not easily control a force that has a national military at it’s command.