Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

The environment which we all have lived, is a plutocracy, so unless one can 
contribute massive cash against one's enemies, by bribing politicians with 
donations, and, or, their employment after their political careers end, we end 
up being serfs. That doesn't mean serfs will walk away from an argument, 
because of a provocation, but it ensures the net effect is likely useless, 
except to charge up our limbic systems. It can be as good as exercise I have 
read.  


-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Fri, Jun 7, 2019 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: anrcho-libertarianism

 Well said Lawrence I used to become pulled in to the churning (and 
pointless) vortex of politics, but life is far too short for that exercise in 
futility.
Far better to open oneself instead to the transcendent ineffable experience of 
the many wonders of life and of the immediate impactful experience of living 
life, alive with spontaneous being, than to waste endless hours in "debate" 
debate that changes nothing except raising blood pressure.
Cheers,Chris


 
 
 On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:33 PM, Lawrence 
Crowell wrote:   The situation is hopeless. I 
correspond with someone who is a communist, and have gotten into some 
arguments. The argument here, though the words are different, has much the same 
sort of thinking. Politics in general is a sort of brain infection that causes 
neuron to seize up when any cognitive dissonance occurs, and these neuron go 
into an overdrive with various output that has no bounds of actual reason or 
limits on what is preposterous. The ideological meme is "uber alles" and it is 
upheld for a fortress of words. Religion has this property. 
LC

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 7:43:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
  
 
 On 6/6/2019 3:53 PM, John Clark wrote:
  
   On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:
 
   
 
>> There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews and if there is 
>> another one that is trying to kill them then the employees of both agencies 
>> will have very dangerous jobs and both will expect to be very well payed . 

  > Those are called armies.  So why didn't the Jews have an army?   
 
  The Jews didn't have an army to protect them because of government,  a 
government that was powerful enough to enforce its decrees, such as there can 
only be one army and they were the only one that could conscript men into it, 
and the only one that could make laws, and the only one that could collect 
taxers to pay for the army.  
 
 And why would it be any different if the Nazi PPA decided to collect taxes 
from the Jews?  It would be a government powerful enough to do so.   As long as 
they live together in the same area they will have to have a lot of the same 
laws.
 
 
   
  
 > What you're suggesting is every man for himself.  
 
  No, I'm just suggesting if we were starting from scratch it would be better 
if the group one belong to was not forced and was based on more than just 
geographical location. I'm suggesting it would be better if people had some 
choice about which set of laws they would obey. Obviously the laws can't be 
tailor made specifically for just one individual like your "every man for 
himself" straw man, that would never work, but it's weird people worry so much 
about corporate monopolies but are oblivious to the largest monopoly of them 
all, the government.
 
 They worry more about corporate monopolies because (1) There are not the 
checks and balances of our government.  The board is elected and they appoint a 
CEO.  The documents of incorporation, even if they say something about fairness 
and rights, are not overseen by any courts.  So it's effectively an oligarchy 
that elects a dictator.  (2) Big corporations wield more economic power and 
influence than many nation states, yet they are narrowly focused on making 
money.  They're not going to provide education or clean up the environment or 
provide health care.  Their officers only have a fiduciary responsibilty.  So 
one they can do with their economic power is capture government and thus wield 
both economic and military and law enforcement power. 
 
 
   And if you took all the evil every corporation has ever done and 
concentrated it into one spot it would amount to little more than rudeness 
compared to the horrors committed by government;
 
 You're ignoring the role that corporations have played in supporting those 
governments.  Mussolini said that fascism would be better called corporatism 
because it was the merging of corporate and state power.
 
 
   yes Facebook may not have treated the private information of its users with 
enough respect but at least it didn't stick them into ovens.   
 
 But Ligget and Meyers gave people lung cancer.
 
 
   
  I'm suggesting it would have been nice of the Jews had been given some 
choice.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 8:12:53 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:33 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> *> The situation is hopeless.*
>
>  
> Maybe, but I sure hope you're wrong!
>  
>
>> *> I correspond with someone who is a communist, and have gotten into 
>> some arguments.*
>
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if the Communist you corresponded with was of the 
> academic type. Even though 3 of the 4 greatest monsters of the 20th 
> century, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were Communist  among 
> academics being a Communist is considered to be more respectable than being 
> a Nazi and I have a theory as to why that is so. Academics tend to be 
> bookish and the theoretical basis of communism as seen in "The Communist 
> Manifesto" and "Das Kapital" may be economic nonsense but it's not 
> obviously evil; I mean who would object to a workers paradise? In practice 
> Communism was evil but in theory it was just stupid, however even in theory 
> the Nazism in "Mein Kampf" with its anti-semitism and master race crap is 
> nauseating.   
>  
>
>> *> Politics in general is a sort of brain infection that causes neuron to 
>> seize up when any cognitive dissonance occurs,*
>
>
> Like it or not politics is the way humans organize themselves, it got us 
> into a situation where a very unstable TV gameshow host who is far FAR from 
> being a genius (the Moon is part of Mars, vaccines cause autism) has the 
> power to destroy civilization in half an hour on a whim because he has, 
> among other things, the keys to a Trident Nuclear Submarine. Thousands of 
> years of progress could be wiped out in less time than it takes to write an 
> angry Tweet about Bette Midler or Rosie O'Donnell. 
>
> And like it or not the only thing that can get us out of this mess is yet 
> more politics.
>
>  John K Clark
>


The *politics is the problem* meme is a Republican talking point, the 
utility being that if they can get people to think that all politics is 
bad, or all politicians are the same, then people might as well vote for 
Republicans, since nothing will be done anyway, so why bother voting for a 
(Democratic) party that proposes government-based solutions.

The *make politics bad* (in the thinking of the people) propaganda agenda 
of the Republican Party is a very successful one.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0cd5606e-c9b9-4b1b-a9db-9a22a4646a3b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:33 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> The situation is hopeless.*


Maybe, but I sure hope you're wrong!


> *> I correspond with someone who is a communist, and have gotten into some
> arguments.*


I wouldn't be surprised if the Communist you corresponded with was of the
academic type. Even though 3 of the 4 greatest monsters of the 20th
century, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were Communist  among
academics being a Communist is considered to be more respectable than being
a Nazi and I have a theory as to why that is so. Academics tend to be
bookish and the theoretical basis of communism as seen in "The Communist
Manifesto" and "Das Kapital" may be economic nonsense but it's not
obviously evil; I mean who would object to a workers paradise? In practice
Communism was evil but in theory it was just stupid, however even in theory
the Nazism in "Mein Kampf" with its anti-semitism and master race crap is
nauseating.


> *> Politics in general is a sort of brain infection that causes neuron to
> seize up when any cognitive dissonance occurs,*


Like it or not politics is the way humans organize themselves, it got us
into a situation where a very unstable TV gameshow host who is far FAR from
being a genius (the Moon is part of Mars, vaccines cause autism) has the
power to destroy civilization in half an hour on a whim because he has,
among other things, the keys to a Trident Nuclear Submarine. Thousands of
years of progress could be wiped out in less time than it takes to write an
angry Tweet about Bette Midler or Rosie O'Donnell.

And like it or not the only thing that can get us out of this mess is yet
more politics.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0HARHVh4hBUsRnf6c0gRM1nifxe9U0F7qRxQXGfhHDOA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Jun 2019, at 02:32, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> The situation is hopeless. I correspond with someone who is a communist, and 
> have gotten into some arguments. The argument here, though the words are 
> different, has much the same sort of thinking. Politics in general is a sort 
> of brain infection that causes neuron to seize up when any cognitive 
> dissonance occurs, and these neuron go into an overdrive with various output 
> that has no bounds of actual reason or limits on what is preposterous. The 
> ideological meme is "uber alles" and it is upheld for a fortress of words. 
> Religion has this property. 

Fake religion has this property. Fake religion is what you obtain when you take 
theology out of science to mix it with the state. That gives fake religion, but 
also fake politics. It makes politics into a form of “religion”.

The only recent progress in the applied human science is the apparition of 
democracies and “universal” rule of laws. . But democracies are “living 
entities and can be very sick, perverted by collusion of special interests. 
Then political correctness install variate type of fascism back almost 
everywhere those days.

Bruno



> 
> LC
> 
> On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 7:43:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/6/2019 3:53 PM, John Clark wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> >> There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews and if there 
>> >> is another one that is trying to kill them then the employees of both 
>> >> agencies will have very dangerous jobs and both will expect to be very 
>> >> well payed .
>> 
>> > Those are called armies.  So why didn't the Jews have an army? 
>> 
>> The Jews didn't have an army to protect them because of government,  a 
>> government that was powerful enough to enforce its decrees, such as there 
>> can only be one army and they were the only one that could conscript men 
>> into it, and the only one that could make laws, and the only one that could 
>> collect taxers to pay for the army.
> 
> And why would it be any different if the Nazi PPA decided to collect taxes 
> from the Jews?  It would be a government powerful enough to do so.   As long 
> as they live together in the same area they will have to have a lot of the 
> same laws.
> 
>> 
>> > What you're suggesting is every man for himself. 
>> 
>> No, I'm just suggesting if we were starting from scratch it would be better 
>> if the group one belong to was not forced and was based on more than just 
>> geographical location. I'm suggesting it would be better if people had some 
>> choice about which set of laws they would obey. Obviously the laws can't be 
>> tailor made specifically for just one individual like your "every man for 
>> himself" straw man, that would never work, but it's weird people worry so 
>> much about corporate monopolies but are oblivious to the largest monopoly of 
>> them all, the government.
> 
> They worry more about corporate monopolies because (1) There are not the 
> checks and balances of our government.  The board is elected and they appoint 
> a CEO.  The documents of incorporation, even if they say something about 
> fairness and rights, are not overseen by any courts.  So it's effectively an 
> oligarchy that elects a dictator.  (2) Big corporations wield more economic 
> power and influence than many nation states, yet they are narrowly focused on 
> making money.  They're not going to provide education or clean up the 
> environment or provide health care.  Their officers only have a fiduciary 
> responsibilty.  So one they can do with their economic power is capture 
> government and thus wield both economic and military and law enforcement 
> power. 
> 
>> And if you took all the evil every corporation has ever done and 
>> concentrated it into one spot it would amount to little more than rudeness 
>> compared to the horrors committed by government;
> 
> You're ignoring the role that corporations have played in supporting those 
> governments.  Mussolini said that fascism would be better called corporatism 
> because it was the merging of corporate and state power.
> 
>> yes Facebook may not have treated the private information of its users with 
>> enough respect but at least it didn't stick them into ovens.
> 
> But Ligget and Meyers gave people lung cancer.
> 
>> 
>> I'm suggesting it would have been nice of the Jews had been given some 
>> choice. In 1933 if the Nazis didn't have a monopoly on making laws 
>> collecting taxes conscripting men and forming armies I'm sure the 6 million 
>> Jews would have chosen a Private Protection Agency that  enforced a law that 
>> said you can't murder Jews. Unfortunatly the Jews couldn't do that in 1933 
>> due to the government monopoly. 
> 
> Sure.  But the Jewish PPA might have decided that it was really a good thing 
> to kill Palestinians and take their land.
> 
>> 
>> > That's my main criticism of libertarianism...it 

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 Well said Lawrence I used to become pulled in to the churning (and 
pointless) vortex of politics, but life is far too short for that exercise in 
futility.
Far better to open oneself instead to the transcendent ineffable experience of 
the many wonders of life and of the immediate impactful experience of living 
life, alive with spontaneous being, than to waste endless hours in "debate" 
debate that changes nothing except raising blood pressure.
Cheers,Chris


 
 
  On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:33 PM, Lawrence 
Crowell wrote:   The situation is hopeless. I 
correspond with someone who is a communist, and have gotten into some 
arguments. The argument here, though the words are different, has much the same 
sort of thinking. Politics in general is a sort of brain infection that causes 
neuron to seize up when any cognitive dissonance occurs, and these neuron go 
into an overdrive with various output that has no bounds of actual reason or 
limits on what is preposterous. The ideological meme is "uber alles" and it is 
upheld for a fortress of words. Religion has this property. 
LC

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 7:43:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
  
 
 On 6/6/2019 3:53 PM, John Clark wrote:
  
   On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:
 
   
 
>> There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews and if there is 
>> another one that is trying to kill them then the employees of both agencies 
>> will have very dangerous jobs and both will expect to be very well payed . 

  > Those are called armies.  So why didn't the Jews have an army?   
 
  The Jews didn't have an army to protect them because of government,  a 
government that was powerful enough to enforce its decrees, such as there can 
only be one army and they were the only one that could conscript men into it, 
and the only one that could make laws, and the only one that could collect 
taxers to pay for the army.  
 
 And why would it be any different if the Nazi PPA decided to collect taxes 
from the Jews?  It would be a government powerful enough to do so.   As long as 
they live together in the same area they will have to have a lot of the same 
laws.
 
 
   
  
 > What you're suggesting is every man for himself.  
 
  No, I'm just suggesting if we were starting from scratch it would be better 
if the group one belong to was not forced and was based on more than just 
geographical location. I'm suggesting it would be better if people had some 
choice about which set of laws they would obey. Obviously the laws can't be 
tailor made specifically for just one individual like your "every man for 
himself" straw man, that would never work, but it's weird people worry so much 
about corporate monopolies but are oblivious to the largest monopoly of them 
all, the government.
 
 They worry more about corporate monopolies because (1) There are not the 
checks and balances of our government.  The board is elected and they appoint a 
CEO.  The documents of incorporation, even if they say something about fairness 
and rights, are not overseen by any courts.  So it's effectively an oligarchy 
that elects a dictator.  (2) Big corporations wield more economic power and 
influence than many nation states, yet they are narrowly focused on making 
money.  They're not going to provide education or clean up the environment or 
provide health care.  Their officers only have a fiduciary responsibilty.  So 
one they can do with their economic power is capture government and thus wield 
both economic and military and law enforcement power. 
 
 
   And if you took all the evil every corporation has ever done and 
concentrated it into one spot it would amount to little more than rudeness 
compared to the horrors committed by government;
 
 You're ignoring the role that corporations have played in supporting those 
governments.  Mussolini said that fascism would be better called corporatism 
because it was the merging of corporate and state power.
 
 
   yes Facebook may not have treated the private information of its users with 
enough respect but at least it didn't stick them into ovens.   
 
 But Ligget and Meyers gave people lung cancer.
 
 
   
  I'm suggesting it would have been nice of the Jews had been given some 
choice. In 1933 if the Nazis didn't have a monopoly on making laws collecting 
taxes conscripting men and forming armies I'm sure the 6 million Jews would 
have chosen a Private Protection Agency that  enforced a law that said you 
can't murder Jews. Unfortunatly the Jews couldn't do that in 1933 due to the 
government monopoly. 
   
 
 Sure.  But the Jewish PPA might have decided that it was really a good thing 
to kill Palestinians and take their land.
 
 
  
   
  > That's my main criticism of libertarianism...it assumes people are just 
motivated by money.  Money's only one form of power.  German soldiers were not 
especially well paid by the Nazis.  
 
  True, they were payed little and yet Nazi 

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[Lawrence Crowell]

The situation is hopeless. I correspond with someone who is a communist, 
and have gotten into some arguments. The argument here, though the words 
are different, has much the same sort of thinking. Politics in general is a 
sort of brain infection that causes neuron to seize up when any cognitive 
dissonance occurs, and these neuron go into an overdrive with various 
output that has no bounds of actual reason or limits on what is 
preposterous. The ideological meme is "uber alles" and it is upheld for a 
fortress of words. Religion has this property. 

LC

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 7:43:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/6/2019 3:53 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> >> There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews and if 
>>> there is another one that is trying to kill them then the employees of both 
>>> agencies will have very dangerous jobs and both will expect to be very well 
>>> payed . 
>>
>>
>> * > Those are called armies.  So why didn't the Jews have an army?  *
>>
>
> The Jews didn't have an army to protect them because of government,  a 
> government that was powerful enough to enforce its decrees, such as there 
> can only be one army and they were the only one that could conscript men 
> into it, and the only one that could make laws, and the only one that could 
> collect taxers to pay for the army.
>
>
> And why would it be any different if the Nazi PPA decided to collect taxes 
> from the Jews?  It would be a government powerful enough to do so.   As 
> long as they live together in the same area they will have to have a lot of 
> the same laws.
>
>
> > *What you're suggesting is every man for himself. *
>>
>
> No, I'm just suggesting if we were starting from scratch it would be 
> better if the group one belong to was not forced and was based on more than 
> just geographical location. I'm suggesting it would be better if people had 
> some choice about which set of laws they would obey. Obviously the laws 
> can't be tailor made specifically for just one individual like your "every 
> man for himself" straw man, that would never work, but it's weird people 
> worry so much about corporate monopolies but are oblivious to the largest 
> monopoly of them all, the government. 
>
>
> They worry more about corporate monopolies because (1) There are not the 
> checks and balances of our government.  The board is elected and they 
> appoint a CEO.  The documents of incorporation, even if they say something 
> about fairness and rights, are not overseen by any courts.  So it's 
> effectively an oligarchy that elects a dictator.  (2) Big corporations 
> wield more economic power and influence than many nation states, yet they 
> are narrowly focused on making money.  They're not going to provide 
> education or clean up the environment or provide health care.  Their 
> officers only have a fiduciary responsibilty.  So one they can do with 
> their economic power is capture government and thus wield both economic and 
> military and law enforcement power. 
>
> And if you took all the evil every corporation has ever done and 
> concentrated it into one spot it would amount to little more than rudeness 
> compared to the horrors committed by government; 
>
>
> You're ignoring the role that corporations have played in supporting those 
> governments.  Mussolini said that fascism would be better called 
> corporatism because it was the merging of corporate and state power.
>
> yes Facebook may not have treated the private information of its users 
> with enough respect but at least it didn't stick them into ovens.
>
>
> But Ligget and Meyers gave people lung cancer.
>
>
> I'm suggesting it would have been nice of the Jews had been given some 
> choice. In 1933 if the Nazis didn't have a monopoly on making laws 
> collecting taxes conscripting men and forming armies I'm sure the 6 
> million Jews would have chosen a Private Protection Agency that  enforced a 
> law that said you can't murder Jews. Unfortunatly the Jews couldn't do that 
> in 1933 due to the government monopoly. 
>
>
> Sure.  But the Jewish PPA might have decided that it was really a good 
> thing to kill Palestinians and take their land.
>
>
> * > That's my main criticism of libertarianism...it assumes people are 
>> just motivated by money.  Money's only one form of power.  German soldiers 
>> were not especially well paid by the Nazis. *
>>
>
> True, they were payed little and yet Nazi soldiers fought with great bravery. 
> Why? One reason is they'd be shot if they didn't. Another reason is that 
> among all the other monopolies the Nazis also had a monopoly on education 
> and the distribution of information and could therefore indoctrinate the 
> population with crap like the importance of the Fatherland, and total 
> obedience, and sacrifice, and courage, and martial glory.
>
>
> And hatred of Jews, which went back at 

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Jun 2019, at 19:34, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/5/2019 6:04 PM, John Clark wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 8:15 PM 'Brent Meeker'  
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>>  
>> >Do you call ISIS and Hezbollah governments? 
>> 
>> They make laws, force people to pay taxes ,conscript them into their army. 
>> and give people no choice. It sure sounds like a government to me.
>>  
>> > Of course under almost all governments it is illegal to kill any citizen 
>> > for pay. 
>> 
>> Solderers are payed by the government and so are the police, and they have 
>> both been known to kill people, sometimes on a industrial scale..
>>  
>> > I don't think anarcho-libertarians are, on average, more immune to racist, 
>> > populist fear-mongering that other people.  
>> 
>> I don't either but the morality of anarcho-libertarians has nothing to do 
>> with it. There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews and if 
>> there is another one that is trying to kill them then the employees of both 
>> agencies will have very dangerous jobs and both will expect to be very well 
>> payed .
> 
> Those are called armies.  So why didn't the Jews have an army?  And it's not 
> just Jews, it's Roma, and homosexuals and atheists and guys who crossed 
> Hitler in politics?  What you're suggesting is every man for himself.  Which 
> of course quickly leads to forming tribes of mutual protection, which leads 
> to city states, which leads to nations, which apparently doesn't lead to 
> rational world government.
> 
>> I maintain that the agency protecting the Jews will  be much better payed  
>> (and thus it will attract the most skilled warriors) and also they will 
>> be.much better equipped than the agency that would like to kill them  
>> because the 6 million Jews would be willing to spend everything they have if 
>> needed for protection while the 40 million Germans would not.be 
>>  willing to spend everything they had on destruction.  
>> 
>> Another good thing is that when its clear that the soldiers on both sides 
>> are just fighting for money then all the current crap associated with war, 
>> like glory duty and heroism , would be diminished and the job of soldiering 
>> would seem no more glorious than being a hedge fund manager on Wall Street.
> 
> That's my main criticism of libertarianism...it assumes people are just 
> motivated by money.  Money's only one form of power.  German soldiers were 
> not especially well paid by the Nazis.  And why would the Russians care 
> whether Hitler or Stalin ruled them?  Did Osama pay the 9/11 guys well?
> 
> I'm reminded of Bruno's theory that everything is computation…

Just to be exact. My working hypothesis is “Indexical Digital Mechanism”. It is 
“YD + CT” to sum it all.

My contribution is a theorem: which says that if we assume Mechanism, it is 
undecidable if there is more than the additive and multiplicative structure of 
the natural numbers, or Turing equivalent.

But most things are not computation. The mixing of the codes of the total 
computable functions and the strictly partial one IS NOT computable, yet 
“arithmetically real” and this will have a role in the “first person 
indeterminacy” measure problem.

If Mechanism is true, very few things are computable, or even deducible in 
powerful theory. Both consciousness and matter are typically not computable, 
yet absolutely real, for all Lôbian machines, from their phenomenological 
perspective.

Every is numbers, or computations, which means we can limit the arithmetical 
reality to the sigma_1 sentences eventually, but that means only that the 
fundamental ontology is very simple. The interesting things, including god, 
consciousness and matter all get their meaning and laws from the 
phenomenological perspective.

So, to say that with mechanism, that 'everything is computation’ is a bit 
misleading, as the phenomenologically apprehensible things will all be non 
computable, and yet are *real*, as we all know.

For consciousness you need only to agree that it is

True,
Knowable,
Indubitable,
(Immediate),

And

Non-definable,
Non Rationally believable

Together with the invariance for some digital transformation at some 
description level.




> and so everything must be explainable in terms of computation.

In terms of addition and multiplication, you can understand where consciousness 
come from, why it differentiates, and the transfinite paths it get involved 
into, and why Reality is beyond the computable, yet partially computable, 
partially and locally manageable, partially observable, partially and locally 
inductively inferable. Etc.

Even just the arithmetical reality is far beyond the computable, but from 
inside, the sigma_1 (ultra-mini-tniy part of that reality) is already bigger 
than we could hope to formalise in ZF or ZF + Large cardinal. 

Digital mechanism, well understood (meaning with understand the quasi direct 

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> The Jews didn't have an army to protect them because of government,  a
>> government that was powerful enough to enforce its decrees, such as there
>> can only be one army and they were the only one that could conscript men
>> into it, and the only one that could make laws, and the only one that could
>> collect taxers to pay for the army.
>
>

* > And why would it be any different if the Nazi PPA decided to collect
> taxes from the Jews? *
>

If only the Nazi PPA was allowed to collect taxes then it wouldn't be a PPA
it would be a government. The entire point of anrcho-libertarianism is you
don't pay taxes you voluntarily pay fees. It would be like deciding to join
Netflix except that instead of deciding which movie you want to watch you
decide which laws you want enforced. The more outrageous the law (I can do
anything I want) the higher the fee would be. I maintain that the fee to
enforce a law that said all Jews must be murdered would be very high and
very very few of those 40 million Germans would be willing to pay it, the
fee to enforce a law that said all Jews must be protected might be almost
as high but all 6 million Jews would be more than willing to pay it.
Therefore the pro Jew PPA would have more muscle than the anti Jew PPA.


>
> *> As long as they live together in the same area they will have to have a
> lot of the same laws.*
>

Why? If there is a disagreement among PPA's there are 3 ways it could be
resolved:

1) By violence, but that is expensive and would reduced the PPA's profits,
although if it did come to that the PPA protecting the Jews would have
soldiers that were better payed and better equipped than the PPA that wants
to kill them because they would have collected more money in fees.

2) By arbitration

3) By avoiding it from ever happening in the first place by making sure the
laws you promise to enforce were not so outrageous that violent opposition
was guaranteed.


> * > They worry more about corporate monopolies because (1) There are not
> the checks and balances of our government.  *
>

Checks? Like the checks the US Senate has placed to curb the outrageous
behavior of the current head of the Executive branch?

> *(2) Big corporations wield more economic power and influence than many
> nation states,*
>

Baloney. In terms of percentage of the Gross Domestic Product no
corporation in the history of the world was larger than Standard Oil, and
yet the government broke it up in 1911. And US corporations invested
billions of dollars in Cuba but when Castro took over the government in
1959 he kicked them out and confiscated all their property almost
immediately. Castro was even able to do the same thing with the Mafia's
property because he was the head of government. The Mafia had guns but
Castro had tanks.


> > *they are narrowly focused on making money. *
>

Yes! That's why I trust corporations much more than I trust government. If
Hitler had been a CEO the board of directors would have fired him because
starting World War 2 was a bad business decision that lost them a vast
amount of money.

>>if you took all the evil every corporation has ever done and concentrated
>> it into one spot it would amount to little more than rudeness compared to
>> the horrors committed by government;
>
>
> * > You're ignoring the role that corporations have played in supporting
> those governments. *
>

Sure, but government gave the order and the corporations obeyed not the
other way around. Supporting an atrocity is bad but not as bad as
initiating it. Governments can arrange things in such a way that atrocities
become profitable, something that would be impossible without government.


> *Mussolini said that fascism would be better called corporatism because
> it was the merging of corporate and state power.*
>

Well yes, if you merge state power and corporate power that's just about
all the power that there is, and it's all concentrated in just one place.
So let's not merge them.


> > Ligget and Meyers gave people lung cancer.
>

Yes but that's no secret, it's been scientifically accepted for over half a
century and yet people still decide to start smoking. As a libertarian
(small l) I think people have the right to kill themselves if they want to.

*> But the Jewish PPA might have decided that it was really a good thing to
> kill Palestinians and take their land.*
>

Who knows they might have, but if they did the results would not have been
worse than what we know actually happened to the Palestinians and their
land. I'm not so naive as to believe anrcho-libertarianism would eliminate
all violence and injustice but I do think it would greatly reduce it.

*> hatred of Jews, which went back at least to Martin Luther, waaay before
> Hitler.  Before Germany was even a country.*


Yes but Germany was far from unique in that regard, just look at the
Dreyfus affair. If you asked somebody in 

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 6/6/2019 3:53 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


>> There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews
and if there is another one that is trying to kill them then
the employees of both agencies will have very dangerous jobs
and both will expect to be very well payed . 



/> Those are called armies.  So why didn't the Jews have an army? /


The Jews didn't have an army to protect them because of government,  a 
government that was powerful enough to enforce its decrees, such as 
there can only be one army and they were the only one that could 
conscript men into it, and the only one that could make laws, and the 
only one that could collect taxers to pay for the army.


And why would it be any different if the Nazi PPA decided to collect 
taxes from the Jews?  It would be a government powerful enough to do so. 
  As long as they live together in the same area they will have to have 
a lot of the same laws.




> /What you're suggesting is every man for himself. /


No, I'm just suggesting if we were starting from scratch it would be 
better if the group one belong to was not forced and was based on more 
than just geographical location. I'm suggesting it would be better if 
people had some choice about which set of laws they would 
obey. Obviously the laws can't be tailor made specifically for just 
one individual like your "every man for himself" straw man, that would 
never work, but it's weird people worry so much about corporate 
monopolies but are oblivious to the largest monopoly of them all, the 
government.


They worry more about corporate monopolies because (1) There are not the 
checks and balances of our government.  The board is elected and they 
appoint a CEO.  The documents of incorporation, even if they say 
something about fairness and rights, are not overseen by any courts.  So 
it's effectively an oligarchy that elects a dictator. (2) Big 
corporations wield more economic power and influence than many nation 
states, yet they are narrowly focused on making money. They're not going 
to provide education or clean up the environment or provide health 
care.  Their officers only have a fiduciary responsibilty.  So one they 
can do with their economic power is capture government and thus wield 
both economic and military and law enforcement power.


And if you took all the evil every corporation has ever done and 
concentrated it into one spot it would amount to little more than 
rudeness compared to the horrors committed by government;


You're ignoring the role that corporations have played in supporting 
those governments.  Mussolini said that fascism would be better called 
corporatism because it was the merging of corporate and state power.


yes Facebook may not have treated the private information of its users 
with enough respect but at least it didn't stick them into ovens.


But Ligget and Meyers gave people lung cancer.



I'm suggesting it would have been nice of the Jews had been given some 
choice. In 1933 if the Nazis didn't have a monopoly on making laws 
collecting taxes conscripting men and forming armies I'm sure the 6 
million Jews would have chosen a Private Protection Agency that 
 enforced a law that said you can't murder Jews. Unfortunatly the Jews 
couldn't do that in 1933 due to the government monopoly.


Sure.  But the Jewish PPA might have decided that it was really a good 
thing to kill Palestinians and take their land.




/> That's my main criticism of libertarianism...it assumes people
are just motivated by money.  Money's only one form of power. 
German soldiers were not especially well paid by the Nazis. /


True, they were payed little and yet Nazi soldiers fought with great 
bravery. Why? One reason is they'd be shot if they didn't. Another 
reason is that among all the other monopolies the Nazis also had a 
monopoly on education and the distribution of information and could 
therefore indoctrinate the population with crap like the importance of 
the Fatherland, and total obedience, and sacrifice, and courage, and 
martial glory.


And hatred of Jews, which went back at least to Martin Luther, waaay 
before Hitler.  Before Germany was even a country.


Make Deutschland Great Again.

Brent


/> Did Osama pay the 9/11 guys well?
/


Yes, he promised they would each get payed 77 virgins after they 
performed that little task, and being religious, they fell for it.


/> I'm reminded of Bruno's theory that everything is
computation...and so everything must be explainable in terms of
computation./


That's not the fundamental problem with Bruno's theory, it's the idea 
a pure number can make a calculation.


John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails 

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews and if there
>> is another one that is trying to kill them then the employees of both
>> agencies will have very dangerous jobs and both will expect to be very well
>> payed .
>
>
> * > Those are called armies.  So why didn't the Jews have an army?  *
>

The Jews didn't have an army to protect them because of government,  a
government that was powerful enough to enforce its decrees, such as there
can only be one army and they were the only one that could conscript men
into it, and the only one that could make laws, and the only one that could
collect taxers to pay for the army.

> *What you're suggesting is every man for himself. *
>

No, I'm just suggesting if we were starting from scratch it would be better
if the group one belong to was not forced and was based on more than just
geographical location. I'm suggesting it would be better if people had some
choice about which set of laws they would obey. Obviously the laws can't be
tailor made specifically for just one individual like your "every man for
himself" straw man, that would never work, but it's weird people worry so
much about corporate monopolies but are oblivious to the largest monopoly
of them all, the government. And if you took all the evil every corporation
has ever done and concentrated it into one spot it would amount to little
more than rudeness compared to the horrors committed by government; yes
Facebook may not have treated the private information of its users with
enough respect but at least it didn't stick them into ovens.

I'm suggesting it would have been nice of the Jews had been given some
choice. In 1933 if the Nazis didn't have a monopoly on making laws
collecting taxes conscripting men and forming armies I'm sure the 6 million
Jews would have chosen a Private Protection Agency that  enforced a law
that said you can't murder Jews. Unfortunatly the Jews couldn't do that in
1933 due to the government monopoly.

* > That's my main criticism of libertarianism...it assumes people are just
> motivated by money.  Money's only one form of power.  German soldiers were
> not especially well paid by the Nazis. *
>

True, they were payed little and yet Nazi soldiers fought with great bravery.
Why? One reason is they'd be shot if they didn't. Another reason is that
among all the other monopolies the Nazis also had a monopoly on education
and the distribution of information and could therefore indoctrinate the
population with crap like the importance of the Fatherland, and total
obedience, and sacrifice, and courage, and martial glory.


>
> *> Did Osama pay the 9/11 guys well?*
>

Yes, he promised they would each get payed 77 virgins after they performed
that little task, and being religious, they fell for it.

* > I'm reminded of Bruno's theory that everything is computation...and so
> everything must be explainable in terms of computation.*
>

That's not the fundamental problem with Bruno's theory, it's the idea a
pure number can make a calculation.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2hAe_OaynqgN0U1RtgdMXPyJYFsb6Uj_m2uPT101BhtA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:34:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/5/2019 6:04 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 8:15 PM 'Brent Meeker'  <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>  
>
>> * >Do you call ISIS and Hezbollah governments? *
>>
>
> They make laws, force people to pay taxes ,conscript them into their army. 
> and give people no choice. It sure sounds like a government to me. 
>  
>
>> * > Of course under almost all governments it is illegal to kill any 
>> citizen for pay.  *
>>
>
> Solderers are payed by the government and so are the police, and they have 
> both been known to kill people, sometimes on a industrial scale.. 
>  
>
>> * > I don't think anarcho-libertarians are, on average, more immune to 
>> racist, populist fear-mongering that other people.  *
>>
>
> I don't either but the morality of anarcho-libertarians has nothing to do 
> with it. There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews and if 
> there is another one that is trying to kill them then the employees of both 
> agencies will have very dangerous jobs and both will expect to be very well 
> payed . 
>
>
> Those are called armies.  So why didn't the Jews have an army?  And it's 
> not just Jews, it's Roma, and homosexuals and atheists and guys who crossed 
> Hitler in politics?  What you're suggesting is every man for himself.  
> Which of course quickly leads to forming tribes of mutual protection, which 
> leads to city states, which leads to nations, which apparently doesn't lead 
> to rational world government.
>
> I maintain that the agency protecting the Jews will  be much better payed 
>  (and thus it will attract the most skilled warriors) and also they will 
> be.much better equipped than the agency that would like to kill them 
>  because the 6 million Jews would be willing to spend everything they have 
> if needed for protection while the 40 million Germans would not.be 
> willing to spend everything they had on destruction.  
>
> Another good thing is that when its clear that the soldiers on both sides 
> are just fighting for money then all the current crap associated with war, 
> like glory duty and heroism , would be diminished and the job of soldiering 
> would seem no more glorious than being a hedge fund manager on Wall Street
> .
>
>
> That's my main criticism of libertarianism...it assumes people are just 
> motivated by money.  Money's only one form of power.  German soldiers were 
> not especially well paid by the Nazis.  And why would the Russians care 
> whether Hitler or Stalin ruled them?  Did Osama pay the 9/11 guys well?
>
> I'm reminded of Bruno's theory that everything is computation...and so 
> everything must be explainable in terms of computation.
>
> Brent
>



All on YouTube:

The long interviews of Ayn Rand in 1959 (w/ Mike Wallace) and 1979 (w/ Phil 
Donahue).

The "philosophy of libertarianism" at its "best" (or "beast").

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9ae96b34-f842-4bc2-867c-6ce4a9c1e8e8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 6/5/2019 6:04 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 8:15 PM 'Brent Meeker' 
 > wrote:


/>Do you call ISIS and Hezbollah governments? /


They make laws, force people to pay taxes ,conscript them into their 
army. and give people no choice. It sure sounds like a government to me.


/> Of course under almost all governments it is illegal to kill
any citizen for pay. /


Solderers are payed by the government and so are the police, and they 
have both been known to kill people, sometimes on a industrial scale..


/> I don't think anarcho-libertarians are, on average, more immune
to racist, populist fear-mongering that other people. /


I don't either but the morality of anarcho-libertarians has nothing to 
do with it. There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews 
and if there is another one that is trying to kill them then the 
employees of both agencies will have very dangerous jobs and both will 
expect to be very well payed .


Those are called armies.  So why didn't the Jews have an army?  And it's 
not just Jews, it's Roma, and homosexuals and atheists and guys who 
crossed Hitler in politics?  What you're suggesting is every man for 
himself.  Which of course quickly leads to forming tribes of mutual 
protection, which leads to city states, which leads to nations, which 
apparently doesn't lead to rational world government.


I maintain that the agency protecting the Jews will  be much better 
payed  (and thus it will attract the most skilled warriors) and also 
they will be.much better equipped than the agency that would like to 
kill them  because the 6 million Jews would be willing to spend 
everything they have if needed for protection while the 40 million 
Germans would not.be  willing to spend everything they 
had on destruction.


Another good thing is that when its clear that the soldiers on both 
sides are just fighting for money then all the current crap associated 
with war, like glory duty and heroism , would be diminished and the 
job of soldiering would seem no more glorious than being a hedge fund 
manager on Wall Street.


That's my main criticism of libertarianism...it assumes people are just 
motivated by money.  Money's only one form of power.  German soldiers 
were not especially well paid by the Nazis.  And why would the Russians 
care whether Hitler or Stalin ruled them?  Did Osama pay the 9/11 guys well?


I'm reminded of Bruno's theory that everything is computation...and so 
everything must be explainable in terms of computation.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/12959d54-2876-2d73-6f75-c134de1ec9a7%40verizon.net.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Opinion wise, I wonder if this would have killed the Great Depression, thus, at 
least,.halting the momentum of the national socialists and causing defections 
among the communists? 
https://www.hgsss.org/prosperity-through-public-money-lessons-from-the-miracle-of-worgl-austria/


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Jun 5, 2019 10:32 am
Subject: Re: anrcho-libertarianism

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:52 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:
 

>> If the police worked for profit making corporations and every person could 
>> choose which corporation to buy police protection from please explain to me 
>> how 40 million Germans could murder 6 million Jews.  

Private police organizations would have every incentive to merge and form 
monopolies,

Why would if be financially beneficial for a Private Protection Agency (PPA) 
that was being payed by 6 million Jews to merge with a PPA that was being payed 
by 40 million Germans that want to murder them? A Jew would be willing to pay 
whatever it took, up to and including his entire net worth, to keep from 
getting murdered, but I doubt if even the most rabid anti semite would pay more 
than 1 or 2% to murder a Jew. In anrcho-libertarianism you can have much more 
influence with things that are REALLY important to you than just one man one 
vote.

> there is no simple solution, no silver bullet. 

I agree, what I have just said is of little practical use. Yes that would be 
the way to go if we were starting from scratch but we are not and there is 
virtually no chance of getting there before a technological singularity occurs. 
I always knew I'd have to modify my libertarian views someday but AI has been 
advancing faster than I expected so I had to make the modification sooner than 
I expected.  We must make the best of the institutions that already exist, like 
government, and try to push it in the right direction. But Trump is pushing the 
government in the opposite direction that is needed.  
John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv32BkLNb1RtUvtmqcLW9NJzzP9sbPBY3%3DOjXhmLz_1fxQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/858378214.665439.1559786470665%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Lets cut to the chase folks. In the US, the rich bribe politicians who depend 
on millions and billions of donations from the rich or PAC's thereof. With dems 
you get dead-silence, when I present evidence of corporations that bribe the 
democrats, and the republicans gladly take goodies from the kochs. Also, the 
Upper Row of the US Chamber of Commerce. I call this a Plutocracy but I have no 
working solution for this. I just don't like the lie that both parties ARE NOT 
plutocrats. 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Jun 5, 2019 9:00 am
Subject: Re: anrcho-libertarianism

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:17 AM 'Brent Meeker'  
 wrote:

 > Capitalism assumes that one can own things, especially money.  But without 
 > government to adjudicate and enforce claims of ownership, you couldn't own 
 > any more than you could carry on your back at a dead run. 

Obviously law is meaningless without enforcement, but as I explained in some 
detail in my previous post governments are not the only thing that can make 
laws or enforce them, corporations could do that too, and they would do it 
better than government. I am convinced that if we were starting from scratch 
that would be the way to go, but of course we are not starting from scratch, 
far from it. So at this point we must just do the best we can with what already 
exists. And like it or not government exists.

 > Most of the rich people in the U.S. are rich in virtue of owning stuff, not 
 > making stuff.


Thanks to the tax and inheritance laws (which Trump wants to make even more 
extreme) most rich people in the USA are rich because they chose their parents 
wisely. 
 John K Clark-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0%3DyRNRczCC2jnYOAHbeUaa3dZcw352pDiGJVx_iOEFfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1355222102.721542.1559785819633%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 8:15 PM 'Brent Meeker'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> * >Do you call ISIS and Hezbollah governments? *
>

They make laws, force people to pay taxes ,conscript them into their army.
and give people no choice. It sure sounds like a government to me.


> * > Of course under almost all governments it is illegal to kill any
> citizen for pay.  *
>

Solderers are payed by the government and so are the police, and they have
both been known to kill people, sometimes on a industrial scale..


> * > I don't think anarcho-libertarians are, on average, more immune to
> racist, populist fear-mongering that other people.  *
>

I don't either but the morality of anarcho-libertarians has nothing to do
with it. There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews and if
there is another one that is trying to kill them then the employees of both
agencies will have very dangerous jobs and both will expect to be very well
payed . I maintain that the agency protecting the Jews will  be much better
payed  (and thus it will attract the most skilled warriors) and also they
will be.much better equipped than the agency that would like to kill them
 because the 6 million Jews would be willing to spend everything they have
if needed for protection while the 40 million Germans would not.be willing
to spend everything they had on destruction.

Another good thing is that when its clear that the soldiers on both sides
are just fighting for money then all the current crap associated with war,
like glory duty and heroism , would be diminished and the job of soldiering
would seem no more glorious than being a hedge fund manager on Wall Street.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21eTNx%2B%2BHPojCXzcyRqA4r0Dhf%3DJTGUr60dkxA1DN51w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 6/5/2019 4:53 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' 
 > wrote:


/> But nobody paid him to become a rabid anti-semite. /


Historically very few anti Semites, even even rabid anti Semites, 
 kill Jews or pay someone to kill Jews for them unless they are part 
of a government.


Do you call ISIS and Hezbollah governments?  Of course under almost all 
governments it is illegal to kill any citizen for pay.  So to have large 
scale killing requires that the government at least look the other way.




/> there are lots of people who will murder jews for free./


There are some but not "lots", and if we're discussing the relative 
merits of various political systems it's irrelevantbecause psychoswill 
exist in in all of them; the question is what system best protect us 
from them.  And I just don't see any scenario under 
anrcho-libertarianism were it would be possible for 40 million Germans 
to murder 6 million Jews.


That's because you can't imagine the anarcho-libertarians being 
persuaded the the Jews were plotting against them and were responsible 
for all the bad things that had happened to them and were stealing their 
money via banking laws, etc.  But I don't think anarcho-libertarians 
are, on average, more immune to racist, populist fear-mongering that 
other people.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a434a57-900c-2228-4c79-9f1bd2e95843%40verizon.net.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:35 PM 'Brent Meeker'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> * > But nobody paid him to become a rabid anti-semite. *
>

Historically very few anti Semites, even even rabid anti Semites,  kill
Jews or pay someone to kill Jews for them unless they are part of a
government.

*> there are lots of people who will murder jews for free. *
>

There are some but not "lots", and if we're discussing the relative merits
of various political systems it's irrelevant because psychos will exist in
in all of them; the question is what system best protect us from them.  And
I just don't see any scenario under anrcho-libertarianism were it would be
possible for 40 million Germans to murder 6 million Jews.

 John K Clark



>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0zzNsSq3KoEr_8HaiEdo9GPw9t6pcydX%3DSrbCQrtaToA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 6/5/2019 6:15 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:56 AM Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:


/> Even if a completely libertarian system were established, the
corporations, banks and those at their top would pretty quickly go
about forming a government to provide a platform, a coherent set
of laws etc in which they could effectively conduct their
commerce. Of course it would be purely plutocratic, which in ways
is not terribly different from what we currently have,/


In todays world people have no choice where they get their police 
protection from, they must purchase it from the government through 
taxes. If the police worked for profit making corporations and every 
person could choose which corporation to buy police protection from 
please explain to me how 40 million Germans could murder 6 million Jews.


About buying police aggression against your competitor/enemy? Remember 
when the railroads had their own police.




And Yes there would be disagreements between different police agencies 
following different laws, but I explained in my previous post how that 
could be resolved. Mostly.


That would work about as well as arbitration between consumers and 
corporations.


Brent



 John K Clark



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0BGixhsTH6xXVoHuL3ndsm5uLNbw49TZk1LK-VDtC%2B6A%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a35b04f5-a947-9e5a-dc7d-34467f6e8d92%40verizon.net.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, at 16:32, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:52 AM Telmo Menezes > wrote:


>> If the police worked for profit making corporations and every
person could choose which corporation to buy police
protection from please explain to me how 40 million Germans
could murder 6 million Jews.


Private police organizations would have every incentive to merge
and form monopolies,


Why would if be financially beneficial for a Private Protection 
Agency (PPA) that was being payed by 6 million Jews to merge with a 
PPA that was being payed by 40 million Germans that want to murder 
them? A Jew would be willing to pay whatever it took, up to and 
including his entire net worth, to keep from getting murdered, but I 
doubt if even the most rabid anti semite would pay more than 1 or 2% 
to murder a Jew.


But nobody paid him to become a rabid anti-semite.  People form values 
prior to putting prices on them.  So it turns out that, some places, 
there are lots of people who will murder jews for free...in fact they 
will pay to murder jews, or rhoingyas, or romas, or, immigrants, or 
gays, or...


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/34368e7c-4b5c-e7bc-2b85-f77a28a515b9%40verizon.net.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Jun 2019, at 15:52, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, at 15:16, John Clark wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:56 AM Lawrence Crowell 
>> mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > Even if a completely libertarian system were established, the 
>> > corporations, banks and those at their top would pretty quickly go about 
>> > forming a government to provide a platform, a coherent set of laws etc in 
>> > which they could effectively conduct their commerce. Of course it would be 
>> > purely plutocratic, which in ways is not terribly different from what we 
>> > currently have,
>> 
>> In todays world people have no choice where they get their police protection 
>> from, they must purchase it from the government through taxes. If the police 
>> worked for profit making corporations and every person could choose which 
>> corporation to buy police protection from please explain to me how 40 
>> million Germans could murder 6 million Jews.  
> 
> Private police organizations would have every incentive to merge and form 
> monopolies, like corporations always try to do. Then suppose you are on the 
> wrong side of such a monopoly...
> 
>> 
>> And Yes there would be disagreements between different police agencies 
>> following different laws, but I explained in my previous post how that could 
>> be resolved. Mostly.
> 
> Corporations are AIs. In fact, they are AIs driven by a very simple utility 
> function: profit maximization. Left to their own devices, they become an 
> instance of Bostrom's "paperclip maximizer". We already see week versions of 
> this taking shape, for example:
> 
> - Amazon warehouse workers peeing in bottles during their 12-hour shifts, so 
> that some more plastic crap from China that nobody really needs can be 
> delivered as quickly as possible, while we deplete fossil fuel reserves and 
> destroy our own environment;
> 
> - Google and Facebook employ some of the brightest minds of our generation to 
> figure out ways to exploit loopholes in our brain, that we are not evolved to 
> defend again (known as supernormal stimulus), so that we collectively waste 
> the maximum amount of our time trapped in absurdist Skinner boxes clicking on 
> ads, so that we develop a strong enough desire to buy said crap from China. 
> Turns out that some of the most effective supernormal stimulus also lead to 
> Trump and Brexit, risking the destruction of institutions that took centuries 
> to develop. In the case of the EU, flawed as it may be, it is a miracle that 
> it was even possible, and it led to the longest period of peace in the entire 
> History of the European continent.
> 
> Then there is the small issue of preferential attachment (aka 
> "rich-get-richer" or Matthew effect), inexorably leading to a world where 
> there is only one corporation that owns everything, and the rest of us are 
> its slaves. Of course, we have been there before, and at some point heads 
> start rolling, and back to square one we go.
> 
> If something is to be learned from the XX century, is that there is no simple 
> solution, no silver bullet. There is only one answer: education and a 
> constant struggle for justice and freedom, always with new challenges. The 
> more educated people are, the more they are capable of making informed and 
> rational choices when they vote. Education and fundamental science are not 
> possible in a world where the utility function is pure profit.


I would say: education, the rule of laws and Democracy. Separation of power, as 
much as possible, to be vigilant about that, all the time.

Liberal economy have good anti-monopoly laws, but there are well known technic 
to shortcut them, like the prohibition laws, which is handy technic to kill the 
competitors. Prohibition leads to extreme non regulated markets, but many form 
of coercions can do that.

Freedom of expression is not free-dom of defamation, on individuals and 
societies of all sorts.

Lies die hard. There are still some people who believe that cannabis (Hemp) is 
a dangerous drug justifying its interdiction, when the lies exist only since 
less than a century, and were very gross, denuked since day one by all 
independent experts, and the information is today directly available. And 
Cannabis is still schedule one, and illegal in most countries. 

But even that lie on cannabis are consequence of a much deeper lie which is 
that science and religion are separable, despite science can show that indeed a 
part of them are separable, but that is where the religion go in the direction 
of modesty and silence, and the listening to the other(s).

Fundamentally, religion is related to the mystical experience, but 
institutionalised religion, even with “good intentions” transform themselves 
into self-empowering machinery *preventing* that experience. The reason is that 
such an experience free you of all argument per authority. In the theology of 
the machines, it seems that the 

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 8:16:03 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:56 AM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> *> Even if a completely libertarian system were established, the 
>> corporations, banks and those at their top would pretty quickly go about 
>> forming a government to provide a platform, a coherent set of laws etc in 
>> which they could effectively conduct their commerce. Of course it would be 
>> purely plutocratic, which in ways is not terribly different from what we 
>> currently have,*
>
>
> In todays world people have no choice where they get their police 
> protection from, they must purchase it from the government through taxes. 
> If the police worked for profit making corporations and every person could 
> choose which corporation to buy police protection from please explain to me 
> how 40 million Germans could murder 6 million Jews.  
>
> And Yes there would be disagreements between different police agencies 
> following different laws, but I explained in my previous post how that 
> could be resolved. Mostly.
>
>  John K Clark
>

In the 19th century fire departments were private, and this was the case 
with some police departments as well. The practice was ended because in the 
case of fire departments sometimes the firemen would sit back and watch a 
structure burn because they were owned by a non-paying customer, with the 
result fires could spread. Private police organizations can easily become 
protection rackets. In the case of Germany the Friekorps and related 
organizations in the early 1920s were private police-like organizations 
that terrorized Jews and nonconformists and which demanded protection 
money. The Nazis loved guns and they had their 1920s hunting lodges, so the 
myth of the Nazis being similar to liberals who want guns laws is 
ludicrous. 

For the life of me I do not understand what people find attractive about 
libertarianism. I think there are four types of social organizations; 
statecraft, warcraft, priestcraft and tradecraft. :Libertarians want to 
eliminate statecraft, when there is no historical precedent for that. The 
Communists tried to eliminate tradecraft, or capitalism,.as well as 
priestcraft. In fact there is no historical precedent of any society that 
functions well which eliminates any of these. This is even warcraft, where 
while I would love to see John Lennon's *Imagine* take root, I suspect it 
can't and there is no historical precedent for a society without at least 
some minimum of that. While I do not think there is the sort of 
supernatural or magical reality proposed by religion, I also think some 
ritual practice surrounding mythic ideas will always exist in human 
societies.

LC 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bb795a06-ed63-4980-93a9-fe431470d57e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:32 AM Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

*> I have read a version of this argument first in "The Machinery of
> Freedom" by David Friedman, and I found it quite compelling. *
>

Me too.

*> The problem is that rational actors qiuckly find the power of scale
effects, thus corporations and corporate mergers.*

People greatly exaggerate the evils of corporate monopolies. Take for
example the greatest monopoly of them all, Standard Oil. The company
existed from 1870 to 1911 when the government forced it to break up; during
those 41 years the price of kerosene, its principle product, dropped by 80%
 and the purity of the kerosene greatly increased. It's interesting that
every one of the people who ran crying to the government and later
testified that Standard Oil's predatory tactics made competition
impossible, nevertheless somehow managed to amass huge fortunes competing
with Standard Oil.

Take David P Reighard for example, when Standard Oil threatened to lower
the price so much that he would lose money on every gallon he sold,
Reighard called their bluff, he knew Standard oil sold a lot more gallons
of oil than he did, and so would lose a lot more money than he would if
they tried to do that. Standard Oil realized that the only way to stop
Reighard was to buy him out, which they did, at a huge profit to Reighard.
What did he do with all that money? He built an even larger oil refinery of
course. Standard felt they had to buy that one too, at an even larger
profit to Reighard. Are you starting to  see a pattern here? In all
Reighard did this 3 times before Standard caught on  and gave up, making
him one of the riches men in the country.

*> Consider the "war on drugs". I think we might agree that it is a
> collossal failure,*
>

Yes!

>
> *that not only did not stop drug traffic, but it contributed to make
> street drugs more dangerous and destroyed countless lives with prison
> sentences for victimless crimes.*
>

Yes!

*> And yet, we can't seem to get rid of those laws. Who is lobbying for
> such laws to stay in the books? Private prisions, pharmaceutical companies
> and police sindicates.*
>

I've never heard that pharmaceutical companies were pushing for more
draconian drug laws but I agree it's not surprising that DEA agents are
strongly opposed to legalizing drugs, if it happened they'd be out of a job.


> *> Trump is Putin, but with a much lower IQ.*
>

Yes and that is our one hope, the very stable genius may be too brain dead
dumb to be able to fulfill his wish to become dictator, or better yet king.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0doqtrDqWeLPJLWtPCRjCH8_0fZBAUy%2Bw1U8sPPLU0-A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, at 16:32, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:52 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
>>> >> If the police worked for profit making corporations and every person 
>>> >> could choose which corporation to buy police protection from please 
>>> >> explain to me how 40 million Germans could murder 6 million Jews. 
>> 
>> Private police organizations would have every incentive to merge and form 
>> monopolies,
> 
> Why would if be financially beneficial for a Private Protection Agency (PPA) 
> that was being payed by 6 million Jews to merge with a PPA that was being 
> payed by 40 million Germans that want to murder them? A Jew would be willing 
> to pay whatever it took, up to and including his entire net worth, to keep 
> from getting murdered, but I doubt if even the most rabid anti semite would 
> pay more than 1 or 2% to murder a Jew. In anrcho-libertarianism you can have 
> much more influence with things that are *REALLY* important to you than just 
> one man one vote.

I have read a version of this argument first in "The Machinery of Freedom" by 
David Friedman, and I found it quite compelling. I would even say that it could 
work, if society was forever structured by individuals and contracts between 
them. The problem is that rational actors qiuckly find the power of scale 
effects, thus corporations and corporate mergers.

Then suddenly you have one enity that can offset all the individual 
contributions of the people it wants to get rid of.

Consider the "war on drugs". I think we might agree that it is a collossal 
failure, that not only did not stop drug traffic, but it contributed to make 
street drugs more dangerous and destroyed countless lives with prison sentences 
for victimless crimes.

And yet, we can't seem to get rid of those laws. Who is lobbying for such laws 
to stay in the books? Private prisions, pharmaceutical companies and police 
sindicates.

Consider that the vast majority of people are religious. Consider how quickly 
you could be in the situation of the jews, through other mechanisms arising 
from the accumulation of power in a small number of actors.

> 
>> *> there is no simple solution, no silver bullet. *
> 
> I agree, what I have just said is of little practical use. Yes that would be 
> the way to go if we were starting from scratch but we are not and there is 
> virtually no chance of getting there before a technological singularity 
> occurs. I always knew I'd have to modify my libertarian views someday but AI 
> has been advancing faster than I expected so I had to make the modification 
> sooner than I expected. We must make the best of the institutions that 
> already exist, like government, and try to push it in the right direction.

Ok. I entertained libertarian ideas for some time, and modified my views for 
the exact same reasons you state. I guess we agree after all.

>  But Trump is pushing the government in the opposite direction that is 
> needed. 

Indeed. Trump is Putin, but with a much lower IQ. An autocrat and a mafia boss. 
I hope that your republic can survive him.

Telmo.

> 
> John K Clark
> 
> 
> 

> --
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>  To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv32BkLNb1RtUvtmqcLW9NJzzP9sbPBY3%3DOjXhmLz_1fxQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dde488bc-50be-4878-92ea-e53644e0afae%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:52 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:

>
> >> If the police worked for profit making corporations and every person
>> could choose which corporation to buy police protection from please explain
>> to me how 40 million Germans could murder 6 million Jews.
>
>
> Private police organizations would have every incentive to merge and form
> monopolies,
>

Why would if be financially beneficial for a Private Protection Agency
(PPA) that was being payed by 6 million Jews to merge with a PPA that was
being payed by 40 million Germans that want to murder them? A Jew would be
willing to pay whatever it took, up to and including his entire net worth,
to keep from getting murdered, but I doubt if even the most rabid anti
semite would pay more than 1 or 2% to murder a Jew. In
anrcho-libertarianism you can have much more influence with things that are
*REALLY* important to you than just one man one vote.

*> there is no simple solution, no silver bullet. *


I agree, what I have just said is of little practical use. Yes that would
be the way to go if we were starting from scratch but we are not and there
is virtually no chance of getting there before a technological singularity
occurs. I always knew I'd have to modify my libertarian views someday but
AI has been advancing faster than I expected so I had to make the
modification sooner than I expected.  We must make the best of the
institutions that already exist, like government, and try to push it in the
right direction. But Trump is pushing the government in the opposite
direction that is needed.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv32BkLNb1RtUvtmqcLW9NJzzP9sbPBY3%3DOjXhmLz_1fxQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, at 15:16, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:56 AM Lawrence Crowell 
>  wrote:
> 
>> *> Even if a completely libertarian system were established, the 
>> corporations, banks and those at their top would pretty quickly go about 
>> forming a government to provide a platform, a coherent set of laws etc in 
>> which they could effectively conduct their commerce. Of course it would be 
>> purely plutocratic, which in ways is not terribly different from what we 
>> currently have,*
> 
> In todays world people have no choice where they get their police protection 
> from, they must purchase it from the government through taxes. If the police 
> worked for profit making corporations and every person could choose which 
> corporation to buy police protection from please explain to me how 40 million 
> Germans could murder 6 million Jews. 

Private police organizations would have every incentive to merge and form 
monopolies, like corporations always try to do. Then suppose you are on the 
wrong side of such a monopoly...

> 
> And Yes there would be disagreements between different police agencies 
> following different laws, but I explained in my previous post how that could 
> be resolved. Mostly.

Corporations are AIs. In fact, they are AIs driven by a very simple utility 
function: profit maximization. Left to their own devices, they become an 
instance of Bostrom's "paperclip maximizer". We already see week versions of 
this taking shape, for example:

- Amazon warehouse workers peeing in bottles during their 12-hour shifts, so 
that some more plastic crap from China that nobody really needs can be 
delivered as quickly as possible, while we deplete fossil fuel reserves and 
destroy our own environment;

- Google and Facebook employ some of the brightest minds of our generation to 
figure out ways to exploit loopholes in our brain, that we are not evolved to 
defend again (known as supernormal stimulus), so that we collectively waste the 
maximum amount of our time trapped in absurdist Skinner boxes clicking on ads, 
so that we develop a strong enough desire to buy said crap from China. Turns 
out that some of the most effective supernormal stimulus also lead to Trump and 
Brexit, risking the destruction of institutions that took centuries to develop. 
In the case of the EU, flawed as it may be, it is a miracle that it was even 
possible, and it led to the longest period of peace in the entire History of 
the European continent.

Then there is the small issue of preferential attachment (aka "rich-get-richer" 
or Matthew effect), inexorably leading to a world where there is only one 
corporation that owns everything, and the rest of us are its slaves. Of course, 
we have been there before, and at some point heads start rolling, and back to 
square one we go.

If something is to be learned from the XX century, is that there is no simple 
solution, no silver bullet. There is only one answer: education and a constant 
struggle for justice and freedom, always with new challenges. The more educated 
people are, the more they are capable of making informed and rational choices 
when they vote. Education and fundamental science are not possible in a world 
where the utility function is pure profit.

Telmo.


> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
>> 
> 

> --
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>  To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0BGixhsTH6xXVoHuL3ndsm5uLNbw49TZk1LK-VDtC%2B6A%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eda6d032-e49d-4876-85b7-6f1fa7bb8b60%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:56 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> Even if a completely libertarian system were established, the
> corporations, banks and those at their top would pretty quickly go about
> forming a government to provide a platform, a coherent set of laws etc in
> which they could effectively conduct their commerce. Of course it would be
> purely plutocratic, which in ways is not terribly different from what we
> currently have,*


In todays world people have no choice where they get their police
protection from, they must purchase it from the government through taxes.
If the police worked for profit making corporations and every person could
choose which corporation to buy police protection from please explain to me
how 40 million Germans could murder 6 million Jews.

And Yes there would be disagreements between different police agencies
following different laws, but I explained in my previous post how that
could be resolved. Mostly.

 John K Clark




>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0BGixhsTH6xXVoHuL3ndsm5uLNbw49TZk1LK-VDtC%2B6A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:17 AM 'Brent Meeker'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> *Capitalism assumes that one can own things, especially money.  But
> without government to adjudicate and enforce claims of ownership, you
> couldn't own any more than you could carry on your back at a dead run. *
>

Obviously law is meaningless without enforcement, but as I explained in
some detail in my previous post governments are not the only thing that can
make laws or enforce them, corporations could do that too, and they would
do it better than government. I am convinced that if we were starting from
scratch that would be the way to go, but of course we are not starting from
scratch, far from it. So at this point we must just do the best we can with
what already exists. And like it or not government exists.

>
> *Most of the rich people in the U.S. are rich in virtue of owning stuff,
> not making stuff.*
>

Thanks to the tax and inheritance laws (which Trump wants to make even more
extreme) most rich people in the USA are rich because they chose their
parents wisely.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0%3DyRNRczCC2jnYOAHbeUaa3dZcw352pDiGJVx_iOEFfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:17:35 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/4/2019 4:29 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> If we were starting from scratch I would suggest Anarcho-Capitalism, I 
> think it would be far superior to democracy, but unfortunately we are not 
> starting from scratch and so it would be very difficult to get there from 
> here;  but don't let the word "anarchy" scare you, it just means lack of 
> government. Chaos necessarily implies anarchy but anarchy does not 
> necessarily imply chaos. 
>
>
> Capitalism assumes that one can own things, especially money.  But without 
> government to adjudicate and enforce claims of ownership, you couldn't own 
> any more than you could carry on your back at a dead run.   Most of the 
> rich people in the U.S. are rich in virtue of owning stuff, not making 
> stuff.
>
> Brent
>

These discussions have become far longer than what I want to spend time on. 
These types of discussions have a pernicious way of burning up time and 
frankly neurons. Even if a completely libertarian system were established, 
the corporations, banks and those at their top would pretty quickly go 
about forming a government to provide a platform, a coherent set of laws 
etc in which they could effectively conduct their commerce. Of course it 
would be purely plutocratic, which in ways is not terribly different from 
what we currently have, and with t'Rump it will go all the way full tilt 
into an American form of fascism. 

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c157c350-85aa-4b48-9cee-d8e8ce8eb160%40googlegroups.com.