Comments by "Ōkami-san" (@mweibleii) on "America: The Best Government Money can Buy..." video.

  1. I'm going to have to call bullshit on Thom's argument. The problem isn't money being able to buy centralized power - the problem is the centralization of power itself. The fact is many States that do not have Governments anywhere like ours ALL have the same problems. From socialist countries like Japan to autocracies like the KSA. IF what Thom is saying is true, then the citizens of KSA would be living in a perfectly run wealthy country - - because no one CAN buy off the King. But it isn't. It's just as f*cked as we are and just as f*cked as Japan. The solution is to LIMIT government. How to do that? END the FED. If there were no Federal Reserve in 2008 - the rich would be poor right now. Problem solved. A new group of rich would be rising and they'd also fall one day - unless they offered something of long lasting value to society.
    1
  2. Keith Voltaire Lack of historical precedence not an argument. As a matter of fact, people made your exact argument in favour of human slavery. They argued there'd never been a civilization that had'd practised slavery. Anyway, you needed worry, we're not getting less State, we're getting more. Much more.    Note: Argument from history is fallacious reasoning. 
    1
  3. Keith Voltaire  Maybe you need to actually make a truth claim because your 'argument' is all over the place. Again, just because history isn't littered with anarchic voluntary societies (although Ireland is a good example. See here: http://markstoval.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/1000-years-of-irish-anarchy/) is itself not a valid argument against them coming into being. Two, the State is by definition immoral. This is why it was LIMITED. The State has the legal right, within a geographical location to use force against innocent people (See: War on Drugs and the largest non-violent prison population in history as an example of the State's legal use of force against innocent humans). Not to mention, why pick out 50 million?! I personally would like to the the State's in the USA either regain their legal standing above the Federal Government or outright succession. Smaller societies work better in my opinion - and there's plenty of historical and contemporary evidence of this.  Lastly, don't worry, we're getting more State and more of it's associated violence. You'll see. 
    1
  4. Keith Voltaire 1) I find it interesting you claim that as societies become more complex, that more central force is required. I on the other hand think exactly the opposite is true. As societies become complex, it becomes harder for central authorities to model and manage said complex societies - which is why, as States become more 'socialistic' they simultaneously lose more liberty and privacy. It's one of the reasons we all must lose our right to privacy as the State's central planners attempt to model our behaviours. As this fails (and it always does) the State then restricts our behaviours. All of which is happening currently.  I have a tea cup sitting next to me. You don't need to see it, other than to know it's mine - I own it. How much is it worth to me? How can the State discover this? It can't. The ONLY way anyone, perhaps even me, can determine the value of my tea cup is if I'm allowed to trade it for a sound currency. Thus, a free society with sound money is the most efficient means to maintain (and develop) a complex society. Not a central authority.  2) RE: The State (as defined by Max Weber, see Princeton University: .http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force.html) *The monopoly on legitimate violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates) is the definition of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation, which has been predominant in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century. It defines a single entity, the state, exercising authority on violence over a given territory, as territory was also deemed by Weber to be a characteristic of state. Importantly, such a monopoly must occur via a process of legitimation, wherein a claim is laid to legitimise the state's use of violence.* -- Anyone can legally use violence in defence against aggression. ONLY the State can initiate force against an innocent person. Examples of State violence include income tax (labor tax) and drug laws. The first one is used to force workers to pay to maintain value of the State's fiat paper. When Chinese buy 30 year T-bonds - they're buying labor from children not yet born, let alone given a vote - which makes a mockery of democracy. When Rx monopoly was given to the AMA, it initiated the legal use of force against everyone attempting to take ownership of their own body - this small act of violence of the State has ended up in the largest prison population in history as well as hellishly violent inner cities that would make bootleggers look like angles, not to mention ruined healthcare. Currently 480,000 Americans die each year due to medical error. Up from 90,000 in 1990. Violence doesn't work in ANY society. Larger State is a return to the jungle. Government is ANTI-society. It's a return to might makes right. The State is by definition immoral. Public institutions are based on violence. Private enterprise on the other hand is virtuous. Because the ONLY way a private group of people can interact with you is by your voluntarily agreeing to do so. Apple Inc is the largest corporation in the world, yet you feel no fear at telling them to piss off and buying Samsung. Try that with a police officer or the IRS. You'll quickly see the difference between Private and Public.
    1
  5. Keith Voltaire You're not the only person reading this series of posts. But, I'll go ahead and take your advice.
    1