Financial mania: Why bankers and politicians failed to heed warnings of the credit crisis

Jun 07, 2012

Western economies displayed the same kind of manic behaviour as psychologically disturbed individuals in the run up to the 2008 credit crisis -- and it could happen again, according to a new study.

Bankers, economists and politicians shared a "manic culture" of denial, omnipotence and triumphalism as they threw caution to the wind, says Professor Mark Stein, the award-winning academic from the University of Leicester School of Management.

Observing - but not heeding - the from the collapse of the Japanese economy in 1991 and the 1998 crisis in south-east Asia, the financial world in the West went into an over-drive of denial, escalating its risky and dangerous lending and insurance practices in a manic response, he says.

Professor Stein, who has today (June 7) been awarded the iLab prize for innovative scholarship, identifies and describes this manic behaviour in the 20-year run up to the in a paper published in the Sage journal Organization.

The causes of the banking collapse that plunged the UK and many other countries into recession have been well documented but an important question remains: Why did economists, financiers and politicians fail to anticipate it?

Professor Stein argues that the financial world was suffering from collective mania in the two decades running up to the events. "Unless the manic nature of the response in the run up to 2008 is recognised, the same economic disaster could happen again," he warns.

He defines the manic culture in terms of the four characteristics of denial, omnipotence, triumphalism and over-activity. "A series of major ruptures in capitalist economies were observed and noted by those in positions of economic and in Western societies. These ruptures caused considerable anxiety among these leaders, but rather than heeding the lessons, they responded by manic, omnipotent and triumphant attempts to prove the superiority of their economies."

The massive increase in credit derivative deals, industrializing credit default swaps and the removal of regulatory safety checks, such as the repeal in the United States of the landmark Glass-Steagall banking controls were a manic response to the financial crises within capitalism," he says.

Professor Stein's award-winning research paper - A culture of mania: a psychoanalytic view of the incubation of the 2008 credit crisis – says this behaviour was also strengthened by "triumphant" feelings in the West over the collapse of communism.

"Witnessing the collapse of communism, those in power in the West developed the deluded idea that capitalist economies would do best if they eschew any resemblance to those communist economies, thereby justifying unfettered financial liberalization and the destruction of the regulatory apparatuses of capitalism. The consequences of this manic response have been catastrophic, with the on-going eurozone crisis being - in many ways - a result of this," he says.

"Whether one examines the actions of banks and hedge funds, or the limitations of ratings agencies, auditors, regulators and governments, a more worrying and deeper question emerges concerning why so many parties, more or less simultaneously, were implicated in such unprecedented and extreme risk-taking."

Explore further: Corruption influences migration of skilled workers

More information: The full paper can be found here: org.sagepub.com/content/18/2/173.full.pdf+html

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Effective global regulation

Nov 17, 2008

Government ownership of banks – something unthinkable until very recently for the 'Anglo-Saxon' model of capitalism –- became a reality early in 2008. This was a policy response to an unprecedented global financial crisis, ...

Lessons from the past can clarify banking crisis

Nov 14, 2008

Stricter regulation of the financial services sector is likely to result from the latest upheaval in national and global markets. It is being demanded by politicians of all parties while the Financial Services Authority, ...

Recommended for you

Healthy companies and healthy regions: Connecting the dots

May 16, 2013

In today's virtual world, it's easy to downplay the significance of place. Yet when it comes to regional prosperity, geography matters. Income and job growth is not random but rather spill over from one region to another, ...

Creativity that counts

May 15, 2013

In a digital world, literature, art and music are often the result of collaborative efforts. But who owns what, and can copyright law cope? New research aims to find out.

User comments : 126

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

AWaB
4 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2012
The next question that we need to ask is why we keep doing it? Austerity sucks but you can't spend your way out of a financial hole! Also, some regulation is required to ensure that we don't do this again. No regulation is a silly idea and over-regulation is an even worse (sillier, even!) idea.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (18) Jun 07, 2012
It is quite simple. Politicians and bankers were not risking THEIR own personal wealth. They were risking other people's money and, because all banks are state controlled with fiat currency, many banks were insured by the govt, aka taxpayers.
But of course the socialists won't acknowledge their failure and demand MORE govt control, more govt inflation, ....in spite of several examples of govts that that have been responsible and whose economies are expanding.
SatanLover
2.4 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2012
I told my banker minions to create an artificial crisis. Humans would perish without their pesty money. Weaklings deserve to die.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2012
I'm saying here all the time, the ignorance of cold fusion is the reason of oil wars, rise of the oil prices and the subsequent financial crisis, but most of readers are ignoring me here as well. Are they maniacs?
Terriva
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2012
Just because experts are specialized to narrow area of their private interest, they're not qualified in judging of their opinions in wider context - on the contrary, they tend to occupy their stances rather blindly - the more, the more they feel being an experts in given area. In this context the reading of articles The era of expert failure by Arnold Kling, Why experts are usually wrong by David H. Freeman and Why the experts missed the crash by Phill Tetlock may be useful not only for financial experts.
Caliban
2.8 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2012
What's silly is that the Neo-liberal/Libertarian/Randites insist that we can't spend our way out of this crisis while also insisting that cutting taxes for the wealthy/corporations will create jobs.

There is no operative difference between the two, except for the fact that this crisis was the result of a decades-long pursuit of the big payoff --the harvesting of all that accrued wealth made possible by the regulatory structure put in place in the New Deal.

"Ironically", all of that transferred wealth, which was supposed to have fueled a windfall of new job creation by those with the wealth led to nothing of the sort --which, plainly-- puts paid to the Big Lie of trickledown economics. If deregulation worked as its proponents claimed the economy, and the wealth of average Americans, and indeed, of everyday people worldwide, would be on a steady uptick --which is manifestly divergent from the reality.

Nothing less than massive theft. And without remedy --at least so far.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2012
Yes, it is so simple that Libertarians and Randites were insisting that it was absolutely impossible, and that it was ideologically impossible fort Corporatists and bankers to act against their own interests.

"It is quite simple. Politicians and bankers were not risking THEIR own personal wealth." - RyggTard

You remember, don't you Tard Boy, how your Randite hero Alan Greenspan proclaiming the failure of your Libertarian/Randite Ideology in his congressional testimony?

http://www.youtub...=related

Libertarian/Randite economics has been a disaster for America.

Don't you agree Tard Boy?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2012
Nonsense. Nothing has been stolen. The American people gave up their wealth to the rich and powerful willingly.

"Nothing less than massive theft." - Caliban

All it took was a few bits of Libertarian propaganda from the Heritage Foundation, the CATO institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the other 100 or so Libertarian propaganda groups in the U.S.

Just look at RyggTard, he is still singing the praises of failed Libertraian Economics.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2012
Presented with the fact that his political Ideology has produced such a massive economic failure, RyggTard produces an incoherent complaint that it was all socialism for some reason.

"But of course the socialists won't acknowledge their failure and demand MORE govt control, more govt inflation, ..." - RyggTard

Libertarians don't exist in a reality based community. They live in a land of absolute make believe, absolute denial, absolute irresponsibility, and absolute ignorance.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2012
There is no operative difference between the two,

Stealing money from taxpayers or printing money for the govt to spend is the same at cutting the overhead costs for businesses to create wealth?
The difference which socialists can't, or won't, understand is one is the first destroys wealth and the the latter enables the creation of wealth, and weakens the power of the state.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2012
If RyggTard doesn't like American dollars he can always exchange them for "real" money.

The fact that he does not do so either indicates that he is exceptionally lazy and a whiner, or would rather suffer from monetary inflation rather than doing so and is a whiner.

"Stealing money from taxpayers or printing money for the govt to spend is the same" - RyggTard

So which is it RyggTard? Are you a willing victim in the "crime" you claim or are you just too lazy and stupid to do anything about it?

Under Libertarian doctrine if you are a willing victim then the "crime" is a victimless crime and can therefor can not be a crime at all, and that would make you a liar wouldn't it?

Poor RyggTard. His whining isn't even consistent with his own failed political liedeology.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2012
Why is it then RyggTard that Libertarian Economists hold the position that 3 percent inflation is optimal.

"The difference which socialists can't, or won't, understand is one is the first destroys wealth...." - RyggTard

Ahahahahah... Libertarian failure, upon Libertarian failure.

Caliban
3 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2012
There is no operative difference between the two,

Stealing money from taxpayers or printing money for the govt to spend is the same at cutting the overhead costs for businesses to create wealth?
The difference which socialists can't, or won't, understand is one is the first destroys wealth and the the latter enables the creation of wealth, and weakens the power of the state.


A rationalisation worthy of you powers of self delusion, and your devotion to that worn-out neoliberal/corporatist/randite ideology you so pathologically cling to.

Government spending to create jobs does just that.

But a vertical transfer of wealth remains only a vertical transfer of wealth.
A vertical tranfer of wealth gives the wealthy all the tools necessary to do the same thing as government spending for job creation --and by their own(and hence your) argument. Thus, no operational difference.

Where are these jobs?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2012
Government spending to create jobs does just that.


BHO has added $5 trillion to the debt and unemployment has gone up.

How many is Solyndra employing now? Or Fisker, in the USA?

Where are these jobs?

How much will Obamacare cost businesses? How many received waivers? How many jobs were lost by cancelling Keystone and the EPA changing the rules on coal mining in WV or oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?
Unknown, capricious govt regulations create uncertainty keeping private investment someplace safe, until the govt stops attacking business.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2012
"President Obama would do us all a big favor if he'd ask himself this: "Would I start or expand a business without knowing what regulations or taxes government will impose next year?""
"Every week, the feds add another thousand pages of rules and proposals for rules. Local governments add their own. My mayor, in New York City, even proposes micromanaging the size of the drinks restaurants may sell.

On top of the existing mountain of red tape, the Obama administration has piled on more, with more to come. Obamacare was less a specific prescription than a license for the Department of Health and Human Services to write new rules, lots of which are yet to be written. No one knows how the bureaucrats will micromanage health insurance."
"Then there's Dodd-Frank, the 2,300-page revamp of finance industry regulation. Again, the bill left the rule-writing to regulatory agencies. Who knows what they will come up with?"
http://www.realcl...ralysis_
ODesign
5 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2012
ironically, the implication of this principle is to portray russia as a leading (albeit unwitting) contributor to american economic crisis fostering in american society a false sense of overconfidence and perfection. I suspect some communist philosopher somewhere may have anticipated this.

If I were to guess the leading factors in contributing to the next wave of financial mania I would have to put the capture and death of Osama Bin Laden as the closest psychological equivalent to past precursors. I believe he was a philosopher and also that he declared he intended to cause the economic failure of america for it's arrogance in forcing american financial and world trade customs over traditional muslim values. Perhaps by his capture he has achieved this goal?

If we look for the next .
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
which apparently started during Bush government.

It started in 1997, as the stock prices were tanking, during the Clinton administration.
In order for the govt to get banks to fund risky mortgages to support the fiction banks were 'racial profiling' they had to grantee them with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Banks like Wachovia bundled mortgages and sold them to any and all to satisfy their 'obligations' to the Community Reinvestment Act. After all, they were guaranteed by Uncle Sam.
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2012
When I see libertarians start to place the idea of private money in direct competition with FRN's and maybe even state currencies at the forefront of their agenda maybe then I'll take them seriously and not immediately write them off as shills that have generally been co-opted by groups like those funded by the Koch bros. They scream from the rooftops about the benefits of unregulated free markets but appear to completely dismiss or not care about the idea of a completely free market in currencies, one that operates within real time digital exchanges using insurance to verify trustworthiness. Then they somehow think it is feasible to "jump" straight into a system borne out of their ideal worldview from the existent reality where income inequality is a canyon that fluctuates from one extreme to another over the decades indicating there is no real fundamental reason for it that can be logically linked to "merit" and instead it's most likely a result of how the current system operates.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
groups like those funded by the Koch bros

What is your take on the socialists supported by Soros?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
"median income, after inflation, is lower than it was the day I left office," former President Bill Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room" on Thursday afternoon. "
http://www.realcl...ice.html

Obama's socialist policies are working!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2012
"Not so long ago, Sweden could claim world leadership in unmitigated Keynesian economics, with a 90 percent marginal tax rate and a welfare state second to none.

Now Swedes look at the conflict between the U.S. and German examples over whether more spending or more austerity is the key to financial salvation, and for them the choice is easy: Germany was right. Northern Europe harbors no sympathy for the spendthrifts of Southern Europe. "
"Americans still think of Sweden as a tightly regulated social-welfare state, but in the last two decades the country has been reformed. Public spending has fallen by no less than one-fifth of gross domestic product, taxes have dropped and markets have opened up. "
"From 1970 until 1989, taxes rose exorbitantly, killing private initiative, while entitlements became excessive. Laws were often altered and became unpredictable. As a consequence, Sweden endured two decades of low growth."
http://www.bloomb...ree-mark
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2012
Capitalism at it's best...

"LONDON - Swanky British retailer Harvey Nichols provoked controversy Friday by using models who look like they have wet themselves for its latest advertising campaign. "

Free Market Education at it's best...

Official Seeks Review Of Oakland School With Panhandling Students

OAKLAND (CBS 5) A member of the Oakland School Board is taking action, following a joint CBS 5 and California Watch investigation into a school that sends children out to panhandle.

Students from Saint Andrew Missionary Baptist Church Private School have been seen at BART stations, seeking donations.

Yet court documents reveal the school has inflated class size to collect tens of thousands in federal education dollars. For the past 12 years, the school has been reporting at least 195 students a year, when in reality less than 20 children attend.
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 08, 2012
groups like those funded by the Koch bros

What is your take on the socialists supported by Soros?


I think that Government control over "natural" monopolies, held in trust for the public, could, possibly, be feasible, if it used a transparent reverse auction mechanism and awarded contracts to the bidder who would provide goods/services to the public at the lowest price. Other than that possibility socialism is probably as useless as those of Soros, Koch bros ilk. In my view the most important part of the economy lies in competition, which in turn relies on the ability of competitors and an educated workforce to enter the market, each with the widest degree of freedom of choice possible. As long as methods that enable direct accountability for infringing on others free will and property, along with the above 3 things, exist and are supported by the environment and systems in place I do not think it matters if it is called capitalism, socialism or something else.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2012
Such entities are employed all over the world and work very well. In fact for public utilities they are the best organization possible.

Look at what has happened with the privatization of the U.S. electric power grid. Costs have risen, and reliability has been dramatically reduced as cost cutting measures have replaced preventative maintainance with a wait until failure policy.

George Bush's buddies at ENRON provide a wonderful example.

"I think that Government control over "natural" monopolies, held in trust for the public, could, possibly, be feasible" - WhatWhat
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2012
Finally RyggTard says something rational.

"Bankers, economists and politicians shared a "manic culture" of denial, omnipotence and triumphalism as they threw caution to the wind, says Professor Mark Stein, the award-winning academic from the University of Leicester School of Management." - RyggTard

Congratulations.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2012
overnment control over "natural" monopolies, held in trust for the public, could, possibly, be feasible,

How well has this been working out?
And, if its not OK for the Koch's to promote free markets do you find it acceptable for socialists like Soros to use his billions to promote socialism? Why would billionaires promote socialism?
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 09, 2012
Government control over "natural" monopolies, held in trust for the public, could, possibly, be feasible,

How well has this been working out?
And, if its not OK for the Koch's...?


It works fine if the public is educated and vigilant,necessary ingredients in any healthy society.Government run public utilities are known to provide better value than their private counterparts.If transparent reverse auctioning mechanisms were used to award contracts to private companies it would work even better because instead of the public getting stuck with a mini-oligarchy, that still answers to the Government, it facilitates actual competition.
Where did I say "its not OK for the Koch's to promote free markets"?Not agreeing with them isn't the same as saying "its not OK". My view is that both of them want to tilt the playing field to serve their own interests,not the interests of the general public or average individual,so neither is a trustworthy "oracle" to base public policy on.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2012
Publicly held monopolies like sewage treatment, electrical supply, water supply etc. have worked out exceptionally well.

Until they were privatized of course. At which point prices started to rise and reliability and quality started to fall.

Bush's Conservative buddies at Enron provides a perfect example.

"How well has this been working out?" - RyggTard

"And, if its not OK for the Koch's to promote free markets do you find it acceptable for socialists like Soros to use his billions to promote socialism?" - RyggTard

Koch is funding treason against their own nation and a path to continued unsustainability through ignorance and deceit.

Soros is funding a sustainable future.

It tells us much about you that you can not distinguish the difference.

You fail to comprehend the difference because like all Libertarian/Randites you only see dollars.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2012
I think this is the key point the public has to be smart enough to rule themselves.

"It works fine if the public is educated and vigilant,necessary ingredients in any healthy society" - Whatwhat

The O.J. Simpson verdict was not an anomaly. Americans are no longer smart enough to govern themselves.

The Tea Tard movement is absolute proof of that.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2012
What 8 years of Republican Economic rule and deregulation produced....

"median income, after inflation, is lower than it was the day I left office," former President Bill Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room" on Thursday afternoon."

Followed by a near economic depression.

Republican/Libertarian economics has been an absolute disaster for America.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
"Government run public utilities are known to provide better value than their private counterparts."
Says who, the government?
All 50 states grant monopolies to utilities.
When some utlities have been 'deregulated' how have their former regulated monopolies performed? Cable TV used to have a govt granted monopoly. Now many have choices, satellite and fiber. ATT used to be the ONLY telephone company. Now there are many non-govt competitors for both service and hardware.
If govt monopolies were so great, why didn't they compete with satellite TV or cell phones?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
""We do not believe our system is fragile," TVA spokeswoman Barbara Martocci said.

David Orr, an environmentalist and Pentagon climate change consultant who spoke in Chattanooga just after the tornadoes, said terrorism and climate change are dictating new needs for energy policy.

"Anything that is as centralized as our power grid, which takes power from one big place to many small ones, is vulnerable," he said. "We have to change the model."

Read more: RN-T.com - TVA says power grid not fragile despite storms
"
People in northern AL lost GOVT power for over 5 days.
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2012
"Government run public utilities are known to provide better value than their private counterparts."
Says who, the government?
All 50 states grant monopolies to utilities.
When some utlities have been 'deregulated' how have their former regulated monopolies performed?


Did you miss the parts about "natural" monopolies and reverse auctions? TV and cell phones do not qualify. In other words whenever it's unfeasible for competition to enter a market,such as competing power line or highway infrastructures which would both be ridiculous, then Government should keep the resource in trust for the public and reverse auction bids for supplying those goods/services. If it's at all possible then private companies should definitely compete, even if it is directly with the Government, so as to create checks that dissuade both of them from abusing their power, while at the same time giving individuals the greatest freedom of choice possible. I don't buy into your false dichotomy.
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2012
ryggesogn2:

Have you ever bothered to look at the main inspirations for George Soros worldview? If you had actually taken the time you would probably be pretty surprised to find out that it is rooted in the same, or a very similar, philosophical framework that libertarianism grew out of. In fact, Soros is a follower of Karl Popper who was strongly opposed to collectivism and helped to found the Mont Pelerin Society along with Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises. The false dichotomies that people engineer and drape over top of what are essentially ingrained human morals are what stop any real positive change. Ask anyone if they think that protection of individual free will from coercion, fraud, violence etc... should be the top priority of society and %99.9 will say yes. Instead of arguing over distractions such as socialism/capitalism etc... the baseline should be protection of individual free will, with an acceptable framework being built upon that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
oros is a follower of Karl Popper who was strongly opposed to collectivism

So why does Soros support collectivists?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
whenever it's unfeasible for competition to enter a market

Who decides it is unfeasible?

If Soros is such a great liberatarain he would be funding the
Future of Freedom Foundation, http://www.fff.org/
mises.org, http://mises.org/
cato.org
"No need to go on characterizing Soros's Grand Theory. The declaration that capitalism must be hobbled has been made ten thousand times since socialist thinking became the vogue a century ago. As usual, behind it is a deep distrust of human freedom combined with an unwarranted faith in government control."
"But when they decide to cozy up to politicians, pose as philosopher kings, and urge government planning on the world, they are capable of doing enormous evil. Recall that Friedrich Engels was a wealthy businessman too. "
http://mises.org/daily/109/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
distractions such as socialism/capitalism

This is equivalent to arguing over tyranny and liberty.
Living free and living in chains is just a 'distraction'?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
"Spains financial problems are not due to Greek-style government over-spending. The countrys banks got caught up in the collapse of a real estate bubble.

Spains banks, particularly its savings banks or cajas, have enormous amounts of bad loans. And as the second recession in three years hits Spain, the number of bad loans is expected to surge. Spains unemployment has risen to nearly 25 percent, making it increasingly difficult for many Spaniards to pay their mortgages."
http://bostonglob...ory.html
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2012
Socialism is booming...

Help wanted China struggles to fill jobs

Actually, Ive got a job already. I just come here every now and again to see if I can find a job that pays better, says Mr Liu, 40, a migrant from nearby Hebei province.

Mr Liu, who earns Rmb2000 ($314) a month, was upset when he did not get a 15 per cent pay raise this year an annual increase that has become the norm for blue-collar workers in China.

http://www.ft.com...xLvdD5Ak
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2012
Yes, they should have had a better regulatory framework in place to prevent the bankers from making the same suicide pacts as your American banks had.

"Spains banks, particularly its savings banks or cajas, have enormous amounts of bad loans." - RyggTard

As long as banks are free to speculate with other people's money this kind of thing will happen. Adequate regulation is the key.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2012
Is the wage slave RyggTard waking up to see his Corporate task masters for what they are?

"This is equivalent to arguing over tyranny and liberty." - RyggTard

Nope! He is a content farm animal, and makes a good beast of burden.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2012
Obviously because he is interested in assisting people attain some manner of future freedom.

"If Soros is such a great liberatarain he would be funding the
Future of Freedom Foundation." - RyggTard

And not some form of Fascist Libertarian slavery to a corporate state.

"The declaration that capitalism must be hobbled has been made ten thousand times since socialist thinking became the vogue a century ago." - RyggTard

Of course Capitalism must be hobbled. The alternative is a legalized drug trade, legalized child prostitution, and all manner of deviant social behavior that Corporations would otherwise pander to, in order to make a few pennies.

The sale of child pornography is Capitalism isn't it RyggTard? So too would be the sale of snuff films, torture films, etc.

And today we read that in England, Corporations are now erecting billboards showing models urinating themselves over various products that are being advertised.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2012
Visual depictions of public urination are not just a moral failure of the company doing the advertising, they are also a moral failure of the company erecting them, and the moral failure of the company who owns the billboard space, and the moral failure of the company who produced the print.

Who needs morality when there is money to be made. Right RyggTard?

The Libertarian party Platform provides a particularly interesting example...

It contains all manner of interesting ideas, like the support for the legalization of child prostitution and the decriminalization of child molestation.

If the child is willing, then it can't be a legitimate crime under Libertarian law.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2012
"The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government." - Future of Freedom Foundation

"If Soros is such a great liberatarain he would be funding the
Future of Freedom Foundation" - RyggTard

RyggTard seems to be very confused.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2012
Why does RyggTard support Fascism and the legalization of all manner of morally deviant behavior?
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2012
distractions such as socialism/capitalism

This is equivalent to arguing over tyranny and liberty.
Living free and living in chains is just a 'distraction'?


Either your definition of liberty is not the same as mine or you completely missed the point: "the baseline should be protection of individual free will, with an acceptable framework being built upon that." That is the only rational framework to build a society on because everyone wants to protect their own free will and, therefore, they have an incentive to protect the free will of others because in so doing they protect their own. Other than that basis nothing else matters and ideological categories become meaningless. After that comes the more contentious issue of positive rights but there are ways of implementing them without infringing on anyone's free will and that is where the common good should begin and end. They're part of the common good because ignoring them is more detrimental than dealing with them.
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2012
whenever it's unfeasible for competition to enter a market

Who decides it is unfeasible?


It is not that hard to determine if something is a "natural" monopoly. It also does not make sense for Governments to sell everything because without resources it will naturally attempt to fall back on coercion to reassert its dominance, better to allow it resources, such as common property in which public goods/services are reverse auctioned, while stripping away, as much as possible, its ability to coerce. Without an educated, informed and vigilant populace it does not matter what is done though because those that can use Government to gain special favors will do just that while those thirsty for power will find ways to attain it, so the most fundamental part of any free society must be an engaged, educated and vigilant populace. Without that all attempts to create or retain a free society will eventually result in naught.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2012
while those thirsty for power will find ways to attain it,

Yes, the 'progressive'/socialist have been demonstrating this for centuries.
It is not that hard to determine if something is a "natural" monopoly.

Then define it. It it were 'natural' there would be no need for any govt to protect it.
It is not that hard to determine if something is a "natural" monopoly.

everyone wants to protect their own free will

No, people want to protect their property.
"Each of us has a natural rightfrom Godto defend his
person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic
requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is
completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two."
The Law, Bastiat.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2012
After that comes the more contentious issue of positive rights but there are ways of implementing them without infringing on anyone's free will

How?
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from
its true purposethat it may violate property instead of protecting
itthen everyone will want to participate in making the law,
either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder."
"Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee
to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for
physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is
demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education,
and morality throughout the nation.
This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again:
These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each
other." The Law.
kaasinees
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2012
Capitalism at its best:
http://www.irishl...-scheme/
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2012
It is not that hard to determine if something is a "natural" monopoly.

Then define it. It it were 'natural' there would be no need for any govt to protect it.


No, the fact that it's a "natural" monopoly is the exact reason it needs to be "protected". Also remember I'm saying those resources should be tendered through transparent reverse auctions with the bid being rewarded to whatever private company can supply the goods/services to the public at the lowest cost.This melds the public/private sectors in a beneficial way and, therefore, does not presuppose your black/white ideology.A "natural" monopoly would be any resource where competition is unfeasible because of the intrinsic property that the resource cannot be duplicated, split up or worked around, with the further constraint that it's necessary for survival;power lines, roads,law and order,etc.Your argument falls apart because Government of some form cannot be divorced from a free society, it is integral to it.
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2012
everyone wants to protect their own free will

No, people want to protect their property...


Free will is the fundamental underpinning to person, liberty, and property. Personal property is an outgrowth of respecting individual free will, not the other way around, which is why people want to protect it. The idea that all property must be private does not follow from the benefits of personal property and that's where libertarian absolutism falls flat on its face.People have private rooms and common areas,instead of all bedrooms,in their residences for a reason,it facilitates freedom and exchange. Boxing a country into purely private properties is illogical and flies in the face of the idea of a free society, as does making everything common property.So yes,people generally do want to protect free will and self determination, though most people don't think too deeply about it, and the fact there is public/private property and Governments strongly supports that assertion
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2012
After that comes the more contentious issue of positive rights...

How?
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from
its true purpose...should directly extend welfare, education,
and morality throughout the nation...


This is where the false dichotomies and lack of logic or foresight really come into play.Private property,being an outgrowth of free will,should always be honored but common property and credit,in the absence of coercion,can be used without infringing on free will,so your theory falls apart.Extending credit to individuals to use as an investment which they will,in aggregate,later pay back infringes on no one as long as the exchanges are voluntary.If everything were private then it would be impossible but that's not the case.The idea that creating a chaotic environment that encourages the law of the jungle will lead to stability and not chaos for all,rich or poor,is in error.Look at how well most of Africa has done without sane Governance.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2012
credit,in the absence of coercion,

Credit is private property. Wealth that someone created and lent to someone else with a promise to pay back.
People have private rooms and common areas,instead of all bedrooms,in their residences for a reason,it facilitates freedom and exchange.

But the 'common area' is still private property and subject to the rules of the owner.
Shopping malls are private property and if patrons behave appropriately, they can shop. If not, they are escorted out.
.Look at how well most of Africa has done without sane Governance.

Somalia has in many case been better off than their neighbors with socialist tyrannies. It's documented.
Government of some form cannot be divorced from a free society, it is integral to it.

Not of 'some form', a specific form, limited to protecting private property.
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2012
Credit is private property. Wealth that someone created and lent to someone else with a promise to pay back.
People have private rooms and common areas,instead of all bedrooms,in their residences for a reason,it facilitates freedom and exchange.

But the 'common area' is still private property and subject to the rules of the owner.
Shopping malls are private property and if patrons behave appropriately, they can shop. If not, they are escorted out.


Government has wealth, which is always rooted in resources, to lend for the common good so your statement refutes nothing. The most important part is the absence of coercion.
The underlying principle and benefits of "common areas" holds whether it is public or private.
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2012
Also it's better for certain resources, as described above, to be held in common so that the coercive tendencies of Government are not brought to bear on the private sector, setting a negative precedent, while minimizing the possibility of extortionate demands being made by the private sector in industries that are necessary for survival.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2012
Wow, so now phantoms are property in Libertoon land.

How about your virginity Tard Boy? Is that property to?

"Credit is private property." - RyggTard

I love the Libertarian view of property, where things that do not even exist are owned, especially ideas.

There is no greater freedom in the view of Libertarians than to be barred from thinking or expressing yourself because doing so my violate the property rights of those who own your ideas.

Filth.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
Government has wealth

Only the wealth it plundered, took by force, from those who created it.
The most important part is the absence of coercion.

Then the govt can have no wealth as the govt REQUIRES coercion to acquire wealth. (But you asserted the govt has wealth?)

The underlying principle and benefits of "common areas" holds whether it is public or private.

No, it does not. If all the forests in the USA were held has private property, to you believe they would be better managed than the 'common' property is today? The same applies to oceans, range land, any property that is either not owned.
How do public housing units compare with privately owned apartments or houses?
Whatwhat
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2012
Government has wealth

Only the wealth it plundered, took by force, from those who created it.
The most important part is the absence of coercion.

Then the govt can have no wealth as the govt REQUIRES coercion to acquire wealth. (But you asserted the govt has wealth?)



If all wealth Government has is illegitimate then it follows that all authority of Government concerning property or wealth is also illegitimate. How can a system that has no ability to control x itself seriously be considered to be an arbiter and authority of x among others? Under those circumstance it can have no authority and, therefore, cannot legitimately delegate that authority. Since private property necessarily gains its legitimicy and originally started with Government it is, therefore, also illegitimate. That suggest everyone should just go back to the law of the jungle and kill anyone who has something they want, then take it. It's ridiculous.
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2012
No, it does not. If all the forests in the USA were held has private property...


Forests managed themselves pretty well for millions of years without the name "private" attached to them. Also you're assuming that I think the way the Government currently operates is the best solution and that I'm an absolutist, both untrue. I actually do believe that a large portion of existing land should be doled out to the private sector because the massive influx of supply would drive down overinflated property prices. The irony is it would likely wipe out much of the "wealth" of the "wealthiest" and level out the existent income inequality while destroying the tax base, therefore, you will never hear those pushing your agenda or the Government, who have aligned interests, ever seriously considering it unless it's done slowly and in a way that maintains the status-quo. Other than that the forest question and the other questions are strawmen that are unrelated to any of my prior statements.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
Forests managed themselves pretty well for millions of years without the name "private" attached to them

Then the govt stepped in and mismanaged the forests by putting out the fires nature started and the forests needed to thrive.
Private forests want to harvest the wood so manage their forests to minimize fire damage.
authority of Government concerning property or wealth is also illegitimate.

Not if that authority is limited and derived directly from the property owners.
Individuals have the natural right to defend their property, their lives and such individuals can work together for their mutual defense.
"...their just powers from the consent of the governed..." ring any bells?
http://limitedgov...n/?p=150
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
private property necessarily gains its legitimicy and originally started with Government it is


"It is not because men have made laws, that personality,
liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is
because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand,
that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have
said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual
right to lawful defense."
"If every man has the right of defending, even by force,
his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men
have the right to combine together to extend, to organize
a common force to provide regularly for this defense.
Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for
existing, its lawfulness, in individual right;"
The Law, Bastiat
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 11, 2012

"It's not because men have made laws,that personality,
liberty,and property exist. On the contrary, it is
because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand,
that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have
said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense."


Of course "it's because personality,liberty,and property exist beforehand,that men make laws."The laws are a delegation of authority from individuals to the Government in order to create an environment that protects free will and self determination. That's where Government authority is derived from.If one doesn't like the way it's implemented then they should convince others that a new model is better and then use the democratic process to change it or find a country that suits them better,other than that they can become embittered and sulk.As I said before the baseline should be protection of free will and its corollaries, Government wealth isn't inimical to to that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2012
That's where Government authority is derived from.

That is NOT what you said.
You asserted govt created property:
"Since private property necessarily gains its legitimicy and originally started with Government it is"

Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 11, 2012
That's where Government authority is derived from.

That is NOT what you said.
You asserted govt created property:
"Since private property necessarily gains its legitimicy and originally started with Government it is"



You have misinterpreted what I said. You said Government could not have "wealth" then I stated that if that is true Government would have no authority to delegate authority to others and/or provide protection in regards to personal property or "wealth" in order to show that that viewpoint is an absurdity. My point was that government does have that authority and it is because it is delegated to it by individuals in order to create an environment that is not reliant on the "law of the jungle". Just because I did not explicitly point out that that authority is 1st delegated to government from individuals does not mean I do not appreciate that fact.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2012
Just because I did not explicitly point out that that authority is 1st delegated to government from individuals does not mean I do not appreciate that fact.

I said the ONLY wealth a govt has is what it has plundered.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2012
Just because I did not explicitly point out that that authority is 1st delegated to government from individuals does not mean I do not appreciate that fact.

Again, regardless of authority, the only wealth any govt has is what it has plundered, not created.
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 12, 2012
Again, regardless of authority, the only wealth any govt has is what it has plundered, not created.


If Government's role is to protect private property through law and order and the origination of property is plunder then its legal status would be meaningless.When exactly does property lose its plunder status? How exactly is it legitimized? If it is not through Government then when exactly? Who decides its legitimate? Me, you, a mob with pitchforks and flaming torches? My point is individuals decided to delegate the ability to legitimize property, therefore protecting free will, to government so that society would not have to resort to continuous wars among various mobs because there is no legitimate authority.Africa ring a bell? That was done because there is utility to Government that frees up time to spend on industry.That stability in itself is wealth due to being a direct precursor to it.Your ideas would completely undermine that because you cannot not see its usefulness.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 12, 2012
RyggTard once again claims that taxes are "plunder" and therefore theft.

plunder: definition

1. To rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; pillage: plunder a village.
2. To seize wrongfully or by force; steal:

But he has been repeatedly shown to be a liar on this issue because the taxes he pays are voluntary.

If he does not wish to pay taxes, he can simply move somewhere where taxes are not levied.

He might as well be calling the rent people pay on an apartment as "plunder".

Don't like it? Move.

The simple fact of the matter is that RyggTard is a parasite who wishes to benefit from all Amercian society but who insists that he has no obligation to pay to maintain those resources.

Like all Libertarians, RyggTard is a parasite.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 12, 2012
Correct. Government creates property.

"You asserted govt created property:" - Ryggtard

Without the government authority to establish and defend claimed "ownership" the concept of property devolves into the simple concept of possession.

Possession does not equate to property.

Poor RyggTard. He demands property rights, but doesn't even know what they are.

Pathetic.

Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 12, 2012
Hahahahaha.... RyggTard's argument isn't even argument based on authority. It is argument based on ideological similarity.

"It is not because men have made laws, that personality,
liberty, and property exist." - Bastiat

What is next? Argument based on auotations from Charles Manson?

Pathetic Libertarian.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 12, 2012
Once again Ryggtard claims that taxes are force.

"Only the wealth it plundered, took by force" - Ryggtard

When in fact he has the ability to avoid them by moving.

He might as well insist that the rent he pays on an apartment is "plunder".

In fact I have seen at least one Libertarian whine about how the rent he was paying on an apartment WAS plunder, because he felt it was too high. This particular Libertarian was taking his landlord to court for not fixing a light switch within a week of notification.

Libertarian Vermin.
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 12, 2012
"Only the wealth it plundered, took by force"

When in fact he has the ability to avoid them by moving.


I think libertarians have some valid points though.Income taxes are inefficient due to punishing one for being productive while encouraging evasion tactics and appeals for special treatment. Sales taxes that exempted goods/services necessary for survival along with the efficient use of government resources, such as creating credit at the federal, state and municipal level that is backed by both government resources and taxes, by accepting only that credit for payment of those regional taxes therefore creating a demand for it,and then using that for the common good, such as increasing the supply of and ability to get education and goods necessary for survival,non coercively, could work better.While at the same time replacing current incentives in government that encourage inefficiency with incentives that actually encourage it to increase efficiency while retaining morality.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2012
legitimize property,

Property is legitimate without govt.
Most govts were institutionalized to plunder property.
Oh at first they claimed they were going to protect your property. Pay us a few bushels of grain every year and we will keep raiders away. Don't pay and we will burn your fields. So the first govts were essentially organized violent crime.
The US attempted to change this by creating a system that declared govt must be limited derive its power from the governed. It wasn't a new concept, but it was one of the first times it was attempted.
As Mises noted, "All ownership derives from occupation and violence." "Economic action demands stable conditions. " "Thus it is no accident that it is precisely in the defence of property that Law reveals most clearly its character of peacemaker." http://mises.org/...px#_sec2
Not plunderer.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 13, 2012
Consumption taxes are a fine way to insure that wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of the wealthy.

"Sales taxes" - whatwhat

This is also a common problem with "flat tax" plans that are pushed by Conservatves, as their plans universally exempt capital gains from taxation, and capital gains is the primary source of income for the wealthy.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 13, 2012
As has been repeatedly demonstrated, you are a dishonest, lunatic, nobody, who often argues through assertion.

Property is legitimate without govt. " - RyggTard

Which is as indicated above, is a nonsense assertion.

Without law, your property becomes mine once I take it. And establishing and enforcing law is the principle function of government.

In other words, without government, you have no property rights.

In fact you have no rights at all.

"Most govts were institutionalized to plunder property. " - RyggTard

And as indicated above your use of the term "plunder", makes your claim a outright lie.

You don't appear to be capable of thinking coherently or logically.

That is a typical problem seem in Libertarians and Randites, who adopt the Libertarian language but don't have the brains to understand what they are saying.

Fools.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 13, 2012
Mises notes many things but failed to note how his political ideology was suicide.

Libertarian Economics is Mises baby and Libertarian economics has brought America to the brink of Oblivion.

"As Mises noted," - RyggTard

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Libertarians demand that more of the same economic poison that has destroyed America will cure America.

They are quite insane.
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 13, 2012
As Mises noted,"All ownership derives from occupation and violence.""Economic action demands stable conditions.""Thus it is no accident that it is precisely in the defence of property that Law reveals most clearly its character of peacemaker."


If "All ownership derives from occupation and violence." then government is as legitimate as it gets,according to you.Read what I wrote again because it essentially agrees with Mises except I'm applying the libertarian concept of utility to government. People choose what's in their best interest based on the options and information available to them and that was the case before government existed in the U.S., as it is now, therefore, choosing the utility of government over chaos falls to the exact same principle libertarians ascribe to the free market.The problem isn't the concept of government as a way of maintaining law and order,instead it's the misaligned incentives,environment and ambiguous goals and limits of current governments.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 13, 2012
Yes, that is essentially how police forces work.

"Pay us a few bushels of grain every year and we will keep raiders away." - RyggTard

Do police forces go unpaid on the planet Libertopia?

Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 13, 2012
RyggTard is right and he doesn't even know it. His ideology prevents him from conceiving of it, even when he reads it, and even quotes it himself.

"All ownership derives from occupation and violence." - RyggTard

Ownership is plunder.

The assignment of "rights" to protect owners, makes "ownership rights" or "property rights", legalized plunder.

Taxation however, can - like rent - be avoided my moving to a home that is not taxed.
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 13, 2012
Consumption taxes are a fine way to insure that wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of the wealthy.

"Sales taxes" -whatwhat


Flat taxes are a bad idea but a sales tax that exempted necessities and gradually increased based on a luxuries demand/cost would be progressive.I ascribe most wealth centralization to the way the monetary system is implemented though. Inflation favors the wealthy who are proportionately more invested in assets than it does the middle class and poor who are more invested in constantly devaluing currencies, their wages. A decentralization of currencies, both government and private, in a competitive market would allow people to choose ones that retained there value while mitigating its artificial scarcity, evening up the playing field, and allowing people to be independent of and disregard the "wealthy" by switching to a separate system of exchange, if necessary. Under that system sales taxes could be collateral for government created credit.
Archea
3 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2012
Flat taxes are a bad idea
It's easy to say, bit why they're a bad idea? IMO progressive tax brings it's own problems and the rich people tend to evade it. As the result, the government gets less money instead of more.
Satene
1 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2012
Fresh article at The New Yorker: Research Shows That the Smarter People Are, the More Susceptible They Are to Cognitive Bias. Nothing very new for me in this extent.
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 13, 2012
It's easy to say, bit why they're a bad idea? IMO progressive tax brings http://en.wikiped...er_curve and the rich people tend to evade it. As the result, the government gets less money instead of more.


The problem I have with judging a tax based solely on its revenue potential is that it disregards how the tax is used.If a progressive tax educated the poor giving them a better chance of being a productive citizen therefore evening out income inequality and minimizing criminal behavior then it benefits the wealthy too by increasing the amount of and demand for goods,bypassing the costly justice system while reducing the odds of a country devolving into chaos,like the french revolution. Taxes shouldn't be arbitrarily based on a head count and should be applied to resource usage because government spending is directly linked to regulating resources and exchanges.The cost government and taxpayers unnecessarily pay for servicing debt is the biggest problem in my view.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2012
it's the misaligned incentives,environment and ambiguous goals and limits of current governments.

What limits?
The problem with most govts today is there are NO limits and they must run out of other people's money.
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2012
What limits?
The problem with most govts today is there are NO limits and they must run out of other people's money.


The limits are what the general population will tolerate, just as it always is and always has been.Based on that your problem has less to do with government than it has to do with the apathy and possible lack of foresight or vigilance of the average person. Many of the ideas that the average libertarian proposes would only serve to exacerbate that state of affairs making things worse, not better,especially if it leads to more centralization of any kind. The thing is, contrary to the typical libertarian view, individuals don't exist in a vacuum and different environments can drastically affect viewpoints and behavior which then become self-perpetuating.A better outcome would be created by changing the goals,limits,incentives and environments of government than trying to destroy it by indiscriminately stripping it of all power and giving it to the private sector.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2012
Many of the ideas that the average libertarian proposes would only serve to exacerbate that state of affairs

How would following the letter and intent of the US Constitution increase the level of socialism?
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2012
How would following the letter and intent of the US Constitution increase the level of socialism?


The constitution is being followed right now according to the courts. Do your views somehow overrule that?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 14, 2012
How would following the letter and intent of the US Constitution increase the level of socialism?


The constitution is being followed right now according to the courts. Do your views somehow overrule that?


The US Constitution was written by what were then called liberals.

Those who call themselves 'liberal' today would not have written that document.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 14, 2012
Then why isn't America on the Moon, and Mars? Why are scientists conducting bake sales to support NASA? And why does America still have the highest murder rate of any first world nation on earth?

"The problem with most govts today is there are NO limits" - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 14, 2012
The U.S. Constitution is a very impressive document.

The problem with Conservative Americans is that they appeal to it as biblical authority.

"The US Constitution was written by what were then called liberals." - RyggTard

The U.S. Constitution is unsuitable for a modern society. That is why internationally it has been abandoned as a model, and largely replaced with the Canadian Constitution.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 14, 2012
200 years of learning and technological development will do that to a working brain.

"Those who call themselves 'liberal' today would not have written that document." - RyggTard

George Washington didn't know anything about Cell Phones, Computers, Computer Networking, Aircraft, Jet Engines, Rocket Engines, Space Flight, Electricity, Satellites, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Fallout, Genetic Engineering, The Automobile, Assembly Line Manufacturing, Robotics, Vaccination, Bacteria, Virus, or the Cause of Disease.

Only fools would worship a constitution that is devoid of such knowledge.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 14, 2012
The U.S. Constitution is being followed as far as the U.S. legal system is concerned.

It is YOUR views that are anti-constitutional.

"How would following the letter and intent of the US Constitution increase the level of socialism?" - RyggTard

Just as you are willingly paying taxes - and whining about it - You are willingly accepting of the courts interpretation of the U.S. constitution and not challenging that interpretation in the supreme court.

All you are is a Libertarian/Randite whiner who wants to be able to legally leach from the rest of the hard work of the American people while returning nothing to the state that provides the framework for their collective achievement.

Filth.
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 15, 2012
The US Constitution was written by what were then called liberals.

Those who call themselves 'liberal' today would not have written that document.


Have you ever read liberal philosophy?Your problem isn't with liberal philosophy it's with what it has been twisted into, the same as the average liberals problem isn't with libertarian philosophy it's with the specific ideas that have taken center stage at the expense of better ideas.In both cases the views generally pushed help only a narrow segment of society at the expense of everyone else while the ignored ideas could be beneficial to all. Even the core of conservatism aligns with the core of the above 2 philosophies, all being liberty, but conservatism, by generally upholding the status-quo,is contradictory and therefore self refuting in a society that strips away liberties.My view is that protecting individual free will should be the baseline for society and that aligns with my understanding of the aims of the constitution.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2012
Have you ever read liberal philosophy?

You mean John Locke?
"Starting from an initial state of nature with no government, police or private property, we humans could discover by careful reasoning that there are natural laws which suggest that we have natural rights to our own persons and to our own labor. Eventually we could discover that we should create a social contract with others, and out of this contract emerges our political obligations and the institution of private property. This is how reasoning places limits on the proper use of power by government authorities."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/locke/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2012
"Liberalism is a doctrine directed entirely towards the conduct of men in this world. In the last analysis, it has nothing else in view than the advancement of their outward, material welfare and does not concern itself directly with their inner, spiritual and metaphysical needs. It does not promise men happiness and contentment, but only the most abundant possible satisfaction of all those desires that can be satisfied by the things of the outer world."
http://mises.org/...sec2.asp
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 15, 2012
John Lock's justification of slavery.

"Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life, by some act that deserves death; he, to whom he has forfeited it, may (when he has him in his power) delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service, and he does him no injury by it: for, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires." - John Locke
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 15, 2012
Poor Ryggtard. He can't think for himself so he just quotes nonsense from his ideological masters.

One day... Should he ever grow up. He might actually learn to think for himself, and formulate his own ideas.

Until then I suppose he will just continue to regurgitate doctored quotes, half truths and outright lies.

Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 16, 2012
"Liberalism is a doctrine directed entirely towards the conduct of men in this world. In the last analysis, it has nothing else in view than the advancement of their outward, material welfare and does not concern itself directly with their inner, spiritual and metaphysical needs. It does not promise men happiness and contentment, but only the most abundant possible satisfaction of all those desires that can be satisfied by the things of the outer world."
http://mises.org/...sec2.asp


If liberalism rests on the root concept of liberty then it cannot claim to be solely concerned with the "advancement of their outward, material welfare" because then it would be diametrically opposed to liberty due to what would obviously be an intrinsic bias toward materialism that undermines choice which is an inherit property of liberty. The idea of liberty is to allow people to be material, spiritual, neither or both as they so please as long as they do not infringe on another's rights.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2012
The idea of liberty is to allow people to be material, spiritual, neither or both as they so please as long as they do not infringe on another's rights.

And those who call themselves 'liberal' or 'progressive' today are opposed to this idea of liberty.
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 16, 2012
The idea of liberty is to allow people to be material, spiritual, neither or both as they so please as long as they do not infringe on another's rights.

And those who call themselves 'liberal' or 'progressive' today are opposed to this idea of liberty.


I think that saying they or any group composed of average individuals is opposed to liberty is wrong. In my view the problem is that the general tendency is to fight against some opposing view which narrows ideas down due to the fact they have to fit within the existent reality instead of creating a larger unifying vision upon which to build. Artificial scarcity which is generally due to collusion between government and big business due to the self interest of politicians and big businesses desire to create monopolistic environments to inflate profits is generally the main driver of the 2 main opposing views, against government and against big business. The real problem is the environment incentivizes these tactics.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 16, 2012
Your childish view of "liberty" ends way before mass extinctions due to climate change begin.

"And those who call themselves 'liberal' or 'progressive' today are opposed to this idea of liberty." - RyggTard

Other than death, what rights and liberties does your sick Libertarian/Randite ideology assign to plants, and animals other than man?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2012
I think that saying they or any group composed of average individuals is opposed to liberty is wrong.

Now you sound like a 'progressive' asserting 'average' individuals are too stupid to know why they vote.
So why to 'average' individuals agree with class warfare tactics executed by 'liberals' that attack liberty?
I respect the 'average' individual's intent to attack liberty and offer them no excuse.
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 16, 2012
Now you sound like a 'progressive' asserting 'average' individuals are too stupid to know why they vote.
So why to 'average' individuals agree with class warfare tactics executed by 'liberals' that attack liberty?
I respect the 'average' individual's intent to attack liberty and offer them no excuse.


So you think there's a large group of individuals who want the ends of less freedom of choice? Then you perpetuate the exact same behavior by promoting an ideology which could easily lead to less freedom for many, of which it can be argued the axioms are incomplete and not at all self evident, vs encouraging people to think for themselves. The latter state of affairs generally leads to much better outcomes by mitigating group think and group mentalities that have a tendency of undermining the idea of personal responsibility. By doing that I can say you're helping to undermine the ideal of liberty. They work towards what they believe is in their best interest as does everyone.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2012
large group of individuals who want the ends of less freedom of choice

Most of France. They just voted for less freedom.
Will Greece vote for more govt?
promoting an ideology which could easily lead to less freedom for many,

How? How will a govt whose ONLY purpose it to protect every individual's life, liberty and property lead to 'less freedom for many'?
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2012
How will a govt whose ONLY purpose it to protect every individual's life,liberty and property lead to 'less freedom for many'?


Libertarian ideology only pays lip service to individual life and liberty meanwhile its real focus is private property. How does libertarian ideology deal with the hypothetical situation of one person who hates another buying all of the property surrounding the latter then putting up an electrified fence, landmines etc.. around his property to lock him in. I'll tell you how, it can't, because then it would be infringing on property rights. Once an ideology puts property absolutely and squarely above human life, then there's something seriously wrong. Where does it stop? A group that buys the property surrounding a city can create virtual slavery, transportation of necessities in for everything they produce while letting no one out, it's stupid, and this one example could be used against anyone who has property surrounding them. That's less freedom.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2012
it can't,

Of course it can, and does, every day.

Ever hear of something called an easement?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2012
hypothetical situation

How about a real situation where people buy land around a farm that spreads its manure on the fields to raise organic crops and the new neighbors complain about the smell and the government forces the farmer out of business?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2012
Now it is becoming clear the current socialist leader, Obama, is failing, the true believers blame the leader not the policies.

http://dailycalle...in-2012/
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2012
it can't,

Of course it can, and does, every day.

Ever hear of something called an easement?


Have you considered one could buy around the easement? Also who decides the status of the easement if not some type of Government? If the owner of the location where the easement exists doesn't want it to be used by anyone else or wants to charge an exorbitant fee then under whose authority is the right to initiate force against that individual and his property to force him to supply an easement derived from? Then who gets to decide who those people are, and on and on. You are making an argument for government, not one against it. As I keep saying government has utility and therefore contributes to wealth by creating a stable environment. The problem isn't the concept of government and instead the problems rooted in government arise when it's used to constrain freedom of choice instead of maximizing it. Whether that happens in the election process, economy or elsewhere.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2012
You are making an argument for government,

Yes, LIMITED govt as described and motivated in the US Declaration of Independent which reiterated the individual's rights to life, liberty and property are inherent and unalienable.
Bastiat also described the characteristics of a govt limited to protecting private property and the rest that plundered private property.
constrain freedom of choice instead of maximizing it.

The only legitimate use of govt IS to use its monopoly on violence to protect the individual's rights to live, liberty and property. This DOES maximize freedom of choice.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2012
A group that buys the property surrounding a city can create virtual slavery, transportation of necessities in for everything they produce while letting no one out,

Then this group is violating the individual's rights to life, liberty and property and the city is justified in using violence to protect their rights.
The same holds true for your other ridiculous example.
Whatwhat
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2012
Yes, LIMITED govt as described and motivated in the US Declaration of Independent which reiterated the individual's rights to life, liberty and property are inherent and unalienable.
Bastiat also described the characteristics of a govt limited to protecting private property and the rest that plundered private property.
The only legitimate use of govt IS to use its monopoly on violence to protect the individual's rights to live, liberty and property. This DOES maximize freedom of choice.


Now you are mixing libertarian ideology with the constitution? They are not the same. Your prior responses indicated everything government does is illegitimate being based on plunder and stolen wealth but now they are necessary for dictating easements and guaranteeing a POSITIVE right to travel. Exactly how do you define right to life and liberty? In the negative sense, free from coercion, or the positive sense, free to travel etc... which is antithetical to absolute private property rights?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2012
Now you are mixing libertarian ideology with the constitution? They are not the same.

Sure they are. The US Constitution was written by classical liberals/libertarians.
Govt is the monopoly on violence. How should that violence be used? Should it be used to protect every individual's right to life, liberty and property? Should it used to protect the rights of only a few by plundering the rest?
Bastiat compares the use of this violence quite well. The few plunder the many, the many plunder the few or no one is plundered. Which do you prefer?
What is a positive right to travel? The govt must plunder the wealth of your fellow citizens to pay for your travel?
What if a road was privately owned, as most were hundreds of years ago? They were called turnpikes and many still exist and thrive. They make no money if no one travels on them. But then govt owned roads and bridges raise prices in order to make travel less free.
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 17, 2012
Then this group is violating the individual's rights to life, liberty and property and the city is justified in using violence to protect their rights.
The same holds true for your other ridiculous example.


That assumes a positive right to travel or allows the idea that there's such a thing as indirect coercion. A right to travel is not consistent with libertarian philosophy so I must assume you believe there are possible ways to indirectly coerce groups and individuals and government should have the right to regulate that. The latter leads to a slippery slope because if a monopoly on the land surrounding an individual or group falls under the purview of government regulation in order to allow those within to survive then regulating monopolies who control scarce resources necessary for life must also be acceptable, based on the underlying principle, under similar situations, namely, where government regulation is necessary to remove coercive restraints to survival.
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 17, 2012
Sure they are. The US Constitution was written by classical liberals/libertarians.

What is a positive right to travel? The govt must plunder the wealth of your fellow citizens to pay for your travel?


Modern libertarian ideology which, when consistent, is totally predicated on property rights is not the same as the constitution which was not written solely by "classical liberals/libertarians" and to the contrary is an amalgamation of many completely different views. Claiming it was written by "libertarians" is disingenuous and nothing more than an attempt to force a particular view, such as some modern Christians do to justify a theocracy, onto the founders rather than to take the time to appreciate and understand the many different views of the founders based on their own terms.

Government forcing people to supply easements because they own the property surrounding yours is acceptable according to you, so you have answered your question for me.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2012
Government forcing people to supply easements because they own the property surrounding yours is acceptable according to you,

That is not what I said.
What I said is the individual's right to life and property is being violated by a violent siege. Such an individual has the right to use violence to defend HIS right to life and property.
The instigator then must take into account the his cost for the attempt as must the victim. When offered no choice the individual under siege must return the violent action taken against him to defend his rights.
This is essentially the situation in the relationship among the nation-states. There is no govt, only violence, the threat of violence and the costs of violence.
In your example, if the property owner spends all that money and risks violent retaliation for the siege, they must have a serious reason to engage in the siege.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2012
Most nation-states limit your 'right to travel'.
Some require visas to enter AND/OR to leave.
Some are easy to obtain depending upon your intentions.
I personally support changing US immigration laws to allow anyone into the USA who is healthy and has not criminal record. There would be no federal welfare available and they would have the opportunity to work for whomever would hire them and/or start their own business.
If this were implemented I suspect many other nation-states would begin to lose the best and brightest and would either restrict them from leaving OR change their laws to encourage them to stay.
The US is designed as a collection of states. We see many voting with their feet. Fleeing high tax, high cost states like IL, MI, CA and NY to states that encourage prosperity and liberty.
Some states and nation-states want to limit such travel.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 17, 2012
Who just happened to be slave owners.

"The US Constitution was written by classical liberals/libertarians." - RyggTard
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 18, 2012
What I said is the individual's right to life and property is being violated by a violent siege. Such an individual has the right to use violence to defend HIS right to life and property.
The instigator then must take into account the his cost for the attempt as must the victim. When offered no choice the individual under siege must return the violent action taken against him to defend his rights.


So in your ideal way of doing things violence at the behest of individuals, cities, states etc.. would be the way to solve problems (might over right) instead of implementing a government that set clear rules for easements? And exactly where does the necessity for an easement end?Then who decides that? You think these problems were never thoroughly considered in the past? Obviously they were and the utility of public roads is exactly why they exist.As far as the constitution goes there are very few limits on states to implement public roads, utilities etc.. paid for by taxes.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2012
implementing a government

Government IS violence. It is a monopoly on violence.
The question is how is that violence limited.
Usually it is restrained by defined laws, but when the president of the US refuses to enforce and follow the laws he has sworn to uphold, then the rule of law if over and the arbitrary rule of kings begin. BTW, this is no different than socialism. Rule of kings, rule of the mob (majority) is the the same.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 18, 2012
Then violence is Government. So if you are beaten in the street then you are being governed according to tiny mind Libertarians.

"Government IS violence." - RyggTard

"It is a monopoly on violence.' - RyggTard

I once had it explained to me by a Libertarian that taxation was violence because work was his "lifes blood" and that taking his money was taking his "lifes blood" and the taking of Blood was kin to murder so he had the right to murder Police officers since they were working to kill him.

This is the level of intellect that RyggTard is displaying.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2012
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence, George Washington reportedly said. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
"Apologists for power will claim that without expansive government, the weak will be vulnerable to the strong, the masses to the rich. But that appeal falls apart when one reviews the history of government and realizes that, appearances aside, power ultimately sides with the strong and the rich against the rest. Indeed, power what Bastiat called legal plunder and shelter from competition is the source of their strength and a good deal of wealth."
http://www.thefre...s-force/

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are Government SPONSORED Enterprises SHIELDED from competition.
Whatwhat
not rated yet Jun 19, 2012
Government IS violence. It is a monopoly on violence.


If "Government IS violence" then no government must be peace, right? And so the typical libertarians convoluted solution is to get rid of government. You know what happens then? A new government pops up. That will continually happen unless there is no one left to form a government which is the only real solution to the absurd problem that the typical libertarian puts forth. The reason that's the case is because government is a reflection of the people, therefore, according to you, people are violence. Obviously with that fatalist approach there is no solution except magically somehow, you appear to believe, yours composed of roaming bands of private thugs and competing justice systems. Instead of that consider that government is not violence it is an evolving idea that leads to LESS violence over time, which is thoroughly obvious if one looks at the facts instead of accepting personal fantasies, and then go from there.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 19, 2012
And who is Sheldon Freman?

He is a nobody.

"Apologists for power will claim that without expansive government, the weak will be vulnerable to the strong, the masses to the rich." - RyggTard quoting Sheldon Richman

So we have the delusional quoting a nobody. Now there is the origin of all Libertarian non-thought.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2012
no government must be peace,

Govt is the MONOPOLY on violence.
The US Constitution recognized this and limited that monopoly by guaranteeing its citizens the right to defend themselves with firearms.
The first step of any tyrant is to disarm the victims.
There is no world govt. The world lives under anarchy. How peaceful is it? It is much more peaceful when nations are freely trading with each other and have little fear of being invaded or attacked.

More news stories

Evolution of lying

(Phys.org) —Ultimately, our ability to convincingly lie to each other may have evolved as a direct result of our cooperative nature.

Honeybees trained in Croatia to find land mines

(AP)—Mirjana Filipovic is still haunted by the land mine blast that killed her boyfriend and blew off her left leg while on a fishing trip nearly a decade ago. It happened in a field that was supposedly ...

Russia retrieves mice, newts from space

A Russian capsule filled with 45 mice and 15 newts along with other small animals returned from a month's mission in orbit on Sunday with data scientists hope will pave the way for a manned flight to Mars.

German energy shift faces headwinds

Tense engineers have their eyes peeled on complex colour-coded diagrams on a wall-sized screen that makes their control room look like the inside of a spaceship.