This country is losing its soul…and it is terrifing.  When 58% of her SF fellows still trust her.  And the rest of the nation still thinks she is better than the honest people who serve in the Congress. AND IT IS THE DISHONEST MAIN STREAM MEDIA who support the ruin of this nation. If they were not all in bed together, talking among themselves, we might have a chance…can we do it over the internet!? NOPE! It is the young heads full of “higher education” who use the internet…and they don’t even understand they are the ones who are DOOMED! Frogs in a pot of water!!!

Pelosi, Reid, Boehner and McConnell should all be replaced.  All four are too partisan to be effective – and none of them have ever evidenced a desire or the ability to effectively collaborate and/or cooperate for the common good.  To all four, everything is, unfortunately, about “party” and “winning”.

In 2006 a large majority of Americans told the congress they wanted a change.. for the next 2 years A democratic congress blamed the republicans…  now in 2009 with a democratic congress and a democratic President. .. Congress still have not gotten the message that they we are tired of partisanship, extraordinary corruption, ethics, and lobbying scandals in Congress and even the executive branch..

Most of Americans still see corruption, ethics problems and lack of a moral compass as their greatest concern,– more than 42 percent of voters responding that they were “extremely concerned” about corruption and ethics in Washington.  They voted for a “change with” a certain hope new leaders would be definitive and take a lead role in LEADING… thus far… NO one has stepped up to lead and make hard decisions. In fact listening to near pathetic, limp-wristed pandering from the White house press secretary make one wonder outside the military are there any real leaders left in the country.

For the love of Mike, replace the entire congress – for the good of the country and not for individual state interests. Whatever happened to good old “Ask not what your country can do for you…”

Nancy Pelosi is nothing more or less than a female version of Tom Delay.  Both are cut from the same politicized, partisan cloth; have the same personal supply of nasty egotism; are totally self-directed in their personal pursuit of power; and are more motivated to play the game than promote the common good.

And, Pelosi wields her power just as Delay did; is more than tough enough to weather this current run of criticism; and knows that every Republican and as many as 37 Democrats can go against her in the House – and she’ll still win the vote and get her way.

And, similarly to Delay, she thrives on partisanship – “party” and “winning” – and that’s all that ever matters to both of them.

Sadly I believe you Americans have gotten what you deserved.

You “bought in” to the flawed Obama package -which anyone could have told you was undeliverable.

Pelosi was and is a major part of the package.

I agree that the Bush package also was flawed -as was the McCain package.

Americans need to demand more, and hold those who deliver short accountable.

So incidentally do we Canadians -but our impact on the world is negligible -whereas yours is HUGE!

If you are going to lead and run the world -you have an obligation to get serious and do it right!

Jock Williams Yogi 13

“To all four, everything is, unfortunately, about “party” and “winning”. “

You forgot about the other 531 or so in DC who are exactly the same.

“Whatever happened to good old “Ask not what your country can do for you…” “

How quaint and altruistic.

The question should be:

“Why the hell should the country do something for you and why you should do something for that which does nothing but steal your productivity so it can steal even more of your freedom?”

“The question should be:

“Why the hell should the country do … ” “

Better yet:

“Why the hell should you expect the country do something for you after it has done nothing but steal your productivity and your freedom?”

http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

Re: Post 5;

Unfortunately, by percentage, fewer Americans vote in a national election than do so in other democratic countries.

Generally, only about 1/2 of all U.S. voter-aged persons are actually registered to vote – and, with most presidential elections being fairly close, the winner is usually chosen by only 24%-25%-26%-27% of all age-eligible voters.

So – I wouldn’t hold my breath for much better!

Classic Liberal
May 21 at 1:39 pm |  #8 |  Link

Anatomy of the State; What the State Is Not– It is nice academic presentation of one thought.. However, you offer no solution other than to ask (paraphrase) “why should I?” 

Your response seems not to suggest anything beyond it is “their fault.” This of course is your right, a right made available to you courtesy of those of more conviction and sense of honor – but you would not understand this, now would you.

At least you have options… you could always become a citizen of another country.. and move there.

“Your response seems not to suggest anything beyond it is “their fault.” This of course is your right, a right made available to you courtesy of those of more conviction and sense of honor – but you would not understand this, now would you.”

You missed the point, Terry (or didn’t read the entire piece). Rothbard’s point being the state itself is the problem and despite the best efforts of well-intentioned people, the very nature of the state is predatory.

Have you read Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia?” The only way (in his opinion) to achieve Utopia is to build a “framework for Utopias” that allows all the separate Utopias various groups of people will find to their liking—somewhat like the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights—weak, narrowly-focused Federal government and states as voluntary associations of free citizens.

Sorry, Terry: my last comment (#11) should have been directed to JerryC.

BTW, JerryC, whom do you infer is the “their” you think I accuse? Are we ALL not responsible for allowing the state to make us its slaves? Granted many lazy, stupid, and indolent folks enjoy having someone else take responsibility for their lives, survival, and comfort, but being an optimist I think those are a very small minority.

What evidence do you have of my supposedly lower conviction, sense of honor or level of understanding? You seem very judgmental; unfortunately you don’t seem well-informed or well-read.

Classic Liberal RE #12

“What evidence do I have…”  I am not sure it would rise to the level of “evidence” in a courtroom (within the U.S)  however the statements posted in your response 7 and 8 would appear to answer most of your question.

Judgmental, on occasion –perhaps. Iconoclastic- sometimes.  Challenging –often. 

Well read or well informed[??]  is this not always relative my audience.  Have you read The Soldier and the State,  Clausewitz on War, Counselor, Thinking in Time, Get there Early, The Last Days of Europe,  Africa: Failed Economic History, any of John Locke, just to name a few of the more than 75 books I have read in the last year… no–not well read at all.. but then perhaps I am.

The REAL point in your post was from “The most complete online offering of the literature of the Austrian School and libertarian idea..” The posted suggests– indirectly– the state is inherently evil, which quite literally is Academic Crap– and you post a response suggesting the same (without alternative suggestions)…. 

Now you may continue with your attacks on me– or perhaps provide alternative suggestions to the issue beyond the same old worn out lamination’s that is everything is the fault of the State.

Jerry:

The only books/authors we seem to have in common from your list would be Locke. I’m not going to list all I’ve read in the last year, but rest assured the numbers are comparable. I’ve been studying ethics, morality, philosophy and economics for the most part this past year.

You judge an article based on the site that hosts it? Did you even read the article? Have you read much (if anything) of the Austrian economists (von Mises, Rothbard, Hayek et. al.), or as your list suggests does war interest you more than economics?

You may believe the state is not inherently evil, but you are likely deluded by your faith in the intentions of the rulers and politicians. I’m surprised that you failed to see limitations of Locke’s lessons, which Rothbard and others simply refined and corrected.

The origins, methods of self-preservation, and the fact that the state produces nothing and must exist by predation of those who do produce are some of the many facts of reality that make the state inherently evil and inimical to individual rights and liberty. That you refuse to acknowledge this and call it “academic crap” is evidence of my charge that you are judgmental, ill-informed and fail to understand what you read.

By the way this is an attack on what you express—take it as an attack on yourself if you wish, but doing so would only indicate your apparent discomfort with your own views.

Regarding “comparable numbers” let me make one the air up front… I am not here to “flop it out or compare” neither am I here become embroiled in word semantics..  I am glad you have been “STUDYING ethics, morality, philosophy, and economics for the MOST PART THIS PAST YEAR” perhaps one day you will actuality walk with a newer understanding. I too have been in senior academic institution this past year (dealing with the pain of the keyboard) and will leave here with a third Masters– but studying does not translate to better, border or even deeper understanding. Rather it offers other paths and ideas to examine. 

Over the last decade or two I have been in three war; engaged senior government officials in conversation, policy development and governance issues from a variety of nations to include Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq and on the African Continent. So not only have I been “STUDYING ethics, morality, philosophy, and economics” I have had the pleasure– and at times agony– of endeavored to apply those lesson to real life and death environments..

Admittedly, I have read several of books on the military, as well as leadership, culture, religions other social sciences. Considering that, war is really a continuation of politics by other means– and since the ‘state’ turns to war when its national interests are threatened, it’s only prudent to understand the dynamics of –not only war– those who lead a nation in war. In other words, I chose not to limit my examinations because real life has taught me some valuable lesson too.

“Judge based on the site”[?], no but the site is clearly biased in presentation. Also I assert with certainty the European perspective is vastly different form American. As a point of fact, the most Western European views are significantly different from those of your eastern neighbors.  My interests are in peace and if you were really into philosophy of and economics – you would understand that one cannot have one without understanding the other.

The great philosophers always sought (and seek) to understand life– occasionally one encounters those who just wish to engage in bombastic attacks or pusillanimous insults but that is ok. I take nothing for granted and I question and probe in search of answers and solutions..  finally to engage in the argument that “..state is not inherently evil..” or not is absurd on its face.

You fail to even define parameters of your thesis ergo what is a state?  Some see a “state” as an ancient institution, going back to Rome, Greece and before, and theorized by Plato, Aristotle and others. Some insist on the unique features of the modern state, with its extensive rule of law, citizenship rights, and broad economic and social responsibilities. A state is more than a government; that is clear. Governments change, but states endure. Is a a state is the means of rule over a defined or “sovereign” territory based on Westphalia?

So I return to my original conjecture – sit back …complain offer no existential improvement—- others will carry your load.

Studying is what I do when I’m not struggling with the facts of Reality to maintain my continued existence. It would be nice if Reality would quit intruding on my studies.

The basic purpose of the state (or social contract) is to repress individual liberty. That is the fundamental evil of the state and explains why those who govern and whose charge it is to help maintain the state’s existence soon find morals, ethics and their teleology compromised or warped.

Fortunately, maintaining my existence by helping maintain the state’s existence is something I’ve never needed, chosen, or been chosen to do (although maintaining a corporation’s existence is arguably equivalent). Nor have I been involved with maintaining the intellectual justification and backing of the state.

You on the other hand seem to have spent a significant portion of your life doing just that.

Which of our views is correct? In this state (social contract) we are still somewhat free to choose for ourselves, but we are quickly losing a hugely significant number of options due to state power.

Re: Post 16;

While, as you state, you might believe the following: “…The basic purpose of the state (or social contract) is to repress individual liberty…”

I think a case can be made, today, that “the basic purpose of the state is to repress criminality” – and – I sure don’t see any widespread repression of significant individual liberties in the U.S. 

And, of course, in the U.S., the traditional concept is that the state’s purpose is “to protect the general health, safety and welfare” of the citizenry.

(Personally (and noting that I read the works of most classical political philosophers a very long time ago), I don’t recall any of them unequivocally stating that the basic purpose of the “social contract” is to repress individual liberty – and, of course, John Locke’s philosophical idea of the “social contract” was the basis of the political thinking of many of the framers and signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the U.S.  And, I also personally believe that EVERY individual liberty also carries with it a very specific responsibility or set of responsibilities.)

“I think a case can be made, today, that “the basic purpose of the state is to repress criminality” – and – I sure don’t see any widespread repression of significant individual liberties in the U.S.”

Repressing criminality is something the individual must do to himself—as you note, every liberty also carries specific responsibility. Punishing criminality is what the state claims as its monopolistic prerogative.

And who is to judge what is a “significant individual liberty” but the individual himself?

As to protecting the “general …. welfare,” minarchists such as Nozick can only argue that building a framework of Utopias can be justified. I believe that is what the framers ans signers attempted and came closer to than any form of government prior or since.

But again, the fundamental nature of government is to claim monopolistic power for itself: it cannot help but seek constantly to increase that power to maintain the monopoly.

Re: Post 18;

Yeah, but, you know, I’m just not into the “individual” and total license thing like you apparently are – - and I’m DEFINITELY much more of a believer in the “We” than the younger generations’ far too selfish belief that “It’s all about ME!”

Call me a dinosaur – but I have always and will always believe in T.E.A.M—- Together Everyone Achieves More.

And, the incarceration recidivism rate (85%) shows you how realistic “…Repressing criminality is something the individual must do to himself…”

For me, given the truths of human nature, I see the purpose of good government to be, essentially,  the prevention of chaos!

(Note how well “self-regulation” has worked on Wall Street recently!)

Different strokes for different folks.  I believe in cooperation, collaboration and community.

I too believe in cooperation, collaboration and community, but I firmly believe all such actions must be voluntary, based on mutual benefit, and not demanded by altruism (self-sacrifice), “neighborly” pressure (guilt), or government (force).

Classic Liberal
RE: 16

I suspect it would be intellectually dishonest to argue that I have “not backed” the state– but would advance it is equally intellectually dishonest to argue that I have “backed” the state. Everyday words are inherently imprecise. They work well enough in everyday life that you do not notice. Words seem to work, just as Newtonian physics seems to. But you can always make them break if you push them far enough.
-
I would say that this has been, unfortunately for philosophy, the central fact of philosophy. Most philosophical debates are not merely afflicted by but driven by confusions over words. Do we have free will? Depends what you mean by “free.” Do abstract ideas exist? Depends what you mean by “exist.”

RE 18 and 20

“Repressing criminality is something the individual must do to himself—“  and here is why philosophical discussion takes place in each circulate manner…  they are made in a circle.  First using a premise to prove a conclusion, and then using the conclusion to prove the premise; in other words, it is an attempt to prove two statements reciprocally from each other.
Of course “Repressing criminality …the individual must do to..” but then this argues the persons is the STATE, which is counter intuitive. If the PERSON is the state then he/she cannot demonstrate a criminal act because he/she makes the rules and the rules only effect that person as a state.  However if two or more persons collectively make up state, by mutual accord, then by extension they agree to conform to rule they establish. Each is responsible to conform to these rules by “repressing” behavior that would violate the compact, failing to do so empowers a state to “suppress” those actions now commonly accepted as contrary to goals of the state and by extension –goals of the individual.
-
Aristotle’s goal was to find the most general of general principles. His example were convincing: an ordinary worker builds things a certain way out of habit; a master craftsman can do more because he grasps the underlying principles. Distilling this down translates to: the more general the knowledge, the more admirable it is.
-

However, the mistake of Aristotle— ne noted theoretical knowledge is usually if not often acquired for its own sake, out of curiosity, rather than for any practical need. Therefore, he proposed there are two kinds of theoretical knowledge: some that is useful in practical matters and some that is not. In other words, people interested in the latter are interested in it for its own sake, and are more noble and suggest to prove the exploration of knowledge that has no practical use. This means that no alarms go off when we take on grand but vaguely understood questions and ends up getting lost in a sea of words.
-
People talk so much about abstractions they do not realize what a leap they make from the start to the end… it was presumably many thousands of years between when people first started describing things as hot or cold and when someone asked “what is heat?” 
-

Jerry:

““Repressing criminality …the individual must do to..” but then this argues the persons is the STATE, which is counter intuitive.”

That is not what I argued or suggested at all. The rest of your paragraph supports that fallacy.

The person is not the state, nor does the person become the state by volition, self-regulation or seeking self-interested value through intercourse with others in a society. Each individual seeing to his own best interest and acting rationally will not seek benefit at the expense of other individuals. (aka, “The Golden Rule”)

Your last paragraph is simply pointing out the lack of epistemology and objectivity most people suffer from. Knowledge sought and achieved today may indeed have no practical purpose today, but its discovery adds to the totality of Man’s understanding of Reality and that itself has practical value.

I don’t buy his “Golden Mean” either. Black swans do exist.

What about Aristotle’s teleology, eudaimonia and the role of virtue ethics?

Classic Liberal RE 22.

First, let me offer … I cannot know “what most people suffer from” without a baseline point of reference – since this will vary a great deal relative to each environment. (Stuttgart Germany Vs Lyon in Sierra Leone.
-
Second: regarding “That is not what I argued or suggested at all. The rest of your paragraph supports that fallacy…” it was exactly what you argued.
-
Third, you offer only one subcomponent FROM Normative ethics– as if separate (e.g. “the role of virtue ethics?”) Since normative ethics is, an attempt to provide a general theory that tells us how we ought to live– who is making the decision if there is a “general theory” where did it derive? It simply did not just “happen.”
-
But let us consider the following… As an example, suppose a man bravely intervenes to prevent a youth from being assaulted.

The virtue theorist will be most interested in the bravery exhibited; and suggests that he has a good character.  Most certainly there are Black Swans (an excellent book by the way) however in your conjecture I cannot see how this is relevant (not being well read – you know).  IS the brave man the Black Swan? If so who decides and by what authority? 

-So now, allow me to take your philosophical theory and ask…If your argument is valid- how do you explain the events on the African continent?

-The point relevant– to the discussion of the state is Sovereignty- and Sovereignty is “the what” and results in conflicting issues. One might conclude every political theorists and jurist in history has wandered this maze – and I would argue the reason is a genuine philosophical meaning of the concept has not been–from the very start sufficiently examined, tested and taken seriously.

So if man is not the state what IS the state because the idea of a Westphalian ‘Man’ system just does not seem logical.

If you are saying that arguing for self-sovereignty is arguing the individual is a “state” then I would have to concede your point.

Regarding normative ethics, the main quarrel I find there seems to be which attributes and actions are virtue. From my perspective of individual sovereignty, egoism and natural rights carry most weight.

I haven’t looked deeply into the Treaty of Westphalia yet, but my initial thought is it would be an example of monarchy and aristocracy “legitimizing” their “ownership” of, and pissing on the corners of, their turf to include the unfortunate inhabitants thereof: turf which it must be admitted was acquired illegitimately through force. It (the treaty and its effect) looks to be the cornerstone of extending warfare’s impact to the common man under the guise of the “nationhood” (ala Ruritania and Walldavia as Rothbard wrote).

In the case of the Holy Roman Empire, it serves as an example of Attila tyrannizing individuals through brute force with the witch doctor tyrannizing Attila through Attila’s superstition and fear of the “super natural” (to paraphrase Branden and Rand).

The overall effect on the people was to convince them to see themselves as property of the state, church, and tyrant.

Which then leads us to the inevitable conclusion that philosophical discussion are—at best—specious.. (smile).. and is akin to squeezing fruit. The exterior is soft and squeezable but by the time one detects the hard lump at it’s core ….the exterior is all mushy and lost to group.

It’s not like squeezing fruit, it’s more like peeling an onion: all the obscurantism tears up your eyes making Truth harder to see clearly.

What I found in my onion is the affirmation that there is indeed a hard core, in the form of normative ethics: Man as he ought to be. The individual and the fruit of his productiveness ought not be the property of anyone but himself and those he chooses to gift or trade with.

As Nozick put it: “From each as he chooses to each as he is chosen.”

Are you familiar with any of Rothbard’s writing other than the article I pointed out above? I’ve been reading “The Irrepressible Rothbard” a collection of his essays from the Rothbard-Rockwell Report. An amazing fellow! Few survive being under his microscope.

Classic Liberal
May 25 at 8:46 pm |  #26 |  RE

Sorry, no, I have not read much, but “in truth” i have an issue with accepting one mans ‘truth.’ I think “truth” is not hard to see at all. As Richard Bach wrote..(Paraphrasing)…The truth has no future, nor has it any past. It is, therefore that is all it must be.

From my perspective, people appear to couch truth–perhaps so it meets their expectations. It would then seem that ultimately, what we want to know, or what is at least important are concepts like “ethics.” But admittedly at times it would appear some individuals simply is wish to use these “ideas of truth” as fulcrums– reference points for authorities– for their truth.

Individual truths are one thing, collective truths are merely a blending of individual truth, necessary for a society (or state) to function within the framework of those truths usually by even in the absence of a plebiscitary agreement.

I fear I have more of an eclectic mind rather than philosophical.