Using Statist Idiocy Against Itself

Hey, can I get in on this?

I just want to say that being a Libertarian, I want complete freedom on both the social and economic. Problem is, the government always wants a cut, be it socialistic, communistic, crony capitalistic, corporatistic and NOT free market.................isitic.

Anyway, tell me folks what do all of these systems have in common when they begin to fail? Of course cash or black markets. Tell me folks, what do YOU see?

Anyway, the instant cash becomes a problem, that is when I become a problem.

Be safe folks.

Originally posted by Janky Red
But this assumes that the judge is not as crooked as a modern day politician -

The judge might have become a judge in the first place because he sees a potential for profit.

It is the same concept that is wrong with government, people are corruptible

So why should crooked judges be less of a concern under your system?

Under your system, I have no choice of what court I must use - under my system, there would be a wide selection of courts to chose from.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Janky Red
But this assumes that the judge is not as crooked as a modern day politician -

The judge might have become a judge in the first place because he sees a potential for profit.

It is the same concept that is wrong with government, people are corruptible

So why should crooked judges be less of a concern under your system?

Under your system, I have no choice of what court I must use - under my system, there would be a wide selection of courts to chose from.

There is not, however in my system it can be addressed and examined far more readily because I do not directly fund the arbitrator and the statist system has developed recourse to counteract this to some degree.

Furthermore what happens to people who have no money but are charged of a crime?

Originally posted by Janky Red
There is not, however in my system it can be addressed and examined far more readily because I do not directly fund the arbitrator and the statist system has developed recourse to counteract this to some degree.

Furthermore what happens to people who have no money but are charged of a crime?

How would corruption be "addressed and examined far more readily"?

You have no options in your system.

The State decides when corruption will be investigated and you have no choice in who your judge is.

One can file for a change of venue, but of course, the court itself has to grant the change of venue - which is utterly ridiculous.

Corruption is rife in your system - far more so than could ever be possible in a private system.

Here's a massive list of corruption allegations from just this past year:
www.examiner.com...

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Corruption is rife in your system - far more so than could ever be possible in a private system.

I don't argue the first point, but your system judges can simply be bought and sold outright, there is simply no third party force to intervene or keep the judge honest of repercussion...

What is to stop the person who chooses the venue from choosing a sympathetic judge that excepts money
to prejudicate?

Second what if one party does not want to go to court?

I mean I have a list - obviously I cannot defend the current system, but your idea seems to present a whole other host of factors and problems.

Do you actually know how this process would work???

Lets say, I dislike you, so I plant evidence, call my favorite police company to investigate... Do you honestly think a profit driven company will act in a way that will keep me from using them again??? NO!!!

They will try to please me as it is with all business -

reply to post by Janky Red


errr no.

Your system allows judges to be bought outright, as the nearly endless list of corruption reports can attest to.

Under my system, you could sue the first judge by turning to a second court if you had evidence of corruption.

Under your system, it is impossible to sue the courts for corruption.

It can't logically be done.

Further, since the security police and the courts would be operated entirely independently, the security services would have no conflict with arresting a corrupt judge.

reply to post by mnemeth1


The abolishment of the Federal Reserve and all other Government financial regulators would indeed cause your country to end up in pure anarchy, as is your desire. But of course, for obvious reasons, Anarchy will never work. The human is selfish, and cannot act otherwise without an incentive to do so. Without rules, there is no incentive to act un-selfishly, and thus society ends up in the same place it is in now: everyone is focused on their own needs, including our current governments.

However, I am not an American so I do not fully understand your Federal Reserve, nor it's history, but I can tell you from the knowledge I do posses (of the Canadian system) that the central bank is an important institution that cannot be done away with. The free market will never exist again as we have unlocked and utilized mass amounts of corrupting knowledge that will forever destroy free market capitalism. Thus, we must put in place rules and regulations to ensure that the entire population receives what they need. Of course, this is a very controversial subject to yourself, so I do not expect you to understand this sort of forced, organized mutual assistance.

The truth is that unfortunately mankind is a selfish species, and we must always push ourselves for more material objects to satisfy our primitive desires. Because resources are scarce and the population grows, there is inflation. You need a central bank to regulate the inflation rate along with the dispersal of money. I will admit that rarely there is a justified excuse to plunge a country into tremendous amounts of debt, especially when the loaned money only benefits a select few at the expense of the tax payer, but at the same time, it is a crucial part of society to assist those who are not in a current position to assist themselves.

Whether it's taxes, a state monopoly, or some other statist method, we need these techniques to ensure that the playing field for all citizens is even. Whether or not this is being properly implemented is a whole other topic.

reply to post by For(Home)Country


Actually, because humans are selfish, the State will never work.

You got it backwards.

Listen to Rothbard lecture on the Railroads of the 19th and 20th century.

You'll have a heart attack.



Of course, this is only one lecture of an entire series on the subject.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b1fd4e2e05dc.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red

 

errr no.

Your system allows judges to be bought outright, as the nearly endless list of corruption reports can attest to.

Under my system, you could sue the first judge by turning to a second court if you had evidence of corruption.

Under your system, it is impossible to sue the courts for corruption.

It can't logically be done.

Further, since the security police and the courts would be operated entirely independently, the security services would have no conflict with arresting a corrupt judge.

edit on 8-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

What if I do not have evidence of corruption? It would take 5 seconds to pay the judge off.

What would stop all parties from trying to buy of judges,,, think about it, no harm no foul, no law against it...

Who would pay to arrest this judge?

In the case of the police, can anybody have anybody arrested??? What is the criteria?

reply to post by mnemeth1

Please explain how the majority of people consenting to be governed a certain way (theoretically assuming that the government implements the full will of the majority) will "never work", assuming "never work" means a complete disaster socially, economically, etc, as opposed to each individual acting out their own will in a society where there is no intermediary force to organize, protect, or enforce standards?

reply to post by Janky Red


Under my system, competition provides a check on power.

Under your system, you are at the complete mercy of the State.

You have no options when the State runs the courts.

No options = no check on power.

Originally posted by For(Home)Country
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Please explain how the majority of people consenting to be governed a certain way (theoretically assuming that the government implements the full will of the majority) will "never work", assuming "never work" means a complete disaster socially, economically, etc, as opposed to each individual acting out their own will in a society where there is no intermediary force to organize, protect, or enforce standards?

It hasn't worked so far. - government that is.

Besides, last time I checked, government was responsible for 100 million dead people last century.

Government is a tool of the rich, it is not a tool of the working man.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Under my system, competition provides a check on power.

Under your system, you are at the complete mercy of the State.

You have no options when the State runs the courts.

No options = no check on power.

Your system creates a place where capital is the ultimate true power, competition will apply to the lowly,
but the law of the land will be the whim of the wealthy

Originally posted by Janky Red

Your system creates a place where capital is the ultimate true power, competition will apply to the lowly,
but the law of the land will be the whim of the wealthy

err... no, that's what we have now.

I want to move away from that.

Who do you think wrote the healthcare bill? Nancy Pelosi? - LOL

She didn't even read it.

First off, before ANYTHING else, we have to have a non manipulative currency.

Oh well.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
First off, before ANYTHING else, we have to have a non manipulative currency.

Oh well.

Yeah, that's pretty much the point I make in the OP.

I find humor in the fact that some of the radical statists hate the fed.

They obviously don't understand what the fed does otherwise they wouldn't be out calling for it to be dismantled.

Hence, my OP post.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Perhaps free thinkers should adopt a stance of class warfare, but rather than directing the broad irrational/emotional based arguments at the private banking industry, they should direct their arguments at the private federally mandated commercial banking cartel called the federal reserve system that enables the mass looting of the public by the private commercial banks themselves.

But it's completely irrational of you to champion the elite private banking industry either, it is like championing
O.J Simpson because at least he was not as murderous as Gacy.

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Perhaps free thinkers should adopt a stance of class warfare, but rather than directing the broad irrational/emotional based arguments at the private banking industry, they should direct their arguments at the private federally mandated commercial banking cartel called the federal reserve system that enables the mass looting of the public by the private commercial banks themselves.

But it's completely irrational of you to champion the elite private banking industry either, it is like championing
O.J Simpson because at least he was not as murderous as Gacy.

The part that you fail to understand is that the "elite banking industry" is only "elite" because of the federal reserve system.

For example, every commercial bank in America would have been forced into bankruptcy and liquidated if the fed wasn't there to bail them out with 23.7 trillion dollars of your money.

For some reason, this point keeps escaping you.

The banking industry on its own is no more murderous than the shoe industry.

It is only the unholy alliance of government that gives the banking industry its power.