Princeton Study Finds That The US Is An Oligarchy

[Adnada]

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Francis wrote in the papal statement. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacra­lized workings of the prevailing economic system.”-Pope Francis

It is hard to find examples confirming the effectiveness of a free market because we have next to no examples of completely free markets to look at. People often confuse a lightly regulated market with free one, but that is a problematic error, as even the smallest amount of regulation benefits some and create hurdles for others.

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" ~Frederic Bastiat

 

[j.]

The stupidity of those who oppose the recent decisions that allow people to spend their money promoting who they want is just incredible.

They say they oppose the power of corporations to influence politics. So do they oppose the selling of newspapers by the New York Times? The New York Times is a corporation, and they influence politics in a certain direction, very strongly, every single day. So these "regulators" want in practice to say that only some selected type of corporations or people can influence politics. The owner of the New York Times can freely influence politics. So why can't the owner of, say, Intel, spend money and influence politics as well?

The "leftists" used to be in favor of first amendment and freedom of expression rights, while the right wingers in favor of self-defense and second amendment rights. But the leftists aren't in favor of freedom of speech anymore. They want to allow only a select group of people or corporations to have speech and influence.

Thanks Adnana for your post and for helping this forum not become another cesspool of the idiotic leftist thought that permeates the country.

 

[j.]

If Princeton goes a little deeper they'll find that they're one of the most efficient institutions in brainwashing people to support the current system of massive killing and theft.

 

[narouz]

It is hard to find examples confirming the effectiveness of a free market because we have next to no examples of completely free markets to look at.

Why is that, do you think?

 

[j.]

Why is that, do you think?

Polyunsaturated fats might make the difference in influencing people into that kind of stupid behavior.

 

[Adnada]

It is hard to find examples confirming the effectiveness of a free market because we have next to no examples of completely free markets to look at.

Why is that, do you think?

That is a good question. I suppose it is not possible to know when or where the first government existed, but as far back as we can gather, there has almost always been some sort of government. All of these governments have caused some degree of harm. At best, a government provides services at a higher cost and lower value than a free market would provide. At worst, governments oppress, enslave, and kill. The University of Hawaii has put together some interesting stats on democide, or deaths caused by governments. We must ask, have they prevented even a portion of this number of deaths with all of its' regulation?

The authority a government has is based almost solely on the legitimacy with which it is seen, as well as the idea that it is the only way certain needs will be met (mainly judicial and protection services, also transportation routes). Governments spend huge amounts of our money on propaganda to boost their own legitimacy. In the past, governments used the influence of religion to do this.

There have been some examples of truly free markets. One being ancient Celtic Ireland, as described by Murray Rothbard here: http://lilarajiva.wordpress.com/2007/07 ... n-society/
Another being Pennsylvania as founded by William Penn as described here, again by Rothbard: http://mises.org/daily/1865
"The Not So Wild, Wild West" is another great example: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rep/not- ... -west.html
Here is an article regarding the "need" for a government to provide transportation, specifically looking at the history of railroads: http://mises.org/daily/2317

Additionally, the study of government and social order in a scholarly manor is relatively new. The ability of any number of people to read, and to learn about liberty and economics is also relatively new. At some point a convergence of understanding these topics and unbearable tyranny and exploitation will lead to an intentionally free society. Not a society of chaos and unaccountability, but one where there are no monopolies on goods or services.

 

[j.]

Oh, we have an anarchist, that's more anti-government than myself. Anyway, the Rothbardian Peatarians I bet would be a very interesting bunch (if there is more than one such person ).

 

[narouz]

...there has almost always been some sort of government. All of these governments have caused some degree of harm.

Only harm...never anything good?

 

[Adnada]

Thanks Adnana for your post and for helping this forum not become another cesspool of the idiotic leftist thought that permeates the country.

Thank you j. Nice to know I'm not alone. I think Peat's experience is a great example of how government has let us all down. The FDA, (which we must have or else snake oil salesmen will sell us placebos or poison), promotes PUFA, estrogen, vaccines and xrays. They also serve as a legal protector for the pharmaceutical companies. If a prescription drug harms someone, the manufacturer and prescriber have very little accountability, and the result of any lawsuit usually results in a government payout to the victim, ie, taxpayer money.

 

[j.]

Peat sounds a bit like a commie sometimes, but he and libertarians seem to be the only ones who mention how the agencies that regulate businesses are typically hijacked by these businesses.

Peat points out that people who worked at high levels at the FDA often worked at high levels in the vegetable oils industry (if I recall correctly), just like the heads of the Treasury are often former CEOs of Goldman Sachs.

 

[Adnada]

...there has almost always been some sort of government. All of these governments have caused some degree of harm.

Only harm...never anything good?

Sure, good things are accomplished too. I think the good things could be accomplished without coercing funding from people. (There are endless examples of private charities and voluntary cooperation operating in powerful and wide-reaching ways, and in a peaceful and efficient manor.) I just don't think the good justifies the bad. Is it ok to kill 6 people if in doing so you would get rid of 5 murderers?

 

[j.]

Narouz's question brings to mind the seen and the unseen essay by Bastiat.

Governments take (steal) a lot of money from taxpayers, and they build let's say a library. People see the library (seen), but what would've been the use of that money if it wasn't stolen (not seen). The benefits of the stolen money are seen by everyone, but not the harms.

 

[Adnada]

Oh, we have an anarchist, that's more anti-government than myself. Anyway, the Rothbardian Peatarians I bet would be a very interesting bunch (if there is more than one such person ).

We are a very rare species, highly sought after by the DHS.

So j., do you support a limited government providing only a small number of "essential" services? If so, how do you think a government can be restrained to a limited capacity? And who gets to decide what role and power a government gets to have?

 

[j.]

We are a very rare species, highly sought after by the DHS.

So j., do you support a limited government providing only a small number of "essential" services? If so, how do you think a government can be restrained to a limited capacity? And who gets to decide what role and power a government gets to have?

Typically these things, the territorial boundaries, are kept by force. I basically take that as a given, I don't know how to change that or if it can be changed. I just go as far as John Locke does, mainly. The government should protect life, liberty, and property, and that's it.

How can it be restrained? There is a religious belief in government. If there is a problem, there ought to be a law! If the people who try to solve them are part of the government, then they're more likely than regular humans to solve them. Government has super human powers. Just like religious beliefs changed with arguments and persuasion, the belief in the government as a godly omnipotent being, whether people are conscious that they see it that way, can be changed. Government should be seen as the agency that punishes aggression to people and their property. People should value the people who produce their food more than the people that punish very rare thieves.

 

[Adnada]

We are a very rare species, highly sought after by the DHS.

So j., do you support a limited government providing only a small number of "essential" services? If so, how do you think a government can be restrained to a limited capacity? And who gets to decide what role and power a government gets to have?

Typically these things, the territorial boundaries, are kept by force. I basically take that as a given, I don't know how to change that or if it can be changed. I just go as far as John Locke does, mainly. The government should protect life, liberty, and property, and that's it.

How can it be restrained? There is a religious belief in government. If there is a problem, there ought to be a law! If the people who try to solve them are part of the government, then they're more likely than regular humans to solve them. Government has super human powers. Just like religious beliefs changed with arguments and persuasion, the belief in the government as a godly omnipotent being, whether people are conscious that they see it that way, can be changed. Government should be seen as the agency that punishes aggression to people and their property. People should value the people who produce their food more than the people than punish very rare thieves.

I hear you. I think a private law society (free market: http://mises.org/daily/2265) would accomplish protecting life, liberty and property without the potential abuses of a government monopoly. If the only mandatory rules were to protect private property, life would be protected as your life is your private property. And if no other actions other than harm to private property were prohibited, than liberty would be protected. And while I would be pretty well satisfied with a government limited to that, I don't think it is possible. But regardless of whether it's a limited government or a private law society, a change must occur in the beliefs of the masses.

On a lighter note: what's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

 

[j.]

On a lighter note: what's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

Depends on who you ask, just like the other thread has a topic about 'humanism', it all depends on what is considered 'humanism'. People can explain what they mean by all these terms at the beginning of the conversation.

 

[Adnada]

On a lighter note: what's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

Depends on who you ask, just like the other thread has a topic about 'humanism', it all depends on what is considered 'humanism'. People can explain what they mean by all these terms at the beginning of the conversation.

Oh, it was joke. The answer is "6 months".

But, yes, it can be useful to define terms before getting into things, as sometimes people have different definitions.

 

[arien]

I am another Rothbardian peatarian. Minarchist libertarianism is an incoherent notion. "An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms" - Hans Hoppe.

 

[Kappytal]

All Rothbardian Peatarians in the US especially, but in the west generally, should consider getting out of their oligarchies asap. http://www.policestateusa.com/ Peat thinks Mexico has decent eggs, meat and dairy at least, and you can get thyroid there too.

 

[arien]

International diversification of your lifestyle is a must, something I am beginning to enact presently. Being attached to a state and/or a particular geographical location seems to me to have some relation to an inhibition of the proteolytic enzymes, a particular pattern of which the state has conditioned in modern people, per the feudal peasant's fear of the dragons that lie over the hill.

Doug Casey gives some motivation and strategy below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sJ-afgwIoY