Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 02:33 AM
Is having a government scientific?
Before the kings, there used to be families, tribes and clans, led by the strongest warriors. There was never a peaceful state of nature, as animals can readily testify, especially gregarious animals, humans being one of them. Struggle for survival and seasonal dangers tend to spoil the idyll.

With the dawn of civilization, we see emerging tribal chieftains as future kings, uniting the power into empires. The last time we saw that was after the fall of Roman empire, a remarkably similar time to today. The dukes warred all across Europe and maintained their small territories, some of which would later become capital cities, such as Francia of Louis the 6th. The situation stabilized thanks to time, defeats and the invention of city-making. The city dwellers became a king's new allies against nobility and the Church. They had greater freedoms than peasants and greater productivity as well, but their freedoms depended on the king.

The king's court emerged from what used to be king's personal household and personal finances. Toward the end of medieval ages, as the central power stabilized the situation, the court became a new, subtler battlefield. You ever wondered what the expensive bullshit entertainment was about? It was about sucking away the court nobility's money, so that they don't become too powerful by being both rich and at the center of things. The nobility who stayed home paid of course the price of being separated from the best contacts. The king however wasn't the strongest one. He maintained his power by pitting everyone against each other into a stalemate and putting in his weight as a deciding factor.

As the agenda on king's table became too big, king started to delegate power to ministers, clerks, offices... In the chaos of medieval ages, securing loot monopoly was essential to keeping a territory with an army, because army was damn expensive. (Norbert Elias was big on this) Once secure, the looting was delegated to clerks and renamed to taxing. Taxes provided a steady source of income for expansion and outward looting. So taxes is just a word for a regular, organized monopoly on plundering. It became so ingrained and automated, that people just know what happens if they don't turn in their money, so it goes quite smoothly, but the point is the same in 7th century and 21st - the king loots his inner lands to pay he army to loot the outer lands, or just line his pockets and maintain an expensive court with lots of bullshit entertainment not for common folks.

There were some major developments. Notably, before the French revolution, the clerk nobility became quite influential and effective on their own, which allowed for easier detachment of royal heads without the whole state (looting) system tumbling down. (Tocqueville - Ancien regime) State must loot to work, it does not work or produce anything. Every clerk's fart is paid for by loot money.

The second big development came about 1848, when people wanted to make up the laws too. But they couldn't all fit into the government buildings, so they chose to elect their "representatives" whatever the hell that means, by various bullshit rules. Such as men, not women, over 21, with certain income, nobility, high clergy or big farm owners, that was the drill in Europe. Later they had generalized that a little, included women and so on. They still keep getting babies and the unborn deep into debt, but they're not letting them vote, so it's all bullshit.

Another big development was Bismarck's, toward the end of 19th century. He silenced socialists by giving them a totally unsustainable social security and insurance system paid for by the traditional loot money. Few people actually qualified for it, but it shut the loud socialist mouths and it divided the classes against each other and made them dependent on the government loot subsidy. (Gosta Esping-Andersen) State still didn't produce anything.

Meanwhile, many smart people claimed, that this centralized state control over money for the purpose of looting is not good for productivity. There are three basic forms of looting, through taxes, national debt and through printing paper money or setting their ratio to gold in any way the authority says.
Smart people said, that less looting is better for the economy. Many states such as USA or Sweden obeyed the advice and grew great wealth, especially not being impacted by world wars. But in long term, the greatest economic freedom usually meant that there was just more for the state to move in and steal. The state is like a cancer, if the economy isn't very healthy, it can't grow very fast. Both Sweden and USA had a great deal of wealth created by economic freedom. After the great crisis creating the welfare state was a political decision. USA chose to use its wealth for global military invasions and endurance arms race with Soviets. Sweden used to circulate the wealth through the state instead of the market, which seemed to work for a couple of generations, though the kettle is getting cold and they're turning up the heat already.

Capitalism is the scientific way to use money. Money serve the same function as 1's and 0's in a computer, they make signals go around. This is why they must be spread where the information is, in the hands of the people. Pumping money up to a central authority with limited information and unlimited power to decide is unscientific, looting overrides all information of what is or isn't wanted by people. And loot redistribution distorts the sight even further and deliberately. Money printing is pure theft, pure distortion.

Or you could see market as the mirror of sea waves to navigate by. Equalize the market? Market is just a mirror of real economy, it must be able to see everything. One must be able to gain even extremely high amounts of money, if someone does something extremely useful! There must be this action and reaction, production and profit or loss, and these high-powered dials for big industry and business are important too.

Market works better with minimal government, but it only becomes safe with no government. With neoliberal governments, they decided to let the market produce value, so there is more to steal and use for imperialism. With United States it was a big mistake to have even a limited government. It never stays limited. Government capitalism is crapitalism - crony capitalism. It takes over everything and it is a mass theft and mass manipulation.

There are no angels in the politics to protect us from devils among us. There is only one kind of people in the world. It is impossible to have two, producers and re-distributors. Both private and public sector employ one kind of people and both are run by money. Scientific use of money requires no "public sector", that is, no looting sector. The only way to improve life is through technology and science, work and spending on people actually want, not on what ministry clerks, politicians and their cronies want. Market is like a constantly running routine of peer-review of services. Public sector services have no peer-review at all. Economy is a science and this is its pseudoscience.

Did you think Communism was any different? As long as we use money as an economic instrument, its laws are inescapable. People must use money to make deals without being threatened by a third party, such as IRS or the soviets (councils). Then the numerical shifts of prices will reflect the real state of the economy. Then people can make real decisions. Decision to pay taxes is not a decision, it's getting mugged and it severs the causal link between preference and price.

Oh, I know what do you think. Who will take care of the people, if there is no central authority to force them to take care of each other? Remember Bismarck and his social security? The state does not produce anything. It's an economic non-entity, a pure consumer, a pure looter and spender. It makes no sense whatsoever to use it for re-distribution. Market offers a plenty of instruments to do that safely, such as investment funds and charity organizations. People have a plenty of solidarity - in third world that's all they live off, children and neighbors are their social security. If people there were not highly caring of their relatives and willing to work for free, there would be no overpopulation.

I can feel that too. We need a foolproof system, a system where people don't have to start poor! Where they can not, by any chance or vagary of fate be economically insecure at old age or any other age. It is unjust to have to obey the prices, change jobs, move where the work is, go to job interviews, get sacked, compete with others and have our life's worth given out in number papers. Yeah, all my instincts are telling me this. But they are also telling me, we are in this together and we will not improve the situation by having a central mugger to rob us all! Kings and courts will not add one iota to our well-being and they take half of what we have. We could have twice as much nice things if we got rid of the parasite of government. And this parasite can be shed quickly.

I'd prefer the foolproof system, but setting it up takes time. Shedding the historical parasite can be done quickly. Meanwhile I must accept the science of private sector economy. Things may look acceptable now, but all media are controlled by the government and we pay all the time with our economic opportunities. We could get hell a lot more pleasant and easier jobs if all people got their work's worth. We could even live off charity and donations in a free economy. People are more generous when they earn more. We are one people, we are in this together and we are all dependent on the economic instrument of market, whether we like it or not. And we will not improve our situation by making up mythical creatures called politicians who fart rainbows, piss gold and belch justice. Politicians are like priests and you know what to do with priests. Nothing.
Catholic church used to do all the education in medieval ages, all records-keeping, charity and social care, weddings and even a lot of justice through inquisition. Well, it evolved. All it had to do to get under the rational radar was to take Jesus off the cross, go secular (the divine right of kings is now senator immunity and indemnity) and tell us we run the show through "representatives". Facepalm There is no such thing as "we", if there's an IRS gun in the room.

Next time you see a political campaign, see instead this Lecture_preist Next time you go voting, I hope you'll feel like an atheist in the church, going through the motions, but knowing the result beforehand. There will be no rising economy, no jobs springing from the ground like mushrooms after rain, no Jesus rising from the dead every year.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 03:17 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
[Image: hAE6E68B0]

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like The Germans are coming's post
16-05-2014, 03:33 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
Just on a note.

Why is there no human liberterian???

Why do they, when joining a forum, never take part in conversations on ordenary life? Like movies, games, religion, sex, cats, comedy and whatever?

All they do is post elaborat rants against the concept of government in threads about movies, games, religion, sex, cats, comedy and whatever.

Or open threads denouncing governments.

Are you people machines?!

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Germans are coming's post
16-05-2014, 03:53 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
tl;dr sry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 03:54 AM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 04:05 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 03:33 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  Just on a note.

Why is there no human liberterian???

Why do they, when joining a forum, never take part in conversations on ordenary life? Like movies, games, religion, sex, cats, comedy and whatever?

All they do is post elaborat rants against the concept of government in threads about movies, games, religion, sex, cats, comedy and whatever.

Or open threads denouncing governments.

Are you people machines?!
That's a damn good question, actually.

Libertarian society is the civil society of buying, selling, making contracts and working at our job making profit for our boss so that he will want to pay our salary, or running business by providing what other people want. It's what people actually do in daily life, except when they pay taxes so they don't go to jail, or work for the government where they can't get fired. Libertarians are just people who realize that consciously. No wonder you don't see them around, they're like everyone else who works in private sector.

Too bad that all the mass media are taken over by the government, so you don't get a clear opinion on libertarians, just like you don't get an objective commentary on what atheists are like. The way I imagined libertarians before, it was crazy. It was bad, but it made no sense to me at all, how could anyone be a libertarian, such a stupid and selfish person. Turns out, they were not represented fairly by their opponents. (surprise surprise) A libertarian is just an unbeliever in the government, just like atheist is an unbeliever in the Church. Also, I saw the film Atlas Shrugged based on Ayn Rand's novel and that confused me too. Her grandiose view of business seemed absurd to me, because all I saw in practice was crony capitalism. Business, government, it seemed the same shit to me. I had to learn Austrian school of economy before I understood what the hell did she mean under all that pompous dialogue. It's like making heroes of atheists Facepalm

It's like with Christians, they're normal people like us, they go to work, they're afraid of death, they try not to get killed even if that means going to Heaven and they certainly don't want to give all their possessions to the poor and go following Jesus. They're only Christians on Sunday and we only believe in the government when the tax month comes.

We are told that the moment that loot-funded policemen stop patrolling the streets, we burn the cars, barricade streets and loot the shops. In the same way, people were told for centuries that without the Church and its centrally-planned morality people would commit all kinds of depravities and sins. Both Church and state use the absolute morality argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 04:01 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 03:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That's a damn good question, actually.

So you start with a statement implying that you will do your best to answere.

Quote:Libertarian society is the civil society of buying, selling, making contracts and working at our job making profit for our boss so that he will want to pay our salary, or running business by providing what other people want. It's what people actually do in daily life, except when they pay taxes so they don't go to jail, or work for the government where they can't get fired. Libertarians are just people who realize that consciously. No wonder you don't see them around, they're like everyone else who works in private sector.

Too bad that all the mass media are taken over by the government, so you don't get a clear opinion on libertarians, just like you don't get an objective commentary on what atheists are like. The way I imagined libertarians before, it was crazy. It was bad, but it made no sense to me at all, how could anyone be a libertarian, such a stupid and selfish person. Turns out, they were not represented fairly by their opponents. (surprise surprise) A libertarian is just an unbeliever in the government, just like atheist is an unbeliever in the Church.

It's like with Christians, they're normal people like us, they go to work, they're afraid of death, they try not to get killed even if that means going to Heaven and they certainly don't want to give all their possessions to the poor and go following Jesus. They're only Christians on Sunday and we only believe in the government when the tax month comes.

We are told that the moment that loot-funded policemen stop patrolling the streets, we burn the cars, barricade streets and loot the shops. In the same way, people were told for centuries that without the Church and its centrally-planned morality people would commit all kinds of depravities and sins. Both Church and state use the absolute morality argument.

Only to deceive into reading your non-answere.

[Image: c5b.jpg]

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Germans are coming's post
16-05-2014, 04:07 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
The thread title doesn't make sense. It's literally asking if having a government part of the scientific method.

You can apply the scientific method to the running of a government, although most often than not politicians don't listen to their scientific advisors and prefer to go for vote winning strategies that appeal to people's prejudices and ill-formed opinions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mathilda's post
16-05-2014, 04:15 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 04:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  The thread title doesn't make sense. It's literally asking if having a government part of the scientific method.

You can apply the scientific method to the running of a government, although most often than not politicians don't listen to their scientific advisors and prefer to go for vote winning strategies that appeal to people's prejudices and ill-formed opinions.

Most imporantly, his alternative is anything but scientific.

If anything, it`s a step back into the fucking stone age.

He is always welcome to buy himself a cave an spend the rest of his life bashing together rocks.

I prefer the stability preserved by knowing my limits, but most importantly: the limits of others!

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Germans are coming's post
16-05-2014, 04:24 AM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 04:28 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 04:01 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  So you start with a statement implying that you will do your best to answere.
Libertarian to government is like atheist is to the Church. Get it?

(16-05-2014 04:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  The thread title doesn't make sense. It's literally asking if having a government part of the scientific method.

You can apply the scientific method to the running of a government, although most often than not politicians don't listen to their scientific advisors and prefer to go for vote winning strategies that appeal to people's prejudices and ill-formed opinions.
Well, what do we do when something is unscientific and only exists to appeal to people's prejudices and ill-formed opinions?

(16-05-2014 04:15 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  Most imporantly, his alternative is anything but scientific.

If anything, it`s a step back into the fucking stone age.

He is always welcome to buy himself a cave an spend the rest of his life bashing together rocks.

I prefer the stability preserved by knowing my limits, but most importantly: the limits of others!
Care to justify these bald statements somehow? Why should I go to a cave? I'm not the one who sucks. Why is it you making the rules who should or shouldn't live in a cave or move to Somalia?
What do you call stability and limits, a century of printing money and rising taxes?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 04:40 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 04:24 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 04:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  You can apply the scientific method to the running of a government, although most often than not politicians don't listen to their scientific advisors and prefer to go for vote winning strategies that appeal to people's prejudices and ill-formed opinions.
Well, what do we do when something is unscientific and only exists to appeal to people's prejudices and ill-formed opinions?

It normally involves giving over lots of money and being happy in the knowledge that we're right because many other people think the same way and getting angry about everyone else who is deluded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: