theunbeholden

Minimizing the power of the govt institution seems logical to me, we'll get less intrustion on property rights. How else does one do that if not through the political process? Complaining or spreading philosophy is one way but ignoring a very real possibility through a populist candidate is like rejecting a gun when all you have is your fists. And yes Trump will minimize Washington's power with his proposed ethics reform, responsible workforce attrition, put the people responsible for the war crimes & other crimes behind bars, reduce legal theft by reducing regulations, simplifying the tax code and reducing taxes across all income brackets, and build a wall which will stop the immigrants that are violating the NAP (either indirectly through welfare, taking low-skilled work or directly through gangs & drugs). I haven't seen a good argument for not voting, unless you can somehow turn most people into a libertarian & remove this govt before the end of the election. But even then I wouldn't argue for strict libertarian principles so as not to dilute the middle class and culture with the MNC's & third world low-skilled migrants that we have difficulty competing with. Nice rhetoric. If voting is fantasy, pascal's wager indicates that it won't hurt to vote and see for oneself? If by fantasy you mean election promises being unenforceable: http://www.rbs2.com/elecprom.pdf (eventhough as part of a contract, a offer can be a promise and voting for that party or candidate is the acceptance, such an exchange could very well be binding) The thing is, a man of the freemarket like Trump takes responsibilities seriously. If the election system becomes fairer based on popular vote and not the electoral college, if politicians are held accountable for not fulfilling their promises within the time frame they specified, if we no longer use easily rigged electronic voting machines (Diebold), if the National Election Pool weren't the main organizations conducting exit polls and if third parties will be allowed into the debate without the ridiculous restrictions in place now then surely you wouldn't be saying that.

Weird my post isn't showing up :/.. nevermind If you own an important freshwater source you have got a monopoly. Someone buys/claims/inherits the main source(s) of fresh water in an area. Other water is harder to come by so he can multiply the price and people still (have to) buy his water. In certain cases in which his market domination is very strong and/or he is owning most of the infrastructure within an area he also can use it to blackmail and influence politics (I mean the kind of politics that are left/will emerge after you abolish the state)

If a balanced budgets is due to complete deregulation then it would increase unemployment & reduce size of the middleclass, since there is less local industry due to being unable to adapt to international competition and less low-skilled positions available that are taken by cheap migrants (who also utilize limited state resources through welfare, tax credits, emergency room treatment etc). There is also the danger of big MNC's buying up all the major grain, seeds, farmland and water supply to purposely ration it to starve the population or for the owner to purposely bankrupt the company that owns all those resources in order to produce a food crisis, one of many schemes that I can think of. States are still principle providers of physical & cultural/community security and socioeconomic prosperity. Though you could argue that states are not absolutely necessary for physical security & many argue that states can actually undermine the prosperity of citizens in many ways, routinely infringe on freedom, justice, equality, human rights and many other political goods and can turn into authoritarian autocracy, oligarchy or technocracy despotism (which privilege a few). One can argue that this has already happened in the US:

The violence I believe is a form of self-defence, it can be a pro-active form of preventation by providing the death penality against those likely to commit murder or rape within statistical groupings. I think that people without access to information or a stable environment tend to either retreat from society or become unstable and lash out at people they care about. Another pro-active selfdefence is having protections against international free trade that promotes trade deficits & unemployment as well as from illegal immigrants from under cutting wages or other forces that will try and institute usury & currency controls, Sharia law etc This route of nationalist protections makes mandatory the moral obligations to protect those unable to afford legal representation or unable to work, to protect environment and endagered species, and to protect the native cultural, religious and racial composition or work ethic, political, social and moral values from being overtaken by others seeking their own social revolution or to vote for radical change. That possibility seems highly likely considering that the creation of govts (be it democracy or dictatorship) and by extension a dominant bank and court system is the single most popular & powerful form of political organisation and most likely will continue to be that way. The risk of a govt turning on its own people or becoming unsustainable overbearing bureacracy is just as dangerous and with the exception of Switzerland, has not been historically kept in check. However the most fundamental value of any society is in labor and shared/communal interests that people instinctively wish to protect *unless there is free doctrination to change it* that we call moral obligations. I hope that makes sense because I'm not exactly a philosopher but I do take morality & justice seriously. If people are irrational/untrustworthy as he claims they are there may be exceptions based on high standards of physical and mental ability to prove that one has the ability to act for the betterment of society. Consistency and experience could be factors. Does that remove irrationality? No, but accountability can minimize the damage of such positions such as preventing gatekeeping through transparency, several people doing similiar jobs to cross check errors and potential abuses of power, a culture that supports it, civil society organisations, free press & organisations that provide protections for whistleblowers in more sensitive areas. A system designed with false-safes in mind is necessary for attaining something close to perfection in practice. What is possible in theory tends to be only possible in practice if everyone has the same mindset. Nationalism is the great equalizer so there is always a limit to the form and quantity of competing mindsets hence why it is preferable over marxism that forces everyone to be the same. If people are irrational does it mean that some people are incapable of rising above it through the application of skills and experience? If past behaviour is the best method of determining future behaviour than that may maximise the chances that someone will act rationality but does not eliminate it. I think the answer then lies in the system's ability to account for it. The point of a system then is to as much as possible account for potential problems & restructure itself accordingly. My addendum to that would be to have some clear limits set in place. As far as I can see some people are smarter and stronger than others. Only the most persuasive, commanding & cunning individuals with the best ideas can win in a environment that selects for this qualities, those unsuitable will never move past the initial barriers that such competition breeds. Rules/regulations for having a certain level of IQ, physical ability, clean criminal record, history in military service or achievements in public service roles would provide for this. The use of force would be minimized within a society due to a similiar culture, creed, religion, race & similiar history and pride in a shared interests of nationhood that is typically called cultural traditionalism. The religion aspect is what constitutes the higher order of morality, the internalising of ethical standards of conduct due to the value of virtues or fear of condemnation while the racial & cultural solidarity along with freemarket principles of private ownership & enforceable contracts provides the work ethic. See the many arguments of those responsible for violence, ie broken homes by singlemotherhood welfare, illegals that form criminal gangs that are allowed to operate due to a lack of border protection and protection of the gene pool and a sever lack of incentive in rooting out & solving national health problems like mental illness. Then theres also protecting the environment and endangered animals. Logic and reason would have its place to support the shared values of nationhood, to show the benefits and irregularities. There would have to be a high value placed on science by promoting it through grants, scholarships and subisidization rather the social sciences. It is favouritism yes for the native population, the historically dominant group is allowed access but highly restrictive for those that are not part of that group, but rather than restrictive public regulations on the native group there is instead beneficial public services paid through taxation/use-of-force like the one I mentioned. I believe promoting racial awareness is essential element of such a society & the promotion of other projects that aim at minimising harm. This requires a restructuring of what exactly is the public good in a much more narrow sense and a consistent and strong cultural lexicon to carry it. What I would be for however to deviate from fascism (which is essentially Absolutism and Mercantalism) is in the minimizing state power in the form of what its legitimate function may be, eg no welfare or federal healthcare/education, instead I would allow it all to be completely local so that would be my deviation. A more effective constutitional republic, with high standards for public services entry that promotes a stronger form of nationalism. Some level of social security for those unable to work is fine. I understand there are issues of violence begets more violence like the enroachment of individual liberties, increasing entitlements, state education or healthcare and punishment of victimless crimes hence why I'm not on board with the fascists. However I don't see how liberterianism can enforce cultural/social/racial/religious cohesion if there is lacking border security or protectionism from international free trade & currency controls. I value Libertarianism in moral consistency and free markets domestically but not beyond its borders. There has to be cohesive cultural identity to rally behind that can be reliably protected, if free movement and free trade is championed then it risks not only much higher level of corporate inversion & capital flight then merely the 15-20% currently but more importantly it leaves people in a desperate situation for those unable to move to other nations or adapt to those societies. Reducing the size of the middleclass and increasing unemployment. The mobility of capital is limited across borders, more businesses will move to more lucrative & competitive markets leaving a culturally weakened people behind vulnerable to 50%+ Islamic population to install Sharia law, socialists/communists of russian or hispanic decent to have their social revolution, or Judaism to continue its usury & debt slavery through a monopoly over currency. The order of society would change based on the peoples it is made up of which as unfair as it is, it is the reality and anything that goes in the way of that has to be defeated. My hope here is that we can atleast coexist & find a moral consistency in the form of consquentalism, anti-globalism, anti-equalitarianism and anti-communism. Communism in all its forms includes the third wave feminism & political correctness. The desire to live morally consistently through voluntary interaction may be possible in the movement and goals of libertarianism but it is difficult to preserve a environment that is capable of protecting peoples health, safety and happiness without some form of govt. I know capitalism is self-interest that by nature of it becomes beneficial to everyone involved but we've seen distortions in the market as a result supremacists gaining powerful positions and only giving power to other people fitting that racial/religious belief system, so you could say that white supremacy became the equalizer to those older belief systems. This disappeared in favor of globalism, leftist idealogy (non-values that serve merely to bring about communism) and of course usury (in Islam usury is Hallal which upsets the jews but also when someone tries to nationalise currency control like when Saddam Hussein & Qadaffi was deposed & now were seeing it again with Putin). Racialism and nationalism may get people of the christian, european nationality with roman civil law, to begin to care about themselves, their family, religion and nation again framed in 21st identity politics. The only way that anti-racism could work is if every group accepted that as a ideal in both theory and in practice but theres mountains of evidence that it has not happened and probably never will unless there is somekind of massive global hivemind forced education system & a destruction of religion and culture as the Marxists would have it, which would only lead to long-term poverty. Libertarianism may win in terms of achieving morally consistent lassez faire markets, but I doubt it would eliminate the need for govt to preserve our unity and to preserve the middleclass. The safety, trust and consistency that it brings which has arisen out of that evolution of instinctial tribalism. Now going back to violence, are we inherently violent or is an idealogy with nationalism violent? The spears would be facing outwards not within.

While I understand that individual responsibility is important element and moral obligation comes secondary atleast to this kind of mentality, I do think it should be prosecutable if it is found that the business did not take steps that a reasonable person would expect to protect their employees, inform their employees of the danger etc Theres problems about what exactly is a "reasonable person", the assumption that the average person is rational and the implausibility of getting everyone to agree on one set of rules without some monopoly on force being used. It would likely take a revolution to institute even a libertarian society so the first option isn't a choice unless you welcome punishment or retreat to unregulated countrysides. Voting for a change of system to lassez faire is possible but another vote could change it back. A either/or position makes things simple but political mobilisation is anything but. I'm totally fine with people making straight forward morally consistent arguments but there are consquentialist positions that point towards less harm being possible under other systems. If govt is to exist (and I'm not saying there is a good moral argument outside of some vague concept of the social contract but rather I present it as something we live with) there must be practical functions of govt that does not entirely infringe on our individual freedoms. I completely agree that greater freedom leads to self determination as the only real way to get out of poverty & that must necessitate a lack of central control over economics or the mandatory contract that is taxation. As in the founding of the US there may be strictly tarrifs as opposed to fixed or progressive taxes on citizens as a way to fund a govt. Objectionable but historically by few. Civil courts need to be able to impose a duty of care under circumstances where the vulnerable enter in contracts, those mentality unable to make such decisions and those without the ability to afford legal representation & for there to be some level of standards for how contracts can be presented. I think that should be preserved but its unlikely that it would be universally under a free market society.

I basically don't like abuses of power, integrity is highly valuable to me and anyone who pertains to be a public servant should be willing to put the average person and the rules above their own potential personal gain.

In a free market society there would be no public laws that limit what people are allowed to agree on (except perhaps private courts that have some standards on contracts) & there would be no labor laws since we enter into contracts voluntarily. There is a artificial problem here that the laws in question restrict the ability to appeal arbitration decisions & the laws made it illegal to pursue class action law suits but ultimately the problem here is the nature of having no workers/employees rights because of this arbitration (labor laws are superceeded by arbitration laws). If everything would be settled in private arbitration in a freemarket society there would be room for disputing it in another private court that the parties agree on as somekind of universal right (and perhaps some standards on what makes for a valid contract like both parties understanding what has been said & font size or other limits on presentation of contracts etc)... but as I've said the contracts are designed to favor the business and not the employees. The contracts are all pretty standardised across all the businesses doing this mandatory private arbitration, none of them provide any of the workers rights that have been fought for over the past several decades just because private businesses are allowed to make mandatory private arbitration. I don't know about this since stance is quite right in every instance, on the one hand I agree in individual responsibility & moral obligations are secondary considerations but the onus can sometimes rest on the employer for putting someone into extremely dangerous working conditions without workers compensation or providing the necessary safety equipment and instructions, by taking advantage of people who lack information on industries or affordable lawyers. We are against the use of force but its clear that private laws & attempts to gain justice would still exist and the negligence for not fulfilling a duty of care that a reasonable person would expect may rest on the employers for not taking the time to find out how to protect workers, instead relying on the ignorance of people to enhance their own profit margins. I would also extend that duty of care to parties that have a advantegous bargaining position with expert lawyers versus a poor person who did not have a lawyer with him when making a decision about selling property, land or goods. But again, in a free market society that kind of onus to a duty of care is all but non-existent depending on which private courts have the best set of private regulations that might make a favourable judgment to people seeking justice, but this private court would have to be voluntarily agreed upon by both the plaintiff and the defendents human rights enforcement agencies or lawyers.

http://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/ I wish for people to look and discuss this mandatory dispute resolutions being injected into labour contracts, just because those contracts have their own rules that permit all sorts of violations of labor rights and working conditions that favor the business rather than people. The court disallows class action law suits around this allowance of mandatory arbitration much like how it would be in a free market society since the private businesses decide what is a fair labour/consumer contract and there is no universal federal or national system of laws that say how a contract that two people voluntarily entered into is somehow "wrong", even if its mostly one-sided. In a freemarket society there may be different sets of private regulations that can be resolved in other private courts & arbitration (somekind of universal right to a 2nd or 3rd trial in a appellate court of ones own choosing or the human rights enforcement agency representing the citizen that was transgressed), if the mandatory arbitration was extremely biased and unfair ruling BUT those private regulations are designed to favor the business that made it, hence the rulings would tend to favor the businesses. Since the Supreme court ruling in the 80's and subsequent rulings since then having allowed it, it has given rise to a mostly private market run anti-consumer & anti-worker culture revealing the self-interest motivated nature of business and the arbitrary meaningless nature of human, worker and consumer rights.