tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post768902194952782434..comments2024-03-13T06:57:54.343+00:00Comments on Obnoxio The Clown: Barack vs BP (Part 1: Regulation and Lobbying)Obnoxio The Clownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12012089552153702526noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-61464244426105705732010-06-20T21:44:17.710+01:002010-06-20T21:44:17.710+01:00Btw, about a year ago I was looking into the proce...Btw, about a year ago I was looking into the process of moving quite seriously. <br /><br />I feel a bit better the Tories are back in. I'll give them a few years to see how they do.Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-39225245477028863502010-06-20T21:42:22.346+01:002010-06-20T21:42:22.346+01:00Move to Switzerland then. It's more libertaria...Move to Switzerland then. It's more libertarian than here by a long way.<br /><br />You just want to moan!Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-80572596384609600242010-06-20T21:25:03.789+01:002010-06-20T21:25:03.789+01:00Yes, that's true. But since you're more as...Yes, that's true. But since you're more astute than the average drone, you must surely understand that I don't want to go live in a survivalist society, I want to go live in a libertarian society. ;o)Obnoxio The Clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012089552153702526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-66115767904375296112010-06-20T21:22:27.808+01:002010-06-20T21:22:27.808+01:00"Well, I know it sounds like another excuse, ..."Well, I know it sounds like another excuse, but frankly, those people all seem a bit fucking mad"<br /><br />How do you think people like us sound to the average drone when we say that the poor will get cheaper and better healthcare by abolishing the NHS and withdrawing government from healthcare entirely?Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-69493190826881089092010-06-20T20:40:02.027+01:002010-06-20T20:40:02.027+01:00Anarchia thy name is Zomia
Although, tbh, I don&#...Anarchia thy name is <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/ungoverned-zomia.html" rel="nofollow">Zomia</a><br /><br />Although, tbh, I don't want to live in a stone-age slash and burn society.<br /><br />@ Kingbongo<br />"Seems you want someone else to come along and create the state you seek."<br /><br />No, he doesn't, he doesn't want to live in a state. That's the point.<br /><br />JohnWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-59987373474210520822010-06-20T20:38:40.849+01:002010-06-20T20:38:40.849+01:00"Are you happy that's all of your excuses..."Are you happy that's all of your excuses out now.<br /><br />Fact is your dreaming it, some people are living it, as could you if you really wanted to."<br /><br />Well, I know it sounds like another excuse, but frankly, those people all seem a bit fucking mad. I don't want to live in a society that is predicated on the fear of some other government coming to conquer them and fighting a resistance guerilla war against the UN. <br /><br />Even if they have opted out of the US, that is not the way I see libertarians living: bashing the bible and raving about a New World Order conspiracy.<br /><br />Survivalism is not libertarianism.Obnoxio The Clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012089552153702526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-14121595661382251962010-06-20T20:29:49.474+01:002010-06-20T20:29:49.474+01:00Are you happy that's all of your excuses out n...Are you happy that's all of your excuses out now.<br /><br />Fact is your dreaming it, some people are living it, as could you if you really wanted to. <br /><br />Seems you want someone else to come along and create the state you seek.Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-73840729034004992752010-06-20T20:18:53.696+01:002010-06-20T20:18:53.696+01:00And even if none of that is true, they're stil...And even if none of that is true, they're still only being granted a temporary waiver. That isn't really a free society.Obnoxio The Clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012089552153702526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-63773233090383097702010-06-20T20:18:06.111+01:002010-06-20T20:18:06.111+01:00"Yeah, but those guys have the balls not to f..."Yeah, but those guys have the balls not to follow the rules."<br /><br />Hm. I think that if they ever became too big, they'd find themselves on the end of some serious harm.<br /><br />I can't, for example, believe that they don't pay any taxes. The IRS would never let them get away with that.<br /><br />Or perhaps they don't. Perhaps the undertake all their transactions without banks or credit or whatever. But I think the threat of state violence is only held at bay because they are so well-armed. If they ever got to seriously threaten the status quo, they'd be obliterated.Obnoxio The Clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012089552153702526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-52261114900535140922010-06-20T20:04:46.027+01:002010-06-20T20:04:46.027+01:00“Uh, anywhere in the US is subject to US Federal l...“Uh, anywhere in the US is subject to US Federal law. Otherwise it's not part of the US.”<br /><br />Yeah, but those guys have the balls not to follow the rules.Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-65240748424687465402010-06-20T20:01:38.662+01:002010-06-20T20:01:38.662+01:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYd-o0Shmn4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYd-o0Shmn4Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-43604590420959147012010-06-20T20:00:28.339+01:002010-06-20T20:00:28.339+01:00Uh, anywhere in the US is subject to US Federal la...Uh, anywhere in the US is subject to US Federal law. Otherwise it's not part of the US.<br /><br />And I'm pretty sure that anywhere in South Africa is subject to South African law as well.Obnoxio The Clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012089552153702526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-58312930576382900982010-06-20T19:56:54.406+01:002010-06-20T19:56:54.406+01:00"Please tell me where Anarchia is, and I'..."Please tell me where Anarchia is, and I'll start packing now. Oh, there isn't one?"<br /><br />I'm pretty sure Louis Theroux has done a couple on those type of communities. One in South Africa, and another in the US. <br /><br />I'm sure about the US one. No taxes, own rules, I'm sure you would love it.Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-43219877674442113722010-06-20T19:50:59.189+01:002010-06-20T19:50:59.189+01:00"About 98% of the population would not be abl..."About 98% of the population would not be able to tell the difference between mine your position."<br /><br />Yeah, that state education system is doing a bang-up job, isn't it? :o)<br /><br />"You refute the state in its entirety. But then still voluntarily live within it."<br /><br />There's fuck-all voluntary about it. Please tell me where Anarchia is, and I'll start packing now. Oh, there isn't one?<br /><br />I have to live in subjugation to one state or another.<br /><br />Do you stutter? :o>Obnoxio The Clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012089552153702526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-63080861277812069882010-06-20T19:43:11.432+01:002010-06-20T19:43:11.432+01:00"The only difference between you and Gordon B..."The only difference between you and Gordon Brown or even Joe Stalin is a question of degree."<br /><br />About 98% of the population would not be able to tell the difference between mine your position.<br /><br />Besides, your old enough to have actually done something about some of this. But your still here, still paying tax and living by the man's rules.<br /><br />So at least I'm honest enough to accept the state I live within and want to change it. <br /><br />You refute the state in its entirety. But then still voluntarily live within it. <br /><br />And compare me to Gordon Brown again, and I'll ram your blog down your pissing hole you rancid old bastard! :)Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-84978790234240532872010-06-20T19:21:07.296+01:002010-06-20T19:21:07.296+01:00"“Sure, I could leave the country,”
And the ..."“Sure, I could leave the country,”<br /><br />And the fact you don't clearly suggest you think this is the least worst option out of the alternatives."<br /><br />Or it might just be taking me longer than I want. ;o)<br /><br />"Who is the better libertarian. The guy who dreams of a world with no state, but achieves nothing and influences no one. Or the guy you comes up with an idea that gains enough popular approval to actually happen and reduces the size of government 0.5% and increases politician accountability 0.5%?"<br /><br />Well, I suspect that iDave might actually achieve the accountability although I doubt he will reduce the size of government. <br /><br />But iDave isn't a libertarian, he has explicitly said so. "Smaller government" is a very common meme amongst all sorts of people, none of whom are in the slightest libertarian. You can be a near-minarchist Tory and still not have liberty as your over-riding goal.<br /><br />The true libertarian is the one who manages to convince other people that there is no real need for a state in the first place. The only difference between you and Gordon Brown or even Joe Stalin is a question of degree. (Although, to be fair I assume you're also not a genocidal mass-murderer! :o)Obnoxio The Clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012089552153702526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-90954782787102347542010-06-20T18:42:51.452+01:002010-06-20T18:42:51.452+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-10253699292583553222010-06-20T18:42:41.962+01:002010-06-20T18:42:41.962+01:00“Sure, I could leave the country,”
And the fact y...“Sure, I could leave the country,”<br /><br />And the fact you don't clearly suggest you think this is the least worst option out of the alternatives. <br /><br />Which brings me back to the main point I have been making. All this is just you and me pissing in the wind.<br /><br />Who is the better libertarian. The guy who dreams of a world with no state, but achieves nothing and influences no one. Or the guy you comes up with an idea that gains enough popular approval to actually happen and reduces the size of government 0.5% and increases politician accountability 0.5%? <br /><br />That said, its been fun. I'm currently stuck at the mother in laws, with every chair either too soft or too hard. And a laptop with some old Mickey Rourke movie on it. Jesus.Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-7685729309058545442010-06-20T18:30:16.937+01:002010-06-20T18:30:16.937+01:00"Like it or not violence is the ultimate auth..."Like it or not violence is the ultimate authority. Ultimately no matter how good your arguments, or how fantastic your dancing or whatever it is. The party with the recourse to the superior violence will get there way. Its how the universe is, always have been. Its a particular bug for AnCaps because they have no answer to it. Other than to exclaim they they don't behave like that. Well someone will."<br /><br />That is still no reason to sanctify the state's violence. Just because some people are violent does not me we need to submit ourselves to some common violence and a permanent, continuous threat of violence.<br /><br />I don't care if some individuals ARE violent, I can buy, collectively if needed, some kind of protection against them. I don't have to submit myself to a group of people who can use violence against me to things I don't want to do.<br /><br />I don't agree with the welfare state, I don't agree with Iraq, I don't agree with Afghanistan, I don't agree with shooting Brazilian electricians, I don't agree with free swimming, I don't agree with state education. But I cannot withhold my financial support from any of these things, because I will go to jail if I do. I don't have any option in these matters, and I don't have that option precisely because of the state's monopoly on violence. Sure, I could leave the country, but then I'd just be swapping one set of disagreements for another. At no point would I ever find a state that I agreed with and supported entirely. And if I did, someone else would surely disagree with some of it, and they would be under the compulsion to agree with me.<br /><br />You may think that the threat of some violent people justifies a permanent threat of violence from a group of people who can use that violence to support whatever whim they might have, I simply do not.<br /><br />And make no mistake, the violences supports a load of whims of people who really shouldn't be anywhere near the levers of power.<br /><br />Your case for a state monopoly is non-existent so far and as such is hardly compelling. :o)Obnoxio The Clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012089552153702526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-58766437960548338432010-06-20T18:18:59.874+01:002010-06-20T18:18:59.874+01:00'their' I know!'their' I know!Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-68322113919335200932010-06-20T18:18:01.701+01:002010-06-20T18:18:01.701+01:00“In other words, why does the HAVE to be a state t...“In other words, why does the HAVE to be a state to implement a binding legal framework? Is it not possible that there is another, better way that doesn't require some arbitrarily-designated thuggery against people?”<br /><br />I suppose its possible. As soon as someone has it I'm all ears, which is why I read sites like this and other libertarian leaning ones. But I'm yet to see something that really stands up to scrutiny. And like I say its all escapism, designing our perfect state. The real work to be done is designing tweaks to the one we have that are sellable to the general public. <br /><br /><br />“Um, so what you're saying is there's no good reason why we should allow the state to have a monopoly on violence? We should allow it, just because some people are violent?”<br />Like it or not violence is the ultimate authority. Ultimately no matter how good your arguments, or how fantastic your dancing or whatever it is. The party with the recourse to the superior violence will get there way. Its how the universe is, always have been. Its a particular bug for AnCaps because they have no answer to it. Other than to exclaim they they don't behave like that. Well someone will.<br /><br /><br />“How does this differ from saying "the state should ban drugs because some people can't handle drugs"?”<br />John Stewart Mill, self regarding and other regarding actions.Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-83111832953292057832010-06-20T17:57:28.536+01:002010-06-20T17:57:28.536+01:00"“Once again, I don't refute the convenie..."“Once again, I don't refute the convenience that the state brings, especially to the challenges of re-thinking the fundamental basis of society, but I refute the idea that it can be contained to a manageable size.”<br />This is exactly the central challenge. And the area that libertarians should focus there thinking. You and I are just pissing in the wind trying to design our perfect society. What is really needed is measures that could actually be sold to the public and would have a very real effect on reducing government back to its pre war (WW1 that is) level."<br /><br />I think you are rather missing the point I'm making (possibly because of the way I phrased it): assuming the need for a state because we're all used to it is a lazy convenience. Given how much man has accomplished in other areas of life, is it not possible to imagine that there is sufficient intelligence in the world to find another way to implement a binding legal framework that does not require the state?<br /><br />In other words, why does the HAVE to be a state to implement a binding legal framework? Is it not possible that there is another, better way that doesn't require some arbitrarily-designated thuggery against people?<br /><br />"As soon as violence itself becomes redundant so will the need to for a community to manage its use."<br /><br />Um, so what you're saying is there's no good reason why we should allow the state to have a monopoly on violence? We should allow it, just because some people are violent?<br /><br />How does this differ from saying "the state should ban drugs because some people can't handle drugs"?Obnoxio The Clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012089552153702526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-12278303208839734812010-06-20T17:46:55.301+01:002010-06-20T17:46:55.301+01:00“But the problem is always that different people h...“But the problem is always that different people have different ideas of how much the state should provide.”<br />Which is precisely why you need small states that people can move between. Competition is just as important for states as it is for businesses. <br />A state that has a monopoly of people has no more incentive to behave than a business that has a monopoly of customers. So that East Anglia can attract the statists and Wessex can attract the libertarians and Northumbria something else. <br /><br /><br /><br />“Now, it may well be that transparency slows down the bloat, but you can always sell the electorate some common kindness that the state should provide.”<br />I do not dispute for a moment that what I suggest would be very hard to achieve. <br />But so is what you suggest. But since I believe that even if we abolished all government another or something very like it will always replace it. I believe that it is preferable to boil down a large state into regions and give them much more autonomy and bound that state by a constitution for as long as you can. <br /><br /><br />“So a small state is going to become a big state, it's just a matter of time.”<br />And nor is no state ever going to last. Even assuming your could have an even in the UK that destroyed the government, do you really think it would be long until another formed and started to grow?<br /><br /><br />“Once again, I don't refute the convenience that the state brings, especially to the challenges of re-thinking the fundamental basis of society, but I refute the idea that it can be contained to a manageable size.”<br />This is exactly the central challenge. And the area that libertarians should focus there thinking. You and I are just pissing in the wind trying to design our perfect society. What is really needed is measures that could actually be sold to the public and would have a very real effect on reducing government back to its pre war (WW1 that is) level. <br /><br />This is why this book is the real deal, and people like you and me are engaging in escapism: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plan-Twelve-Months-Renew-Britain/dp/0955979900/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277052237&sr=1-1 <br /><br /><br />“And you've admitted that the state should be allowed to enact violence on its population, on what grounds does it have this right?”<br />As soon as violence itself becomes redundant so will the need to for a community to manage its use.Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-34939909258641417252010-06-20T17:16:37.053+01:002010-06-20T17:16:37.053+01:00"Would it really be inconceivable for a small..."Would it really be inconceivable for a small government department to fully publish its books?"<br /><br />It certainly would not be in the incumbent's interest to do so. Who knows how they might cloud things?<br /><br />"Most of them can be trust, there are always some that can't but that number is small. The state needs to be large enough to have clout, and benefit from a sufficient pool of talent to discharge roles effectively. But not so large that the electorate is too removed from outcomes of political action that they loose the will to engage"<br /><br />But the problem is always that different people have different ideas of how much the state should provide. If you argue for a state that provides roads, courts, police and army, you are pretty much in the UK in 1900. Yet in less than 50 years, the state had the NHS, welfare, yadda, yadda, yadda. <br /><br />Now, it may well be that transparency slows down the bloat, but you can always sell the electorate some common kindness that the state should provide.<br /><br />So a small state is going to become a big state, it's just a matter of time.<br /><br />Once again, I don't refute the convenience that the state brings, especially to the challenges of re-thinking the fundamental basis of society, but I refute the idea that it can be contained to a manageable size.<br /><br />And you've admitted that the state should be allowed to enact violence on its population, on what grounds does it have this right?Obnoxio The Clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012089552153702526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4471993488623327927.post-11488258085657637452010-06-20T16:55:35.987+01:002010-06-20T16:55:35.987+01:00“There is a fundamental flaw in your theory: if I ...“There is a fundamental flaw in your theory: if I wanted to stand for police chief (or whatever), I have no real idea of the current commitments or what things cost in real life.”<br /><br />Would it really be inconceivable for a small government department to fully publish its books? <br /><br /><br />“You would have to expend a considerably amount of effort to draft a realistic budget for any given deployment and it might not be in your experience.”<br /><br />I'm willing to pay for good governance. The if high calibre people are worth it, its worth making it worth their time and effort. <br /><br /><br /><br />“But even assuming that this can be done somehow, you're taking the curious position that you want to break things up into smaller and smaller units”<br /><br />Incorrect, I said small states. Switzerland is about 8 million people. Seems about right. <br /><br /><br />“You are implying that simply by consolidating individuals into some artificial community, whether it be a town, a shire, a canton, a county, a state (in the US model), or some other thing, it gets sanctified somehow.”<br /><br />I don't know what you mean by sanctified, merely an efficient size for governance.<br /><br /><br />“Yet those same individuals who constitute this smaller, more broken up, more localised community, cannot be trusted unless they are forced into some kind of aggregation.”<br /><br />Most of them can be trust, there are always some that can't but that number is small. The state needs to be large enough to have clout, and benefit from a sufficient pool of talent to discharge roles effectively. But not so large that the electorate is too removed from outcomes of political action that they loose the will to engage. <br /><br /><br />“This makes no sense what so ever!”<br />Like I say, you have understandably become dissatisfied with government over your lifetime that you believe it irredeemable. But a complex free market with a reliance on the ability to contract agreements over the long term is essential to our modern way of life. A way of enforcing property rights and dealing with a small number of miscreants is essential. <br /><br />I do not believe you can get rid of all state and not expecting another one, or something that looks very much like it to form shortly thereafter.<br /><br />Given that your going to have to deal with some kind of state or something that looks like it I believe the best version to deal with is a small democratic state, with short terms of office and budgets declared at the time of election. If you exceed your budget you have to resubmit yourself to election early.Kingbingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08943872286295476316noreply@blogger.com