The Century of the Self: Can True Democracy Exist?

It's funny because the freer the labor market(and the more freedom it's citizens enjoy), the more likely there will be jobs, less debt, higher gdp, those with less income still make more(income equality), less gender inequality, etc. etc. etc.


But yeah Fascism has done so much for us.

At 16 trillion dollars of debt(and counting), now's not the time to argue the merits of laissez faire economic policies.

The Job Market? Its shrinking!

That same article also notes the vast waste in spending, it's a pretty good read. Fascism promotes efficiency, it looks at government(and the country) like a well oiled machine.

Maximizing the efforts and capabilities of government, so as to be mechanical and efficient is the new model of the future.

America ain't so free buddy, which is why I wasn't referencing it. Although if you think the reason why we're in this debt hole was because of laissez fair economic policies, then there's some beach front property I want to sell you in the Mojave desert.

Also as great as you're trying to make fascism to be, it just doesn't work in practice. You're basically putting some greater goal(which wouldn't be an issue if people weren't forced into having the same mindset as you), but you're using force...which isn't morale. I mean we can argue that using slaves to pick some cotton was efficient and that without them it couldn't be done(not true), but it's not really moral.

Why shouldn't they have "the same mindset as me?" In other words, if a society accepted a fascist ideology, it would be the synergetic unison between individual prosperity, and prosperity of the country as a whole.

In fact, it is in that we lack that conceptual outlook of what a nation should be, that has allowed for the decline of the Western Nations. In not looking out for the best interest of our respective nations, we've also failed our own individual prosperity.

IE: It most surely isn't to the well being of us as individuals to be unemployed no?

I didn't argue that it "couldn't" be done, it's just been done with alot of inefficiency, waste, "red tape" and so forth. Instead of beating our heads against the brick wall, why not walk past it?

In your example of slavery, it is indeed the use of force to a malevolent end. No one has denied throughout history, that force has been used in that manner. But just because people applied force negatively, doesn't mean it can't be applied positively.

For a very recent example, the Boston Bombers. They used force to a negative end, no? But the cooperation of the FBI, the Boston police force and even civilians in identifying the culprits led to a resolution to the crisis.

Two examples of force, two different results. Using force to unify a nation, for the nation's best interests isn't evil. It is in fact the reason America exists today. Without that force, we'd still be subject to the Queen of England.

Fascime:

You are right when you say fascism can be a solution, and indeed it works like a well oiled machine. History proved that no system has ever existed that is more efficient then a fascist system. However the price this comes at a price, fascism can only be reached by undesirable means. Severe propaganda, demonizing of certain groups, disbanding of any power validating structure,... generaly creating a mental cage to have everybody thinking in the same direction. I think this would ultimately destroy itself not being able to keep everyone caged. If this is what you want I would suggest a "brave new world" setup, this is the most effective way of keeping everyone happy, and everything highly efficient and is unbreakable.
Now what if we don't want this?

Then lets take a look at this freedom and individuality we want to preserve.

Liberalism:

Surely a true liberal system would be the ultimate freedom for the individual I think we can agree on that. But it has lost the benefits of a collective, thus it can never survive against a collective.
example: Me and 5 friends decide to work together, together we make a set of rules and goals wich will determine our course of action. I am apointed leader and am givin the only gun. My task is to safegaurd the rulas and goals, so I have to kill everyone who I think is a treat tothese rules and goals.
Now I have effectivly made a system that forces obedience to laws by treats of voilence.
Now I tell 3 people to work 16 hours a day for the benefit of those goals, lets say ill have them produce more and better weapons. the other 2 I will send out to convince others to join this system, either by free will or by treats of voilence.
This way my group will grow, all the really hard work will cause us to have an extremely effective production and all people are kept under control by force and by glorifying these goals and rules.
Now by having the most effective production, I have the most means and so I shall continiue to swallow everyone, no one can oppose me because I am simply stronger. The only ones who can oppose me are the ones with an equaly effective system.
This in time will be the end of this liberal world by the hands of a fascist system.

property:

Now I think the discussion of property deserves a whole new topic, but I will try to explain my basic thoughts here.

First problem is public goods: This will go from roads to resources even the air we breath. there are two major problems:

first is the freerider, what if someone doesn't have to pay for something while still having its benefits. Typical example is the lighthouse: 5 merchants put money together and constructs a lighthouse. Later a 6th merchant comes into town and starts using this lighthouse, not having had the economic crippling of having to pay for the lighthouse he is able to drive the other merchants out of business.
Another example is the air: If all factories would do their best to not pollute the air, then it wouldnt matter if my factory did pollute it cause the scale would be minimale. So now I'm not crippled by having to minimise pollution and I can be more effective in business.

Second is the ending resourses: This one is easy, there or no infinite resources on this planet so eventually some will run out. Why can someone be allowed to drive his car using up all the oil (wich is not owned by anyone)? What if there is not enough to go around, then who gets to use it ?

America isn't Laisse Faire, not in the slightest. Our current economic troubles stem from decades of deficit borrowing and pants on head retarded Keynesian economics.

Economic freedom is the key to a wealthier, freer, happier and overall better country.





I wasn't saying that there shouldn't be a way to punish people for murder, theft, fraud, etc but, that a central coercive agency is not required for such.

Introductory video

Okay first of all you need to learn the difference between initiating force to intimidate or "terrorize" people, and acting after being acted upon.(which what the Boston Police were doing)



You can spin it anyways you like, you're still not unifying people, only making them go along with what you want.

"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." - Albert Camus

This is the problem with having a debate, in general people have preconceived notions. These preconceived notions prevent understanding, dialogue and evolution. Cruz: You proclaim that I can "twist" it anyway I want, but I don't twist it, I give you the philosophical basis on what "force" is and the results that come from the application of force. If you want a historic example, I can give you the civil rights movement. It was on both the instability that violent movements such as the Black Panther movement, as well as the political capital gained by activists that
allowed for the government to sign the Civil Rights act into law.

Most people believe this to be a good thing, right? So, do you approve of this application of force?

Force, like all other tenants of nature can be used in multiple manners. Ironically, this is also the Libertarian Argument for the right to guns and the second amendment.

Nosferatsu: Your argument is a false notion on the application of force(IE: Believing fascism to be a system of subjugation) Fascism is a system of synergy, or in other words inclusion. Whereas Liberal theory promotes separatism, and liberal theory has even butchered the difference between acceptance and tolerance.

Fiery, for example tolerates the state of affairs in America today. But he doesn't "accept" them. A perpetual state of tolerance however, will eventually be elevated to the sort of division that we see today. America, is a "tolerant" state. It has "melted" groups together that historically, haven't had good ties with America(the latinos come to mind)

This isn't the same as decrying immigration as a whole, no doubt immigration has been a central part to the American Economy. However mass immigration, and the effects of immigration need to be reevaluated. Do we want these jobs, ever decreasing(especially due to the fraud of 'free trade') to go to immigrants/travelers, or do we want to raise a strong, intelligent american population?

And do we just want any old immigrant? Do we want just any person to become a citizen? Or do we want people who share similar interests to our nation, those who can profess that they love this community as if it were their own? Japan's tough immigration laws can be seen as proper example of where I'd like for us to go.

If Japan had the same failed immigration policies, its currently vastly inflated En would be inflated ten times more by the demand and the increasing supply.

Then there's your argument on representative structure of government, there's a simple question to be asked here: What qualifies these people to govern? Popular election? This comes on the utterly naive belief that the vast majority of the people have an idea of their own political identity, that they have a thesis.

One can proclaim this thesis to be "freedom", but what is freedom? The right to go to work at your place of choice? Why deny that? The right to individual prosperity? That wouldn't be denied either, the only stipulation being that all(or as many as possible) must be allowed to prosper.

In school today, America has fallen behind and many people wonder why? Partially, its ironic in that Obama says we can't throw "money" at the problem wherein the U.S. Federal budget devotes about 4% of its resources to education.

Money isn't the end all, be all solution. But better teachers, better facilities(Imagine, that every school is a private school in quality) and more investment in after school programs instead of violence on the streets. That can be a step.

More fundamentally, is our approach to education itself. In our naive belief that you can do "whatever you want", the child isn't groomed or educated for anything. He/She learns the basics of math, reading, etc. He/She leaves school with a blank state of knowledge but absolutely no idea what to do with this knowledge.

Education is not merely knowledge, but it is knowledge on how to apply knowledge. In other words, we must groom our children in post secondary life. Even Social Studies fails in this manner, teaching the basics of civics which has its benefit, but doesn't teach that specific child how they fit into the equation from an individual prospective.

Curiously, Fiery said that he believes in the enforcement of the law but decries the need for a "central coercive agency"(I assume he also means the police in this fashion). So without any teeth, how exactly do you plan to enforce our laws?

Here inlies the flaw in Libertarian philosophy, or rather in the misconception of government itself: A government cannot guarantee "freedom", not any government. Not a fascist system, not a democratic system or republican, etc.

But rather, what a government can ensure is the well being of its people. Fiery notes the social welfare program. But in various posts, I know that I've said that I believe the social "safety net" to be a last resort. If, in the name of efficiency we were to "discriminate" between those who need assistance the most, and those who by god should be capable of standing on their two legs, then the stress on the welfare of the nation would be considerably lessened.

I don't want a welfare state, that is the greatest deception of 'prosperity'. What will determine our prosperity is our productive economy, the many millions of Americans working high qualified, high paying jobs. And with as few people on "assistance" as humanly possible.

The moment you mentioned that immigration, especially mass immigration is bad and that you want to screeen those who come in for similar interests, you lost this debate flat out. People like you are the reason that our economies are failing, it's people like you that prevent the progress of science because you lack the intellectual capacity for tolerance.

You're still stuck in a tribal mentality believing that america is this great thing but it's not. Suck it up and get over it. The world isn't as big as we all thought it was, and it's time to evaluate our options of intigrating into a global view and not one of the "nation", because honestly look at how that has worked out so far for america. The only things that america is top of the list for is Obsesity, number of adults that believe in angels and percent of citizens locked up per capita. That is not something to be proud of as a nation.

Any nation that claims to be FREE and boasts FREEDOM for the world, talking about refusing immigrants or dare I say, refugees because they don't believe the same god as you, or because they don't value the big mac, is not a free nation.

And the fact that you call free trade a fraud just proves even more how stupid you are. I can barely contain my anger that people like you are allowed to even use the internet. Something that helps unite the world is being a negative thing? ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS!

I'm an american by blood not by birth place. I wasn't born there and even I know that what you speak is the reason why my family left for a country that actually knows how to do freedom better.

You're still arguing that your actions are justified because you believe you are doing good. Again there's a difference between initiating force to get what you want, and to use force to protect yourself or seek some form of justice.(capturing a criminal on the run, etc. )

If you truly believe that your way of doing things is the best, people would voluntarily go along with what you want. That isn't the case though. Fascism isn't about synergy, it's about putting the state first, individuals needs and wants last, unless of course they worship the state(aka leeches and slaves).

A freer society doesn't mean humans are going to isolate themselves. There's absolutely no proof of this. As for immigration, it's all about choices. The immigrant will more than likely his economic success would be greater if he can assimilate and offer a better deal to employers. One current issue is that many of them aren't expected to pay some taxes.

Individuals ARE the state. You are a part of the country that you live in, it's this separation of peoples and state that has made it difficult for the country to prosper. Only when an American runs a business, hires American workers does America benefit from that

This is a loss of tens of thousands of jobs, and for what?

I find that it's a rather negative political viewpoint to see synergy between the citizen of the nation, and the nation as an organic body as being a "leech" or a "slave". Your individuality isn't taken away by your nationality, it is supported by it. In much the same way politically, being a part of a political group doesn't change the thesis of the individual, but the individual is supported through his political allies.

Oh and to Jacob, I know it's hard to believe but this is an intellectual discussion. So I'll leave you with two other links on the Free Trade Problem and you can see for yourself if your stereotypical paint brushes of this subject even come close to the actual reality.

An Article

Individuals are not the state as the two are separate entities. The state is a governing body that supposedly gets it's authority from the consent of the governed (the citizens) thus the individual (citizens) and state are two separate entities.



Evidence points the opposite ways. The more collectivist a society is the less prosperous it is, I posted a video earlier about how economic liberty creates prosperity and that lack of economic liberty creates poverty and instability.




Allow me to quote an article written by Mussolini in Enciclopedia Italiana in 1932



Fascism is a rejection to the very concept of the individual.



Fascism only recognizes a person as a member of a group and not as an individual. It's from Mussolini's own writings that he rejects the idea of the individual and the Fascism opposes democracy





The violence of the black panther party didn't bring about the civil rights movement. The black community was fighting for the same basic rights that other people had (that the state denied to them) and the state used violence to repress the black community. The use of violence from the state against the black community gave birth to the "Black Power" movement and thus the black panther party.



The libertarian argument for gun rights is for the act of defense. As cruz put it "acting after you've been acted upon".

I'm confused why you are struggling with such a simple concept. If you strike me, you are initiating force. If I strike you back, I am using non-initial or "retaliatory force". I am using force to defend myself from your aggression.

That is historicaly incorrect, the fascist state has proven to be the most efficient state in history. It has many flaws but, you cant deny its only strong point.


Also I get the feeling that everyone here is American and I fail to understand the American concepts you are talking about. Many flaws of the American system pointed out here are actually non existent in my home country.



Fact is humans are very scared, scared of differences, scared of responsibility. This fear will either make them subject to authority or alienate from eachother. Fear Builds Walls. A state offers humans the comfort they need, again and I cant say this enough Escape From Freedom


Prison Experiment Typical example of human behavior when not controlled.

Fascism is a good motivation to mobilize people, goods and other material. However, the economics behind Fascism quickly place a drag on that economy. Then we have the other side affects of nationalism, militarism and imperialism. Not to mention violence repression of distension.



That's kind of obvious since we have two distinct histories, cultures, systems of government and geopolitical elements. So of bloody course we're not going to have the same flaws.



I am absolutely dumbfounded that two individuals (Lustful and yourself) find the concept of allowing people to voluntarily associate with one another such a mountain to climb. If people want to form a society with a particular government with particular rules then they are more than welcome to it. However, just because YOU are scared doesn't mean YOU have the right to put a gun to my head and say obey MY rules or I will kill you.

I find it ironic that a citizen to a country that was invaded by Fascists to be a supporter of Fascism.




That's actually it's more evidence towards my claim that government is evil. Those prison guards had positions of authority and they abused those positions simply because they were given social and institutional support to be evil.

While you can interpret it in that manner, let's get real specific here: Who's our police officers? Our fire fighters or our teachers? Our doctors? Society in general is made up of people. People make up classes, which thereby makes up the State.

What Mussolini is saying, is that rather than the modern state of division currently had in America, we can consolidate all of these different classes into one political union, a political thesis in the name of the benefit of the whole.

Without the citizenry, a state cannot exist. Every regime that has fallen in history, has not had the backing of its people. This very factual co-dependence
is a nail in the coffin of the theory of separatism.






This depends on what you refer to as collectivist. I just watched your video surrounding economic freedom, it unfortunately did not entail what this economic freedom is, and it gave all to much credit to Liberal theory of spend thrift increases in income, as well as "free trade."

Our rank is falling, not because we're losing our freedoms(Wall Street reportedly is able to easily escape any and all 'rules' meant to be punitive against it). Our rank is falling due to....

A loss of Manufacturing Jobs!

Various other sectors(such as Housing) have also suffered a persistent setback. It's all intertwined, a loss of purchasing power, an increase in costs and a loss of manufacturing.

My form of Protectionism isn't absolute, there are nations to whom we're currently running a trade balance with. We should continue engaging properly in trade when and where we can, but why should we allow ourselves to continue to be held hostage by China and the WTC?

Socialism, Marxism is "collective' in that it's a 'collective poor' whereas the political elite subjugate them. I mentioned this earlier, in referencing democracy as a paux-"social" political environment.

The ideal that is "Communism" can never be, because people are not static. They are everchanging, ever evolving and the country has to adapt along with its people.

Unity between the people and the state, an evolution that brings two opposing forces together would result in progress.






Fascism is the union between the Individual and the Individual's country. Mussolini wrote that Socialism "ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the state."

In other words, it supports separatism. Separatism weakens not only the State, but it weakens the people. How has our political division made us stronger? A fragile "union" that only unifies whenever tragedy happens to strike.

You yourself notes that it's because of the different political classes, that government is "compelled" to use "force" to take from one class of individuals to give to another.

Isn't National Unity a far superior alternative than to political neutrality(Libertarianism) or to political favoritism(subjugation via leftist ideology)?







As a member of society, not a group. It's not a cult following. I mean, do you think they abolished the names of individuals in Italy, Germany, etc? Individual value is still respected, just that the well being of society is intertwined with said value.

It's a fairly simple and it shouldn't be a radical concept but we have confused "well being" for "freedom". Well being in fact, is freedom. Freedom, as in being without restrictions is unattainable.

Partly due to the fact that freedom can be abused, partly also due to the fact that freedom in of itself can be potentially dangerous(see: drugs, alchol, etc).

I'm not entirely opposed to the concept of freedom, I said it before: Universal Freedom, the ideal that humanity couldn't obtain. And Guided Freedom, the principle that will lead to peace.

Guiding ourselves through our discipline, our political will and our laws, our emotions and reasoning(ethos). Fascism, to me is Guided Freedom. Politics based on principle is what I was looking for, after rejecting the political games of both the left and the right.






The activities of those groups were not unlike the activities of the Occupy Movement which interfered with daily activities just for the sake of scoring a political point. Instead of engaging in the political system(which several of these men would later do, under the tuelage of one Dr. Martin Luther King), these radical rebellious actions not only didn't help the Civil Rights cause but arguably set it back.

Indeed, State Action responded to the rebellion, which has its roots going back to Shay's Rebellion which inspired the need for a Republic and the failure of a government to keep calm and stability. '


However, political activism, even in Dr. King's words were "Non violent resistance" or in other words, political force.






It's you whose struggling with the "simple concept". I confirmed what you just said here, by stating that Force can be applied to numerous situations.

I said that, in that force is a necessary evil. Even in a Libertarian Society of neutrality, there are people that we acknowledge who do not think of the better of society, or of their fellow citizens, hell they're out to harm those very people. That's the essence of what a criminal is.

Is the Libertarian prepared to use force to its justifiable ends? From a Fascist Ideological standpoint, I use force not to control, but to cultivate. To create an environment that would lead to better stability.

That force(which is political, and non militaristic might I add. I've no intentions or even the slightest desire of mobilizing men with weapons, but rather I wish to mobilize men and women with a vision) is the same force that created a country that was once the most prosperous in the world.

The Founding Fathers, in their creation of a Republic understood the necessity of force and used force to it's better end. We don't stand on opposite sides Fiery, we stand on the same side, the only difference being is I acknowledge the greater effort that must be put forth.

If there are corrupt elements within the country, those elements have gained sizable political capital. Only a power of equal status can challenge it, only a politically active America can challenge it.

I wish to transform this country back to its former glory, and a government for and by the people at times, must take action that in the moment might not seem correct but in time, it becomes evident.

The creation of a Republic was staunchly opposed, but the Founders were correct in their movement forward. We must not let ourselves be brought back into a corrupt, political elite set up of democracy or at worst, plain anarchy which allows for the utmost corruption and advantages and liberties to be taken by men of unwise character.

You are totally right about the those side affects, but if you look at Germany it went from one of the poorest nations in Europe to the strongest nation in the world in 10 years.



I was just stating it as you are repeating American problems as arguments wich arent arguments to me because Ive seen it work better.

That's kind of obvious since we have two distinct histories, cultures, systems of government and geopolitical elements. So of bloody course we're not going to have the same flaws.



Its not that they are not allow, its that it will not happen nor will it hold. above I decriped what will overtake such a system and the problem with property.



You don't get the point, it is not being scaed that makes a government put guns to peoples head. It's being scared that makes people run away from your free society to a place were there are guns to their head. The freedom is to scary to most people and will make them run.



You call me a fascist one more time and Im out, I can't discuss like this if you read my previous posts you would see I dont suppoert fescist ideals. I aslo think the war had a different impact on us then on Americans. We were more scared of the voilence, the destruction and the loss. While Americans were scared of their "freedom" (actually more scared of there failing economy).




The thing is they go beyond their task, they become cruel sadist, instead of just keeping order they find pleasure in humiliating the other persons.

Note to LustfulAngel: As usual, I decided to expunge a lot of your usual pontification.



NosferatuGuts



Note to both: Reply to your posts individual posts please. This thing has become quite unwieldy and I'm often losing my place.

Lets not make this personal, we are talking about humanity in total. And ultimatly there is no drive to "help" other, there are no morals, and there is nothing to enforce it. People will always try to get benefits for themselves even in cooperation, they will try to do the least amount of work for the most benefit. Feelings like envy, hate and fear are really strong and hard to counter.



It's human to be scared, it's a tendency humanity fails to escape. Look at the popularity of religion through history, all of it is fueled by this fear of freedom. It's existential fear that is a natural by product of self awarness on our level. Now maybe you can find some people who claim they are free from this, they would probably be lieing but for the sake of argument lets say there are some. Good luck trying to make a liberal society with just a minimal fraction of the worlds population.



physical strenght is also power, who will prevent the strong from bullying the weak?

Tens of thousands of charities, mutual aid organizations and various government programs meant to "help" people including domestic and foreign aid agencies.

In the United States the government gives people access to free healthcare, money for food, free housing, subsidies for utilities, free phones, money for unemployed people, education subsidies, among dozens upon dozens of other government programs to "help" people.

Yep, people sure don't want to help each other.



Religion existed to answer questions that we had such as the meaning or origin of life. Even Theists and Atheists can agree upon that notion. I get it you're a militant Atheist. Rah, Rah religion is evil, atrocities, hypocrisy, and all that.



At least I achieved something without subjugating others.



How does this differ from what we have now? Governments rule because they have the might to maintain their power because there is no superior agency to restrain them. You can try and claim governments are legitimized through their people but, it's just fear and intimidation. They're threatened you with violence, therefore their rule is legitimized because you're too scared to oppose them.

Name one government that doesn't use threats of violence to maintain it's power.

Correct me if I'm mistaken but did you just say government?

Yep, people sure don't want to help each other.



Religion existed to counteract the fear of death.
Also I'm not a militant atheist, I have found my peace with religion long ago. As long as we are mortal we will have religion. Still I dislike any mix of state and religion and I will socraticly question any religious person that crosses my path.




What you achieved will be meaningless on world scale, and will probablt disappear in an instant.






You can oppose them intellectualy and try to change a law, ofcourse you have to still obey the law until it is changed.
example: You think the speed limit is absurd in your street, well you can protest it and try to change it by intellectual discussion but, you have to respect the limit while it is still in place.
A law that asks intellectual obidience is wrong in essence and undesirable, this is also what Kant explained in his quote. The diverse meaning of freedom and its implications is what you fail to grasp.



I never denied it, if you want to go strict to its essence well yes, voilence.
Although the Stanford Prison Experiment can be interesting here. Even though this was an experiment without voilence, guards succeeded in controlling the prisoners3 It's this sense of role that made them obey not the threats [