[SolarCross]

Psycho analysis is considered fringe by psychologists themselves.

So you say. By psycho analysis in the context of Molyneux or this thread we are not talking about Freud or Jung, we are talking non-academics trying to figure out how other people tick. We all do that. You think when I go to buy a used car, that I don't observe the seller as much as the car? Of course the car can only tell me so much about itself, the seller may know some stuff about the car he'd rather not tell, so I appraise him for his honesty. If you don't have much luck reading other people then I guess you would think that unless it done in a test tube it don't count. I've had much success from homebrew DIY psycho analysis.

[mikema63]

I can read other people just fine, mundane motivations and desires usually do the trick for me though without having to resort to psychological problems.

[SolarCross]

I can read other people just fine, mundane motivations and desires usually do the trick for me though without having to resort to psychological problems.

Some people do have psychological problems though and they can be really toxic and difficult to deal with. Sussing them out may be not be the best way of handling them of course sometimes the best bet is just to put oneself out of their influence.

[mikema63]

Some people do, but your reducing a broad range of vaguely related ideologies to a psychological disorder!

[Rich]

A statist is someone who believes that Judges, the court system and the police should be paid for out of taxation. Libertarians believe that Judges, the court system and the police should be paid for by Corporations. Libertarians claim they want to see competition between police forces and judicial systems. I don't know if they really believe in this nonsense. The result would be that the big corporations and wealthy individuals would club together and form a private monopoly police force and judicial system. They would then precede to rob us blind far worse than the inevitable corruption that occurs in a democratic political system.

I recommend Lenin's State and Revolution. It offers the same Libertarian Nirvana and of course didn't reduce the power of the state, it just abolished democracy.

At the end of the day they are all facists: Libertarains, Marxists, Nazis, the Medieval Papists and the modern day Islamists. They all seek to abolish democracy and impose their own know it all tyranny.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is perfectly natural when faced with an armed gang of strangers, against whom one is physically incapable of defending oneself, to accommodate oneself to their demands. .... As an aside, much of the power of religion may have a similar source.

I think I will choose "Other".

I think that people support the idea of gov't because "social groups in which cooperation and sharing overrode our individual, competitive self-interests for the sake of the common good. We evolved as intensely interdependent social animals, and our sense of empathy toward others, our sensitivity to reciprocity, our desire for inclusion and our loyalty to the groups we bond with, the intrinsic satisfaction we derive from cooperative activities, and our concern for having the respect and approval of others all evolved in humankind to temper and constrain our individualistic, selfish impulses (as Darwin himself pointed out in The Descent of Man)."

And because "we are (most of us) embedded in an exceedingly complex network of social relationships, many of which are vital to our well-being. Every day we confront issues relating to the needs and wants of others and must continually make accommodations. And in addressing these conflicting interests, the operative norm is - or should be - fairness, a balancing of the interests and needs of other parties, other "stakeholders.""

Unfortunately, the poll has "no model of society as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests", so I can't choose any of the existing options. They are simply not realistic.

Link for above quotes.

[SolarCross]

I think I will choose "Other".

I think that people support the idea of gov't because "social groups in which cooperation and sharing overrode our individual, competitive self-interests for the sake of the common good. We evolved as intensely interdependent social animals, and our sense of empathy toward others, our sensitivity to reciprocity, our desire for inclusion and our loyalty to the groups we bond with, the intrinsic satisfaction we derive from cooperative activities, and our concern for having the respect and approval of others all evolved in humankind to temper and constrain our individualistic, selfish impulses (as Darwin himself pointed out in The Descent of Man)."

And because "we are (most of us) embedded in an exceedingly complex network of social relationships, many of which are vital to our well-being. Every day we confront issues relating to the needs and wants of others and must continually make accommodations. And in addressing these conflicting interests, the operative norm is - or should be - fairness, a balancing of the interests and needs of other parties, other "stakeholders.""

Unfortunately, the poll has "no model of society as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests", so I can't choose any of the existing options. They are simply not realistic.

Link for above quotes.

Well what you are describing sounds like civil society it doesn't sound like government at all. This poll is about the state / government not about civil society.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well what you are describing sounds like civil society it doesn't sound like government at all. This poll is about the state / government not about civil society.

I was explaining why the poll was insufficient.

None of the three options given (childishness, immorality, or fear) are consistent with the idea that people make associations such as gov'ts or states or nations because people see themselves "as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests".

[Joe Liberty]

I was explaining why the poll was insufficient.

None of the three options given (childishness, immorality, or fear) are consistent with the idea that people make associations such as gov'ts or states or nations because people see themselves "as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests".

Then perhaps the question should be why some people think that living as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests requires that force be used to accomplish it. I mean, if the purpose and interests are indeed common then they wouldn't need to go around forcing them on people, would they.

[Rei Murasame]

Also, how can there be civil society without someone in authority, somewhere? Even these CEO-type figures that libertarians like to talk about, are the functional equivalent of governors in a supposed 'anarcho-capitalist' system. Because capitalism is authoritarian and hierarchical, and I say that not as a pejorative, but because it simply is.

If you remove the state, the people who comprise the state would not suddenly become unemployed, they'd slide sideways into their original business positions, and become the state again at a time of their choosing. In fact, isn't the Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan 'revolving door' precisely about that phenomenon? It'd just be a more extreme version of that. So long as they control the wealth, they have de facto political power, and will make the rules. If you stop formally recognising them as the government, it doesn't suddenly make them stop being the government.

An Egyptian tank commander once said a line in 1973 that can really be used as a general quote for all these situations, and it is, "I can't take back something that was taken from me by force, unless I also use force". At the time he was talking about the Sinai desert, but actually it seems to apply to everything in the whole world.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then perhaps the question should be why some people think that living as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests requires that force be used to accomplish it. I mean, if the purpose and interests are indeed common then they wouldn't need to go around forcing them on people, would they.

That's why capitalists use gov't force to impose their views of private property on everyone. We don't all agree with it.

[Rei Murasame]

That's another one as well, I almost forgot about that. Some people didn't even agree with the existence of private property in the first place, so even the things that people are locked in combat over, were originally opposed by people who didn't want them to become objects that could be fought over.

Even the most basic framework of the present system, was inflicted onto some populations by force.

[SolarCross]

That's why capitalists use gov't force to impose their views of private property on everyone. We don't all agree with it.

I don't think that narrative is at all accurate. The state has always since the dawn of time been a violator of people's natural sense of property. It was like that it the time of the Pharaohs and it is like that now, everywhere. Given the presence of a gang explicitly concerned with the use of violence to acquire goods and services and given that people like to avoid being beaten, caged and killed so people acquiesce to the pharoah's warped ideas of who gets what. Some clever people realise that while the pharoah or king or bureaucrat is absolutely dangerous he also isn't that bright so in that with careful manipulations pharoah mind might be massaged this way or that for advantage. This is all that the people of the market, those you call capitalists, do now with politicians and bureaucrats.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't think that narrative is at all accurate.

I don't care. This is an observable fact. Modern day courts and gov'ts support and enforce property rights.

The state has always since the dawn of time been a violator of people's natural sense of property. It was like that it the time of the Pharaohs and it is like that now, everywhere. Given the presence of a gang explicitly concerned with the use of violence to acquire goods and services and given that people like to avoid being beaten, caged and killed so people acquiesce to the pharoah's warped ideas of who gets what. Some clever people realise that while the pharoah or king or bureaucrat is absolutely dangerous he also isn't that bright so in that with careful manipulations pharoah mind might be massaged this way or that for advantage. This is all that the people of the market, those you call capitalists, do now with politicians and bureaucrats.

Your ahistorical nonsense is not relevant. Capitalism requires gov't, which is what we have now.

[Joe Liberty]

That's why capitalists use gov't force to impose their views of private property on everyone. We don't all agree with it.

They don't impose their views of private property, they get favorable legislation written, they lobby for regulations that their smaller competitors can't afford to follow, they push for tax breaks and subsidies and bailouts that shield them from the true cost of doing busines.

I don't agree with that either, but that's not endemic to capitalism, it's endemic to government. Taxizen explained why quite well in his last post.

[SolarCross]

I don't care. This is an observable fact. Modern day courts and gov'ts support and enforce property rights.

Governments use their violence to monopolise property arbitration and they do that so they can cheat.

Your ahistorical nonsense is not relevant.

That is really how it works all through history. You can deny it but it is obviously true.

Capitalism requires gov't, which is what we have now.

You have it backwards. Government requires capitalism but capitalism does not need government. The merchant and the artisan does not need Pharoah. Pharoah needs the merchant and the artisan. Pharoah is useless. The artisan creates wealth and the merchant distributes it. If Pharoah wants anything he will take it from them.

[The Immortal Goon]

This goes back to Tax saying that the Native Americans weren't genocided. Just because capitalist settlers came in with a "natural" sense of property that Africans, Americans, and many Asians didn't share and then systematically murdered everyone that didn't agree with the whiteman's "natural" sense of property doesn't make it genocide or violent. One may point out that very often these actions taken by settlers explicitly in defiance to the tyrannical government that had made deals with and agreed to leave the natives alone and the free white man's "natural" sense of property meant all opposition to his sense of property meant thousands of bodies and hunting down any last survivors. But it is the government in these situations that is tyrannical and violent because if something happens to a business white settlers set up, the government uses money generated from poor people with no interest in the company to recruit the children of the poor to go fight to preserve the white man's "natural" property.

Obviously when a capitalist gets elected as a senator and makes the poor fight for the spread of capitalism, it's totally different than a capitalist getting elected as chairman of the board and making the poor fight for the spread of capitalism.

See? Can't you see how it's not genocide if a capitalist does it? That government never acts in the interest of capitalism? If you ignore history it may not be enough to get to his logic, so you might have to make language itself meaningless in order to stamp out the notion of imagining another narrative.

Still don't think libertarianism is right? Then you obviously were abused by your parents and you can't interpret what logic you still have after stripping away history and the use of language. Just trust the libertarians. No reason for pesky representatives for you and the other serfs. Just let your boss do as he pleases to you and your family. And if you don't like that, then your body won't be the first to be piled up amongst heaps of others that question his "natural" sense of property.

[Pants-of-dog]

They don't impose their views of private property

They sure do. Courts, police, and lawmakers all support private property.

they get favorable legislation written, they lobby for regulations that their smaller competitors can't afford to follow, they push for tax breaks and subsidies and bailouts that shield them from the true cost of doing busines.

They also do this.

I don't agree with that either, but that's not endemic to capitalism, it's endemic to government. Taxizen explained why quite well in his last post.

Actually, he completely ignored observable fact.

-------------------------

Governments use their violence to monopolise property arbitration and they do that so they can cheat.

Who cares?

Gov't today enforces and supports the property rights needed for capitalism.

That is really how it works all through history. You can deny it but it is obviously true.

It is irrelevant.

You have it backwards. Government requires capitalism but capitalism does not need government. The merchant and the artisan does not need Pharoah. Pharoah needs the merchant and the artisan. Pharoah is useless. The artisan creates wealth and the merchant distributes it. If Pharoah wants anything he will take it from them.

Your stupid stories about Pharaohs are irrelevant. Right now, in every modern democracy, capitalists depend on gov't to enforce property law.

[SolarCross]

They sure do. Courts, police, and lawmakers all support private property.

Except when they rob people.

Who cares?

Gov't today enforces and supports the property rights needed for capitalism.

I care. Capitalism does function best when property rights are respected and, if there are bandits around, defended but it is a contradiction to have bandit kings do the defending. How do you explain the black and the grey market? That is capitalism that exists in total defiance of the whimsy of state so for sure that is trade without the "protection" of government, yet still it happens and happens a lot.

It is irrelevant.

History is irrelevant! Why thanks POD that is a weight of my mind. Thanks to your supernatural intelligence I can now ignore reality just like you by imperiously snapping "irrelevant".

[The Immortal Goon]

History is irrelevant! Why thanks POD that is a weight of my mind. Thanks to your supernatural intelligence I can now ignore reality just like you by imperiously snapping "irrelevant".

In fairness, he never said that history was irrelevant. He said:

Your ahistorical nonsense is not relevant. Capitalism requires gov't, which is what we have now.

And he's correct. Your little story about Ancient Egypt is not in the least historical. It's a bunch of stuff you completely made up that is easily disprovable.