prevarication noun 1. the act of making intentionally deceptive misstatements to evade the truth. 2. the deceptive misstatement itself.
We all know politicians lie. Especially that other party, the one to which you don't belong. But the very language of political labeling is deliberately misleading, too. Here in the United States, we have two major parties that dominate political discourse: The Democrats and the Republicans. And everything about them both seems designed to deceive.
The Democrats claim to be the political left, the liberals, the progressives. However, when progress means more state power, I challenge the premise. The word liberal should mean one who promotes liberty, but the Democrats are always eager to impose new restrictions and mandates in opposition to choice and consent. The very term left refers to the French assembly seating where those in opposition to monarchial supremacy sat on the left side of the meeting hall. And how can a party claim to support democracy when their nominating conventions include Superdelegates who can overrule the will of the majority?
At this point, I assume self-professed left-wingers are already outraged, while right-wingers are feeling a sense of smug self-satisfaction. But I'm not done.
The Republicans represent the political right, the conservatives, the traditionalists. Or, at least, that's the claim. However, their traditions seem to be something besides restraint and respect for individual liberty, too. While the left is hypocritical in its condemnation of war while waging war, the right is hypocritical in its promotion of individualism while supporting a war machine designed to funnel wealth from the people into the coffers of corporate cronies, and collectively exterminate the subjects of foreign dictators as if they bear guilt by being ruled. The Republicans have utterly failed to restrain the growth of government bureaucracy and control, despite rhetoric filled with claims to promote individualism and free markets. And what is the virtue inherent in the idea of a Republic? Plato condemned it as a path to despotism, if memory serves. The Roman Republic certainly morphed into a despotic, decadent empire.
As another political campaign season rolls along through the trainwreck of AD 2020, we see two old white political and corporate insiders with histories of abuse of power and trains of sexual misconduct (to put it gently) left in their wakes, claiming the right to dictate to us how we shall live, and what they will do with our wealth and productivity. Choosing one or the other in this false dichotomy is presented as our civic responsibility. As a result, we get a ratchet effect as the government swings from left to right and back again, squeezing us to death.
If these past six months have not been enough to destroy your faith in the State, what will? When will you withdraw your support? How can you still claim there ever was any consent?
No, I cannot plan for society post-state. If I could, you should make me your king. But remember, the government is not society. Society functions in spite of the government, not because of it. Parasites never benefit the host, and government is not in a symbiotic relationship with us just because it hasn't killed us all yet.
Don't fall for the lies again.
Thanks for posting in FreeSpeech Community :>)
It's time to abandon FEUDAL HIERARCHY and adopt HOLACRACY.
We don't have a feudal hierarchy. We have something more like a perverse blend of neo-mercantilism and fascism. Authoritarianism by any name is not a product of market action.
However, I agree that decentralization is the path forward. As an analogy, consider how in even the smallest towns, we have houses of worship belonging to different denominations and different religions, and many people who follow no religion at all. At one time, this was unthinkable. There is no reason this same outcome cannot also apply to other social institutions.
Yes we do.
Does your company have a "chain of command" with a de facto KING?
Does your church have a "chain of command" with a de facto KING?
Does your family have a "chain of command" with a de facto KING?
Does your government have a "chain of command" with a de facto KING?
When I say "feudal hierarchy" I'm referring to any Authoritarian command structure that only accepts input from the lower levels based on the feeble whim of those at the top.
We thought "democracy" would "fix" the "problem" but I'm afraid it's almost made it worse.
Constitutional HOLACRACY seems to be the most promising alternative.
ANARCHY just reshuffles the cards and we end up just playing the exact same game all over again.
You said a feudal hierarchy. Not all hierarchies are feudal. We don't have land grants and titles handed down from a monarch with obligations to serve in exchange. Fundamentally, market transactions are mutually-beneficial exchanges, not coercive authoritarianism. That includes employee-employer relationships. Yes, this can be distorted and corrupted, but that doesn't make it feudal, or even inherently abusive.
I'd love to hear some examples of what you believe qualifies as "mutually-beneficial exchanges".
From what I can tell, there are ALWAYS winners and losers, and the bigger fish is the odds on favorite.
The modern employee-employer relationship is INHERENTLY abusive.
I've seen people get fired for the most petty of reasons. Sure, there might be "laws" to protect "the disabled" and others from "discrimination", but 99.99% of workers don't have the time or the money to hire the ACLU to take their cases, they just scramble for another job like a "good" worker should.
Here's a good example of what I'm trying to explain, skip to 197 seconds,
Value is a subjective determination made by market actors, not an inherent property of goods and services. This difference in valuation means both parties can "win" in an exchange, and exploitation is not inevitable. A loaf of bread is not worth the price asked. The price is an offer. The seller values the asking price more than they value the bread. The buyers, if any exist, value the bread more than the money exchanged for it.
If there are no buyers, the seller must adjust the price, or determine whether the market has no need of hif their goods at all.
Labor is not a special class of services. Labor has a market price depending on its skill and quality. Price controls have the exact same adverse effects on the labor market that they have anywhere else.
No one is owed a job. Yes, some employers are corrupt and abusive. So are some employees. The solution is not legislation. And again, corporations are creations of the State, not the market.
Are you familiar with the illusion of choice?
FREE-MARKET = MOBSTER ETHICS
How so, pray tell? Remember, black markets are the result of political prohibition. Governments are gangs writ large. Voluntary exchange with open pricing and consumer choice does not offer that kind of incentive.
Unregulated (FREE) markets fall prey to large cartels, guilds, and powerful robber-barons.
Without a powerful referee (Government As Referee Framework, GARF), the small (individual) players will inevitably be forced out (or otherwise eliminated) by larger players.
FREE-MARKET = MOBSTER ETHICS
Laws (regulations) that protect the rich from the poor are REDUNDANT and IDIOTIC.
The powerful don't need laws to survive.
The POOR need laws to protect their individual rights and individual liberty from the RICH.
The market is no longer free when the robber barons take over. They make their money because of the free market, then engage in carpetbagging to rig the system in their favour, thus they can grow fat and lazy. In a truly free market, you can't sit on your laurels and expect to keep making money.
In other words, everything you said is technically correct, except for the assertion that free markets are run by mobsters. The "free" market that most "capitalist" countries have is under the thumb of the mob, certainly, which is why the quotation marks are necessary.
Do you believe FREE-MARKET = UNREGULATED MARKET?
Because if you believe some regulations and an effective enforcement mechanism are required to insure "fair play" and to mitigate MOBSTER ETHICS, then it doesn't sound like a "truly" FREE-MARKET.
The most damage inflicted in the name of the FREE-MARKET is with the bludgeon of "deregulation".
I was looking specifically at the past, explaining how we got to where we are now. The market used to be completely unregulated, and healthy competition existed, until the most successful players bribed the government to regulate the market in their favour. Mafioso behaviour, such as blackmail, extortion, or outright threats to remove competition, was never legal, since such activity has nothing to do with the market itself. Bribes, of course, go a long way in facilitating illegal behaviour.
When it comes to the de-regulation actually implemented, such measures work only in favour of big companies - rolling back laws from regulatory agencies such as the EPA and OSHA. In order for de-regulation to work in favour of small businesses, such measures must include reducing minimum wage and lowering all business taxes (self-employment tax, payroll tax, etc.) as well.
Even the Amish have MOBSTER ETHICS.
Large groups of brainwashed/enslaved operating on the FEUDAL HIERARCHY model have dominated individual "freedom" for thousands of years.
I agree.
Isn't it funny that Disney doesn't have to pay its employee's overtime if they call them "entertainers"?
And don't start talking about "minimum wage" without explaining how restaurant servers still get paid $2.13 an hour.
The free market is a regulated market, but a government monopoly is anti-market, and inevitably twists its power to distort the market through cronyism. Government is not immune to the psychological and economic problems of monopoly, but is the only organization capable of propping up cartels and monopolies in the face of market pressure.
Please explain which regulations you believe are essential for a FREE-MARKET to maintain its "FREE" status and what enforcement mechanisms are appropriate.
Free markets do not fall prey to these robber barons. Such people need political protection. Subsidies and regulatory capture are necessary to such schemes.
Why do you imagine a monopolist referee (government) is immune the waste and abuse inherent in all other monopolies?
The larger the bureaucracy, the slower it is to react to change. Unless propped up by government, these megacorporations are unsusrainable in the free market.
Regulations are always sold as protections for the poor and disadvantaged, but implemented to benefit the political class. The real-world effect is more expenses and red tape for entrepreneurs, startups, and home businesses.
The powerful do need laws to survive. That is why they lobby government so aggressively. And we cannot change this rigged game.
"The powerful do need laws to survive," and at the same time, they do not. You're both right, allow me to explain.
There are two types of power players: the conqueror, and the dynastic heir. The conqueror becomes powerful by beating the other power players at their own game. These are the powerful who do not need laws to survive, as they can work with any system, either eschewing or exploiting the rules to get ahead. The dynastic heir, on the other hand, is one who has power handed to them, and cannot win a game that isn't rigged in their favour; these are the powerful who do need laws to survive.
Mafiosos do not enjoy subsidies and are awarded no political protection, and yet, they thrive in unregulated (lawless) areas of the planet.
They thrive because over-regulation or outright prohibition has created a black market. Their violence is a mirror of the government's violence, because government is itself a mafia writ large.
Mafiosos thrive in 100% lawless environments like remote refugee camps and abandoned war-torn no-mans-land.
MOBSTER ETHICS = NATURAL LAW
I'm still developing my Government As Referee Framework (GARF), but I'm imagining it as a collection of strictly regional (geographically city sized) transparent, independent entities with no FEUDAL HIERARCHY, acting as HOLACRATIC cells.
I agree, that's what I'm trying to address.
BIG GOVERNMENT = GOOD FOR MOBSTER CORPORATIONS
NO GOVERNMENT = GOOD FOR MOBSTER CORPORATIONS
Accurate
Unsupported assertion. As I stated in another reply, corporations are a government-created legal status. Corporations rely on government bailouts and handouts. The predatory megacorporations are not economically sustainable when consumers are free to choose, and competitors are free to offer alternatives. That is why the ones surrounding us today have used government to squelch all competition they can.
I agree that CORPORATE WELFARE exacerbates an already horrifying power imbalance.
However, CORPORATE WELFARE is not the core "problem".
If we cut all corporate welfare and gutted intellectual property laws (thoughts =/= property) and "deregulated" everything, we'd still have a horrifying power imbalance.
Well organized feudal hierarchies (MAFIOSOS) have always dominated individuals and small family based tribes.
Today we call them "corporations", but they've existed since the dawn of time.
We've swallowed their lies claiming they are "job creators" and "innovators" and their mergers are "good for consumers".
They sucker individuals into their schemes with hypnotic architecture and promises of "untold riches" and "merit based reward".
By the way, most of these manipulative propaganda tactics were demonstrated by the first "multinational organization", everyone else is just trying to put their own spin on it.
NO GOVERNMENT = GOOD FOR MOBSTER CORPORATIONS
MOBSTERS THRIVE IN THE ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT
No, they do not.
If the police force was dissolved, they'd just hire their own private armies (many have already done this, look at the history of the Pinkertons).
I am familiar with the history of the Pinkertons. I also know about companies like Blackwater/Xe/whatever they have rebranded themselves to be now. However, it should be noted that while we have had problems like them, the latter especially exists as a government-sponsored organization. The Pinkertons were also expensive, and garnered bad PR that cost even more.
Corporations rely on externalizing enforcement costs through government. That is unsustainalbe if they need to handle it directly. Further, you're conversing with a gun guy. I support an armed populace equipped to withstand such an onslaught.
Meanwhile, the government wages wars at home and abroad with an uncountable death toll and incalculable cost to all of us. It is the true enemy if you are worried about the health and welfare of the most vulnerable.
How'd that work out for Ruby Ridge and Waco?
I agree.
They do this at the behest of "the military industrial complex" (MOBSTER CORPORATIONS).
Our focus should be on insulating the function of government from corruption.
Click to watch 5 minutes,
Stop giving your money to MOBSTER CORPORATIONS.
The corporations derive their legal status, subsidies, trade protectionism, intellectual property laws, etc. from the government, not market processes. The root problem is not businesses and markets.
The corporations derive their legal status, subsidies, trade protectionism, intellectual property laws, etc. from the threat of force which just happens to be provided by "the government" at the moment, but they are fully capable of hiring their own enforcers (Pinkertons) if and or when "the government" is dissolved.
The ability to inflict economic and or physical force is "the root problem".