| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the ideal solution is to reduce and/or abolish the role of government and the rule of law, and instead have a large group of property owners and their enforcers -- who have no oversight but their own -- deal with everything? That sounds suspiciously like robber baron factory owners hiring the Pinkertons as strikebreakers. Some people might argue against that model as representing an "ideal" scenario.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, you got 10 favorites for that post. I must reply I suppose. I could be classified as classical liberal, but certainly not conservative in the modern sense. I'm for voluntary associations and transactions. I am not for the coersive power of the state.
You do not want to live in a world free from the coercive power of the state. You think you do, but you're wrong. You have a fantasy built up in your head of how wonderful life free from government control would be, but you haven't realized that there are a scant few important ways in which your life would be improved by its disappearance, and countless ways in which you would suffer for its absence.
I'm with meatrace. This sounds like anarcho-capitalism, and half the Tea Party would jump on that bandwagon in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.
Regardless, the word "conservative" was perhaps the least important part of my post. It applies just as well to anyone who runs for a position in government on an anti-government platform, purposefully prevents anything meaningful from getting done after being elected, and then continues to run cycle after cycle on a platform of, "Look, I was right, government really can't do anything!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people might argue against that model as representing an "ideal" scenario.
Not the people who have the property.
Eff you, got mine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the ideal solution is to reduce and/or abolish the role of government and the rule of law, and instead have a large group of property owners and their enforcers -- who have no oversight but their own -- deal with everything? That sounds suspiciously like robber baron factory owners hiring the Pinkertons as strikebreakers. Some people might argue against that model as representing an "ideal" scenario.
On the bright side, we'd be one step closer to a dystopian cyberpunk future dominated by dragons and megacorps!
I wasn't familiar with the pinkertons, and thank you for your post. I read the wikipedia page, which was pretty brief. Yes, I would prefer pinkertons to police officers or the military. I can understand that people want to trust the enforcement arm of government. I hear and see far more abuse of power in law and military than private security. TSA for instance. Why wouldn't airlines have their own private security?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. So you're much more content trusting the people who brought you Deepwater Horizon, Chernobyl, Bhopal, Three Mile Island, Fujikawa, Love Canal, and so in — in the interest of profit.
Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't familiar with the pinkertons, and thank you for your post. I read the wikipedia page, which was pretty brief. Yes, I would prefer pinkertons to police officers or the military.
No, you wouldn't.
I can understand that people want to trust the enforcement arm of government. I hear and see far more abuse of power in law and military than private security.
There are, like, eight different reasons for that.
But the primary issue with coercive power is that someone has to wield it. If it isn't the government it will be someone else. With the government, at least you have some power to effect change through representation.
TSA for instance. Why wouldn't airlines have their own private security?
I wonder if, perhaps, you could give answering your own question a shot. I think you can probably come up with at least one reason.
But the primary issue with coercive power is that someone has to wield it. If it isn't the government it will be someone else. With the government, at least you have some power to effect change through representation.
Well and succinctly put.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't familiar with the pinkertons... Yes, I would prefer pinkertons to police officers or the military.
Novelist Dashiell Hammett was originally a Pinkerton. He solved a couple of cases, served in WWI, got a reputation as a trustworthy "op," and got sent to Butte, Montana as a strikebreaker for the Anaconda mine. Apparently the mine was the only real employer there, the local school was substandard to say the least, and people were generally too poor and too poorly educated to move and try and start over. Working conditions were grim to the point of dystopian. Hammett's job was basically to hang around with other ops and, anytime someone complained or offered a suggestion for improvement, bash them over the head with an ax handle. When the Workers of the World tried to organize, he was offered a $5,000 bonus to murder the organizer.
He eventually quit in disgust (citing poor health as a cover) and joined the Communist Party in protest.
Any "solution" that makes Communism seem reasonable in comparison is most emphatically not a good one, to my mind.
Ah. So you're much more content trusting the people who brought you Deepwater Horizon, Chernobyl, Bhopal, Three Mile Island, Fujikawa, Love Canal, and so in — in the interest of profit.
Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree then.
Deepwater Horizon = Gulf oil spill
Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, Fujikawa = nuclear disastersBhopal = industrial disaster at pesticide plant
Love Canal = dump site purchaced by city school district with explicit warning that it was toxic. Proceeded to build school on it.
Most of the disasters support that capitolists are evil. The reparations that the companies paid, at least for Deepwater that I read, are substantial and discourage the risky behavior. At least in the last example there is the state acting recklessly.
We can agree to disagree, I just thought i'd grab the last post.
That's the bright side?
yes. Yes it is.
Ah. So you're much more content trusting the people who brought you Deepwater Horizon, Chernobyl, Bhopal, Three Mile Island, Fujikawa, Love Canal, and so in — in the interest of profit.
Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree then.
Deepwater Horizon = Gulf oil spill
Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, Fujikawa = nuclear disasters
Bhopal = industrial disaster at pesticide plant
Love Canal = dump site purchaced by city school district with explicit warning that it was toxic. Proceeded to build school on it.Most of the disasters support that capitolists are evil. The reparations that the companies paid, at least for Deepwater that I read, are substantial and discourage the risky behavior. At least in the last example there is the state acting recklessly.
We can agree to disagree, I just thought i'd grab the last post.
Love canal isn't about the deed of sale, which does explicitly mention the waste, it's about Hooker disposing of the waste in a reckless manner.
If you think the Gulf oil spill reparations are substantial and discourage risky behaviors on the party of business you're terrifyingly naive. But we already knew that, you're an admitted anarchist.
You should really read some actual history, not just anarchist myths and fantasies.
let's try to avOid direct insults, guys. This thread is interesting, I don't want it locked before its time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the ideal solution is to reduce and/or abolish the role of government and the rule of law, and instead have a large group of property owners and their enforcers -- who have no oversight but their own -- deal with everything? That sounds suspiciously like robber baron factory owners hiring the Pinkertons as strikebreakers. Some people might argue against that model as representing an "ideal" scenario.
Shadowrun here we come!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think the Gulf oil spill reparations are substantial and discourage risky behaviors on the party of business you're terrifyingly naive. But we already knew that, you're an admitted anarchist.
You should really read some actual history, not just anarchist myths and fantasies.
Poor followers of Bakunin and Kroptokin. First, the laissez-faire right steals the term "libertarian" from them and now "anarchist."
It makes me sad in a non-sectarian revolutionary leftist kind of way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't familiar with the pinkertons... Yes, I would prefer pinkertons to police officers or the military.Novelist Dashiell Hammett was originally a Pinkerton. He solved a couple of cases, served in WWI, got a reputation as a trustworthy "op," and got sent to Butte, Montana as a strikebreaker for the Anaconda mine. Apparently the mine was the only real employer there, the local school was substandard to say the least, and people were generally too poor and too poorly educated to move and try and start over. Working conditions were grim to the point of dystopian. Hammett's job was basically to hang around with other ops and, anytime someone complained or offered a suggestion for improvement, bash them over the head with an ax handle. When the Workers of the World tried to organize, he was offered a $5,000 bonus to murder the organizer.
He eventually quit in disgust (citing poor health as a cover) and joined the Communist Party in protest.
Any "solution" that makes Communism seem reasonable in comparison is most emphatically not a good one, to my mind.
Heaven knows I'm not saying anything in defense of the f#*~in' Pinkertons, but, in fairness, just as many of those old miners' strikes were crushed by good ol' public servants.
Heaven knows I'm not saying anything in defense of the f%#$in' Pinkertons, but, in fairness, just as many of those old miners' strikes were crushed by good ol' public servants.
Yep. Interestingly, I think that one started as a series of scraps between the miners and the Baldwin–Felts Agency "detectives" as strikebreakers, and the National Guard came in when things went very bad (like, the agency upgraded from ax handles to an improvised tank, which was somehow considered legit, and the miners got really pissed and decided to fight back). The miners, btw, were pushing for (1) enforcement of national and state law, and (2) abolishing of company scrip as a means of payment. This is Citizen Zordlon's utopia.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, guys... the moment someone tells you they are not right-thinking leftists, they are immediately attacked and insulted by a bunch of piranhas. It is almost a defining pattern of this board, and it's utterly consequent. It would be a relief if, if any of you piranhas feel this means you, you could tone it down. Way down. Not every country is America, not every country is locked to right wing moronity, not every political problem in the world is solved by socialism. God knows there are enough places where socialist and social democratic parties have caused enough political problems to merit attention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll offer you a deal. I'll quit "attacking and insulting" people -- neither of which I've done here -- as soon as people stop confusing Keynesian progressives with socialists. The distinction isn't subtle.
Yeah, srly.
The only person in here who thinks sociaism solves everything is me and I haven't attacked anybody (in this thread), pirahna-like or otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. Interestingly, I think that one started as a series of scraps between the miners and the Baldwin–Felts Agency "detectives" as strikebreakers, and the National Guard came in when things went very bad (like, the agency upgraded from ax handles to an improvised tank, which was somehow considered legit, and the miners got really pissed and decided to fight back). The miners, btw, were pushing for (1) enforcement of national and state law, and (2) abolishing of company scrip as a means of payment. This is Citizen Zordlon's utopia.Heaven knows I'm not saying anything in defense of the f%#$in' Pinkertons, but, in fairness, just as many of those old miners' strikes were crushed by good ol' public servants.
Yeah, that's how it started. And then the Colorado National Guard joined in the strikebreaking and striker-shooting. I'm not quite sure who's utopia that is, but I can't help but remember all those Occupy stories about the NYPD working in cahoots with the banksters' security divisions. And then I start thinking stop-and-frisk and I wonder what all the fuss over the Pinkertons is about.
not every political problem in the world is solved by socialism
That's very true, but when a guy tells me point-blank that bought corporate thugs are better than elected police, I disagree with him. And I have a massive distrust of law enforcement, so that's really saying something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't help but remember all those Occupy stories about the NYPD working in cahoots with the banksters' security divisions. And then I start thinking stop-and-frisk...
Your mind and mine are running disturbingly alike. Makes me want to open up my skull and pour bleach in there or something!
When a guy tells me point-blank that bought corporate thugs are better than elected police, I disagree with him. And I hate a great distrust of law enforcement, so that's really saying something.
you elect your cops? Aroundabouts we hire them straight out of cop school.
I'm not entirely sure where disagreeing with someone is the same as a bunch of piranhas immediately attacking and insulting someone. But as always, YMMV.
you elect your cops? Aroundabouts we hire them straight out of cop school.
Sheriffs, etc., are; and regular PD brass have to answer to elected officials like mayors. So indirectly, in many cases, but whatever.
Yeah, that's how it started. And then the Colorado National Guard joined in the strikebreaking and striker-shooting. I'm not quite sure who's utopia that is, but I can't help but remember all those Occupy stories about the NYPD working in cahoots with the banksters' security divisions. And then I start thinking stop-and-frisk and I wonder what all the fuss over the Pinkertons is about.Yep. Interestingly, I think that one started as a series of scraps between the miners and the Baldwin–Felts Agency "detectives" as strikebreakers, and the National Guard came in when things went very bad (like, the agency upgraded from ax handles to an improvised tank, which was somehow considered legit, and the miners got really pissed and decided to fight back). The miners, btw, were pushing for (1) enforcement of national and state law, and (2) abolishing of company scrip as a means of payment. This is Citizen Zordlon's utopia.Heaven knows I'm not saying anything in defense of the f%#$in' Pinkertons, but, in fairness, just as many of those old miners' strikes were crushed by good ol' public servants.
Leaving stop and frisk for a moment, the cops in ny working with banksters security divisions or indeed anyone who works in private security is relatively simple- the private sec guys HAVE to work with them(read: rat someone out), because they lack power in any way, shape and form unless they can prove (and this is actually quite difficult) damages or loss of property on their part. Unless you're a shoplifter or are otherwise actually in the process of physically committing some crime, they can't tell you to do anything other than get off the property.
The banks security divisions HAVE to work with the NYPD to spy on leftist activists? News to me.
The banks security divisions HAVE to work with the NYPD to spy on leftist activists? News to me.
long story short, yes. Nyc has a long and storied history of dime-dropping. It comes back to haunt us all about once a generation.
Didn't I read about the banks buying the cops all kinds of hi-tech surveillance stuff, with the agreement that the bank guys could use it to spy on citizens, too?
Didn't I read about the banks buying the cops all kinds of hi-tech surveillance stuff, with the agreement that the bank guys could use it to spy on citizens, too?
this is where things get bad, yes.
Yeah, I'm not sure what you're talking about re: rats and dime-dropping.
In case it isn't clear, I'm talking about the Lower Manhattan Secutiy Coordination Center.
EDIT: Maybe it was clear.
Yeah, I'm not sure what you're talking about re: rats and dime-dropping.
In case it isn't clear, I'm talking about the Lower Manhattan Secutiy Coordination Center.
EDIT: Maybe it was clear.
indeed, we are talking about two different things.I was talking about bank and private security guards and how they do their day to day job, not the spy cam thing (which is old news at this point- it was hotly debated around here back in 06, the article is a bit out of touch on that bit).
Honestly, guys... the moment someone tells you they are not right-thinking leftists, they are immediately attacked and insulted by a bunch of piranhas.
What I'm objecting to is a certainty of political belief that is not matched by the individual's level of political knowledge/sophistication. Conviction should match knowledge. When knowledge outstrips conviction, you have experts who fail to drive policy. When conviction outstrips knowledge, you have non-experts trying very hard to drive policy. Both are dangerous.
A deeply-held belief that government should not possess coercive power is a poor belief (for the many reasons outlined above), but it is also an undeservedly sure belief. A person holding to it has just enough political knowledge for a philosophy like anarcho-capitalism to seem appealing, but not enough to be able to understand why it is inherently dysfunctional. The longer they hold the belief without having it effectively challenged, the more entrenched it becomes, and, accordingly, the more knowledge it will take for them to finally feel comfortable discarding it in favor of a more tenable political philosophy.
Strangely enough, the term "arachnocapitalism" is only used by leftists who feel the need to disparage those with whom they disagree.
But to a good leftist, any dissent from their political point of view must be retaliated against. How could someone in favor of universal health insurance possibly be authoritarian? Obviously this person is an "arachnocapitalist" who only wants to see poor people dying in the street. And if you don't think we should subsidize "green" energy then you're obviously a shill for the oil corporations. How dare you advocate for school choice! Why do you hate teachers? How is it these people don't embrace our utopian society! What rubes! They're obviously not sophisticated enough to understand our nuanced approach to freedom.
Poking holes in their belief system that shows the Leftist Emperor indeed has no clothes is fraught with personal attacks, because it not only shows the skeleton upon which progressivism is built, but because it exposes their sense of moral superiority as a sham.
Strangely enough, the term "arachnocapitalism" is only used by leftists who feel the need to disparage those with whom they disagree.
No, it's the accepted name for a specific political philosophy. You really could stand to read up on this stuff.
Love the persecution complex, though.
(By the way, many "rightists" don't like anarcho-capitalism much either.)
Very few libertarians want a divorce from society in which government exists.
No one is talking about libertarians.
We instead point out the destructive consequences of the policies statists promote, and indicate that further eroding of power of the individual will have no benefit to society. The authoritarian underpinnings of the modern leftist are easy enough to see for those who but try to see them ("You must buy health insurance." "You must send your children to public schools." "You must not have too many firearms."). It is why I don't refer to leftists as "liberals." There is nothing liberal about them.
But to a good leftist, any dissent from their political point of view must be retaliated against.
It's almost as if the term "leftist" is only used by libertarians who feel the need to disparage those with whom they disagree! Except, in this case, it's true and not actually a persecution complex masquerading as insult!
Poking holes in their belief system that shows the Leftist Emperor indeed has no clothes is fraught with personal attacks, because it not only shows the skeleton upon which progressivism is built, but because it exposes their sense of moral superiority as a sham.
Does it make you feel better about yourself to work at exposing someone else's sense of moral superiority as a sham?
By the way, I love how you called your rant "inconvenient", as though it were one of those internet banner ads for whitening your teeth with "one weird old trick!" Leftists hate him!
Funny thing is...Libertarians are Leftists.
This is the scale, when people talk Left vs Right.
Anarchy<-----------------------+---------------------->Totalitarianis m