Socialist States of America still not learning the lessons

[Skybird]

http://img.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html

Hoppe-nian predictions in action!


The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Officials are also encouraging lenders to use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan and are seeking to make it easier for people who owe more than their properties are worth to refinance at today’s low interest rates, among other steps.


:dead: But that Hoppe is right in predicting the political elite acting like this, and that he explains en detail why it is acting like this and will never act any differently, offers no solace.

Not only are politicians totally unscrupulous for the reasons explained by Hoppe - they are also completely immune to any learning effects even if "history" means not events from several decades or centuries ago, but just 5 years.

"Laßt uns die alten Fehler eneut begehen, Genossen!" :up: :yeah: :salute:

[Madox58]

I object to the thread title...........
According to the 'Book of Yubba' we ain't Socialist yet.

[Oberon]

I dunno, I think you're socialist today, it's a Monday, isn't it? Oh, no, wait it's still Sunday over there, no, no, you're Fascist at the moment. :yep:

[Madox58]

No. I was Fascist yesterday.
Today is Sunday here so I'm Agnostic today.
Tomorrow, which is Monday, I'll be Capitalist.
:D

[nikimcbee]

I object to the thread title...........
According to the 'Book of Yubba' we ain't Socialist yet.

Damn, you beat me to it.:haha:

[AndyJWest]

Last time I looked, promoting home ownership was something the right did...

[Madox58]

And what did the wrong do?

[Skybird]

Democracy IS socialism right because of its very basic mechanism by which it is running. The basic principle driving democracy, is redistribution income from private property to the non-private collective. And that is what socialism is about. The plebs demand it. The candidate promises it. Both are accomplices in crime. Democracy is the tyranny of the plebs. An ideal it became just in the past 100 years or so. Before, democracy was seen with utmost contempt and disgust, right back until the ancient Greeks. To say that the Greek "invented" democracy, is only one half of the truth. The other is that they saw it as a big evil that should be prevented, since it necessarily must ruin the state and corrupt society - in pretty much right the ways we see today.

[yubba]

I object to the thread title...........
According to the 'Book of Yubba' we ain't Socialist yet.
Soon very soon, you should check out what bite me said this weekend http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/biden-calls-for-new-world-order/ I really don't want to be living in the woods to get away from you guys the bugs suck here. You know why we haven't learned anything it is because we are still printing money.

[Red October1984]

And what did the wrong do?

:har:

We're a bunch of idiots, ya know?

[Spoon 11th]

I don't know if this is related. The subject doesn't interest me enough, but here's a video from ReasonTV channel:

Vernon Smith and Steve Gjerstad on Housing and the Never-Ending Recession

"All [economic] recoveries are associated with recoveries in housing...except for the Great Recession, this last one," says behavioral economist and Nobel Prize winner Vernon Smith.

Smith and colleague Steve Gjerstad spoke at Reason Weekend, the annual donor event held by Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes Reason.com). They argue that the recession is far from over and that the lingering effects of the collapsed housing market will be felt for years to come.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GO559htQB4
35 minutes

[Madox58]

Soon very soon, you should check out what bite me said this weekend http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/biden-calls-for-new-world-order/ I really don't want to be living in the woods to get away from you guys the bugs suck here.

Dude. Everyone uses the 'New World Order' thing.
Even the wrestling crowd did that on TV!
And do you believe that was true?
:har:
Oh, yea, it's a BIG snake all twined into a ball.
More then one point don't work with all the EVIL plans pointed out by you and others that are allowed internet access.

I'd point out the flaws in details but then they would only invent other crazy stuff that does not add up.

I don't trust this Goverment anymore then I trust common thieves I know.
That don't mean I believe they are able to pull off the stunts you believe they will do.

[Sailor Steve]

I don't trust this Goverment anymore then I trust common thieves I know.
That don't mean I believe they are able to pull off the stunts you believe they will do.
As I said way back when the moon landing pictures disappeared: I'll always believe screw-up before I believe cover-up. :sunny:

[Hottentot]

Has Tribesman been abducted by the aliens?

[Aramike]

Last time I looked, promoting home ownership was something the right did...One would think that promoting responsible home ownership would be something that benefits us all. But promoting home ownership for the sake of such is irresponsible.

Like it or not, not everyone should have the RIGHT to owning a home. Such is still something that should be earned.

[eddie]

Looks like the elitists in Germany are denying the German people a right to have an airport that works!:D Leave it to the socialists to screw that up too!

http://news.msn.com/world/delays-growing-cost-of-empty-berlin-airport-shame-germans

[Skybird]

The Berlin airport is the biggest and most expensive jokes of all major construction projects currently being... being... tried in Germany, yes. :haha: The new central station Stuttgart 21 or the so-called Elb-Philharmonie or the new blue-water harbour at Bremerhafen are just three other prominent examples where leaders' personal megalomania led them to not do the table homework and calculations properly. There are more examples.

But we got a new air port in Kassel-Calden. 270 million. With four regional airports and Frankfurt Main Hub nearby. The construction went smooth and within time table, almost. The reward : they have one plane per day. :D The thing was wanted but irresponsible politicians who are not even in politics any longer. The losses this thing creates every day, must be payed by the tax payer.

Hoppenian explanation in action! :yeah:

[Skybird]

On the US housing issue, cheap credits given to crowds of people who could not afford it was one of the key reasons that triggered the crisis 2007/2008. It was not the factor leading and creating the crisis in the decades before, but it was one of the triggers that finally blew it up.

And now they do the same insane suicidal trick again, while already having flooded the market with devalued money. First you place the explosives. Then you arm the igniters.

People do not learn, they just do not learn. Instead the try to solve every issue with the same old hammer that they happen to have learned as their only tool available.

And those politicians proposing this "solution"? Will never be held accountable. Just not voting for somebody is not holding that someone responsible for what he did - in fact what it is is letting him get away with it.

And who said that people will not vote for the sweet-talkers next time? They promise what people want: private property that people originally cannot afford, and cheap credit. Let the party go on. A material gain falling from heaven without having been worked for. Manna for the people!

Bills? What do you mean by "bills"...?

Stimulus packages, and all that. I laugh about this nonsense. That is no reasonable economic concept. That is economic superstition.

[Wolferz]

Doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting a different result each time.:hmmm:

[Bilge_Rat]

On the US housing issue, cheap credits given to crowds of people who could not afford it was one of the key reasons that triggered the crisis 2007/2008. It was not the factor leading and creating the crisis in the decades before, but it was one of the triggers that finally blew it up.



true, but that is not what we are talking about here, which you would evident IF you had quoted the ENTIRE article you linked to.


Before the crisis, about 40 percent of home buyers were first-time purchasers. That’s down to 30 percent (http://www.realtor.org/reports/realtors-confidence-index), according to the National Association of Realtors.

From 2007 through 2012, new-home purchases fell 30 percent for people with credit scores above 780 (out of 800), according to Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke. But they declined 90 percent for people with scores between 680 and 620 — historically a respectable range for a credit score.

“If the only people who can get a loan have near-perfect credit and are putting down 25 percent, you’re leaving out of the market an entire population of creditworthy folks, which constrains demand and slows the recovery,” said Jim Parrott, who until January was the senior adviser on housing for the White House’s National Economic Council.

(...)

Deciding which borrowers get loans might seem like something that should be left up to the private market. But since the financial crisis in 2008, the government has shaped most of the housing market, insuring between 80 percent and 90 percent of all new loans, according to the industry publication Inside Mortgage Finance. It has done so primarily through the Federal Housing Administration, which is part of the executive branch, and taxpayer-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, run by an independent regulator.

The FHA historically has been dedicated to making homeownership affordable for people of moderate means. Under FHA terms, a borrower can get a home loan with a credit score as low as 500 or a down payment as small as 3.5 percent (http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=10-29ml.pdf). If borrowers with FHA loans default on their payments, taxpayers are on the line — a guarantee that should provide confidence to banks to lend.

But banks are largely rejecting the lower end of the scale, and the average credit score on FHA loans has stood at about 700. After years of intensifying investigations into wrongdoing in mortgage lending, banks are concerned that they will be held responsible if borrowers cannot pay. Under some circumstances, the FHA can retract its insurance or take other legal action to penalize banks when loans default.




Since 2008, Banks have been exceedingly cautious, refusing to lend to borrowers which are very acceptable credit risks, which slows down the recovery. That is all we are talking about, not a return to the pre-2008 "wild west" days.

[Skybird]

We are talking about politicians telling banks not to be so cautious anymore in giving credits to untrustworthy people, but encouraging banks to take higher risks again so that people who cannot afford their own home nevertheless buy one - on tick. The reference to the past trustworthy creditscore from before the crisis - obviously was not good enough to not trigger the crisis. How one can conclude from that that it was a trustworthy standard for credit decisions then, escapes me. The outcome showed that it was not.

Same kind of credit bubble generating. Same procedure as before - just with even more devalued paper-money flying around, and an even bigger state debt.

It will blow up into people's faces once again in some years.

[Bilge_Rat]

well again, it is a question of whether you do not like government intervention per se or you are just worried that they will go too far.

A first time homeowner with a credit rating of 620-650 or more out of 800 is very credit-worthy.

Problem is Banks only want to lend to rich people. The US government pumped $800 billion into Banks not only to keep them solvent, but also so they would lend out funds and get the economy moving. They conveniently forget the second part.

There is nothing wrong per se with government backed loans to first time homeowners. Canada will garantee home loans which meet certain financial criterias as long as the buyer can come up with a 5% down payment. Most first time buyers use such loans. Yet Canada avoided the worst effects of the 2008 recession, the Canadian government did not pump one single cent into Canadian banks and the Canadian Housing market is doing pretty good.

Like everything else, the devil is in the details. :ping:

[AVGWarhawk]

As a person who has just closed on a new home, the banks are quite aggressive at investigating every aspect of ones financial standings. Good credit must come along with a good source of income. I had to explain every deposit into my checking and savings accounts. Not just once, but over three month period, once each month.

I can say, they are in fact practicing the same old stunts that produced the bubble burst. The banks still advise what one can afford month to month as far as a mortgage. I had found that what was suggest is not remotely close to the reality of my financial situation. Unless one does not pay insurances, water, electric, TV/cable or buy grocery then what is suggested is affordable is correct. If anyone does buy the services I stated, plus eat, then what the banks suggest is off the mark. The banks also base an affordable mortgage payment on gross income and not actual(net). This my friends is totally deceptive. A practice that needs to stop. They attempted to pull this on me. I was livid. The banks knowingly promote the gross income as the figure to work with than using net which is the correct way. I was told this is standard practice and set up by the Feds as the way to determine what one can afford.

[Skybird]

I am against credit-run consummation in principle. Keynesian economics to me makes no sense, and are dangerous, because they encourage the corruption of fiscal discipline, they also distort what as an ideal is described as the so-called "free market".

Government should not intervene in private trades between private people.

For German readers, I recommend this book (http://www.amazon.de/Der-größte-Raubzug-Geschichte-Fleißigen/dp/382882949X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365444476&sr=8-1&keywords=der+gr%C3%B6%C3%9Fte+raubzug+aller+zeiten ) on the desaster of the past 5 years unfolding, revisited in super slow-motion.

The best book I ever have read on what money is and what it really means, probably is this (http://www.amazon.com/What-Has-Government-Done-Money/dp/146997178X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1365444556&sr=8-4&keywords=rothbard) (English version). It is also available in German (http://www.amazon.de/Das-Schein-Geld-System-Staat-unser-zerstört/dp/3930039729/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365444639&sr=1-1&keywords=rothbard).

[mookiemookie]

but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

Except that's not what caused it. Rampant deregulation, irresponsible securitization and poor decision making by the Fed is what caused it.

[frau kaleun]

The banks still advise what one can afford month to month as far as a mortgage. I had found that what was suggest is not remotely close to the reality of my financial situation. Unless one does not pay insurances, water, electric, TV/cable or buy grocery then what is suggested is affordable is correct. If anyone does buy the services I stated, plus eat, then what the banks suggest is off the mark. The banks also base an affordable mortgage payment on gross income and not actual(net).

Yup. When I used one of their little "calculators" to show me what I could "afford" in a house payment, the number was quite astonishing. Especially since I could easily do the math and deduct it from what I actually bring home every month, then deduct all my other bills and typical living expenses, and see what was left over. :huh:

I guess if you never wanted to put any money in savings, take a vacation, or repair or replace anything you own that breaks, or actually furnish that nice big expensive home you just bought, it would be fine. But that doesn't sound like much fun over the long haul. :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

Except that's not what caused it. Rampant deregulation, irresponsible securitization and poor decision making by the Fed is what caused it.

And offering up a loan to anyone with a pulse. :88) To me, it was one big cash grab by realtors, banks and mortgage brokers. Why not? It is all backed by the government.

[Bilge_Rat]

I am against credit-run consummation in principle. Keynesian economics to me makes no sense, and are dangerous, because they encourage the corruption of fiscal discipline, they also distort what as an ideal is described as the so-called "free market".

Government should not intervene in private trades between private people.



Being a capitalist myself, I agree in principle. However, unregulated capitalism gave us the excesses of the 19th century leading up to the great depression of 1929. The Free Market has never really been Free or worked as well as it should in theory.

Governement regulation is necessary to temper the excesses of the "Free market". The trick is always how much regulation is not enough or too much.

If you look at the '29 depression, what really made it bad was when all the Banks started going bankrupt in the early 30s. What would the world economy look like now if the US had not put any money in its banks in 08 and let the "Free market" drag down a chunk of the banking sector? better? worse?

[Skybird]

Being a capitalist myself, I agree in principle. However, unregulated capitalism gave us the excesses of the 19th century leading up to the great depression of 1929. The Free Market has never really been Free or worked as well as it should in theory.

Government regulation is necessary to temper the excesses of the "Free market". The trick is always how much regulation is not enough or too much.

If you look at the '29 depression, what really made it bad was when all the Banks started going bankrupt in the early 30s. What would the world economy look like now if the US had not put any money in its banks in 08 and let the "Free market" drag down a chunk of the banking sector? better? worse?
The government is a territorial monopolist itself, having the power to steal from everybody and declaring that robbery legal: it not only steals private property, but also makes the laws and decides how much should be stolen (taxes). In a democratic system, only those leaders make it to the top that lure and deceive the ,masses more successfully: by making big promises and using the loot to bribe them. This is what makes this a socialist redistribution scheme from those owning to those owning not. And worse, the need for competing in elections is what makes sure that those being the most competent in showing these character traits of anti-social and amoral standard and unscrupulousness make it to the top, while those being more ethically and realistically and shy away from winning by telling lies, cannot succeed. The system guarantees that only the amoral scum becomes leaders, and that is what we see everywhere happening. The democratic competition is not about competence and morals and realism, it is about lying, deceiving, corrupting and luring. Since elected leaders do not own the communities' wealth like a king does, they only can make use of the right to use it, and producing a resulting income by that they can claim for their purposes. So their interest horizon is extremely short-sighted,m since they want to make as much profit from their position as long as they can stay in power - afterwards, the communal wealth is meaningless for them in good and in bad. Result: every politician winning elections and claiming governmental power and influential positions, abuses his power as best as he can in the time he is being given.

And that is why you should not trust in these political entities that they could cure an amok-running banking system by regulating it. They have no inrest to do so, since you cannot differ between private enterprise and its lobbies and politicians anymore. Worse is that, as somebody pout it, our states are no longer run by the law, but by lawyers, with some imagination and open mindedness one can easily imagine what is meant.

As is no secret anymore, I assume :), this is why I conclude that the existence of governments and democratic states is the real problem. With democracy, thing shave become worse than they were in feudalism before, nevertheless, feudalism also means abuse of the power and forms a territorial monopolist with the power to make laws (to which the kings often were more bound than governments are today), its just that the dimension of the abuse was smaller than it became under democratic reign.

When such a monopole for power (to make laws and to tax) is allowed, it equals blackmailing of the people to pay protection money, else... Also, like with every monopole, the services the state of this kind gives in return will become more and more expensive, while their quality becomes lower and lower. More expensive it becomes because the socialist redistribution discourages initiative and work and sense for responsibility, because property more and more becomes non-personal, but public (tax money, laws limiting your right to use your privately owned wealth), and encourages to just raise demands to the state that more and more should become the nanny for everybody. Which means more taxes. More debts being risen. Take the social systems, no matter whether the US, or Europe. We are bancrupt over them. Their services become worse and worse, but their costs become higher and higher.

So, how could one think that the state should regulate the banks, and all will become good...? The banks can only be kept in check by making communities extremely small so that the small size allows transparency for everybody regarding what is going on inside the community, and enterprises and banks must be bound in their growth to the limits of these communities, ion other words: their growth and size must be limited to a level where they cannot become powerful enough to hijack and blackmail politics and the citizens, and where transparency in their ways of doing still can be guaranteed.

Not regulation by governments. Governments are the worst criminals and evil-doers of them all. Limiting community sizes and hard-linking business dimension to community dimensions - that is what it is about. Scrap that globalization madness, it is suicide by megalomania. Instead: regional, self-sustaining small economies. Interregional trade where it is needed to bridge shortcomings in items and resources only. As few traders in the middle as possible, best would be to trade directly from seller to buyer, without agents in between. That also would do wonders for the environment! Of course, this also says goodbye to the infinite-growth paradigm of so many politicians and economists. I never believed that you can have infinite growth in a physically limited environment.

Hard to achieve, I am realistic: I think it will not happen. Nevertheless, this is the way if one wants a real longtime solution that holds some reasonable hope for standing the test of longer times than just three decades or so. But it will not be done like this. And that si why I am convinced we are heading for disaster: total collapse.

[AVGWarhawk]

Skybird:
The government is a territorial monopolist itself, having the power to steal from everybody and declaring that robbery legal: it not only steals private property, but also makes the laws and decides how much should be stolen (taxes).

I think you have defined it quite well here. :up:

[Skybird]

Skybird:


I think you have defined it quite well here. :up:
Cannot claim the score for myself, I admit. Others were earlier.

[August]

Skybird:


I think you have defined it quite well here. :up:

He starts out well enough but then goes off on some unworkable utopian tangent of self sustainable communities that totally ignores both human nature and history.

[yubba]

I thought it would be fun to channell Marget Thatcher through Jeff Foxworthy, you might be a socialist if,,,,You believe in Santa Claus more than hardwork,, you might be a socialist if you believe that your neighbor isn't paying his fare share into your retirement. or you wanted to join the occupy movement but was too lazy to get off the couch..

[Tchocky]

Result: every politician winning elections and claiming governmental power and influential positions, abuses his power as best as he can in the time he is being given.

And that is why you should not trust in these political entities that they could cure an amok-running banking system by regulating it. They have no inrest to do so, since you cannot differ between private enterprise and its lobbies and politicians anymore. Cynicism is healthy to an extent. What's unhealthy is a pathological mistrust in everything, rooted in blind faith of the general horridness of people.

Worse is that, as somebody pout it, our states are no longer run by the law, but by lawyers, with some imagination and open mindedness one can easily imagine what is meant. No, that's a lazy and meaningless parrallelism that ignores reality in order to sound clever. Our societies are numerous and complex. Law by it's definition is always going to be as complex as those who are governed by that law. Hence lawyers. I don't see "lawyer" as a dirty word, I see it as a profession that serves a purpose.

As is no secret anymore, I assume :), this is why I conclude that the existence of governments and democratic states is the real problem. With democracy, thing shave become worse than they were in feudalism before, nevertheless, feudalism also means abuse of the power and forms a territorial monopolist with the power to make laws (to which the kings often were more bound than governments are today), its just that the dimension of the abuse was smaller than it became under democratic reign. If you keep throwing these absolutes around you'll do yourself an injury.

[Skybird]

Someone reacting sensible to me slaughtering the golden cow, hm? Democracy? Law and order?

Don't worry about me injuring myself, last year I dived into the work of Carl Menger and Murray Rothbard, also Hans Herrmann Hoppe, just recently I embarked on the works by von Mises, von Bawerk and earlier this year Kühnelt-Leddhin und Roland Baader, so I am in very good and prominent company and have plenty of intellectual support in arguments and reasoning.

Thus my views on democracy being anything but a favourable form of government (a view widespread and almost commonly agreed on until just 100-130 years ago), and my critical view of our law-and-order system having been terribly perverted, abused, hijacked and thus: failing. when in the US the number of regulations from the early 90s to the first decade of this millenia multiply by a factor of almost 200, then this can hardly be explained by "reflecting complx needs of the real world". It simply is a system that runs amok. The EU and Euro history also are prime examples for it: a series of betrayals, treaty violations, law violations, intentionally misleading lies, ignored criterions and arbitrary decisions made for reason of ultra-short-sighted opportunism without any strategic perspective. All legal rules designed for and during the Euro to design and regulate it: ALL of them have been broken until now. ALL of them. Not much better the relation of the EU bodies to the national states and parliaments, and the power accumulation and the way it is being enforced.

Why politicians do so, and have no reason to act any different, the above mentioned authors explain reasonably, logically and rationally. It is ion their ver yown most prominent interest to act irresponsibly and short-sighted. And history proves these authors right. Beside that, it makes sense and is perfectly rational and reasonable what they say. It is in perfect congruence with reality.

I have summarised it, at least tried to, several times now in postings of the past 3 or 4 weeks. Many have ridiculed the reasons and arguments, laughed about them.

Just being able to actually prove them wrong - nobody was. The golden cow democracy is untouchable. It must not be rechecked. It must not have questions asked about it. It must stand untouchable. Ha! Me - not touching something claimed holy but falling in paralysis in reverence, allowing to get awestruck...? You met the wrong man, brother. I shatter what is claimed holy and then search the pieces for what makes it holy. Never found anything, though.

I recommend to pick some books by the authors above. Of course, my favourite is Hoppe, since he includes the others and founds on their works - and then goes beyond them and leads it even further.

I could also give links for essays, but as to be expected, I prefer to read stuff in German, so German essays linked en masse probably are not welcomed here. So just three links to two German and one English collections of materials.

http://wertewirtschaft.org/analysen/ (German)
Here I especially point out Rahim Tagizadeghan, who has become a favourite scholar of mine recently. Especially his piece on the historical origins of democracy should be an eye-opener for everybody thinking of it as the the best, the greatest, the finest. It isn't.

http://www.misesde.org/?page_id=3064 (German)
Here I recommend the works of Baader, Hoppe, Hülsmann, Mises, Rothbard, and again Tagizadeghan.

http://mises.org/Literature/Authors (English)
The names already mentioned, and probably many more - I have looked in this collection only those names I already knew. As I said, of course I prefer to read in German.

Edit 15-04-2012:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe-arch.html
Another collection of links to mostkly shorter, English essays and articles by Hoppe

[Oberon]

I thought it would be fun to channell Marget Thatcher through Jeff Foxworthy, you might be a socialist if,,,,You believe in Santa Claus more than hardwork,, you might be a socialist if you believe that your neighbor isn't paying his fare share into your retirement. or you wanted to join the occupy movement but was too lazy to get off the couch..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINZBOxdja8

[yubba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINZBOxdja8
that's funny Howed I miss that,,,?? I got too get out more.

[Skybird]

This just to add another link to a collection of - mostly shorter - English articles and essays by Hoppe:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe-arch.html

[Hitman]

Thus my views on democracy being anything but a favourable form of government (a view widespread and almost commonly agreed on until just 100-130 years ago), and my critical view of our law-and-order system having been terribly perverted, abused, hijacked and thus: failing. when in the US the number of regulations from the early 90s to the first decade of this millenia multiply by a factor of almost 200, then this can hardly be explained by "reflecting complx needs of the real world". It simply is a system that runs amok. The EU and Euro history also are prime examples for it: a series of betrayals, treaty violations, law violations, intentionally misleading lies, ignored criterions and arbitrary decisions made for reason of ultra-short-sighted opportunism without any strategic perspective. All legal rules designed for and during the Euro to design and regulate it: ALL of them have been broken until now. ALL of them. Not much better the relation of the EU bodies to the national states and parliaments, and the power accumulation and the way it is being enforced.

I'm actually surprised that anyone has ever thought that democracy (No matter what you think of the concept itself) has ever even existed. It never has, it has always been a curtain hiding different ways of the same economic/politic powers to hide and disguise themselves. Many people have been tricked by the illusion that powerful people come and go (Blue blooded are no longer powerful, bankers now are, etc) but ignore the fact that there is ALWAYS a concentration of power in a small club, exercised in his own benefit and to the detriment of the vast majority. Not that the majority is always in a position to really know what is best for them, but in any case the governing elites are also not interested in that.

Democracy is the disguise the elite uses in our days to preserve itself and give ordinary people the illusion of being free. Mortgages have replaced feudal servitude as retaining chain, and you can vote each four years the color of the marionettes the elites put to protect them. But that's all.

[Bilge_Rat]

.

I have summarised it, at least tried to, several times now in postings of the past 3 or 4 weeks. Many have ridiculed the reasons and arguments, laughed about them.

Just being able to actually prove them wrong - nobody was. The golden cow democracy is untouchable. It must not be rechecked. It must not have questions asked about it. It must stand untouchable. Ha! Me - not touching something claimed holy but falling in paralysis in reverence, allowing to get awestruck...? You met the wrong man, brother. I shatter what is claimed holy and then search the pieces for what makes it holy. Never found anything, though.

I recommend to pick some books by the authors above. Of course, my favourite is Hoppe, since he includes the others and founds on their works - and then goes beyond them and leads it even further.




That is not really the issue, the liberal-democratic State which currently exist in USA, Canada, UK, Germany, et al. are far from perfect, but there is no practical alternative.

Hoppe's theories are utopic.

[Skybird]

@ Hitman & BilgeRat,

Hoppe'S criticism of democracy is very specific, and I challenge anyone to prove wrong the reasonable principles and the logic in his thinking. That I want to see!

Also, his is no arguing that democracy is hijacked (that can be additionally the case, but it plays no role). He nails down very precisely (and one could say: without mercy) why democracy even in the most ideal incarnation of it must and will fail, and that is not due to a distortion, or a hijacking, but that is due to the very basic principles by which it is running. The very design if flawed from the starting line on, and rewards the worst politics and politicians, while making it almost impossible for those of higher human(e) qualities to come to power and infleunce. Of use it can be only in the smallest of imaginable communal contexts. And we do not even talk of a communal context the size of a city with thousands of people living there - smaller! Beyond that scaling, democracy is a mess, and always must be a mess. Like an orb always is round.

The good name for democracy is a relatively new thing, and for most of history back until the ancient Greek it was despised and warned of - the Greeks deeply struggled to avoid it. Even the founding fathers of the US did not want it, and not before the civil war it was nevertheless enforced - with all the negative consequences from it that had been feared in the centuries before - and that indeed then became all true.

Show the basic reasoning in Hoppe's very precise arguments being wrong. Just saying a common place like "we have nothing better", is not good enough. There is a reason why he is seen as a forthinker who has gone even beyond the great names of modern real libertarianism, Mises and Rothbard. I can see all his points and arguments being perfectly and flawlessly illustrated by the way in which the EU behaves and unfolds, and the US as well. His points are being shown true. They illustrate point by point how right he is.

I recommend to read his main work, "Democracy-The god that never was". Or to pick the many essays and articles that I have linked to here and in other threads over the past 2 or 3 weeks. The book is 14 chapters, each saying in principle the same, but every one concentrating on a slightly different focus and point of interest. So, while it repeats certain basics several times, you nevertheless can easily learn them that way right because they are repeated. The chapters in principle form independent essays that could also be given one by one, each one for itself, well, at leats most of them. That is why it is like this.

Whether his offered alternative model would and could work, is open for discussion, and I am cautious on that aspect of his work. So is Hoppe himself: he says in the book at at least two occasions, and in open words, that he sees no reason to be optimistic and that he thinks it all will go down the drain, democratically of course. The man is no dreamer.

On the German book market, recently authors from sometimes very different fields and directions support Hoppe's basic logic, and illustrate it with a plethora of examples from contemporary reality, sometimes from fields close to politics and economics, sometimes from some greater distance or from arguing in wider cultural contexts. Recently published names to mention would be Thomas Rietzschel, Frank Karsten and Karel Baumann , Christian Ortner, Roland Baader, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Rahim Taghizadegan.

As I see it today, democracy is the biggest self-deception the ordinary people, we all allow us to reign our fates. It is the illusion of that we are reasonable and make reasonable decision that reflect both the immediate moment and the distant future. By that illusion we try to ennoble ourselves as mentally sane, reasonable beings. But in democracy, not only are their bad politicians, there is also the crowd that brings them to power. There are no victims, there are only accomplices in crime. And we all want to have a party while it lasts, and we do not care that we destroy the future over it. That is all what democracy is about. It encourages and brings out the worst in man. One can see that when having become familiar with the reasoning behind Hoppe's arguments. Democracy allows people to demand more than the community can afford, and it always leads to socialism and in the end communism. It necessarily must lead into total and complete collapse, inevitably.

We see it happening right now. For exactly the outlaid reasons. That the process takes years and decades, does only mean that it is slow for our perception . For history, it goes quite fast.

[AndyJWest]

Hoppes's criticism of democracy is complete and utter garbage. It rest entirely on the premise that everyone is more stupid or deluded than Hoppe. Though it may well be true in some cases (yours), it clearly isn't the general rule - I for one can see vacuous utopian drivel when I see it. Find another forum to promote this loon.

[Sailor Steve]

(yours)...Find another forum to promote this loon.
The rest of your post was fine, but direct insults and telling people to "take it somewhere else" are strictly not allowed. Call this an informal warning.

[Armistead]

Democracy is a great 3/4 mile race horse on a 1 mile track..

[Hitman]

The very design if flawed from the starting line on, and rewards the worst politics and politicians, while making it almost impossible for those of higher human(e) qualities to come to power and infleunce

I agree with with that mostly, though I'd complete it with an idea that the greeks already suggested: A democracy is only as good or as bad as the society that enforces it. If you have the average society with a majority of idiots, uneducated, irrespectful, etc, then the resulting democracy is at that level. Of course a democracy composed of a handful of intellectual and reasonable people would work marvels, but that will not happen. It won't because sadly societies are not like that because of a basic antropologic reason, namely in social groups of animals there is hierarchy and a majority must be idiot to be manipulated and sacrificed in benefit of the continuity of the species (Think of any animal species organized in communities and you will see hierarchy and some dying for the others). Nature ensures thus that there is ample supply of idiots, and the clever/powerful elite do the rest by using it for their own convenience. Giving theoretical equal power of decission to the idiots is of course a flawed way of handling things, but it seems to be the only one that will keep them happy and cheated to continue being sacrificed and working instead of mounting guillotines in he champs Eliseès.

Further (short) reading on what the greeks diagnosed already centuries ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyklos

[AndyJWest]

sadly societies are not like that because of a basic antropologic reason, namely in social groups of animals there is hierarchy and a majority must be idiot to be manipulated and sacrificed in benefit of the continuity of the species

I don't know where you got that idea from - but it has nothing to do with anthropology (I have a degree in the subject).

[Hitman]

Your right should have probably said biological :hmm2:

[Skybird]

I agree with with that mostly, though I'd complete it with an idea that the greeks already suggested: A democracy is only as good or as bad as the society that enforces it. If you have the average society with a majority of idiots, uneducated, irrespectful, etc, then the resulting democracy is at that level. Of course a democracy composed of a handful of intellectual and reasonable people would work marvels, but that will not happen. It won't because sadly societies are not like that because of a basic antropologic reason, namely in social groups of animals there is hierarchy and a majority must be idiot to be manipulated and sacrificed in benefit of the continuity of the species (Think of any animal species organized in communities and you will see hierarchy and some dying for the others). Nature ensures thus that there is ample supply of idiots, and the clever/powerful elite do the rest by using it for their own convenience. Giving theoretical equal power of decission to the idiots is of course a flawed way of handling things, but it seems to be the only one that will keep them happy and cheated to continue being sacrificed and working instead of mounting guillotines in he champs Eliseès.

Further (short) reading on what the greeks diagnosed already centuries ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyklos

The Greek had no illusions about democracy. They favoured a small social elite that was about 5% - maximum 15% of the total population to be allowed in assemblies to vote on issues that affected the community. These 10% must have been male, they must have been rich and materially contributing to the community, they must have believed in the gods and they must have honoured their parents and forefathers and honour the rites by which the dead forefathers got honoured. Especially the latter was very important and was called into examination not rarely when a new young man demanded access to the assembly. These people were what constittues the citizens of the community. The others - wqere of lesser social value than citizens.

In ancient Greece, the "demos" originally meant a small village, and later, the "deme" was the smallest local administration cell (surprise, surprise: again the reference to having communities as small as possible!). The "demos" was not the totality of the whole population. At that time, the governing inside the demos meant the self-governing of the "citizen". But the citizens were an elite that was discriminated against the ordinary population. the term "citizen" originally refered to an organise band of armed men - a small military unit, ion other words. Men who served under arms, were free people and were citizens, whereas unfree people - most of the population - were forbidden to carry arms or to gain access to the governing assembly.

So, where "democracy" was meant at those time sin a positive context, it meant something like the self-governing of small administrative entities like a small city, and a criterion was that from the top of the hill where the assembly met, all of the country and community being governed must have been in view, and places that laid beyond that viewing range could not be claimed to be part of this community. In these assemblies, orthodoxy and conservatism were demanded and defended to protect culture, identity and rites, and the way this elite was identified could only be described as being aristocratic.

Rahim Taghizadegan mentiones also this nice little detail: the realm of public affairs, in whose governing the citizens (the free, arms-carrying men) were not only allowed but were expected to participate and take up responsibility, was called "demosios". On the other side, there was the "idios", the sphere of privacy, private household, the non-public life behind the walls and doors of your home. This was seen in a negative, disadvantaged connotation, because the idiot was a poor dog or a fool or an unfree man who had to do the work in the household or his job and had no time and no inspiration to make an engagement for public issues, he lacked the educaiton for that as well, and finally was not allowed to do that. Thus our modern negative understanding of the term "idiot". Taghizadegan points out that this discriminatory weighing was necessary and understanding, because the private household - the "oikos" - was holy and untouchable (protected private property as well, not that carrictature of property protection we have today), whereas to safeguard the common good and a solid living basis for all the community - the "polis" -, public engagement was necessary as well. To engage yourself in the public part of the demosios was needed and encouraged and thus was seen positive, compared to somebody just withdrawing into the privacy of his own life in his home where he could not be of any use for the common good.

So, with this idea of aristocracy, there als came an udnerstanding of that the aristi8cracy had to accept the respnsibility coming with the privileged status. There also was the udnerstanding that not everybody had what it takes to be part of that elite. Those without having own investements at risk (the ordinary man, the unfree, the slaves, the poor) were excluded from decision making so that they could not make decisions that would redistrubute welkath that was not theirs into their pockets (I cut it very sort, you get the point, I hope). Also there was understanding that not every stranger of wealth could be allowed into the aristocracy if he did not accept and integrate into the cultural rules, because that would destroy the cultural identity of the whole polis. And finally there was understanding of the need that those wanting to decide needed to be of the education standards to be able to decide, while it would be a great danger if just any imbecile dumbhead, who had his intellectuality from counting flies in the streets, were allowed to effect the future of the polis. I recommend Christian Ortner's very entertaining, but precisely diagnosing "Prolokratie. Demokratisch in die Pleite" (in German) on especially this problem that is haunting modern democracies so very much: it is one of my prime arguments against a general right to vote in political elections.

The Romans followed that separation between aristocratic public life and idiotic private life, calling them "res publica" and "res privata". "SPQR" in the legions' emblems indicated the identity of the army and the senate - the citizens (free, carrying arms, male) and the political privilege to participate in governing. While senators and legionaires were not one and the same person, that the soldiers were speaking for the senate was implied. IOn modern times, some fascists argued and still argue that only those who have served in the army, are real citizens and should have full rights to civil rights and offices of political power.

You see, democracy is a highly discriminatory (and to some degree even intolerant) affair. It refers to self-governing local communities of very small size that function feudalistic-aristocratic, are hierarchically structured, and where the majority principle - that today we mistake to be the most important feature of democracy - oinly is used in the giovenrign assembly of the full citizen's elite.

In other words, today'S modern understanding of "democracy" is a distortion that has little to do with the original meaning of it. When the Greek city states grew in size and corrupotion blossomed as a side effect from that, democracy was made available to the wqide oublic, the citizenship was opened for access for more non-elitarist people, and there it all started to go down the drain. From that time on, "democracy" became synonymous with the "tyranny of the majority" , the "dictatorship of the canaille". It then was seen as something that was to be avoided, at all cost.

Max Weber's phrase "Dilettantenverwaltung durch Beutepolitiker" (=dilletantic administration by predatory politicians) describes it quite well. Why that necessarily always will be the result, both for human and practical reasons, is analysed and diagnosed by Hoppe in compelling precision and logic. If you use his model of arguments to describe the EU or the US, you will see how very very right he is in his descriptions of symptoms and predictions of what will come at the next lower level of the drain.

Originally an economist, he also has correctly predicted the reasons for and the outbreak of the financial crisis 2007/2008 - more than 10 years in advance. He also has published huge amounts of comparing studies relating capitalistic and socialistic economy models. But I have not dealt with these separate publications in detail - too specific for my needs and interests. the general summary I got in his more general essays and the democracy book serves well enough for me.

A last note by me, because it comes to my mind right now: even if the population is well-educated, that does not mean that people make decisions on the grounds of reason and ratio. Their preference will still be to value the immediate present and near future over the distant future, and the greater a group, the lower the groups' mean IQ. Psychological variables that have nothing to do with honesty, nobleness and qualification, will still determine the outcome of candidate elections in public majority votings. Hoppe even explains why in our understanding of democracy, necessarily candidates of low humane value and integrity come to power and rise in the hierarchy, while those speaking the truth and doing accordingly will remain non-influential and unimportant for the most. Where as in an feudal system or an aristocracy, you have at least the chance that somebody will get prepared well for his later duties and by chance also is an honest character, and thus will take his post as a qualified and serious commander, in our modern democracy such candidates get filtered out and it is made impossible that such people come to power in high offices - we see that in elections throughout the Western world: we always get the bigmouths, the liars, the cheaters, the blenders, at best the disappoint, but often they act really criminally and irresponsibly. And even this gets rationally explained by Hoppe as part of the logical interest that leaders must have in a modern democratic system (different to a feudal system). The system makes sure that only a certain type of character can successfully advance in the political hierarchies - and that character is described not by the noble and rational, but the low, anti-social, bad features of humanity.

[AndyJWest]

Your right should have probably said biological :hmm2:

That would be wrong too...

[Bilge_Rat]

again Skybird, you love to make long posts, but what is the practical alternative to the liberal-democratic state?

[AndyJWest]

again Skybird, you love to make long posts, but what is the practical alternative to the liberal-democratic state?

Hoppe's utopia, where everyone is happy - because anyone who isn't happy in Hoppe's utopia gets shot...

[Méo]

again Skybird, you love to make long posts

The question is... is it worth the read :06:

[Platapus]

The question is... is it worth the read :06:

For the Civ 4 fans

True glory consists in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read. - Pliny the Elder (when he was younger)

[u crank]

Hoppe's utopia, where everyone is happy - because anyone who isn't happy in Hoppe's utopia gets shot...

:har: :yep:

[Skybird]

Hoppe's utopia, where everyone is happy - because anyone who isn't happy in Hoppe's utopia gets shot...

Bull****. Why are people producing such quality posts when they are bored...

[Skybird]

again Skybird, you love to make long posts, but what is the practical alternative to the liberal-democratic state?

I have tried to summarise some featues of his idea several times now. But better: I have posted four links (repeatedly) that lead to two English and two German collections with links to texts by him. Why do you not use them?

Due to the MBAM meltdown I am affected by, I type uncomfortably currently from a laptop and being busy with monitoring the main system's repair, so if tomorrow you still want another long text by me, you have to wait a bit until I'm done with the system here.

Keywords are: secession, local independence and seölf-governing, private law ruling people' interactions, insurance companies providing seucirty, return of real-value money instead of toilet paper, no state-no government. But that are headlines only. And for the moment I leave it to this. I gave mre details before.

[Skybird]

BilgeRat,

this 19 pages essay on security production

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf

And this list with links to smaller texts by Hoppe (sometimes from his books) that you can pick and try by their headlines.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe-arch.html

And here, you can get whole complete books as pdf, free:

http://mises.org/Literature/Author/164/HansHermann-Hoppe

Since it is inevitable that any better future must include a correction of our perverted concept of money (which is pretty much non-money as a matter of fact), I again also link this little gem by Rothbard on what money is, and how the government destroyed it:

http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/What%20Has%20Government%20Done%20to%20Our%20Money. pdf

If you think that is no answer to your question on thre future, you better think twice. Its all about money. Without money, no trade, without trade no civilization.

http://mises.org/Literature/Author/299/Murray-N-Rothbard

Copy and paste the links into your browser's adress line, if the linking does not work. Possible that my settings are preventing directg linking.

[AndyJWest]

this 19 pages essay on security production

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf

LOL! Do away with the state, and replace it with 'insurance companies' who provide 'security'. Yup, a protection racket as an alternative form of, um, 'protection'. Some utopia... Actually, reading that article, I can't help wondering if Hoppe is perpetuating a hoax.

[Hitman]

The question is... is it worth the read :06:

It certainly is, even if you disagree with it. His posts are always well reasoned and founded, and at least can get you thinking of new aspects of the matter you had overlooked. We will never have the absolute and perfect knowledge, but we should at least have a desire to learn and think, constantly revising and putting our own wisdom to proof.

The lengthy and detailed explanation Skybird gives about greek democracy is in fact in line with what I had said, only I have less time to post and develop the idea. When I said that greeks considered that a democracy is only as good as the people who take part in it, I meant that this is the reason why they didn't allow everybody in (BTW one aditional reasom why only wealthy people where let in is because they could respond with their wealth in case they caused damage with wrong decissions). The moment they did, it all went down because of the X reason (Make X what you deem more correct Andy :O:) that cause the society to have a larger amount of people unable to correctly decide what is better for the community. Like he says here: the greater a group, the lower the groups' mean IQ

Where as in an feudal system or an aristocracy, you have at least the chance that somebody will get prepared well for his later duties and by chance also is an honest character, and thus will take his post as a qualified and serious commander, in our modern democracy such candidates get filtered out and it is made impossible that such people come to power in high offices - we see that in elections throughout the Western world

We have certainly have some examples of that in history, Marco Aurelio comes to mind for Rome. Sadly we have way more examples of the opposite, and I would risk saying that any dictatorshiop that is not inherited offsets the chances of someone like that coming up. You can have by genetic chance a good ruler; but it is almost impossible that someone who becomes a dictator by the use of force and/or politics is actually the ideal person.

"SPQR" in the legions' emblems indicated the identity of the army and the senate - the citizens (free, carrying arms, male) and the political privilege to participate in governing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Senatus Populusque Romanus" meant the alliance between senate (which essentially represented the blue blooded in the first ages) and the free citizen. It was a somehow primitive but effective "social contract" between classes long before the state and Rousseau's concept appeared. Rome was thus integrated by both, acting in alliance together.

again Skybird, you love to make long posts, but what is the practical alternative to the liberal-democratic state?

Yep, that's the million-dollar question :) Even if I agree with the most caustic critic of the contemporary democracy, and in particular of the vices it will necessary generate, it is hard to think of an alternative system. Of course ideally a benevolent dictatorship by the perfect, illustrated, moderate person would be the answer, but besides the problem of finding him/her ... who decides he shall rule? The population? An elite?
Again we find the problem of "electing", which means we turn full circle into the arms of the democracy vices again.

Diagnosing a problem and finding a solution are certainly very different things :hmmm:

[Skybird]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Senatus Populusque Romanus" meant the alliance between senate (which essentially represented the blue blooded in the first ages) and the free citizen. It was a somehow primitive but effective "social contract" between classes long before the state and Rousseau's concept appeared. Rome was thus integrated by both, acting in alliance together.

Yes. I just pointed at the origin of the meaning of the word "people" and "citizen". Originally a "people" were an organised band of free man carrying weapons - soldiers in small units, that is. Free and full-righted citizens were not just everybody.

As I said, only 5-15% of the population in an ancient Greek polis were considered to be "citizens".

[Skybird]

Hoppe often calls his idea for the future (of which he also says he is realistic enough to see that people will reject it since democracy is in their minds) natural order.

Natural order is what has run human interactions for the most of mankind'S time. It means direct trading between two private people who exchange items, because what you give away you value as lesser than what you negotiated to get in return. The other side sees it the same way, just it'S value-attribution is just 180° around.

Over time, the limits of this scheme became apparent, when you were dealing with trading items that could not be split in their value, hindering you from giving them to get something you wanted, but was of much lesser value. Like a barn for a can of milk, for example. Production cycles and trading schemes of higher complexity and order are not possible, and so civilizational development is not possible, because everybody is limited to what he can achieve with just his very own hands. You can do the work on a field that way. But you cannot build cathedrals over several centuries.

So people found that using intermediate trading items did the trick. You exchanged your one huge value item not for what you finally wanted to get, but for different items of smaller values, but in bigger quantities. These then were used to be trade for the final objects of desire.

Important for this was that these tool-items were available easily on the market of traders. In past times, it was salt, or tobacco. Rare furs. Then it became teeth by precious or rare or dangerous animals. Or snailS' houses or seashells that were collected on a line and were used like coins "on" a purse". Later, silver and gold became the most popular item for trading, because no matter whether you formed it in bars or coins or necklaces, the value is according to its weight, and thus the value does not change no matter in what form it is traded. So: money is nothing special: it is just like any other trading item, and it has a material value in itself. The latter is what makes todays paper FIAT money completely different from money founded on a gold standard. A state or a central bank cannot make real money. It cannot priodcue it by just printing it. Money - real money - is exclusively appearing from and on the free market, by being an ordinary trading good in demand. And that is also part of the natural order. Free tgrade between two free idnioviduals that negiatiate the conditions of their deal freely. Money being an freeely traded trading good only. No state needed. Especially no authority usurping authority that originally it does not have, and demands only to justify its own useless existence.

You do not need a state to oversee such trading, nor do you need a state to monitor the develoepment of currency value, to add money to the market, to put a foot on the brake, or whatever. In the past, coin-makers were private people. And the system worked. It worked much better than the sh!t we have today, this govenrment-created paper-ticket stuff that is no value money, but is just a debt bond without guarantee that you will get something for it - you are completely depending on the good will of the other owing you something when you want to trade your bond for a material value. If the other says No, there is nothingn you can do about it, your money is worthless then. Cannot happen with gold and silver coins - these are material value money.

It is argued that the only function of the state should be to service trade by protecting it against (criminal and military) aggressors and guaranteeing the right to hold private property. I have in an earlier post summarised how an insurance system providing both legal mediation and military protection services for a fee would both produce better quality in security services at lesser bureaucracy and lower costs than the state. The state as a territorial monopolist steals private wealth (taxes), legalises the crime (law-making) and does a poorer and poorer job in legal and policing services. Like any monopolist you see the porices going up with the quality offered declining. I must not explain that once again, even less so when some of the essay I lined explain it much better than I could in some lines. I think the model is worth to be given a try. It cannot become any worse than the mess we have now.

There are many implications and details that Hoppe adresses as well, one can get them when reading him a bit, many of them are vital elements to be considered: the need to cap undiscriminating migration for example (the clear conclusion there is that freedom needs discrimination), and what that has to do with street-building and access of owners to their property - and access by the state to their property. It cannot be my duty or interest to repeat them in same detail when it all is available, for free. Where question arise, I can try to answer them within the standards of a forum entry. For more specific stuff, read the man himself. I said it before, and say it again: Hoppe to me is best where he attacks, where he establishes the diagnosis of the many bad things and what goes wrong, and where he demonstrates why they necessarily MUST go wrong in a democratic system. Here he is feared because he is hard to be shown wrong. The alternative he offers is unusual, maybe even contra-intuitive when looking at it from a socialist or democratic perspective. But it makes sense when putting it all together. There are criterions though that must be met: self-governing communities must stay small (city states for example), and the insurance companies must be of a size where they can guarantee their services even against agressors, nevertheless they must be subjected to any mans that safeguard against them turning into monopolists themselves and erect interlocal cartels. This is the greatest trick and the most critical detail in the model.

Our governments, democratically elected, mess up things, they lie and cheat and betray and make it worse and worse. We have no reason to trust them, when considering that it is not in the politicians' interest to look into the future, to free us from this suicidal currency madness that is the basis of their own power. Hoppe shows at some opportunities that it is in the interest of today'S politicians to have instabile, critical, endangered society status - to present themselves as the shining heroes solving the issues. The evil proverb says that politicians solve problems that without them would not even exist. I agree.

We must realise that olur political system and today'S fiscal order and perverted understanding of money is the reason and cause of our problems that nothing less than threaten the existence of the Western culture itself. If we contnue to follow these, we will fall for sure. The often claimed link between democracy and prosperity, is an illusion. Not only shows the present the prospering of regions and places and economies that are not democratically governed, nor is the prospering of nations in the past correctly attributed to their claimed democratic form of government. This claim is as wrong and malicious as the claim that without the Euro there would already be war in Europe, and that the freedom after WWII was only there becasue of the EU. That are lying stinking cheating lame self-justifications only. They do not meet historic or present realities.

[Hitman]

There are several reasons why I don't think that would work, but as you say that's food for a different debate and I won't go into it here unless you want to discuss arguments. In it essence, I believe that the "state" as permanent organization is better to preserve certain interests and freedoms. How big it is, and how those called to govern it are designed is something entirely different and I agree with your critics to democracy there.

In that regard, I also agree completely with the idea of small communities being much better for everything. "Representative" government is a flawed concept in itself, and while it had to naturally appear with bigger communities, it just illustrates the fact that those bigger communities themselves are the underlying problem. Men are not designed by nature to live in such big groups. In groups, yes, in societies, yes, but not so big ones that you can't know well every other member.

[u crank]

I have in an earlier post summarised how an insurance system providing both legal mediation and military protection services for a fee would both produce better quality in security services at lesser bureaucracy and lower costs than the state.

I think the model is worth to be given a try. It cannot become any worse than the mess we have now.


Our governments, democratically elected, mess up things, they lie and cheat and betray and make it worse and worse. We have no reason to trust them,

What possible guarantee could you or Hoppe or these private insurance and military firms give that they would not be equally corrupt. And who keeps them in line?

[Bilge_Rat]

not sure the private sector does a better job:


The "Kids for cash" scandal unfolded in 2008 over judicial kickbacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kickbacks) at the Luzerne County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luzerne_County) Court of Common Pleas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Courts_of_Common_Pleas) in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkes-Barre,_Pennsylvania). Two judges, President Judge Mark Ciavarella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Ciavarella) and Senior Judge Michael Conahan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Conahan), were accused of accepting money from Robert Mericle, builder of two private, for-profit juvenile facilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_detention_center), in return for contracting with the facilities and imposing harsh sentences on juveniles brought before their courts to increase the number of inmates in the detention centers.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal#cite_note-urbina-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal#cite_note-wsj-frank-2)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

[Skybird]

What possible guarantee could you or Hoppe or these private insurance and military firms give that they would not be equally corrupt. And who keeps them in line?
I also already adressed this in an earlier posting.

In an environment where they cannot become monopolists: competition that they cannot avoid. If people are not satisfied with their services or fees, they move somewhere else or make contract with somebody else. Too bad service? The company looses customers. Same service like others, but too too expensive? They loose customers. It is in their very own interest to also contribute to an environment where the risk that they must pay out compensations or need to send their army, is getting reduced. They also have an interest to negotiate and establish standards with other companies for negotiating conflicts between customers having hired different, rivalling companies. As a matter of fact, you already have that in the insurance business today.

State governments do not have such interests, since their governments coinsit of plolticians who cannot own the public porperty, only can gain limited oppiortunity to use it for creating benefit for thmeselves. Therefore they do not really care for efficiency in their mneasures and discipline in the long run, but they care for maximising short term profit for themselves tzhat they can invest into boosting their unaffordable promises at the next elections. So, more taxes, more state income, more debts, more expenses, more bureaucracy, less efficiency in services. The carousel goes round and round on and on, and with every turn it moves faster.

[mookiemookie]

It is argued that the only function of the state should be to service trade by protecting it against (criminal and military) aggressors and guaranteeing the right to hold private property. I have in an earlier post summarised how an insurance system providing both legal mediation and military protection services for a fee would both produce better quality in security services at lesser bureaucracy and lower costs than the state. The state as a territorial monopolist steals private wealth (taxes), legalises the crime (law-making) and does a poorer and poorer job in legal and policing services. Like any monopolist you see the porices going up with the quality offered declining. I must not explain that once again, even less so when some of the essay I lined explain it much better than I could in some lines. I think the model is worth to be given a try. It cannot become any worse than the mess we have now.

"Thank you for calling your local branch of Fire Department, Inc.™! Para continuar en español, marque el dos. To report a fire, press one. To hear a listing of our convenient FireStation™ locations, press two. To speak to a customer service representative about protecting your property and loved ones from the ravages of an inferno, press three. If you need a cat rescued from a tree, press four. To repeat these options, press five."

*BEEEEP*

"You have chosen to report a fire. Please say the address of the location of the fire."

"comeoncomeoncomeonhurryhurry....123 Main Street. I'm at 123 Main Street!"

"We're sorry. That address lies outside of Fire Department, Inc.™'s service area. We have determined that the population density does not allow for Fire Department, Inc.™ to provide award-winning service at a profit to that area. Please use your garden hose instead. Goodbye!" *click*

If you really think the Comcast, ATT's, United Airlines and EA Softwares of the world can provide better service when it comes to things like national security....hoo boy. Businesses have entrenched themselves using regulatory capture and litigation so that the barriers to entry are too high. Thus we the consumers are stuck with crappy service and no options.

I would not trust fire, police and military services to that sort of system. Infrastructure is inherently unprofitable. That's why it's a governmental responsibility and not a private sector one.

[Skybird]

Firefighting is not about providing security in the meaning of liberal economics, Mookie. It can be left to people living in a region how they want to arrange it all by themselves, there is no state needed to tell people that they must have a firebriagde and how to organise it. Leave it to themselves. If they fail and the fire hurst them sufficiently, next time they will do it better, promised. ;) Protection in liberal economic model as propagated here means the protection of private property against aggression since this guarantee is th every basis of every conception of the term "freedom" worth the name. If property is not respected and state or aggressors are allowed to interfere with how and what you do with your property, can enforce access to it, can legally steal it, then freedom is taken away more and more. So, protection means: guarantees in terms of juristic, policing and military terms. In a self-governing local community, people are free to organise their firefighting according to the way they like it. If they do not like it, they move away, or do it differently. Mind you, the model implies a huge number of small local, self-governing communities like you had in Europe and especially Germany before Germany became a unified national state. The time when Germany consisted of dozens and hundreds of regional autark and independent kingdoms and small "countries", was the time when German culture blossomed more than ever before and after. The regions competed for the best artists, thinkers, scientist, engineers, and they had to.

Firebrigades in Germany today by majority are the work of volunteers, and it is very effective a system especially in regions with small population levels . The EU now wants to enforce rules that they shall not volunteer anymore at all if the total working hours per week from their regular jobs and their volunteering mission lies beyond the legal maximum.

In other words, the EU demand control over people voluntary engagements and the their private time. Another of these so very very typical EU stunts that aim at subjecting every aspect of people's lives and thoughts and acts and doings to Brussel'S supervision.

Firebrigades across all of Germany and many stations are threatened by this. If this law comes, the German system will simply collapse.


---


u_crank again, the question before, this reading maybe:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe16.html

At roughly the middle, under the subtitle "The Idea of a Private Law Society". Cannot hurt to read the first half before as well, since it deals with criticism of democratic and classical liberalism and the role of the state in both.

[Bilge_Rat]

not sure "private" firefighters are the way to go either...:yep:


SOUTH FULTON, Tenn. -- Firefighters stood by and watched a Tennessee house burn to the ground earlier this week because the homeowners didn't pay the annual subscription fee for fire service.

"You could look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance," Vicky Bell, the homeowner, said.




http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again?lite

[mookiemookie]

Firefighting is not about providing security in the meaning of liberal economics, Mookie. It can be left to people living in a region how they want to arrange it all by themselves, there is no state needed to tell people that they must have a firebriagde and how to organise it. Leave it to themselves. If they fail and the fire hurst them sufficiently, next time they will do it better, promised. ;)

And if thousands of people die or lose their property before your local city-state gets its crap together and organizes an effective fire protection plan, so what, eh? "Well dang ol' shoot, that horse drawn pump didn't work real good. hyuk, hyuk."

No thanks.

I work in a business where we deal with local governments regularly. Especially in a smaller municipality, the level of sophistication isn't always that great. There are economies of scale in having a coordinated emergency infrastructure set up by the federal and state governments.

[Skybird]

And if thousands of people die or lose their property before your local city-state gets its crap together and organizes an effective fire protection plan, so what, eh? "Well dang ol' shoot, that horse drawn pump didn't work real good. hyuk, hyuk."
And what if that happens under administration by a parasitic state government where polticians have very different interests, necessarily?

Hongkong is what comes very close to a city state. Do you claim they are incapable to maintain a good firebrigade becasue the Chinese or British government do not tell them how to do it?
Can people not learn from experience if there is no big state that tells them how to do things? Have we already come this far...?

Some of you guys simply are used to get annied by a superstate all the time, could it be? Not to bear respknsibility, but being able to always point demands at the state that he should proivide this, and that he shpould do that? Well, thatr is exactly the root evil that is the basis for all the deformations and perversions we see today.

If there is a city state like Hamburg, for example, or New York city, then apparently they can perfectly set up a police department and fire department without Berlin or Washington managing it.

And what about the German system of volunteers serving in firebrigades and maintaining them? The system worked well until here. If the public tax system gets abandoned where poltiicians claim the right to decide what your property is beign consumed for, and in autonomous regions the people decide that themselves without a distant central giovernment, they will see whether or not it is in their interest to voluntarily set up a fire brigade and contribute to it. A central state government is not needed there. Like I do not need a EU commission telling me what to eat and what not. When i feel sick, I go to a doctor all by myself. When he tells me this and that, I will decide myself whether consequences for me will include changes of my diet, or not. I do not need any EU messias telling me what I have to do and what not in order to get saved from myself.

Sorry, yours is a complete non-argument there.

[Skybird]

not sure "private" firefighters are the way to go either...:yep:



http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again?lite
And what'S wrong there? You cannot claim services if you do not fulfill your returning part of the deal. You want a service, you pay. You don't pay, you get no service. Also, that example is outside the context of Hoppe'S model, but is embedded in the context of a completely different system.

Having a competition between service providers, cannot hurt. May it be within or between autonomous regions.

Too many people today take many things all for granted, mas if they would have a right to demand a free ride here, a free service being given there. I totally disagree with that attitude of ever growing expectations. It is one reason why we are bancrupt and our social nanny system are no longer affordable.

Anyhow, you guys now come with very specific things that to debate maybe is a bit pointless at this stage. Not even Hoppe argues anywhere in such microscopic detail already, and even says that that is impossible as long as no general draft has been established.

[mookiemookie]

And what if that happens under administration by a parasitic state government where polticians have very different interests, necessarily?

Hongkong is what comes very close to a city state. Do you claim they are incapable to maintain a good firebrigade becasue the Chinese or British government do not tell them how to do it?
Can people not learn from experience if there is no big state that tells them how to do things? Have we already come this far...?



So what about all the places that aren't Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated places in the world? What about the lower density places? How do they organize themselves? How do they fund their infrastructure when they don't have the cash flow from taxes to do so?

And what'S wrong there? You cannot claim services if you do not fulfill your returning part of the deal. You want a service, you pay. You don't pay, you get no service. Also, that example is outside the context of Hoppe'S model, but is embedded in the context of a completely different system.

Yeah, if you didn't pay, your family dies and your property is destroyed. Sucks for you, eh?

Good god that's brutal and cruel. I want no part of your world.

[AndyJWest]

Hoppe often calls his idea for the future (of which he also says he is realistic enough to see that people will reject it since democracy is in their minds) natural order.

Natural order is what has run human interactions for the most of mankind'S time. It means direct trading between two private people who exchange items, because what you give away you value as lesser than what you negotiated to get in return. The other side sees it the same way, just it'S value-attribution is just 180° around.

Hoppe is an ignoramus. No such 'natural order' ever existed.

[Skybird]

So what about all the places that aren't Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated places in the world? What about the lower density places? How do they organize themselves? How do they fund their infrastructure when they don't have the cash flow from taxes to do so?

The move together, arrange themselves, live by what they can afford, try to attract newcomers by making themselves attractive by the means they have. In other words: they compete with other communities.

In Germany, we have a big problem with many rural places especially in the five Eastern federal states. The young have moved away, the older who want to stay, die and reduce their own numbers. Still, some claim the normal network of infrastructure, supply and so forth must be maintained.

But it cannot be afforded. One wan ts more than one can afford. Taxes directed there, are missing in more vital parts. Debts accepted to maintain it, punish others, and the young, and will deliver an even bigger bill in the end.

Some things just cannot go on. People must learn that. People will adapt. Give them the freedom to do so. Tell them that it is their responsibility to live their life - not the state's. And leave them the freedom to live up to that responsibility, instead of endlessly nanny them from the cradle to the grave.


Yeah, if you didn't pay, your family dies and your property is destroyed. Sucks for you, eh?

Good god that's brutal and cruel. I want no part of your world.

Maybe we should also ban air traffic. Some days ago a pilot made an error and missed the runway and crashed the plane.

Let'S check the facts on your example.


People in the city of South Fulton have fire protection, but those in the surrounding county do not unless they pay a $75 annual fee.

The city makes no exceptions.

"There's no way to go to every fire and be able to keep up the manpower, the equipment, and just the funding for the fire department," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker.

Crocker said that by now, everyone should know about the city's fire policy.

"After the last situation, I would hope that everybody would be well aware of the rural fire fees, this time," he said.

Well, that is sane, healthy reason, and no sign of "social cold" at all.


In a nearby county, rural homeowners can purchase a $110 subscription to cover fires, but they can also pay on the spot for fire protection: $2,200 for the first two hours firefighters are on the scene and $1,100 for each additional hour, according to dailytimes.com.

Sounds okay. And whooot - sounds like the counties mentioned have quite some independence in how to organise their fire protection policies. Washington seems not to tell them how to do what. Nor do they seem to be in need for that.


Bell and her boyfriend said they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them.

Well, they took a gamble, they lost. Their responsibility. I took a gamble when for many years living without a liability insurance - until I realised that I took a gamble there. Since then I have one.


The city has received a lot of criticism over its policy, but has refused to change it.
And why should they? Why should others pay more just because a gambler or a parasite expects them to pay his share? Or demands to get the service for free? Or the service being payed by making more debts in the budget, debts that others, sooner or later must pay for?

Maybe you would argue with social hardness now, and poverty. They the question would be why people who cannot afford to own a house nevertheless think they must own a house - if they cannot afford it.

Moral of the story by the end of the day: you want protection from something, you pay the insurance or service fee or whatever it is. If you do not, you have no claim to make. You also have no claim to demand others to bail you out. If they voluntarily do it, fine. But an obligation ? No.

[Skybird]

Hoppe is an ignoramus. No such 'natural order' ever existed.
You give only mockery and rants on the fly in this thread. But so far not a single thought-out argument for or against anything. That makes it yourself being the ignoramus.

[AndyJWest]

Skybird, as I have already pointed out, I have a degree in anthropology (A first-class honours degree, from a leading British university, to be specific). Economic relations in hunter-gatherer societies are of course very much a subject of anthropological interest - and if any societies could be described as 'natural' (a questionable proposition), it is those of hunter-gatherers. And though there is considerable debate on the subject, I can assure you that one thing that is entirely certain is that such societies did not function on the basis of the simplistic 'trade between individuals' that Hoppe describes. But don't take my word for it - do some research for yourself, and discover how such societies actually functioned. Hoppe is simply projecting his own ideas backwards, to justify them by making them out to be the 'natural order', without evidence. He isn't the first to do this, of course - Marx famously described such societies as living under 'primitive communism'. Though he at least bothered to look at what little evidence there was available at the time, and even after all these years, appears not to have been entirely wrong. But like I say, don't take my word for it. Learn from those who study the subject, rather than those who make up complete bull***t to justify their ridiculous utopian fantasies.

[Skybird]

I already had my share of history, you know. Rome. Greece. The Italian city states. The British empire. The Dutch empire. Th Spanish empire. And so on.

Trade was key to their rise and collection of knowledge and developement of new thoughts.

The issue here is not so much one of anthropology, but of history, and politics, and that is not the same. From the far east and Polynesia, over the deserts in africa, to the Western/European sphere, you could see that tokens that turned into a standardization method for abstract trading processes (establishing trading and complex production lines that in direct 1:1 trade without such tokens was not possible) emerged from more primitive trade-exchange. As I said: money is just ordinary trading goods which are seen by people as vlauable, desirable, and are available in sufficient quantity to really penetrate and become omnipresent in the market.

"Natural order" has nothing to do with primitive tribes of hunter gatherers living in a jungle just because the word "natural" appears in the term. It refers to a most basic interaction only that must not get regulated by an artificial, unnatural authority, between two unregulated free individuals, where both have an item and agree to exchange the one for the other. Money allowed more complex sequences of trades: A is traded for B that allows to buy C in order to get D that was the real desired item from beginning on. My god, that is so basic and elemental that Hoppe really is not the first one having pointed out this .

It may or may not have been like this in most societies. But it has been like this for most of those societies that made themselves known for huge power and influence, leaving a mark in history that lived far beyond their reign. And if some local tribe in a prairie stayed for themselves and lived in an early form of a kibbuz without trading beyond their borders, what difference does that make? they get overlooked today, and also back in their time.

This German Wikipedia entry is better than the English pendant, it lists several of the early primitive currencies that were used to standardise the value of items in an indirect way so that things could be calculated in their value to each other and trading became able even if you needed to accept to trade for something that weas not immedioately offering you the thing that you originally wanted. Yolur cow does not help you if the other needs no cow or you only need three planks of wood, sine your cow is too vlauable to trade it for just thjree pansk of wood. But by trading it for coins, you get the market-agreed value of the cow, and can use that to pay a craftsman and to buy a piece of wood so that he makes three planks from it for you. That is the difference from primitive to complex trade, and wothout this expanding of trading complexity you cannot hope to form a huge and influential civilization, culture, empire.

And in my understanding this is not so much some sub-branch of anthropology, but simply history lessons. But maybe that is just me.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitivgeld

They used: salt, cacao and plant semen, tealeafs, seashells, peas, teeth, hair, bones, textiles, "Spangengeld" (bronze era 1200 B.C.), "Axtgeld" (middle America until 1500), Messergeld (knife coins, China 12th-3rd century B.C.), Larin (16th-18th century from the Persian gulf to the Bengalian sea, kind of a metal wire), "Hackgeld" (bars of precious material where slides got cut off when needed to pay something), and then the wide variety of natural produce. Trading with these intermediate tokens allowed complex trade. When rare metals like silver and gold entered the trading scheme, these primitive forms of a currency transformed into the money currency that we knew until last century. But in principle a currency until today, no matter what currency it is, always means: a certain quantity/weight of a material that is agree by the market to serve as a carrier material for standardizing these quantities: by forming them into coins with a certain specified amount of that material, or bars.

[AndyJWest]

Skybird, I'm not the slightest bit interested in your 'history'. Hoppe made a specific claim (or you say he did), regarding the 'natural order' - and I have shown that it simply isn't true. Like so many other armchair social theorists, he projects his own biases backwards, and then claims them as evidence for his pet theories. As such, his arguments are worthless.

[Tribesman]

Hoppe is like Marx, some people look at it, swallow it and spout it as the new truth they have discovered. Others look at and look at it and the more they look at it they realise the less sense it makes.

[Skybird]

You showed nothing. You claimed.


Maybe I share some responsibility by not being precise enough in this paragraph:

Natural order is what has run human interactions for the most of mankind'S time. It means direct trading between two private people who exchange items, because what you give away you value as lesser than what you negotiated to get in return. The other side sees it the same way, just it'S value-attribution is just 180° around.


Maybe I should have worded it like this:

Natural orders are what has run human interactions since most of mankind'S history. In the context of libertarian economic school and the Austrian school to which Hoppe belongs, it means that in the cultural settings of the past 3000 years the most basic scheme of social interaction between foreigners was that of changing things between two unregulated, free people (trading). People need no administration to judge by themselves what of their items they value less so that they give it away in exchange for an item that they value more so that they want to own it. where the other side sees the hierarchy of value in items just the other way around, a windows of opportunity for trading opens.

If that clears it up, then it was my fault when I lacked needed precision, but I have several times in the past weeks now linked to original texts by Hoppe and other authors close to his thinking, so who would have wanted it could have dealt with the original by now already, easily.

"Natural order" and "private law society" are used synonymous in Hoppes thinking and to some parts in the thinking of authors from his direction as well. It means the natural principle by which to do something, in this case: trading. that has nothing to do with Green policies, more with not making something more complicated and regulated than originally it must be in order to function well. Why you think you must go back to hunter gatherers when reading that terminology, is slightly beyond me. Fact is that trade, the ability to establish complex production chains by using higher forms of value-money, is key for civilizations becoming great and influential and blossoming, that trade is what earned civilizations the knowledge and the wealth to grow and blossom and become string and influential, and that this is directly linked to the question of freedom being understood to ground and base on guaranteeing the right to own private property and do with it and live by and on and in it as long as this use does not damage the rights of others to possess their own private property. where this principle of the right for private property gets attacked and reduced, freedom gets limited, no matter whether the limit is established by state's taxes, general laws regulating how you may and may not use your property, and forcing you to give up rights to use your property.

Money tokens get used since 3500 years in some parts of the world.

[AndyJWest]

So, to clarify, when Hoppe uses the word 'natural' he doesn't mean 'natural' at all. He just means 'how he thinks things should be done'. No surprises there...

[GT182]

Until we get jobs back that went overseas, we will stay in a semi permanent recession. Yes there will be ups and downs but it's still a recession. We cannot have an economy without jobs to support it. Just as working at 7-11, Wendy's, Pizza Hut and the like will not generate the income needed to be a home owner, or even be semi self sufficient.

Our goobernment wants everyone to believe the economy is better but it's not. Yes, they are a bunch of goobers running the show. How can an economy be better when prices keep rising, and income either stays the same or drops... as in no jobs? Sure Obummer says 200,000 jobs were created, but 300,000 jobs have disappeared that he's not telling about. He's an idiot to think we're better off now than 2 years ago. When he took office in January of 2009 Regular gas was 2.81/gallon. Since then it has risen as high a 4.20/gallon.... average gas prices mean nothing. Yeah, the economy has gotten better according to him and his cronies. :rolleyes: But then in all actuallity, oil and diesel fuel is what's controlling the economy.

[Skybird]

Before you continue to spill your intentionally misleading rants, you may want to read Hoppe himself on what it is about, and why. Peaceful coexistence, trade, cooperation and higher productivity by labour division during the production process. Without that, humans stay isolated, limited in their reach, doomed to stay in smallest almost tribal groups, excluded from participating in civilizational development. Where humans live like this, civilizational development and improvement is impossible to grow beyond certain very limited standards. Because two hands alone always can do only so and so much, and not more.

The links are still valid and lead to the according libraries.

[Platapus]

Our goobernment wants everyone to believe the economy is better but it's not.

All I know is that my meager investments have been growing in value over the past 5 years, where previously, I cringed every time I opened up the statements and saw those big minus signs.

Something must be getting slowly better. We have a long way to go, but we seem to be slowly heading in the right direction.