Institute For Justice Thread

[PureX]

I go to N Dakota occasionally.
But whether you like or visit the states is irrelevant to geographical
distribution of policing for profit. And it is wrong wherever it occurs.
IJ (Institute for Justice) does Odin's work to fight it.

Btw, I advise looking over a post after posting.
Check for things like how the quotes function.
Yours required some repair to make things readable.

Sorry, I have a very nasty cold and my head feels like it's plugged with wet cement.

Yes, I agree it is wrong whenever it happens, and needs to be fought. I see this as more of a cultural anomaly than anything else. And I don't know what would lead to the kind of blind indifference required to actually enact such a blatant abuse of relatively petty power. Or why others would allow it even when it's not hurting themselves. But there is a lot I don't understand about man's inhumanity to man. It always seems so incredibly stupid, to me. And unnecessary.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, I have a very nasty cold and my head feels like it's plugged with wet cement.

Yes, I agree it is wrong whenever it happens, and needs to be fought. I see this as more of a cultural anomaly than anything else. And I don't know what would lead to the kind of blind indifference required to actually enact such a blatant abuse of relatively petty power. Or why others would allow it even when it's not hurting themselves. But there is a lot I don't understand about man's inhumanity to man. It always seems so incredibly stupid, to me. And unnecessary.

Whaddaya think of my proposal only an independent
arm of government benefit when another levies fines?
This would change the culture of government to be less
predatory, ie, focus upon justice instead of fleecing us.

 

[Cooky]

On the theme of policing for profit, we have a map ranking states....
https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/
Looks rather independent of geography to me.
N Dakota is the worst.
Arizona is the best.

I heard Michael Jordan owns two prisons.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I & others waged a battle against an unreasonable condo board, & won.

It's more than that.
Government is structured such that "policing for profit" is a major problem.
The private sector is much more closely regulated.
For example, tenants in housing owned by government have fewer rights
than tenants in privately owned housing, eg, eviction procedures. Why?
Government doesn't go by the rules it imposes upon others.

Oh crackers. Don't tell me. This is one more thing I support that falls under a libertarian view?

I am really not a libertarian. Really?

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh crackers. Don't tell me. This is one more thing I support that falls under a libertarian view?

I am really not a libertarian. Really?

It's libertarian, but it could fit into other philosophies too.
Not many liberals would agree with it though.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's libertarian, but it could fit into other philosophies too.
Not many liberals would agree with it though.

I agree. Just having a little fun with my own self-discovery. When there is time, maybe we can discuss some other thoughts on libertarianism that have occurred to me. Like the existence of socialistic libertarians. Are they unicorns? Is the existence of something like that a logical impossibility like a suicidal existentialist? Are they actually more common than I realize?

I cannot see how very many people, no matter what political persuasion, could find justification for government participation in what amounts to a protection racket.

 

[Revoltingest]

....the existence of socialistic libertarians.

It's an oxymoron.
Socialism is fundamentally an oppressive system because naturally arising
capitalist & individualist tendencies must be quashed. (History bears this
out, eg, PRC, Cuba, USSR).
Contrast that with capitalism, which has no need to suppress socialism arising
from within, ie, any group can practice socialism within their group as long as
it's voluntary.
Thus socialism is inherently anti-libertarian. "Libertarian socialists" claim they
exist, but they're really just liberal (N American definition) who aren't so illiberal.
If their goal were really social benefits for the needy, this is best achieved under
capitalism, which is better able than socialism to afford things like free health
care, etc.

 

[PureX]

Whaddaya think of my proposal only an independent
arm of government benefit when another levies fines?
This would change the culture of government to be less
predatory, ie, focus upon justice instead of fleecing us.

Maybe, but in the end the problem is us. We just don't seem to give a **** about our fellow citizens, especially when it comes to money. If we did, we wouldn't make these abusive laws, and we wouldn't allow them to be enforced if someone tried. But instead, we seem to overwhelmingly hold to the idea in this country that when it comes to money it's 'every-man-for-himself'. And we gotta get our stack before someone else gets it first. Our fellow humans are seen as our competitors, not our cohorts, so when we see one of them fall into misfortune, we just blame them for not being smart enough, or fast enough, or clever enough and assume it's one more of them out of our way. This is what seems to be fueling America's love for the 'big winners' and 'big losers' in our culture. And fueling our hatred of all taxation even though they are for our own collective benefit. It's also why we hate 'government oversight' when this, too, is to our own collective benefit. We can't see "collective benefit". All we see is ourselves, and our stack of money, and we loathe anything and anyone that threatens to take some, for any reason.

I realize that would seem a bit off-topic, but it's not really. It's why we don't care enough to do anything about such corrupt laws. It's why we keep voting for politicians that we KNOW are corrupt and will continue to be corrupt in office. Ignoring ourselves as part of a human collective is exactly why that human collective (call it your community, state, nation, or whatever) is falling to ****.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe, but in the end the problem is us. We just don't seem to give a **** about our fellow citizens, especially when it comes to money. If we did, we wouldn't make these abusive laws, and we wouldn't allow them to be enforced if someone tried. But instead, we seem to overwhelmingly hold to the idea in this country that when it comes to money it's 'every-man-for-himself'. And we gotta get our stack before someone else gets it first. Our fellow humans are seen as our competitors, not our cohorts, so when we see one of them fall into misfortune, we just blame them for not being smart enough, or fast enough, or clever enough and assume it's one more of them out of our way. This is what seems to be fueling America's love for the 'big winners' and 'big losers' in our culture. And fueling our hatred of all taxation even though they are for our own collective benefit. It's also why we hate 'government oversight' when this, too, is to our own collective benefit. We can't see "collective benefit". All we see is ourselves, and our stack of money, and we loathe anything and anyone that threatens to take some, for any reason.

I realize that would seem a bit off-topic, but it's not really. It's why we don't care enough to do anything about such corrupt laws. It's why we keep voting for politicians that we KNOW are corrupt and will continue to be corrupt in office. Ignoring ourselves as part of a human collective is exactly why that human collective (call it your community, state, nation, or whatever) is falling to ****.

People can't be changed.
But systems can be changed for better results with the same people.

 

[PureX]

People can't be changed.
But systems can be changed for better results with the same people.

I agree. But those changes, in our case, need to be in favor of the human collective, and not the individual. Because right now we are WAY too skewed to favor the individual. So much so that we have turned our neighbors and fellow citizens into our competitors and enemies.

People can't BE changed, but they can change. Greed is just self-centered fear causing us to be behave like stupid animals instead of human beings. We are capable of rising above it. But we need to address that fear that's driving all this blinding greed. We need our people to feel as if they will not be crushed and rubbed out of existence if they aren't clever enough, or fast enough, or selfish enough to do whatever it takes to 'get their stack' before the other guy gets it. We need to ratchet the competition down, and ratchet the SOCIALISM up. Socialism in terms of our social responsibility to each other's well being. You know ... socialism as the antidote and antipathy to selfishness and greed running amok (which is clearly where we are, now).

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. But those changes, in our case, need to be in favor of the human collective, and not the individual. Because right now we are WAY too skewed to favor the individual. So much so that we have turned our neighbors and fellow citizens into our competitors and enemies.

People can't BE changed, but they can change. Greed is just self-centered fear causing us to be behave like stupid animals instead of human beings. We are capable of rising above it. But we need to address that fear that's driving all this blinding greed. We need our people to feel as if they will not be crushed and rubbed out of existence if they aren't clever enough, or fast enough, or selfish enough to do whatever it takes to 'get their stack' before the other guy gets it. We need to ratchet the competition down, and ratchet the SOCIALISM up. Socialism in terms of our social responsibility to each other's well being. You know ... socialism as the antidote and antipathy to selfishness and greed running amok (which is clearly where we are, now).

"Socialism" & the "collective", eh.
Why do you consider yourself a libertarian?

 

[PureX]

"Socialism" & the "collective", eh.
Why do you consider yourself a libertarian?

I don't. I am an unabashed socialist. I believe the way forward for humanity (now that there are so many of us, and we are all so inter-dependent) is as a cooperative society, not as the 'every-man-for-himself' lone cowboys that we Americans all seem to imagine ourselves to be.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't. I am an unabashed socialist. I believe the way forward for humanity (now that there are so many of us, and we are all so inter-dependent) is as a cooperative society, not as the 'every-man-for-himself' lone cowboys that we Americans all seem to imagine ourselves to be.

So you're in the Libertarian Only forum to advocate against libertarians?

 

[PureX]

So you're in the Libertarian Only forum to advocate against libertarians?

I pay little attention to the clique forum designations. I tend not to land on any one or another on every issue, anyway, and neither does anyone else, so far as I can tell. If I'm able to post, and feel so moved, I post. Sorry.

I will be a "libertarian" on the issue of individual rights every time. But most libertarians I've come across over the years are idiots that have no realistic concept of the incredible interconnectedness of modern human societies. They wallow in silly idealized pipe-dreams created by Hollywood on behalf of ruthless capitalism spewing fantasies about lone cowboys riding the free range and doing as they please according to their own moral character and the swiftness of their 6-gun .... it's absurd.

 

[Revoltingest]

I pay little attention to the clique forum designations. I tend not to land on any one or another on every issue, anyway, and neither does anyone else, so far as I can tell. If I'm able to post, and feel so moved, I post. Sorry.

You're fortunate.
If ever I mistakenly post in a restricted forum
not my own, I get the boot & a demerit.

 

[PureX]

You're fortunate.
If ever I mistakenly post in a restricted forum
not my own, I get the boot & a demerit.

I don't even know how to tell a 'restricted' thread. I figure if it works, I can use it.

 

[PureX]

Don't you find a "libertarian only" thread to be oxymoronic?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't even know how to tell a 'restricted' thread. I figure if it works, I can use it.

If the forum contains "DIR" or "Only", the rules restrict to those
who are what precedes those.
And there are complexities. Socialists can post in "Capitalist Only"
because socialism includes "state capitalism" (eg, USSR) according
to staff. There are other wrinkles which seem to apply ad hoc.

Btw, I ain't snitch'n.

 

[Woberts]

Socialists can post in "Capitalist Only"
because socialism includes "state capitalism" (eg, USSR)

This is new to me. Of course, I've always been loose with the DIRs as indicated by this post.

It's an oxymoron.

Not really. Libertarians in N Americanistan are usually right libertarians, i.e socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarians in Europe, Asia, (the rest of the world, really. You're such an oddity.) and so on are generally socially liberal and fiscally liberal. Libertarian socialisism fit this category, closely overlapping with left libertarianism. Libertarian socialists more or less add the communal ownership of the means of production elements found in socialism to the ideology of left libertarianism. Of course, the original phrase that @Dan From Smithville said is socialistic libertarians, which could very well be an oxymoron as opposed to the established libertarian socialists. That's debatable, but even I will not tempt the wrath of Mod by debating in a DIR. Libertarian socialism is also closely related to things such as collectivist anarchism, left communism, anarchist Marxism, and Luxemburgism.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is new to me. Of course, I've always been loose with the DIRs as indicated by this post.

The level of restriction varies with the person.
Further deponent sayeth naught, lest knuckles be rapped.

Not really. Libertarians in N Americanistan are usually right libertarians, i.e socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarians in Europe, Asia, (the rest of the world, really. You're such an oddity.) and so on are generally socially liberal and fiscally liberal. Libertarian socialisism fit this category, closely overlapping with left libertarianism. Libertarian socialists more or less add the communal ownership of the means of production elements found in socialism to the ideology of left libertarianism. Of course, the original phrase that @Dan From Smithville said is socialistic libertarians, which could very well be an oxymoron as opposed to the established libertarian socialists. That's debatable, but even I will not tempt the wrath of Mod by debating in a DIR. Libertarian socialism is also closely related to things such as collectivist anarchism, left communism, anarchist Marxism, and Luxemburgism.

The reason socialism & libertarianism are incompatible stems from an emergent
property of socialism, ie, in order to limit citizens' activity to a command economy,
powerful limitations must be placed upon the citizens. This is because capitalist
behavior (eg, trading, hiring help, greed, entrepreneurship) is a natural human
tendency, This level of control over individuals isn't necessary under capitalism,
which isn't threatened by voluntary socialism flowering under its wing. To enforce
socialism (preventing capitalism) also means maintaining a culture which reinforces
the collective mentality, & this means oppressive social controls. We can see this
play out in every example of the most faithful attempts at socialism/communism,
eg, N Korea, USSR, Cuba.

But fear not! I have a solution which you might like. It has the benefits of what people
want from socialism (eg, benevolence, social safety net). This is should be called
"rather leftish libertarianism". It's not full blown socialism, but rather capitalism with
social benefits paid for by taxes. It could also be called "social capitalism". Imagine
Ameristan with greater market freedom, single payer health care, & a social assistance
for all in need. Get what you want, but without the ills of socialism.


Interesting thing about my oft made proposal.....
Not one conservative wag has cried "Socialist dupe!".
What is wrong with them?