Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 224

Thread: Paleo And Politics page 7

  1. #61
    itchy166's Avatar
    itchy166 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291

  2. #62
    kenn's Avatar
    kenn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by itchy166 View Post
    Nice pic...
    Last edited by kenn; 01-24-2013 at 09:14 AM.
    Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
    Starting Weight: 294 pounds
    Current Weight: 235 pounds
    Goal Weight: 195 pounds

  3. #63
    Him's Avatar
    Him
    Him is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tejas Norte
    Posts
    282
    I think that at a basic level, personal politics typically reflect an individual's conceptualization of, and relationship to, Risk.

    That's a huge and complicated subject of course, but to make up an example....

    If you have $1,000,000....

    Some people would want to put all of that money in one place because they could then track it closely and defend it strongly.

    Some people would want to put it in 1000, or 10,000, separate locations because the loss if any one location was found/stolen from would be much smaller.

    Some people would want to spend the money on tools and infrastructure that improve their individual safety (a house in a better neighborhood, a work shop with all the tools needed to earn a living even without a job).

    Some people would want to invest it in other companies in order to realize a return on the value of the money, even though there is a chance that the money will be lost.

    On and on.... there are a lot of mutually exclusive but in themselves fully rational approaches to that situation.

    The choice any given person picks says less about the objective reality of the situation than about how the individual conceptualizes (understand), and tolerates (is willing to accept), risk. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that these biases form early in childhood, and some scientific evidence that they may even have a genetic basis. That said, they can also be learned and people can be sensitized to different viewpoints as well.

    Those biases will play out in a lot of ways. Whether and how a person saves money, the types of skills they learn, their political views and vision of an ideal government, ideal society, etc., their views on food safety, and so on. It isn't surprising at all that a deliberate Way Of Eating (a conscious choice, vs. following habit) would attract people with a certain conceptualization of risk, and that it would therefore correlate to political views, religious views, lifestyle choices, et cetera.

  4. #64
    Rojo's Avatar
    Rojo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthBeachPrimal View Post
    I always find it funny how socialists argue we are too "evil" to be free, yet believe in a political creed which creates a massive police state and gives these same "evil" people absolute control over our lives.
    The "massive police state" is there to protect private property. This protection racket is the "big" in "big government".

  5. #65
    Rojo's Avatar
    Rojo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Forager View Post
    Cryptocode, The world you describe sounds a lot like present day Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Russia after the fall of Soviet Union, replete with garrisoned fortresses private armies and monopolies of essential resources.
    A lot of people on the left have held up Somalia as a caution of a nation without government. I think this is the wrong lesson to take from it. In fact Somalia has a government of sorts or precisely governments of sorts -- warlords. The real lesson is that nature abhors a political vaccuum. Dismantle the Federal Government and it will likely be replaced with something far less democratic and accountable.

    Cryptocode says that if I'm innocent, I don't have to worry about private cops and private jails. Really? Who's going to judge my innocence? Private judges and jurors who are being paid by the prosecutor?

  6. #66
    Urban Forager's Avatar
    Urban Forager is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,100
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthBeachPrimal View Post
    I always find it funny how socialists argue we are too "evil" to be free, yet believe in a political creed which creates a massive police state and gives these same "evil" people absolute control over our lives.
    Looks like you may have jumped to a conclusion, I am neither a fan of government nor a fan of capitalism. Just a free lance thinker here.

  7. #67
    itchy166's Avatar
    itchy166 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by Rojo View Post
    The "massive police state" is there to protect private property. This protection racket is the "big" in "big government".
    Really? Maybe that is what it was designed to do, but in practice, it is there to rob/tax. It actually confiscates private property and gives it to the state. The only thing the massive police state protects is its own interests.

    Income tax, property tax, licensing fees, user fees, traffic fines (especially photo radar and red light cameras), etc, etc, etc......

  8. #68
    Rojo's Avatar
    Rojo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by itchy166 View Post
    Really?
    Yes, really. Who do you think cleared the land of Indians?

    Here's well-known libertarian Albert Nock:

    This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour--nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times...People began to say, if this is what State abstention comes to, let us have some State intervention.

    But the state had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly--the landlord's monopoly of economic rent--thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labor market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus

  9. #69
    itchy166's Avatar
    itchy166 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by Rojo View Post
    Yes, really. Who do you think cleared the land of Indians?

    Here's well-known libertarian Albert Nock:

    This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour--nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times...People began to say, if this is what State abstention comes to, let us have some State intervention.

    But the state had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly--the landlord's monopoly of economic rent--thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labor market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus
    Interesting. And that proves that the "state" protects property rights how? Like I said, that might have been what the state was designed for, but that is a far cry from what is does now.

    Actually reading your quote, the state didn't "protect" anyone's rights but its own (my arguement in the first place). "The State established one monopoly...." and "...this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little extortion or none...."

    The state perpetrated the theft, and gave to the landlords. It THEN protected the rights of the new landlords (its friends).

    If I refuse to pay my income tax, the state will come and take it from me by threat of violence (imprisonment), how does that protect my property rights in any way whatsoever?

  10. #70
    Rojo's Avatar
    Rojo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    800
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by itchy166 View Post
    If I refuse to pay my income tax, the state will come and take it from me by threat of violence (imprisonment), how does that protect my property rights in any way whatsoever?
    I'm not getting your point. Yes the state does things other than protect private property. The Bureau of Weights and Measures doen't protect private property either.

Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •