The State & Belief

[Fenrisúlfr]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston44.html

Indeed, the bulk of the population seems to agree that [place government program here] is not only a good idea, but also that without it [place negative outcome here] would most assuredly happen, and all without one shred of evidence! The faith – the belief – that supports not only the presence of heavily statist practices, but also the apparent willingness with which they are accepted provides ample evidence that the government educational system is producing exactly the effect for which it was created. (One may lament the apparent lack of good performance in the three R’s, but let us conclude that an ignorant statist is very likely a better citizen for the coercive state than an informed anarchist and leave it at that.)

Quite an interesting article; methinks the mythos that can sustain a heavy-handed state is imposed not only but for the public education (if it may be called that; if it were up to me, those two words would not be adjacent to one another!), but for the scaremongering from the media and that it is human nature to overlook liberty in favour of security when fearful. Fear not only comes from legitimate sources, but from things or forces unknown...

A well-informed public is necessary to hold in check any form of representative government, and the condition is simply not being met. Instead, they are easily distracted and either are unwilling nor have the capacity to do even the most rudimentary due diligence on matters of greatest importance. Thus, scaremongering is enabled and remains a powerful tactic, allowing for the mythos of the state to perpetuate and even strengthen.

 

[derek]

Given the lack of replies, I'm assuming we all agree.

Not too controversial an idea, really. The State replaced God. Read Grey Eminence, you may like it.

 

[Blowtus]

I'm less inclined to see the state as a big evil nasty gobbling up our freedoms at any chance... I see more a fearful, ill educated populace that watches too much current affairs bullshit on tv and forever shouts 'Something must be DONE about it!'

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Our views are not so far apart; methinks the fearfulness is enabling and in many cases induces the other. As for the media, I pulled this article from the Times; given that much of the FBI and CIA's budget simply cannot be audited, who knows the end of this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/13covert.html

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.

Additionally, there is ample precedent for this: Operation Mockingbird:

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

Operation Mockingbird was a Central Intelligence Agency operation to influence domestic and foreign media, whose activities were made public during the Church Committee investigation in 1975 (published 1976).

 

[Blowtus]

Yeah, but Australia is no different, and I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to propose that every liberal government around is pulling the same stunts

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

I do not have evidence to suggest these said stunts are being pulled as we speak, and have proposed no such theory, but I am saying that they have been pulled before. Given the nature of government, and of politicians, and of those whom they rule, there is enough perverse incentive to make Ben Bernanke blush. Given the lack of transparency in government, if nothing else brought on by its sheer size (making it difficult for the people to keep in check by the way), I am saying it could well be taking place on a larger scale, and given the concentrated nature of media and telecommunications ownership in the States, such an operation would be quite easy to execute on a large scale.

 

[razoredge]

I am not so sure the bulk of the population is in agreement with the current out of control trend of personal meddling and cry baby rights.

Like anything else, some programs are good or necessary for the extreme that created them, only then spiraling out of control through bureaucracy. In other cases our whimpy suburban population just crys about and wants to control everything that suits them and nothing that doesnt. In other cases there are those that get away with too much and go unchecked because it is primarily their interests our government protects.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

It is that demographic whose knee-jerk reaction is for big mommy government to do something so the boo-boo will go away. However, it is not their interest the government protects, but abuses their passive consent to persist in its heavy-handed antics.

It may be necessary to elaborate on what you say are 'cry baby rights'.

However, it is a consensus that the New Deal and government commandeering of the economy during war-time fits a few of the programs that are 'good and necessary' and are likely the best example of such. Bring these sacred cows unto me so that I may slaughter them with no mercy, as they are violations of the people's right to their property.

 

[razoredge]

Well I dont know what you're talking about.

Lets take CPS (child pertective services), a grossly out of control system but its necessary to protect children that are truely neglected or abused.

cry baby rights ?
Things like the ever tightening driving under the influence laws. Yes necessary because real drunks have killed people but punished the slow and casual drinker just as bad but in my opinion worse because they really are not the loser that a true drunk is.

random drug testing for work - clearly aimed at smokers of weed becasue they are the ones that take the fall, yet crack heads, and alcholics get a free pass.

feminists - dont know where everyone else has been but we are clearly living in a matriarchal society now. (if thats spelled wrong... too bad)

gays - shut up already

anti guns - shut up already

Hillary Clinton - it takes a community or whatever her quoted slogan was... shut up already... it takes two good parents, cut them some slack, they are the ones with the bond to the children... not you asshole who sent your child to be cared for by others your whole worthless social climbing life.

The "New Deal" ? are you talking about Roosevelts critical times confronting the Great Depression ? Im not sure what else he could have done other than leveled Wall Street and kill the remaining rich, which would have been my "New Deal" but its out of control since as I stated with my bureaucratic implications.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

The fact that it is necessary does not spare it from the fact that if it is out of control, it must be checked or reformed so that may protect the rights of children without unduly violating the rights of other parties.

DUI laws are nonsense; if they run into something, there are civil and criminal remedies that sting just as much as if one is lucid.

Drug testing at work is the right of the employer as they may hire whom they may. If the practice is invasive, the employee may quit and find another employer which does not test, or better yet, start a competing company with a friendlier corporate culture.

I concur about matriarchy, though it was brought about by government meddling i.e. quotas, anti-discrimination, marriage contracts, &c.

The gays have a right to do what they want on their own property and with any consenting party. Even if one presumes what they do is wrong, to the willing there is no injury.

Same goes for guns: there is existing civil and criminal remedy available (i.e. assault, murder charges) whether one uses a handgun or my AK47.

Hillary, that vitriolic shit-spewing swine deserves no heed. Methinks she is a totalitarian at heart as she would greatly expand an already-bloated government.

The New Deal occurred because of the expansion of credit as a result of the Federal Reserve's antics. Because of the aggressive expansion of the money supply, the stock market bubbled and burst. Because of Hoover's price controls, supply and demand could not rebalance and the only reason Roosevelt is spoken well of now was because the ill-advised WW2 stimulated the economy. The cost was the debasement of the currency, expansion of government, vindication of interventionism on both Wall St. and the local economy, and worst of all: a paradigm shift from what vestiges of limited government the country previously enjoyed. To the latter effect we are agreed, though if government was not in the business of mandating economic activity, only protecting it via safeguarding property rights and the sanctity of the contract, Hoover would have gotten re-elected because no remedy would have been needed.

 

[razoredge]

Government will always be out of control, same as corporate managment and stock traders are, same league of greed and self validating importance and gratification

You used DUI laws so then I assume DWI is something you are in agreement with ? I know I am but they have lowered the level so far its laughable and has had a negative effect on the lives of reasonable social drinkers as well as economies that evolved around "the night life".

I dont think drug testing is the right of an employer, what someone does in their non working hours is their personal right. An employer should only be concerned with someones work performance. Curiously work performance does not seem to be a priority in many cases.

I think matriarchy came about because la femme have a uncanny ability to bitch non stop until all surrender for the sake of sanity. As time continues this is compounded as men are becoming more femme in traits due to the heavy influence... and quest for ... "luv"... lol. So the bitching will only be on the increase until the government totally surrenders and becomes involved in every aspect of everyones personal life.

Yes gays have that right, and I have the right to tell them to shut up already and get out of my face.

Guns ? - refer to paragraph about la femme

Somehow I still have to give the Clinton adminstration/terms credit for balancing the budget, for decades I though it couldnt be done. Well ol' Dewie boy (JD) took care of that problem.

I have been wanting to research the cause of the great depression further, due to the fact that I believe we have returned. The New Deal, I only know bits and pieces of but many of them were good long term visions as they were temporary fixes. What bureaurcracy has done since is another issue. I dont think Roosevelt intended for great populations of the country to think that for generations they should not go to work, have more babies or that he could have concieved that industries would abandon our country for cheap labor abroad leaving vast populations without work prospects.

Which brings me back to wallstreet

no matter now, whats done is done and irreversable... welcome to the third world

hats off to the state and those whos interests they protect and the distraction they create to keep the eyes of the population off the big picture, and either bitching about each other or complacent and politically correct.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

It was when government was limited in nature that nations were prosperous i.e. the Roman, Dutch, and early American republics.

However, this is all of little significance. The circumstances are what they are, and one must adapt accordingly or one may get burned. That is why I'm leaving this stinking country once I get the electrical engineering degree; maybe sooner since I'm transferring to their distance program

 

[derek]

Arguably the Roman state was at its most prosperous under a dictatorship.

I understand the gist of your argument though.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Naturally any state that undertakes such wide-scale plunder will be prosperous for a limited term. For instance, soon after Antony took delivery of Egypt's treasury, the standard rate of interest fell from 12 to 4% in Rome. However, the empire (kleptocracy?) collapsed just as easily.

 

[derek]

It held on quite remarkably.