Tam and I
spend a bit of time the other day good-naturedly chuffing at one another about gummint.
At one point, she sugests that I’m a “Big government” type, just because I’m a “Government” type.
To suggest either is to display a lack of comprehension of my political views that can only be described as herculean. It made me giggle, a lot.
All that aside, Tam suggest gummint is like being pregnant, which is an analogy that breaks down on any kind of inspection. On some reflection, the better analogy is being fat.
All humans need some fat to survive; it helps us to metabolize hormones, create vitamin d, protects our organs from damage. It’s necesary and vital, the human body cannot survive long without it.
Too much, though, is dangerous.
Similarly, systems of government bloat and get fat- this is evidenced by the fact that the very language used to describe government waste is loaded with terms like “Fat” “Pork” “bloat” etc.
So the analogy of government to fat is, in my opinion, a reliable and accurate one, and certainly seems to be true for any value of “Government”
When government is slim and trim it allows freedom, and is capable of energetic movement. Such was the case where our own government was young.
Government, unlike humans, does not have an independant existence, it is in fact made up of- well, us.
The government becomes fat and bloated, not because it chooses to do so on it’s own, but because we allow it, and in fact make it so. This is always the case. No matter what the form of government there will be people to fuck it up.
Bloat is caused by us- or allowed to happen, by us. In a representative republic, the bloat grows slowly and inexorably as more and more people figure out more and more ways to squeeze a few more shekels from taxpayers. None of this ever moves backwards, none of it ever slows down, and the idea of putting the idiots on the dole on a diet will never happen. So we arrive where we are now.
It’s time for the anarchists to stop by and say their thing, like “Humans don’t need government like humans need fat! It’s a bad analogy”
yep. Humans don’t need government. That’s why government was never created, nor ever existed, until the aliens came down from the skies and forced humans to group together and form systems of government- monarchies, democracies, republics, etc. Humans will form governments the way nascent oxygen will recombine, it always has been and always will be inevitable.
There are a few people who are decent, moral, sane, and capable of getting by on their own without any trouble, people who need nor take nothing from the government. In a city the size of, say, detroit, the number of those people can be counted on your fingers and toes. Everyone else is an idiot.
Yes, I said that. And if you dealt with the general public at the level I do, you’d realize it’s true. Witness:
The existence of the ‘green” movement.
Heaven’s Gate.
The Transportation Safety Authority
Moonies.
The House of Windsor.
People who drive cars made by Renault.
Rosie O’Donnell
Democrats.
Republicans
Libertarians
Anarchists
Nihilists
etc.
The problem with governments- all of them- in fact, the problem with human beings as a whole, are the idiots.
The idiots cause every form of government to turn into a clusterfuck, especially the complex and impossible forms of government like anarchy or anarcho-whatever. A “Conventional” form of government has one set of rules and behavior; by very definition, any anarchist system has as many different systems of rules and behavior as individuals, and because the vast majority of individuals are mind-numbed morons, most of those systems of rules and behaviors will be stupid.
In the post in question, Tam quotes Peter Moskos, who opines (Among other things) “At some point, in a rich and civilized society, don’t we just have to be compassionate… even to people who don’t “deserve†it?”
This isn’t my problem, because I don’t give a shit. No, here’s my question- to all the ‘Alternative” types- about the whole thing:
The morons that have fucked up the current system of government will fuckup your system of governent. And do it faster than they did the one we have now, because they’ve learned how to game every system. What do you intend to do to stop it?
Why the fuck arent’ you doing it now? or is it just easier to say “Governement itself is the problem” and claim moral high ground because you claim your system is better, knowing nobody will ever have the balls to try it, and prove it isn’t? I really, really, really would like to see someone try something like anarcho capitalism. I understand enough about human nature to know that it will fail. Pitiably, even having it fail can’t convince a true believer, though history has proven that the one constant in human nature and in governments of all types is failure.
44 comments Og | Uncategorized

The entitlement programs are (Using Nixons phrase for Africa back in the 70’s) a total loss.
Sad thing is that we just can’t have it go full stop. Its so big and so many people are relying on it.
It will be a bleeding wound (or maybe more like a broken city water main) for as long as we are alive or the government as we know it collapses – whichever comes first.
The problem with human beings is not that we are idiots. The problem is that we are selfish to the point of idiocy.
I know a couple who makes offhand remarks about one of their daughters being selfish, busy in her own little world. They are not wrong, but given that she comes by it honestly, they don’t realize that she is surprisingly unselfish in her own way.
I think the analogy falls down in this: ALL government — even that which is the absolute necessary minimum (whatever that is) is toxic.
I would go a bit farther and say any human organization of sufficient size (and therefor influence) is toxic, and that the best policy is engendered by a bias toward small, self-organizing, atomistic and ad-hoc units.
I see the evolution of society as trending in this direction, and that as cause for optimism.
M
My brain agrees with Og. My heart with Mark.
(I’d point out that the real idiots are the ones with grand ideals for large groups of people. The smarter others that figure out how to game “the system” are having the time of their lives!)
Government is at its best a necessary evil. I don’t know who said it first, but there is no more accurate statement.
“necessary” being the critical word.
Government- where it refers to the Rule of Law and it’s enforcement- is not toxic, but a requirement of human civilization. It is what humans do with it that is toxic.
“The problem with human beings is not that we are idiots.” Dave: You need to get out more.
I still amn’t hearing any explanations of what to do with the huddled masses of idiots. We had, at one time, a pretty good system. They fucked it up- and by they, I mean My parents and grandparents, and yours. And most of my neighbors. And yours. People who thought, “well, what’s the big deal? We can just tax people a little so we can get that road/library/medical care/prevent an island nation the size of Indiana from kicking our asses”
Every time I go looking for the irreducible minimum of government, I come acropper on the fact that I’ve never seen a function which couldn’t be better served in the private sector.
One argues that there are certain arenas where we need to assure the absence of bias or favoritism: that the free availability of naked power just lying around tends to engender corruption, to the detriment of the common weal.
So those functions — courts, military, legislatures — we must give over to the monopoly power of government.
To avoid corruption.
They say at statists’ perjuries Jove laughs. (Yes, that’s Shakespeare, slightly modded.)
M
Oh! (Staircase wit, here…)
If the element of coercion is obviated in the relationship between the sovereign citizen and the state, and all transactions become putatively voluntary, the probability of power’s corruption would seem to be diminished.
Or, as I say: if you want to get the money out of politics, you’ve got to take the power out of Washington. Mix and match to suit.
M
The rule of law is a good thing. We dragged ourselves across an ocean in leaky rotten wooden boats, and in the hulls of rusty tramp steamers to get it. I don’t know how to fix it. I’m remarkably confident that throwing it away is not one of the viable solutions. I know that putting it in the hands of people, whether government, or private, isn’t going to stay simon-pure long term.
Still waiting to hear something like a solution, and all I ever hear is ‘you’re wrong. And this system sucks’
There are solutions. I know what they are, and some of them are worse- in some eyes- than the problem. And I doubt anyone I know will ever have the will to implement them. But I’m not hearing anything else, from anyone.
One of the ways I think this can be- well, if not fixed, then a way to have the corruption minimized- is to have the people responsible for enforcing be constantly terrified for their lives. Ever meet anyone who didn’t pay their bookie? of course you didn’t.
“Anarcho Capitalism”? Did you just make that up?
Og, after thrashing the idiotarian line of thinking soundly, you then come up with another blue-sky concept like “anarcho capitalism”?
Does ANYONE out there think that a world run by capitalists, for capitalists, would be any better for individual rights (R2KBA comes to mind) than the present bunch of tinfoil hatters in DeeCee?
Of course not. The capitalist model is designed to create wealth, and distribute it primarily to the creator, but just enough elsewhere to keep the wealth-creation ideas flowing and the bean-counters counting surpluses of beans. There is NO room in there for individual freedom, in fact individual freedoms are generally considered by those who occupy boardrooms to be COUNTER-productive.
Let’s keep it real, or at least re-designate this space as a sci-fi writing laboratory.
No, Anarcho-capitalist is a thing a bunch of people call themselves.
“People who thought, “well, what’s the big deal? We can just tax people a little so we can get that road/library/medical care/prevent an island nation the size of Indiana from kicking our assesâ€
You mean back in the days when the minimal tax rate was 20% or higher?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
(Of course that went out with tail fins on cars.)
Jenny
Yes, exactly that.
I’ve always viewed gov’t as a backpack. You’re going to need some things, but you still need to be able to carry it or you don’t get to go camping.
Lol. Nicely put, Ted.
The Reluctant Anarchist:
http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml
The story of one man’s conversion to Anarcho-Capitalism.
yeah, I’ve read that before. it’s actual title should be “The accidental idiot”
I have to admit some anarchist tendencies. But just when I come up with a Utopian vision where everyone stays off everyone else’s lawn, I remember that the world is full of idiots and busy-bodies.
Sorry, I don’t have a solution either. Honestly, I think the original vision for our system was a pretty darn good one. It was small and slow, just like it should be. And then the inevitable bloat came along. Things that never should have been the responsibility of the state became part of the code which of course must be funded. And so it goes…
Exactly, jennifer. the “State” bogeyman isn’t an alien slime mold from lepton-7 that is dissolved like a slug in salt in the presence of pure, clean anarchy; it’s the guy down the street. Its you and I. the only way we can eliminate the “State” is to eliminate us. We are the state, the government, the “man”. I’m always amazed that people forget this.
“The State is the great fiction through which everyone endeavours to live at the expense of everyone else.” (Until the whole fkn sheebang implodes)
Indeed it is, Freddy. And therein lies the Problem. Ever has it been thus. Ever will it be thus.
Technology may progress in astonishing leaps and bounds but Human Nature has never changed and will never change. Three constants….. Death, Taxes and Human Nature.
Or, more pedestrian:
“Giving money and power to Congress is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” – P.J. O’Rourke
I still guffaw whenever I think about P.J.’s book Parliament of Whores
The only thing worse than government is anarchy.
Because it immediately turns into government – and of a typically inferior sort.
Rivrdog: As Og said, he didn’t make up the ridiculous term – Murray Rothbard did.
As I said over at Tam’s a while ago, but in simpler terms here: “Rothbard no, Hayek yes.”
(But also, “capitalism” is almost meaningless in this discourse.
It was invented by Marx to describe something that hasn’t existed in perhaps 150 years – and these days all it really means is “private ownership and management of business”.
[Which is a fine and good thing!]
It thus need not be incompatible with individual liberty at all – especially if business has no way to influence government’s monopoly on coercion to rent-seek.
This is most easily achieved not by Demanding It Not Happen With Lots Of Rules Politicians Will Ignore, but by removing power from the State.
No power over something means that people interested in that thing don’t have anything to gain from trying to get influence…)
“Because it immediately turns into government – and of a typically inferior sort.”
unless you immediately kill everyone who would do this, which- hell, we could do now, and it would fix this system equally well. But your point is spot on, as far as I’m concerned. Unless you remove the people who are the problem once and ofr all, they will rise up to be the problem again.
Wow, speaking of putting words in other people’s mouths… ;)
I haven’t proposed any systems, Og; I’m smart enough to know I’m dumb. :)
This discussion was sparked by our conversation, not directed at it. I know you better than that.;)
Of course we could just hope the bloat grows to a point where the parasite consumes the host and then we get to start over again…..
If the Government was like pregancy we could give birth to the little bastard and that should thin it down some.
If it is like fat, we need to go on a diet.
We need something like indians to thin out the herd. Course they got put down by the government.
I blame it all on Roosevelt, that statist, socialist bastard. He really fucked us over. LBJ gave a us another little push in that direction.
Obama is heading us towards the cliff full bore.
The wheels are coming off. Probably pretty soon. The market for our debt has already dried up. The dollar has fallen by half, which will make our good cheaper, but we have already out sourced a good deal of our manufacturing. At least the parts that had the largest profit margin.
I would not want to opine who is the sharper tool ( not the derogatory kind ) between Tam and Og. I would be glad to have them on my side in any fight we have coming. And we have one coming.
When Rome fell, we entered the dark ages which lasted for hundreds of years. Remember, we once had a declared war between nation states that lasted 700 YEARS. We are not going to get out of this without losing some serious skin.
I don’t care much what you call the system we have coming, but it will not be good for us.
I’m #29, and what I take from the above is that I’d better get to the range, MORE, and to the reloading bench, MORE!
Thanx, guys & dolls, this has been one of the better discussions on this timeless subject.
The very best form of government would be one where I was placed in the position of God King, where all people would bow to my every whim and the overwhelming majority of the GGP (gross global product) would be geared at enshrining my consciousness in an immortal indestructible body so that I could rule with an iron fist for eternity. The mere suspicion that a person might be behaving in a way that offends me would cause them to spontaneously combust, with onlookers rushing in to piss on the smoldering remains of the transgressor in a vain attempt to appease my unholy wrath.
Pretty sure if this happens I could get Firefly back on the air.
No promises though.
grau, that would be far better than the anarcho-crap people get all butthurt of you ask any questions about.
Still wish someone would once answer the question: What do you do with the morons?
Harvest them for organs. The liver of a moron still filters toxins.
Og,
Have you ever read Doug Casey’s ideas about anarchy? He has a very well thought out position and supports it with reasoned arguments. He is a very pragmatic sort and fairly entertaining to read. Even if you ultimately disagree with him (which is ok, reasonable, intelligent people can agree to disagree), he is worth checking out.
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cwc/doug-casey-anarchy
To be honest, I don’t think he has a specific answer for “What do you do with the morons?”, but I would sure like the opportunity to try it his way.
yes, I’ve heard all those arguments. Adults know better than to think they’d ever hold water. Yes, I know that Anarchy isn’t Chaos, the way matches and gasoline isn’t fire.
There must be a ruler. The ruler must be law, and not men. We have proven the difficulty of maintaining this system; however, maintiaining the “honor system” of Anarchy requires that everyone be- you know, honorable. And that everyone be capable of defending themselves against the largest possible gang of the dishonorable at all times. Which is, of course, facile on it’s face.
All of which ignores the original question, as all Anarchists do. What do you do with the morons?
Doug Casey is probably a decent guy. “Try it his way”? Will you do that by just moving all the idiots into concentration camps? Who gets to decide who is an idiot?
Thanks for the reply. A little harsh maybe (“Adults know better…”), but then it is your blog and if I don’t like it, I can just go away.
Anarchy doesn’t mean an “honor system”. It just means that necessary services are provided by private rather than government agencies.
Actually, this blog is a good example of anarchy in action. There is no government standard or regulatory body that controls blogs. No one is forced to create them or read them. People with common interests congregate at their favorite blogs. If someone doesn’t like what you say, they can comment or just go away. You can post their comment or ignore it. The point being, it is all done voluntarily and works well without the government forcing anyone to do anything.
Government is only about one thing: do what we tell you to, or we’ll blow your brains out (in the ultimate case). It probably isn’t possible to get by without some minimal amount of government, but I would say most of what we have now not only doesn’t do what it is supposed to but actually causes harm to the people it is supposed to protect or serve. The Dept of Education and the Securities and Exchange Commission come to mind as prime examples. We would be better off if they didn’t exist at all than we are with their current “services”.
However, we are probably at the “agree to disagree” point, especially since the idea is moot because the majority of people would be horrified at the prospect of not having someone to be “in charge”, so it just isn’t going to happen anyway.
“Still waiting for Spring/Summer in Salem, OR”,
DukkButt
“(â€Adults know better…â€), ” is not harsh, it’s merely a fact.
“Anarchy doesn’t mean an “honor systemâ€. It just means that necessary services are provided by private rather than government agencies. ”
yeah. That works out really well, doesn’t it? Come to Chicago and I can educate you on a couple of things.
“Actually, this blog is a good example of anarchy in action”
Well, no. This blog is a monarchy, and i am supreme ruler. I decide what gets said, and what doesn’t.
“Government is only about one thing: do what we tell you to, or we’ll blow your brains out (in the ultimate case).” Which is exactly what Anarchy is about. Most of the Anarchists I know are not only far worse characters than the “Government” they seek to replace with their own ideas, and anxious to enforce them on everyone else, at gunpoint, if necesary.
“we are probably at the “agree to disagree†point”
No. We are at the point where I am right, and you are wrong. Because if what you’re talking about is so wonderful, it would be in widespread use. It is because it’s not possible, and in a country of our size, cannot be. The system of government we have works. it works badly, in fact it is the second worse form of government ever, anywhere. With all the others (Including Anarchy) tied for worst.
No; We arent’ not anarchists because people are afraid of someone not being in charge. We aren’t anarchists because anarchy, like communism, is a pretty little toy; a beautiful idea where everyone gets all of the X they want (be X freedom, turnips, wankel rotary engines, whatever) that cannot and will not work, and the children that pick up those baubles and play with them and devote their lives to making true believers of everyone else. have no idea how lethally dangerous those ideas are.
When someone comes to me with an answer to the simple question at the beginning of the post, I’ll be far less skeptical, but until then, on this subject, I’m “not smart enough to know I’m dumb” I still expect people who posit something (Like anarchy or anarcho capitalism) to put their money where their mouth is: What will you do with those people destined to fuck up everything? Why arent you doing it now?
Point of Order: Anyone “anxious to enforce [their ideas] on everyone else” may call themselves an “anarchist”, but the very idea is an oxymoron, as ridiculous as the kid I knew who called himself a “libertarian socialist”. WTF? That’s like a “Christian satanist”.
Indeed. So I do not know any “actual” anarchists, just people who want everyone to be an anarchist. Which is like someone saying “People need to mind their own business”.
Totally agree with you on several points.
1). The loudest “so called” anarchists do just want the government out of the way so they can impose their own rule. They are using the term as a cover for their own ends rather than being true anarchists.
2). A country our size cannot be ruled under a system of anarchy. True, but it is also starting to appear that a country our size cannot be effectively ruled under any system. The key problem here is size and the resultant concentration of power, plus the fact that Liberal and Conservative ideas aren’t just irreconcilable, they are entirely incompatible. The polarization will continue to increase until it tears the system apart.
3). Human nature (the morons) will ruin just about everything, in the long run. You are absolutely correct there. That is why civilizations rise and fall. The best you can do is build a system that is as robust as possible and contain the idiots for as long as possible. Our system of government has managed to do that for a surprisingly long time. Given the desire to govern a country as large and populous as ours, you are most likely correct that this is the least worst form of government.
To the question “Why aren’t you doing it now?”, some are. For example, anyone who is home schooling their children is practicing a limited form of anarchy. They are basically bypassing those who have screwed up the education system. That is one way of dealing with those people – bypass them, make them irrelevant. Of course that is also a good example of why anarchy will never happen on a large scale, because the government solution is so much easier and most of us (myself included) will just take the easier route.
To the question “Why aren’t you doing it now?â€, some are. For example, anyone who is home schooling their children is practicing a limited form of anarchy.
No.
Read the post, and answer the question. it has nothing to do with homeschooling.
“A country our size cannot be ruled under a system of anarchy.”
…and there’s three oxymorons for the price of one. ;)
Three! Three! Three oxymorons in one!
It’s really just a candy mint. All mints are breath mints, if they made your breath smell like ass, who would eat them?
Dogs, maybe. :)
I’ll admit I’m not a “true believer” and not very good at debate. Social control is a spectrum from Anarchy at one end to Totalitarianism at the other end with various flavors and forms of government in between. I’m just saying I prefer to move toward the Anarchy end and keep government as minimal as possible.
As a side note, one of the problems in this debate is the term anarchy, itself. The common usage has come to mean chaos, disorder and maybe violence. I’m referring to another definition meaning no government or no government involvement. A perfect example of this is your reaction to me saying this blog is an example of anarchy. “It’s a monarchy”, you said. The only statement I was making is that the government is not in any way involved. Didn’t create it, or blogging in general, doesn’t run it, doesn’t regulate it. You reacted as if I had used the first definition and that I was saying it was chaotic or disorderly.
Interestingly enough, there are plenty of statists around who want the internet controlled and regulated by the government. They often use the term anarchy in the negative sense (chaotic, disorderly, even violent) as their excuse for why it should be regulated.
Anyway, interesting discussion. Thanks for responding. You clearly think I’m a fool (or at the very least, foolish) and I probably am, thinking (wishing?) we could get along without government.
I enjoy your comments and observations in the blog and will put it on my regular reading list.
You specifically said, and I’m using your own keystrokes here, “Actually, this blog is a good example of anarchy in action” It is not, it is a monarchy. I have explained that. If you meant to say “Blogging in general is an example of anarchy in action” that might have been a less risible statement, but what you specifically said was wrong, and I prove it every time I post or approve a comment.
You I don’t think you’re a fool, I think you’re an idealist. I was one myself, until I got out into the world and saw the way people actually are.
You will either arrive at this same conclusion on your own, or you wont. No skin off my back, either way, but you can’t prove something to someone who knows better. When you have a legitimate answer to the original question, come back and we’ll talk.