Libertarian Minarchism

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

Does my perfect attendance record at the University of Hard Knox count for anything?

:?

Yeah. You can get a high paying job in the food services industry...:?And work part time as a hit man...:celebrate

I'm not taking a cut in pay to work for McDonalds! unless I have to.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

WhiteFeather wrote:

Our Republic would be a wonderous thing, if only the citizens would participateat the level the founders had wanted.
Alasto all too manyWashington is a building and the decisions made are done with the best intentions and must be followed until proven otherwise andeven then sometimes the smallpain will be tollerated.

Well, you can't wish things into existence. People act the way they do based on their own individual circumstances and whatever information they have access to. For many people, it does not look possible to affect major decisions in a far-away city made by powerful people, and most of those decisions do not have much effect on any particular individual. So it's very easy for a person to rationalize not worrying about politics and focus on matters closer to home.

I read a new phrase the other day, "rational ignorance". From wikipedia:

"Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people, such as general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small."

This perfectly describes what a female friend of mine told me after the recent election. She said that she hadn't had the time to research the candidates, but because she is pro-choice, and Democrats are usually pro-choice, she voted for Obama by default. For all she knew, Obama might have been one of the rare pro-life Democrats, but she didn't think it worth her time to learn anything about any of the candidates. She did, for some reason, take the time to go stand in line at the polling place, becuase her dad had told her that "if you don't vote you have no right to complain".


rational ignorance (although it doesn't seem rational to us, it made sencse to her)

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

"rational ignorance" indeed.

What happened on November 4 was not "rational ignorance", it was "National Ignorance". But don't worry, as usual everybody will wise up.....too late.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

HO ho!

Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless your ignorance is rational!

I love it!

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Hawk says: read a new phrase the other day, "rational ignorance"



Fantastic! A rationalization for the stupid staying stupid. Kind of like a follow-on to "everything I needed to know I learned in kindergarten." Or that dumb shit who thinks bin obamaladin will pay her mortgage and car loan because "I did for him, so now he'll do for me." The fact thatis an economic absurdity is too much for her to learn while she's asking" you want fries with that?"or spending a pleasant evening 'wif (sic) her man' at the crack house, so wtf bother?

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

This is what I like about this group. When there is a bunch of esoteric, egghead philosophical blathering that is all but indecipherable to anyone who needs to work for a living and has no time to cconsult obscure tomes by people most ordinary folks have never heard of - and believe me I can quote Charles Cuber and Emile Durkheim (Obama is a classic symptom of anomie) - somehow some individual among us can bring the discussion down to where the average person can understand it and then we can get down to brass tacks. and we had better, because the average working stiff is the guy we need to reach in this movement. And Joe Six-pack would have no idea WTF the first 10 or so posts here are about.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

We stand on the shoulders of giants that you think are overshadowed by post-modern culture critics? PHUI!

 

[Jim675]

imported post

Perhaps not a giant, but to guide the train back on track:

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one. – Robert LeFevre

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Frédéric Bastiat wrote:

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

Ultimately, the government is the biggest "strong man", and victimizes the greatest number of "marks" (that is, the weak).

When the JPFO talks about Jews being armed to defend themselves, what kind of strength do you imagine they are most afraid of: the "strength" of some street gang, or the strength of a government?

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

"Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people, such as general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small."

My edited version

"Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" whenone istoo damned lazy to educate oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision and gets in the way of watching MTV and American Idol, and so it would be more than such a mental midget could handle in doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people incapable of locigal thought, such as general elections, where the probability of such groups voting in favor of their own demise is very high.

"Rational ignorance" is merely acamoflaged termfor induced stupidity cultivated in a field of mental and/or physical slothfullness.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

"Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people, such as general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small."

My edited version

"Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" whenone istoo damned lazy to educate oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision and gets in the way of watching MTV and American Idol, and so it would be more than such a mental midget could handle in doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people incapable of locigal thought, such as general elections, where the probability of such groups voting in favor of their own demise is very high.

"Rational ignorance" is merely acamoflaged termfor induced stupidity cultivated in a field of mental and/or physical slothfullness.

You guys are getting all emotional over this phrase for no reason. "Rational ignoarance" is not an attempt to justify being ignorant; it's an attempt to explain why humans are ignorant. Complaining and ranting about it is beside the point. There are reasons why people do stupid things or fail to do smart things; instead of complaining about it you need to first understand why it happens and then find ways to counter it.

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

I think Thomas Jefferson cut right to the heart of this question, as seen in Marshaul's quote.

Just as a minarchist system will eventually grown into a bloated, over-reaching right-trampling government, so will an anarchist one, given the tendency of human beings to self-organize, albeit with an extra step.

It must therefore be concluded that a liberty-based system cannot run in any type of automatic mode. Any form of government, or even no government must be constantly scrutinized, and reigned in when it begins to overstep its bounds. It is simply impossible to set the system up so that it cannot evolve into something less liberty-minded. The only way to keep it from so evolving is to be on constant guard against it.

If all humans believed as we do that people can always self-govern better than any government could govern for us, then it might be possible to make a minarchist government that would remain forever minarchist; but alas, not all humans believe that way. There will always be those who believe they can run your life better than you can, and that they should.

As Mr. Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

 

[Jim675]

imported post

And this is why we have the longest currently surviving government.
Governments grow. People get complacent. Change comes.
There is no such things as a permanent institution that humans won't corrupt.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

True that, Slayer. But I cannot remember who said this and as i remember the origin of the quote is as I remember in dispute anyhow. But somebody said that a democracy will only last until the people find that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

That is the problem today and the would-be tyrants of the Left absolutely encourage it. They are delighted that a growing segment of the populace runs to the Federal government every time they get a widdow boo-boo and expect Nanny Sam to kiss it and make it all better.

These people do not want to run the country, they want to rule over it. They use the false "Robin Hood" analogy of "take from the rich, give to the poor". In fact Robin of Locksley would have likely held them up at arrow-point, because he robbed the tax collectors and gave the money back to the commoners from whom it was taken.

This time of year you can count upon some idiot lib reminding everyone that Joseph and Mary were homeless and had to sleep in a barn. Of course the reason they had to sleep in a barn was because they had been called away from home by the government in order toi have taxes assessed against them. So many folks had to return to Bethlehem that all the hotels were booked solid. And oddly enough these same folks, when faced with people who worship Jesus, try to shut the worshippers up, because the truth is opposed to their plans.

Recently, amid the plant closings and foreclosures and layoffs, these august wanna-be dictators have voted themselves a big fat pay raise. This is the very height of arrogance and yet the People just shrug. They are afraid of runing out of oil, but they thimk that tax money from whence these raises come grows on a tree called "the rich".

My generation - probably yours,too - is the "Baby Boomer" generation. We have come to expect the best of everything and have raised similarly spoiled brats. A little more than two generations out of the Great Depression, and our expectations threaten to trigger something even worse. Our young people are being brainwashed in the public schools and in universities both private and public by teachers and professors who have been indoctrinated by the - there is no other word - evil creeps of the Left. We have elections coming up in 2010, and if the Left is not routed then, this country is probably screwed.

"Turning and turning in a widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer.

Things fall apart. The Center cannot hold. Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War,

The blood-red tide is loosed............

Can you tell I am a bit worried???

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

"Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people, such as general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small."

My edited version

"Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" whenone istoo damned lazy to educate oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision and gets in the way of watching MTV and American Idol, and so it would be more than such a mental midget could handle in doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people incapable of locigal thought, such as general elections, where the probability of such groups voting in favor of their own demise is very high.

"Rational ignorance" is merely acamoflaged termfor induced stupidity cultivated in a field of mental and/or physical slothfullness.

You guys are getting all emotional over this phrase for no reason. "Rational ignoarance" is not an attempt to justify being ignorant; it's an attempt to explain why humans are ignorant. Complaining and ranting about it is beside the point. There are reasons why people do stupid things or fail to do smart things; instead of complaining about it you need to first understand why it happens and then find ways to counter it.

A bit of 'emotion' is called for when a new apologia for the just above the Darwinian cutoff types exists. After all, they put the messiah in the Whitehouse and now can be proud of same knowing "rational ignorance" was all the justification needed.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

"Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people, such as general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small."

My edited version

"Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" whenone istoo damned lazy to educate oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision and gets in the way of watching MTV and American Idol, and so it would be more than such a mental midget could handle in doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people incapable of locigal thought, such as general elections, where the probability of such groups voting in favor of their own demise is very high.

"Rational ignorance" is merely acamoflaged termfor induced stupidity cultivated in a field of mental and/or physical slothfullness.

You guys are getting all emotional over this phrase for no reason. "Rational ignoarance" is not an attempt to justify being ignorant; it's an attempt to explain why humans are ignorant. Complaining and ranting about it is beside the point. There are reasons why people do stupid things or fail to do smart things; instead of complaining about it you need to first understand why it happens and then find ways to counter it.

A bit of 'emotion' is called for when a new apologia for the just above the Darwinian cutoff types exists. After all, they put the messiah in the Whitehouse and now can be proud of same knowing "rational ignorance" was all the justification needed.

What did I just write? It's not "apologia", it's a way of explaining why people do stupid things. Explanation does not equal excuse.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

"Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people, such as general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small."

My edited version

"Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" whenone istoo damned lazy to educate oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision and gets in the way of watching MTV and American Idol, and so it would be more than such a mental midget could handle in doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people incapable of locigal thought, such as general elections, where the probability of such groups voting in favor of their own demise is very high.

"Rational ignorance" is merely acamoflaged termfor induced stupidity cultivated in a field of mental and/or physical slothfullness.

You guys are getting all emotional over this phrase for no reason. "Rational ignoarance" is not an attempt to justify being ignorant; it's an attempt to explain why humans are ignorant. Complaining and ranting about it is beside the point. There are reasons why people do stupid things or fail to do smart things; instead of complaining about it you need to first understand why it happens and then find ways to counter it.

A bit of 'emotion' is called for when a new apologia for the just above the Darwinian cutoff types exists. After all, they put the messiah in the Whitehouse and now can be proud of same knowing "rational ignorance" was all the justification needed.

What did I just write? It's not "apologia", it's a way of explaining why people do stupid things. Explanation does not equal excuse.

Explaining the ignorance doesn't make it any less iritating to those of us that have at least taken a minimal amount of time to try to research and educate ourselves on the issues that we make dicisions on. So maybe you can forgive some of us for getting a bit angry when we see that idiots seem to be making decisions that affect us all.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Yes, but the fact is, we are all rationally ignorant about stuff. How many of you know every law that applies to you? If not, why not? Because it's not worth the time spent learning it if you figure the knowledge won't benefit you, so you choose to have a more narrow focus, even though laws which deal with privacy or property rights or even parking regulations do have an impact on your life. Your main concern is likely gun laws.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

I think Thomas Jefferson cut right to the heart of this question, as seen in Marshaul's quote.

Just as a minarchist system will eventually grown into a bloated, over-reaching right-trampling government, so will an anarchist one, given the tendency of human beings to self-organize, albeit with an extra step.

It must therefore be concluded that a liberty-based system cannot run in any type of automatic mode. Any form of government, or even no government must be constantly scrutinized, and reigned in when it begins to overstep its bounds. It is simply impossible to set the system up so that it cannot evolve into something less liberty-minded. The only way to keep it from so evolving is to be on constant guard against it. ...

As Mr. Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

As far as Jefferson quotes go, I'm afraid it's all too clear what solution Jefferson would have proposed to this particular problem. ( Such a radical, he! :shock

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

As far as Jefferson quotes go, I'm afraid it's all too clear what solution Jefferson would have proposed to this particular problem. ( Such a radical, he! :shock

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Jefferson is one of my favorite founders, and I understand his passion when he wrote this. Unfortunately, if you have to resort to frequent bloodshed, it kind of defeats the purpose of creating a civil society, doesn't it?