Find Singapore.Net :: View topic - Democracy in Social System

Find Singapore.Net Forum Index » International Issues » Democracy in Social System - Collective Intelligence
	View previous topic :: View next topic

Democracy in Social System - Collective Intelligence

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:49 pm

alpha

Diamond Member

Joined: 27 Apr 2005

Posts: 1902

Location: Utopia

The Tao of Democracy is for all people who want a better world than we have now, and need a dependable way to get there.

Book: The Tao of Democracy
Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World
That Works for All
by Tom Atlee

Here is a book that explains how 'We the People' can build our collective capacity to see clearly where we're going and govern ourselves wisely. It describes how we can break through to conscious evolution and to co-creating a shared future that makes sense to all of us.

Here's a sample chapter:
http://www.taoofdemocracy.com/sample.html

Quote:

COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
As we explore ways to generate more effective groups, organizations, institutions, and other human systems, it may help to begin by taking a closer look at collective intelligence.

In my own experience, when I investigate the problems that we face in the world today, I seldom find individual evil. I usually find basically good, intelligent people collectively generating discord and disaster ? in families, groups, organizations, nations and the world. Meanwhile, in their own lives, from their own perspective (and usually that of their loved ones), most of them are doing perfectly good, decent things. How can this be?

As you may have gathered already, I believe that individual intelligence is not enough. If we wish to successfully deal with the various social and environmental challenges we face today, we need to develop far more collective intelligence as a society and as a global civilization.

To date, much has been learned about how to develop collective intelligence within organizations ? usually to help corporations become more competitive in the global market. Good work has also been done to increase collective intelligence in civil society at the community level, especially to deal with local environmental conflicts.

Yet comparatively little effort has been applied toward building collective intelligence in the public sector, for governance and social system design. In order to ensure our success as a species, we will need to apply what we have learned about collective intelligence to improve our capacity to create sustainable social, political, and economic systems that work well for everyone involved.

This much is clear: Given the right conditions ? conditions which have been created in numerous environments around the world on many occasions ? communities and societies can collectively reflect on their problems and possibilities, and collectively choose and implement effective, even brilliant solutions and initiatives. Understanding collective intelligence can help us fulfill the original dream of democracy: the participatory determination of our collective fate.

Collective intelligence at different levels of society
Given the central importance of collective intelligence, let us take a closer look at this phenomenon. The following examples show how collective intelligence might be applied at a variety of levels: in groups, organizations, communities, states, and whole societies.

GROUPS

An individual IQ test compares individuals' problem-solving skills with the problem-solving capabilities of others their age. In a similar manner, we could demonstrate the existence of group intelligence by comparing how well various groups solve problems.

In a classic experiment, group intelligence was measured by presenting small groups of executives with a hypothetical wilderness survival problem. All-female teams arrived at better solutions (as judged by wilderness experts) than all-male teams. The women's collective problem-solving capabilities were enhanced by their collaborative style, while the men's efforts to assert their own solutions led them to get in each other's way. Significantly, the resulting difference in collective intelligence did not occur because the individual women were smarter than the individual men, but rather because of a difference in gender-related group dynamics.

This example also shows how collaborative intelligence can enhance a group's collective intelligence. When people align their individual intelligences in shared inquiries or undertakings, instead of using their intelligence to undermine each other in the pursuit of individual status, they are much more able to generate collective intelligence.

In the pursuit of collective intelligence, organizations often invest in many kinds of "team-building" approaches in order to generate greater collaboration within groups. In Chapter 7, we will be describing a number of simple, low-cost approaches that can be used to help neighborhood, community, and activist groups develop greater collaborative and collective intelligence.

ORGANIZATIONS

Can a whole organization exhibit intelligence? In November 1997, 750 forest service employees used a technique called Open Space Technology to create, in just three days, a shared vision of change, including action plans. The vision that this group generated covered all facets of forest service activity, and the employees were genuinely excited about implementing the action plans they themselves had developed. This one-time exercise had a lasting effect upon the larger system.

Several organizations and networks, such as the Society for Organizational Learning (solonline.org), research and promote the capacity for organizational intelligence by helping corporations build a culture of ongoing, high-quality dialogue that examines the whole-system dynamics in and around the organization. Just as group intelligence depends on things such as group process, organizational intelligence depends on organizational factors. These factors range from an organizational culture that promotes dialogue to organizational memory systems (files, records, databases, minutes, etc.). They include systems that collect and utilize feedback (learning inputs) from inside and outside the organization, as well as efforts to understand the feedback dynamics (cycles and interdependencies) that govern the organization as a living system. When such things are in place, an organization can create, accumulate and use understandings and solutions which become part of the organization itself ? knowledge that outlasts the tenure of individual employees and executives. In other words, the organization is learning, exercising its intelligence and applying it in life the same way an individual does.

One particularly interesting innovation is chaor-dic organization. The term "chaordic" was coined by Visa co-founder Dee Hock to describe complex, self-organizing systems that manifest both chaotic and orderly qualities. In The Birth of the Chaordic Age, he describes how a chaordic organization, such as the Internet, is not so much a thing as a pattern of agreements about interactions which help voluntary participants achieve certain shared goals or visions, guided by certain agreed-on principles. Such organizations provide workable alternatives to conventional command-and-control structures. The Chaordic Commons (chaordic.org) is a non-profit organization dedicated to making this work available in the world.

As mentioned earlier, much of the research on how to generate collective intelligence has taken place within the private sector. Unfortunately, all too many corporations are still playing a destructive role within our larger system, and are using their enhanced collective intelligence to consolidate power and consume resources faster. This is in part because society has yet to change the fundamental "rules of the game," including how corporations are chartered and monitored.

Nonetheless, if we are to survive as a species, we need to apply our knowledge of collective intelligence to larger and nobler ends than profit. Our non-profit, community, and social change organizations can improve their capacity for creating effective change by applying the knowledge that has been gained about collaborative leadership, whole-system planning, self-directed work teams, and a host of other innovations.

COMMUNITIES

What would community intelligence look like? Perhaps we see a budding example of it in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which in the early 1980s was reeling from local recession, deteriorating schools, and rising racial tensions. Several dozen citizens formed Chattanooga Venture, an on-going, cross-class, multi-racial organization that involved hundreds of people in an inclusive effort to set and achieve community goals. Of 34 specific city-wide goals set in 1984, 29 were completed by 1992, at which point Chattanooga Venture again convened hundreds of citizens to create new community goals. Among the goals realized through this process was the creation of Chattanooga's Neighborhood Network, which organized and linked up dozens of neighborhood associations to help people co-create a shared future right where they lived, enhancing their community intelligence even further. Chattanooga Venture provides a glimpse of the sort of ongoing collective intelligence we could build to solve problems, to learn together, and to generate a better life right at home.

There are many other inspiring examples of the effort to develop community intelligence. Many of these have been carried out using the approach of Asset Based Community Development (ABCD). This community organizing approach does not directly address a community's problems or treat citizens as clients in need of services from government and nonprofit agencies. Rather, it sees citizens as assets and as co-creators of their community. ABCD organizers help citizens discover, map and mobilize the assets that are hidden away in all the people who live in their community, as well as in the community's informal associations and formal institutions. Those resources, brought out of their isolation and into creative synergy with each other, are then used to realize the community's visions. See John P. Kretzmann and John L. McKnight's Building Communities from the Inside Out or nwu.edu/IPR/abcd.html.

STATES AND PROVINCES

A statewide example of collective intelligence can be found in the efforts of the non-profit Oregon Health Decisions (OHD), which involved thousands of diverse, ordinary Oregonians in in-depth conversations about how to best use limited health care funds. Hundreds of such meetings in the 1980s resulted in the legislature mandating in 1990 the use of community meetings to identify the values that should guide state health care decisions. With experts "on tap" to provide specialized health care knowledge, citizens weighed the trade-offs involved in over seven hundred approaches to deal with specific medical conditions, and decided which should be given preference.

In general, approaches that were inexpensive, highly effective, and needed by many people (which included many preventative measures) were given priority over approaches that were expensive, less effective and needed by very few people. Although clearly some people would not get needed care under this system, it was pointed out that some people did not get needed care under the existing system. The difference was that in the old system, it was poor people who fell through the cracks by default. In the new system, Oregonians were trying to make these difficult decisions more consciously, openly and justly. So they tapped into the collective intelligence of their entire state, weaving together citizen and expert contributions into a wisdom greater than any person or group could have generated separately.

NATIONS AND WHOLE SOCIETIES

Admittedly, increasing the level of collective intelligence on a national or societal level can be a daunting proposition. How can we begin to involve everyone in a dialogue about the issues we face, when working at such a large scale? I offer the following paragraphs as a "preview" of a longer story that we will be exploring in Chapter 12. I believe that it offers some ideas about avenues to explore if we wish to invite a deeper national dialogue.

One weekend in June 1991, a dozen Canadians met at a resort north of Toronto, under the auspices of Maclean's, Canada's leading newsweekly. They had been scientifically chosen so that, together, they reflected all the major sectors of public opinion in their deeply divided country. Each of these people had accepted the invitation to attend this weekend event, where they would be engaging in dialogue with people whose views differed from their own strongly-held beliefs. The dialogue was facilitated by Harvard University law professor Roger Fisher, co-author of the classic Getting to Yes, and two colleagues. These ordinary citizens had never engaged in a process like this before. They started with widely divergent positions, and little trust among them. The process took place under tremendous time pressure, as well as under the eye of a camera crew from CTV television who was recording the event for a special public-affairs program. Nonetheless, these folks succeeded in their assignment of developing a consensus vision for the entire country of Canada. Their vision was published in four pages of fine print, part of the thirty-nine pages that Maclean's devoted to describing their efforts in their July 1, 1991 issue.

This experience was a very moving event for all who participated in it or witnessed it. Maclean's editors suggested that "the process that led to the writing of the draft could be extended to address other issues." Assistant Managing Editor Robert Marshall noted that earlier efforts, including a parliamentary committee, a governmental consultative initiative, and a $27 million Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, all failed to create real dialogue among citizens about constructive solutions, even though those efforts had involved 400,000 Canadians in focus groups, phone calls and mail-in reporting. "The experience of the Maclean's forum indicates that if a national dialogue ever does take place, it would be an extremely productive process."

The Maclean's experiment is a type of process that I call a citizen deliberative council. These councils are diverse groups, somewhat like a jury, who are called together as a microcosm of "We the People" in order to learn, dream, and explore problems and possibilities together while the rest of society observes their deliberations. This approach can dramatically change the political environment, as subsequent government decisions are made in a context of greater public wisdom, sophistication and consensus. In Chapters 13 and 14 we will be taking an in-depth look at citizen deliberative councils as a promising approach for generating collective intelligence on a societal level. Many types of these citizen councils have been used in at least sixteen countries.

As we have seen, collective intelligence is a phenomenon that can occur at various levels. Yet, what do all of these examples of collective intelligence have in common? What makes all these forms of collective intelligence similar?

Inclusion and the intelligence of democracy
At all levels, from groups to whole societies, the degree to which various perspectives are included increases the collective intelligence of the whole. Collective intelligence increases as it creatively and constructively includes diverse relevant viewpoints, people, information, etc., into collective deliberations.

Historically, practical considerations have allowed everyone's voice to be heard only in small groups, such as town meetings. In its ideal form representative democracy was imagined to provide legitimate, manageable small groups (legislative, administrative and judicial bodies) through which (at least theoretically) the voices of whole populations could be channeled. However, over time, our legislatures, executives and judges have become both less representative and less responsive ? a situation that has led many of us to reconsider our political and governmental arrangements.

But there is good news: Simultaneous with this development, humanity has been developing powerful tools which could solve these problems. For example, the citizen deliberation councils described earlier could be combined with sophisticated use of media, especially telecommunications and powerful group processes that foster the creative use of diversity. Furthermore, the national councils could be used to spark more and better dialogue at the local level.

This idea combines only a few of the hundreds of approaches that are currently available. I hope to show in this book that there are many social innovations that we could weave together in a variety of ways to create remarkable enhancements to our present system. If we take this challenge, I believe we will find ourselves poised on the edge of our next evolutionary leap in democracy ? not just as an alternative to tyranny, but as an inclusive path to society-wide collective intelligence and wisdom.

In the next chapter, we will look at a number of social innovations that allow us to generate deeper democracy and greater collective intelligence in our personal relationships, small groups, and larger groups. This, in turn, can lay the groundwork for creating deeper democracy in our social system.

_________________
Insight comes from the realisation that observation is going on without an observer, witnessing without a witness.

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:52 pm

alpha

Diamond Member

Joined: 27 Apr 2005

Posts: 1902

Location: Utopia

And alpha wonders if [lpc1998] had read this book: The Tao of Democracy?

_________________
Insight comes from the realisation that observation is going on without an observer, witnessing without a witness.

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:27 pm

lpc1998

Silver Member

Joined: 30 Apr 2005

Posts: 219

alpha wrote:

And alpha wonders if [lpc1998] had read this book: The Tao of Democracy?

Thank you very much, [alpha]. I have not come across this book before. I agree with the author that true democracy enables collective intelligence and more.

This is what I had written about the NPS (New Political System for the Information Age: http://www.lpc1998.com/forum/NPS/NPS_Drafts/NPS_D06.html Do note that NPS Draft #06 has not been updated for more than a year and certain parts need revision) some years ago:

Quote:

The greatest value of NPS lies in the potential transparency in the actions of the government and public officials, and in the harnessing and unleashing of the collective resources of our entire country to solve fundamental and important problems of the nation.

?Collective resources of our entire country? are far more than just collective intelligence of the people. They include the collective wisdom, talents, time, skills and other resources of the nation and people.

Most importantly, true democracy does not need more than the honesty and integrity of just above average citizens in a transparent and open society as the people?s representatives, and dispenses with once and for all the people?s dependency on supermen and wonderwomen or the people's hope for a messiah since the country?s and people?s issues will be dealt with collectively by the people. (This does not mean that every issue will be dealt with by all the people at the same time). This is how the people?s problems will be eventually handled in the Information Age, but of course, new institutions and a new manner of thinking are required.

In this connection, it is critical to note one fundamental difference between true democracy and false democracy: in a true democracy, the representatives are elected or appointed to serve the country and people whereas in a false democracy, the 'representatives' rule in the name of the people.

The journey in search for the NPS is the search for a political system that ensures the people?s representatives serve the people and never to rule over them.

_________________
Best Regards
lpc1998

NPS for the Information Age - System Design

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:55 pm

alpha

Diamond Member

Joined: 27 Apr 2005

Posts: 1902

Location: Utopia

Impressed with the original thinker of NPS. clap

lpc1998 wrote:

[it is critical to note one fundamental difference between true democracy and false democracy: in a true democracy, the representatives are elected or appointed to serve the country and people whereas in a false democracy, the 'representatives' rule in the name of the people.

The journey in search for the NPS is the search for a political system that ensures the people?s representatives serve the people and never to rule over them.

Quoted from your website: http://www.lpc1998.com/forum/NPS/NPS_Drafts/NPS_D06.html

Quote:

Basically, the NPS is about an ?ideal? system with People Power at the core and comprising of 3 state organs, namely:
- An directly elected Executive President with Legislative Powers (?the President?)
- A directly elected Senate without Legislative Powers (?the Senate?)
- Council of Veterans (non-elected)

together with appointed Independent Institutions or Bodies such as:
- Election Commission
- House of Justice
- Judiciary
- National Media Commission
- Talent Development Institute

Very inspiring read, I read the intro when you gave the link. Continue some portions today... and finished it up after my typing. Some points which I like:

Under Safeguard 5 against Dictatorship:
Moreover, transparency is one of the core tenets of the NPS. Both the Senate and the Council of Veterans could call for a public hearings and participation of any process incuding the judicial processes, save those involving national security and state secrets.

Safeuard 11:
There is no better safeguard for democracy other than a politically aware, informed and active people.

Safeguard 12:
In case, any or all of the other safeguards fail, the people could still resort to People Power.

Unlike the existing political systems, the people retain at all times their sovereign powers and could exercise their sovereign powers at any time through the citizens' initiatives or referendums, not once in 4 or 5 years during the general elections.

Constitution as the Will of the People:
In the event of inconsistency between two or more of the provisions of this Constitution, the fundamental principles shall have primacy over all other provisions and the important provisions shall have primacy over ordinary provisions.

Concessions to the Minorities:
Also in the NPS, justice is valued above the law and so the House of Justice is empowered constitutionally to reduce any unjust punishment or penalty under the law to a minimum of S$1.00. The ass no longer rules supreme.

Eventual Obsolescence of the Political Party:
One of the primary causes of the fatal flaws of the existing political systems is the political party. By its very nature, the political party is an association of individuals or groups with the view of eventually capturing state powers in furtherance of personal or group agenda.

In the NPS, relatively very little money is required by the candidates for election purposes. It is because the National Media Commission and the Election Commission would provide sufficient coverage for the election candidates and other electioneering needs so that the best person for the service of the people and nation is elected, not the best person in raising enormous amount of political ?donations? or ?contributions?.

NSP flowchart for a visual representation:
http://lpc1998.com/forum/NPS/NPS_Drafts/Charts/NPS-basicstructure.html

> Notice you've a NPSForum yahoo grouping, this reminded me of some years back I started a Sg_Talkback grouping to provide alternative platform to set our own agenda for discussion, to formulate some bottom-up planning initiatives, engage in effective dialogue and collective exchange of ideas but demolished it soon after. Both projects seem like ahead of its time.

Will continue another day... or perhaps you would like it to be a new thread by its own, well deserved one.

Last edited by alpha on Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:53 am; edited 1 time in total
_________________
Insight comes from the realisation that observation is going on without an observer, witnessing without a witness.

Re: NPS for the Information Age - System Design

Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:20 am

lpc1998

Silver Member

Joined: 30 Apr 2005

Posts: 219

Thank you, [alpha] for your review of NPS Draft #06.

alpha wrote:

Impressed with the original thinker of NPS. clap

lpc1998 wrote:

The ?original thinker of the NPS? comprises of many individuals who first appeared at the now-defunct STIC (Straits Times Interactive Chat). There were various solutions suggested for a number of political issues raised. The discussion was long and heated and finally a challenge was thrown in for a new political system assuming it could be designed without considering the existing political and social constraints. The response was ?A Consolidated Account? of the suggestions made then that swiftly evolved into the NPS Draft #01.

With the sudden demise of the STIC, the NPS discussion could have ended there. An interesting and probable historic solution to the political mess would have been sadly aborted, but no, the NPS went global instead and engaging very active political minds from the US and Europe. Ironically, these people are exceedingly concerned with the ?democracy-deficits? of the ?western liberal democracy? and the dire consequences arising therefrom while many of us at home believe the ?western liberal democracy? as the political Promised Land. This is because many of us living in a democracy-famished country are easily blinded by the strong, shining democratic components in the ?western liberal democracy?.

Do note here the NPS at the present stage is faint hint of what may be possible when the ?collective resources of our entire country? are harnessed and unleashed.

alpha wrote:

Notice you've a NPSForum yahoo grouping, this reminded me of some years back I started a Sg_Talkback grouping to provide alternative platform to set our own agenda for discussion, to formulate some bottom-up planning initiatives, engage in effective dialogue and collective exchange of ideas but demolished it soon after. Both projects seem like ahead of its time.

The NPSForum ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSForum/ ) is ongoing and the NPS discussion posts are still there, but buried under a huge pile of other democracy discussions of greater concerns to the Americans and the Europeans. Nevertheless, such discussions do throw up good and valuable points for the next NPS Draft. Click the link ?Responses to NPS Drafts:? in NPS Draft #06 immediately under the Contents for the earlier discussions before the setting up of the NPSForum.

alpha wrote:

Will continue another day... or perhaps you would like it to be a new thread by its own, well deserved one. .

Thank you. This thread set up by you is fine for the NPS discussion. Moreover it does give the discussions a broader scope and appeal.

PS: The link in your post to NPSDraft #06 is not working because of an additional ?:?

_________________
Best Regards
lpc1998

Re: NPS for the Information Age - System Design

Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:54 am

alpha

Diamond Member

Joined: 27 Apr 2005

Posts: 1902

Location: Utopia

lpc1998 wrote:

PS: The link in your post to NPSDraft #06 is not working because of an additional ?:?

Oops, thanks for highlighting that, I've made the adjustment. Cheers!

_________________
Insight comes from the realisation that observation is going on without an observer, witnessing without a witness.

ANOTHER POST AGAINST DEMOCRACY

Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 8:22 pm

Matilah_Singapura

Diamond Member

Joined: 03 May 2005

Posts: 1293

Location: Perfff, The Peoples' Democratic Socialist Federation of Australia

"Intelligence" can never be a collective thing. The book is based on a false premise.

We all have independent conciousness (free will) and the ability to volitionally direct that conciousness.

We also have seperate stomachs, seperate lungs and seperate hearts. Our lives, although to varying degrees intertwined through relationships, are seperate (objectively speaking) from one another - but how we feel and our individual experience of life is personal.

"Political Democracy"proposes all sorts of "collective" safeguards to "protect" freedom. Unfortunately democracy mostly ends up shooting itself in the foot. Why? Because it deny's the basic right of an individual: to be left alone, to determine by his own mind what's best for himself.

Political Democracy achieves its ends by force - through the collective might of the majority. There's a danger in this herd-like behaviour: the members of the herd think (individually) that by a majority vote they can achieve anything - even breaking the laws of nature, especially economics - for e.g. handing out "free" money to "solve social problems", and ends up one group against the other - a sort of "legalised gang warfare".

Just because the "majority" believe in a certain idea, doesn't necessarily mean that idea will fly. In fact, "30,000 Frenchmen" can be wrong, and if you look at France, oh boy, have they been wrong or what?!?

Political Democracy invariably violates individual rights, and the right of individuals to own and use their property. Political Democracies are the social systems which create warfare and welfare states.

Political Democracies were very popular in the last century - the most violent and brutal century mankind has ever seen.

Such is the result of a belief in "collective intelligence". Think about the Nazi's and how their "collective intelligence" killed millions. Same with Stalin and Mao.

At one time the "collective intelligence" believed that smoking tobacco was a good thing. Even governments got into the action - nationalising tobacco cartels and encourging people to use tobacco.

And you'll realise how this ("collective intelligence") affected people on an individual basis. And the cure? Anyone who wants to stop smoking has to do so by largely his own decision and efforts - i.e. it is he who decides and acts, even if he is influenced by social and family pressures.

No one can escape personal responsibility. Trading in your independent and critical mind for a "collective mind" is at the least self-sabotage and at the worst suicide.

_________________

http://matilahsingapura.blogspot.com

Re: ANOTHER POST AGAINST DEMOCRACY

Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:09 pm

lpc1998

Silver Member

Joined: 30 Apr 2005

Posts: 219

Hi [Matilah_Singapura], long time no ?see?. How do you do?

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

Obviously, author Tom Atlee has a different meaning of ?collective Intelligence? from yours. By ?collective Intelligence?, he means the effect when individual intelligence of a group of people works together to address problems and issues. He does not mean the separate existence of an entity called ?collective Intelligence?.

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

Political Democracy achieves its ends by force - through the collective might of the majority. There's a danger in this herd-like behaviour: the members of the herd think (individually) that by a majority vote they can achieve anything - even breaking the laws of nature, especially economics - for e.g. handing out "free" money to "solve social problems", and ends up one group against the other - a sort of "legalised gang warfare".

Just because the "majority" believe in a certain idea, doesn't necessarily mean that idea will fly. In fact, "30,000 Frenchmen" can be wrong, and if you look at France, oh boy, have they been wrong or what?!?

Political Democracy invariably violates individual rights, and the right of individuals to own and use their property. Political Democracies are the social systems which create warfare and welfare states.

Political Democracies were very popular in the last century - the most violent and brutal century mankind has ever seen.

So this is what you understand by ?political democracy?. So you believe that France, UK, US, Germany, the Soviet Union, etc, in the last century are true democracies. So sad.

So you believe the worst of all evils that existed in the last century are attributable to democracy. So sad. What about the evils that existed before the last century?

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

Such is the result of a belief in "collective intelligence". Think about the Nazi's and how their "collective intelligence" killed millions. Same with Stalin and Mao.

So you believe that Hitler, Stalin and Mao are amongst the greatest democrats of all times. So sad.

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

At one time the "collective intelligence" believed that smoking tobacco was a good thing. Even governments got into the action - nationalising tobacco cartels and encourging people to use tobacco.

And you'll realise how this ("collective intelligence") affected people on an individual basis. And the cure? Anyone who wants to stop smoking has to do so by largely his own decision and efforts - i.e. it is he who decides and acts, even if he is influenced by social and family pressures.

This widespread use of tobacco products is not "collective intelligence". This is collective stupidity and ignorance exploited by capitalist greed in blind pursuit of unconscionable profits.

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

No one can escape personal responsibility. Trading in your independent and critical mind for a "collective mind" is at the least self-sabotage and at the worst suicide.

You are absolutely right here. Any suggestion to surrender your independent and critical mind for whatever reason is highly dubious and unacceptable. The strength and the value of a ?collective mind? are very much dependent on the contributions from the participating individual minds.

_________________
Best Regards
lpc1998

Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 12:48 am

Matilah_Singapura

Diamond Member

Joined: 03 May 2005

Posts: 1293

Location: Perfff, The Peoples' Democratic Socialist Federation of Australia

lpc,

Thank you for your criticisms. It is a shame you haven't made a case for "democracy".

I am a practicisng democrat, BTW. I practice market democracy.

How do you account for the fact that Hitler, Soekarno/Soeharto, Marcos, Saddam Husseien all came in by DEMOCRATIC PROCESS?
laugh

I always consider political democracy to be the best comic tragedy (or tragic comedy) that our valiant species as come up with.

Even the dumbest mudderfugger can make a choice in how he is to be governed and by whom, and for how long. jocker

_________________

http://matilahsingapura.blogspot.com

Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 10:44 am

lpc1998

Silver Member

Joined: 30 Apr 2005

Posts: 219

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

Thank you for your criticisms. ?

Nope, not criticisms. Counter-criticisms.

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

? It is a shame you haven't made a case for "democracy".

It is indeed a crying shame that there is still a need to make a case for democracy in the Information Age.

Anyway, I have started 2 threads here in FS that deal with certain aspects of democracy:

http://www.findsingapore.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1748

http://www.findsingapore.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2041&start=0

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

I am a practicisng democrat, BTW. I practice market democracy.

This is good. Would you like to define what you mean by ?democracy? and ?market democracy?? What is the difference between the two?

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

How do you account for the fact that Hitler, Soekarno/Soeharto, Marcos, Saddam Husseien all came in by DEMOCRATIC PROCESS?
laugh

What do you mean by the ?democratic process??

Have you looked into whether any one of them came in by the ABUSE of the democratic process?

Btw, General Soeharto of Indonesia came to power in 1965-1966 ?when an estimated one-half million people were killed in anti-communist pogroms? ( http://hrw.org/english/docs/1998/09/04/indone1310.htm ) by the soldiers under his command and putting the then President Sukarno under house arrest. Why do you call this process democratic?

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

Are saying that the ?dumbest mudderfugger? should be denied voting rights? If this is so, what basis would you use to determine who are the ?dumbest mudderfugger?? How many percent of the voters, do you think, are ?dumbest mudderfugger??

_________________
Best Regards
lpc1998

Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 4:55 pm

IMAGOD

Ordinary Member

Joined: 03 May 2005

Posts: 63

Location: "Pussy Galore Ago-go" Patpong, Bangkok

I'm using my other handle. It's like back in the old days at the STIC. We've been down this road before lpc, hopefully though now, some new insights.

KEY CONCEPT: THE PRIMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL aka The Sovereign Individual. The individual forms the basic unit of "society". All social institutions and organs of the state are to serve the individual and protect his property - not the other way around.

All my arguments are grounded in the Primacy of The Individual and his right to own PROPERTY.

As far as possible, I will used local examples to illustrate the violation of individual sovereignty and private property. There's nothing like experiences close to home :laug:

lpc1998 wrote:

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

? It is a shame you haven't made a case for "democracy".

It is indeed a crying shame that there is still a need to make a case for democracy in the Information Age.

Even more so, I would imagine. Since you and people like you are constantly demanding political reforms for democracy in Singapore.

I'm here to make the case against political democracy and the case for individual rights and private property. Political democracy will always be a threat to the individual's sovereignty, and his right to own any property he chooses and can afford to own.

lpc1998 wrote:

Anyway, I have started 2 threads here in FS that deal with certain aspects of democracy:

http://www.findsingapore.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1748

http://www.findsingapore.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2041&start=0

Sure. And in those threads are references to the corruption of democracy by tyrants and their slick tactics.

Also, you haven't made a strong case for the protection of the individual and his property from the "majority" who'll vote in a govt or central planner to "get things done".

lpc1998 wrote:

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

I am a practicisng democrat, BTW. I practice market democracy.

This is good. Would you like to define what you mean by ?democracy? and ?market democracy?? What is the difference between the two?

I'm glad you asked the question.

In a market democracy, the indivdual - produce and consumer, vote with "their dollar" - i.e their private property.

If the entrepreneur has a "good idea" for making money, he can develop and manufacture his widget, then offer it to the market for sale. He uses private property to do this. If he is "right", he makes money. If he is not, he loses money. He has "voted with his dollar". He used his own mind to make that decision.

The consumer has many insatiable needs. So he goes into the market to see what widgets he can buy to satisfy at least the most urgent needs first. He chooses from a variety of widgets, and exchanges his private property (money) for that widget. If he is "right", that money was well spent. If he js not, he's wasted his money, and his need is less than satisfied. He made is own mind to make that decision.

In a political democracy, no private property is required to vote. In fact, people often vote to have a govt violate private property rights - e.g. gun laws: the "majority" decided to prohibit people from owning guns. What right does the majority have (thru government) to decide that drugs, guns, pornography, sexually deviant behavior between consenting adults etc etc are "bad"? As long as people keep their choices to themselves and don't interfere with others - i.e. enjoy the PEACEFUL use of their property - any force to prevent them from acting in their own personal best interests violates the Sovereignty of the Individual and his Private Property Rights.

Any fool can vote in a political democracy. Just turn 18. You don't have to prove your "worthiness" and you don't have to "bet" your private property. You don't even have to make up your own mind, because the majority will get their way anyway.

In a market democracy, you don't have to prove yur worthiness to vote either. You can be a total idiot. BUT you have to "bet" with your private property. You get a DIRECT RESULT from you decisions and it affects only YOU.

lpc1998 wrote:

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

How do you account for the fact that Hitler, Soekarno/Soeharto, Marcos, Saddam Husseien all came in by DEMOCRATIC PROCESS?
laugh

What do you mean by the ?democratic process??

Voting at the polls. The ballot.

lpc1998 wrote:

Have you looked into whether any one of them came in by the ABUSE of the democratic process?

Put it this way, if the democratic process (funny you should ask me to explain what it is, then you susbsequently use the term in the next sentence...) is NOT abused, I'll be very surprised. In fact, I count on it to be abused. :-)

lpc1998 wrote:

Btw, General Soeharto of Indonesia came to power in 1965-1966 ?when an estimated one-half million people were killed in anti-communist pogroms? ( http://hrw.org/english/docs/1998/09/04/indone1310.htm ) by the soldiers under his command and putting the then President Sukarno under house arrest. Why do you call this process democratic?

Because it is a typical political democracy in action. Democracy ends up in tyranny. The degree of tyranny varies. In the Soekarno and Hitler regimes the tyranny killed people. In the "peaceful" western democracies the welfare state sucks the life out of the people by taxes - mostly paid by the poor and middle class. The rich have a good old time.

The main political support in these "peaceful" democracies comes from the poor and middle class. They vote themselves into oppression. The rich just sit back and milk everyone. The poor and middle class would prefer to relinquish their individual sovereignty and private property rights for the promise by glib politicians - of some "utopia".

The rich and super-rich see what's coming and protect their property. They have the means to employ armies of lawyers and accountants. And they are also very mobile. If it gets too hot, they have the means to just leave and live anywhere.

This "class warfare" is classic in the (so-called) mature western democracies. In a struggle for "egalitarianism" the voting majority shoot themselves in the foot by voting in "representative governments" to "equalise the disproportionate wealth" by forced redistribution of wealth.

And it ends up with intolerable welfare systems which render the nation uncompetitive. The welfares systems - public schools, public healthcare, public transport... all the "free money" stuff need more and more money as times goes on. Occasionally some good news - state welfare systems collapse. People scream. They throw out the incumbent govt, and vote in a new tyrant. The process repeats itself.

lpc1998 wrote:

Matilah_Singapura wrote:

Not at all. As long as the ?dumbest mudderfugger uses his private property to make his choices by voluntary exchanges in the market, I have no problem with that.

Back to KEY CONCEPT: The Sovereignty of The Individual. The dumbest mudderfugger is a Sovereign Individual too. He has the rights to life and property just like everyone else. These rights are not "exclusive" to the rich and powerful - every living human has these NATURAL rights.

However to give dumb mudderfuggers POLITICAL POWER is a comic tragedy waiting to happen. No private property is exchanged by voluntary market participation in POLITICAL democracies. Any voting-age fool with the propensity to be hypnotised by the bullshit rhetoric of a campaigning dictator-in-waiting can vote - and boy, do they VOTE... en masse, as a "democrazy". Group behaviour. Social proof. Manipulation.

Of course I have no right whatsoever to STOP this from happening... but I can comment on it, fire the arrows of scorn and derision at it, perhaps even attempt to dissuade people from this folly of democracy, and I can assert my own Individual Sovereingty to PROTECT myself and my property from the MOB. laugh

What I'm actually doing is exercising my democratic right to an opinion. I'm practising DEMOCRACY! Everyday. yeah

_________________
"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims". - Ayn Rand

Re: ANOTHER POST AGAINST DEMOCRACY

Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 1:37 am

lpc1998

Silver Member

Joined: 30 Apr 2005

Posts: 219

IMAGOD wrote:

I'm using my other handle. It's like back in the old days at the STIC. We've been down this road before lpc, hopefully though now, some new insights.

This is wonderful. I prefer [IMAGOD] to [Matilah_Singapura] in our discussions, partly the former sounds more authoritative than the latter while the latter would prejudice the minds of some people on Singapore issues.

Yes, you were one of the major contributors to the NPS discussions at the STIC and it is time for us to compare notes again.

For the avoidance of confusion, I would like to state the following:

1 I am mostly in agreement in substance to what you have said about ?political democracy? and individual personal and property rights. Yes, it is the business of organized society to uphold such rights;

2 Apart from some extreme positions taken by you that would render organized society impossible, most of our differences are semantic. What you called ?political democracy? I would term it as ?repocracy (the Rule by Representatives)? or false democracy. So I am as much against ?repocracy? or false democracy as you are against ?political democracy?. We are opposed to the same thing, but naming it differently.

3 You have used the term ?political democracy? probably to distinguish it from ?market democracy?. For me ?political democracy? is inappropriate as democracy is necessary political while ?market democracy? is simply about the free market economy.

4 So believing in ?market democracy? or free market economy does not make you a democrat, but a free marketeer. This is because free market economy is not a political system or a system of governance for the country whereas democracy is. Other major political systems or systems of governance are monarchy, theocracy and oligarchy.

IMAGOD wrote:

KEY CONCEPT: THE PRIMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL aka The Sovereign Individual. The individual forms the basic unit of "society". All social institutions and organs of the state are to serve the individual and protect his property - not the other way around.

All my arguments are grounded in the Primacy of The Individual and his right to own PROPERTY.

IMAGOD wrote:

? Since you and people like you are constantly demanding political reforms for democracy in Singapore.

This is a very interesting statement. I shall be very grateful, if you will kindly let me know who the other individuals are and where I can find them.

IMAGOD wrote:

I'm here to make the case against political democracy and the case for individual rights and private property. Political democracy will always be a threat to the individual's sovereignty, and his right to own any property he chooses and can afford to own.

I shall cheer you on. By ?political democracy?, I take you to mean ?repocracy? or false democracy. Yes, we shall uphold the individual?s constitutional personal and property rights.

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

Individual?s rights are dealt with in that part of the Constitution on the Fundamental Rights and Liberty of the citizens. The Americans call it the Bill of Rights. It is dealt with here: http://www.tdcommunity.org/viewtopic.php?t=19

IMAGOD wrote:

In a market democracy, the indivdual ? produce and consumer, vote with "their dollar" - i.e their private property.

Nope, in a free market economy, the individual does not vote with his dollar. He simply chooses freely how his dollar is to be spent. The word ?vote? may be used in this context figuratively only.

IMAGOD wrote:

In fact, people often vote to have a govt violate private property rights - e.g. gun laws: the "majority" decided to prohibit people from owning guns. What right does the majority have (thru government) to decide that drugs, guns, pornography, sexually deviant behavior between consenting adults etc etc are "bad"? As long as people keep their choices to themselves and don't interfere with others - i.e. enjoy the PEACEFUL use of their property - any force to prevent them from acting in their own personal best interests violates the Sovereignty of the Individual and his Private Property Rights.

Yes, so long as other people are not harmed or interfered with in their lives. Government usually acts on these matters because peaceful and innocent people, especially the children and the youths, are harmed or their lives fouled up by others.

Matilah_Singapura (IMAGOD) wrote:

How do you account for the fact that Hitler, Soekarno/Soeharto, Marcos, Saddam Husseien all came in by DEMOCRATIC PROCESS?
laugh

lpc1998 wrote:

What do you mean by the ?democratic process??

Voting at the polls. The ballot.

lpc1998 wrote:

Have you looked into whether any one of them came in by the ABUSE of the democratic process?

I asked you for the meaning of ?democratic process? in order to know what you actually meant by it. However, whatever it means to you, it could still be abused.

Okay, so the real problem is not the ?democratic process? per se. It is the abuse of the ?democratic process? and we have look for a solution to this abuse.

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

Nevertheless, since General Soeharto did not come to power through the ballot box, he cannot be said to have come to power by the ?democratic process? as defined by you above.

IMAGOD wrote:

The main political support in these "peaceful" democracies comes from the poor and middle class. They vote themselves into oppression. The rich just sit back and milk everyone. The poor and middle class would prefer to relinquish their individual sovereignty and private property rights for the promise by glib politicians - of some "utopia".

The rich and super-rich see what's coming and protect their property. They have the means to employ armies of lawyers and accountants. And they are also very mobile. If it gets too hot, they have the means to just leave and live anywhere.

This "class warfare" is classic in the (so-called) mature western democracies. In a struggle for "egalitarianism" the voting majority shoot themselves in the foot by voting in "representative governments" to "equalise the disproportionate wealth" by forced redistribution of wealth.

And it ends up with intolerable welfare systems which render the nation uncompetitive. The welfares systems - public schools, public healthcare, public transport... all the "free money" stuff need more and more money as times goes on. Occasionally some good news - state welfare systems collapse. People scream. They throw out the incumbent govt, and vote in a new tyrant. The process repeats itself.

Okay, these are some of the evils of repocracy or false democracy which you call ?political democracy?.

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

What I'm actually doing is exercising my democratic right to an opinion. I'm practising DEMOCRACY! Everyday. yeah

Wait a minute: Who gives political power to the ?dumb mudderfuggers??

You have not answered this question: How many percent of the voters, do you think, are ?dumbest mudderfugger??

What basis would you use to determine who are the ?dumbest mudderfugger??

To discuss the issues you have raised here we have first to define ?democracy?. Can you accept this definition of democracy?:

Democracy is the Rule by the People who are therefore sovereign and have the final say on all matters concerning the country and the people.

If not, what is your definition for democracy?

_________________
Best Regards
lpc1998

EVERYTHING is based on PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!

Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:12 pm

IMAGOD

Ordinary Member

Joined: 03 May 2005

Posts: 63

Location: "Pussy Galore Ago-go" Patpong, Bangkok

lpc1998 wrote:

For the avoidance of confusion, I would like to state the following:

1 I am mostly in agreement in substance to what you have said about ?political democracy? and individual personal and property rights. Yes, it is the business of organized society to uphold such rights;

2 Apart from some extreme positions taken by you that would render organized society impossible, most of our differences are semantic. What you called ?political democracy? I would term it as ?repocracy (the Rule by Representatives)? or false democracy. So I am as much against ?repocracy? or false democracy as you are against ?political democracy?. We are opposed to the same thing, but naming it differently.

3 You have used the term ?political democracy? probably to distinguish it from ?market democracy?. For me ?political democracy? is inappropriate as democracy is necessary political while ?market democracy? is simply about the free market economy.

4 So believing in ?market democracy? or free market economy does not make you a democrat, but a free marketeer. This is because free market economy is not a political system or a system of governance for the country whereas democracy is. Other major political systems or systems of governance are monarchy, theocracy and oligarchy.

2. Why do you conclude that my extreme positions would render organised society impossible?

I am against any CENTRALISATION of power or organisation. I believe that left alone, human beings can organise themselves without the need for a "Central Mind" (referring to Orwell's 1984)

I am also against political action per se. What I stand for is market action - meritocracy. If you are good, then fight for your right to max out your "happiness". That would essentially mean adding value to your life. So if you are smart enough, diligent enough and better than all your competition, and want to own - say, the roads, rivers or the sea, you should not be prevented from doing so, as long as you do it without interfering with the property rights of others. If anyone stops you, they are iinterfering with your property rights.

Market democracy requires 2 things:

(i) It is an HONOURIFIC - i.e. the right to participate in the market is guaranteed (use of your own property - your mind and body). However whether the rest of the market accepts you is not guaranteed. In other word you have to be of VALUE to someone else. You can only make an OFFER. No one is obliged to accept your offer.

(ii) The second is a derivative of the first. In a political democracy, all you have to do is "vote with your conscience" on politicians' ideas. If he says "lets have socialised medicine, or public schooling" and if you agree with the idea, you vote YES. Notice: you didn't have to make any offer, nor add value, nor put up your own private property to take the position - you simply VOTE at the ballot.

So the politician wins. Then he and his govt legislate to have taxes so that they can pay for the healthcare and the schools. In other words, people now have their private property taken form them by FORCE.

POLITICAL ACTION, - all of it - is about the use of force. It uses for to get things done by installing a CENTRAL government. When this happens, regardless of constitutions or bills of rights, ALL private property is under threat.

It doesn't matter WHAT you call it - reprocracy, false democracy, political democracy.... as long as people make decisions without OFFERING THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY, anything goes. The people can vote in anything they like... free money, free sex, banning a certain race, religion or GUNS... anything at all.

And forget about meritocracy. In the political realm, everyone is "equal". You can be a bum with no property, but you can vote to have the property of someone richer than you stolen "for the greater good". i.e. welfare for the lazy and unproductive.

3. Yes, market democracy relates to the free market. My system of social organisation aka "anarcho capitalism" is based on the free market. All exchanges are voluntary and require the use of one's personal private property.

No one gets a "free lunch". If you can't afford it, go get a job and accumulate some savings. It's that simple.

4. Exactly. With a free market, meritocracy, the rise of the natural elites from the natural order, and private ownership of EVERYTHING, there is no use for politics anymore.

IMAGOD wrote:

The immediate problem here is semantic. In the political realm, the only sovereign individual in the country is the monarch and the rest of the individuals are his subjects or slaves. Perhaps, what you really want is a free and progressive society where the individual?s personal and property rights are effectively protected by the Constitution and the laws.[/quote]

The rule of law is fundamental. Because if you have private property, you are going to get envy from those who "have less". They will try to relieve you of your property by political means, because they can't do it in the market simply because they're "not good enough."

Constitutions work ONLY if there is a COMPLETE seperation of powers, and backed up with a Bill of Rights to fully protect the individual. Even then, because of democracy, the people could vote in another govt and that govt could screw everything up, and violate the constitution and bill of rights.

Put it this way, if the Americans can't even protect themselves totally with their Constitution and BOR, it is unlikely any other country will be able to. The US Constitution contains contradictions BTW (relating to private property), is based on "GOD" (the very first error right there) and has been amended several times (which goes to show you how imperfect humans are at creating the "perfect" document)

With tort law and constitutional law all over the shop in the US, if you are a little old lady with modest means, and you've had your rights violated - good luck to you. You will find that the term "land of the free, home of the brave" is not as what you've imagined.

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

? Since you and people like you are constantly demanding political reforms for democracy in Singapore.

This is a very interesting statement. I shall be very grateful, if you will kindly let me know who the other individuals are and where I can find them.

At any of the opposition parties', in blogs and forums all over the net. Even right here, in this forum.

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

I shall cheer you on. By ?political democracy?, I take you to mean ?repocracy? or false democracy. Yes, we shall uphold the individual?s constitutional personal and property rights.

Yes, but with limits - let's face it, the (democratic) state will have the monopoly of power: eminent domain. If I have 100 hect. of land, and the country needs more public schools or hospitals, I can bet my land would be seized. If I have a freshwater lake and there's a water shortage, my lake would be seized. I own the lake. I like to sail my boats on the lake. To me, that is the most important thing I can do with my property.

The people's govt OTOH see me as "greedy and selfish". Perhaps. But greedy or selfish, I still have my rights. Rights to property have got nothing to do with "morality". And something is only for sale if it is offered for sale. If I don't want to sell my land or lake, no one and no govt has the right to "comandeer" it.

As long as there is a democratically elected government, the TOTAL protection of private property is impossible. What is VERY PROBABLE is the mass enforcement of "morality". Once the precedent is set for "state enforced morality" the govt can do anything it likes - on "moral" grounds.

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

In a market democracy, the indivdual ? produce and consumer, vote with "their dollar" - i.e their private property.

Nope, in a free market economy, the individual does not vote with his dollar. He simply chooses freely how his dollar is to be spent. The word ?vote? may be used in this context figuratively only.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then.

When you vote at a ballot, you choose freely. You can even, like me choose NOT to vote. But you don't offer any private property for exchange. When you choose (or vote) in a market, you must exchange property. To act in a market without exchanging property is THEFT, unless of course someone gives you a gift. ;-)

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

That is a fallacy. The "bad guys" can always get guns. IMO the citizens should have more guns than the govt. "And armed society is a polite society".

I'm in Thailand at the moment. It costs 6 baht to get a gun license here. Many people have guns, and yes people occasionally get shot. But 99.99% of the time it's peaceful - and POLITE.

The state will always impose "morality" and "public decency" on individuals. I totally reject that. "Morality" and "decency" are individual values - aka "peaceful' uses of private property - as long as a porno-loving individual doesn't violate other people's rights by bringing his porno to their property or in their space, let the guy own porno and DEFEND his right to ownership.

lpc1998 wrote:

Okay, so the real problem is not the ?democratic process? per se. It is the abuse of the ?democratic process? and we have look for a solution to this abuse.

Simple. Private property rights. Privatise EVERYTHING. No more abuse of the political process.

Political proceses are ALL a form of abuse. The "mandate" seeks to ram its values down the throats of the minority.

Quote:

Nevertheless, since General Soeharto did not come to power through the ballot box, he cannot be said to have come to power by the ?democratic process? as defined by you above.

Well, we agree to disagree then.

lpc1998 wrote:

Wait a minute: Who gives political power to the ?dumb mudderfuggers??

No one. Hopefully they have no political power. If they had political power, these assholes would vote to "steal" private property.

What they have are NATURAL RIGHTS. The right to THEIR OWN lives and property. They have no rights over the lives of others, which what political power is.

[Key: Private Property]

lpc1998 wrote:

You have not answered this question: How many percent of the voters, do you think, are ?dumbest mudderfugger??

Firstly, I am not obliged to answer any question, so you can quit posturing ;-)

Secondly, I can only answer questions I know or am willing to answer - I also may have overlooked it. (which I did)

I don't know in percentage terms. IMO anyone who votes is suspected of being a ?dumb mudderfugger? because they probably believe in other myths as well. I have no yardstick to measure the extent of the "dumbness" or who is the "dumbmest" of all, or whether or not the person voting is TOTALLY dumb, or just temporarily dumb.

But that's OK. My judgement on their intelligence doesn't really matter. We are all imperfect and do stupid things occasionally - like watch reality TV or vote. The point is we ALL are Sovereign Individuals and can do as we please - and we own the consequences.

[Key: private property]

lpc1998 wrote:

What basis would you use to determine who are the ?dumbest mudderfugger??

Voodoo. ;-)

Whatever basis is unimportant, because it is unimportant to that these folks are "dumb". They are ENTITLED to be dumb if they choose, and if they are born that way, they should be left alone. I am entitled to my judgement and my opinion. No one is obliged to agree with me.

[Private Property]

lpc1998 wrote:

To discuss the issues you have raised here we have first to define ?democracy?. Can you accept this definition of democracy?:

Democracy is the Rule by the People who are therefore sovereign and have the final say on all matters concerning the country and the people.

If not, what is your definition for democracy?

My definition of democracy: Mob rule. Kiss your private property rights goodbye, and embrace statism and eventually some form of socialism (either left wing socialism or right wing fascism)

There are no "Sovereign People". There are only Sovereign INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS- each one distinct, different, unique and special... so special that only one of a kind exists in the universe.

When you look at "people", everyone is the same.

When you look at "individuals", every one is different.

Democracy dumbs down individualism - the ego-centric and selfish pursuit of "happiness". The "blame" for failure is collectively shared. The "fruits" of success are supposed to be colectively shared, but they are not. The most powerful rats get the biggest slice of cheese. Democracy is about "public" property.

Democracy is about "alleviating suffering" or "collective suffering", and involuntary or forced competition ("gang warfare") and coercive "cooperation" (the state forces you to "cooperate") (booooo!)

Meritocracy champions individualism and the indivduals selfish choice of choosing to live his life greedily to the full, and take full responsibilty for his entire life. Meritocracy is about private property, and about individual voluntary competition and cooperation. (yaaay!)

Meritocracy is about realising possibilities and "winning". It is creating more value and happiness - not being stuck in "the problems of the world" all the time. It is about - as "selfish" as it sounds, because it is - PERSONAL achievement.

I choose meritocracy! Selfishly, of course! yeah

_________________
"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims". - Ayn Rand

Re: EVERYTHING is based on PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!

Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 2:37 am

lpc1998

Silver Member

Joined: 30 Apr 2005

Posts: 219

Our posts are getting very long. So I would not be responding to every point or question raised by you. If there is any matter or question you consider important and I have left it out, do raise it again in your next post.

IMAGOD wrote:

2. Why do you conclude that my extreme positions would render organised society impossible?

I shall show you why when we come across your extreme positions again.

IMAGOD wrote:

EVERYTHING is based on PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!

This is the title of your post. This is an extreme statement. No peaceful, prosperous and progressive society can exist strictly on this proposition. If you think otherwise, just give an example of a country where everything is based on private property rights.

Moreover, if everything is based on private property rights, then on what do private property rights based? And how are they enforced?

I am sorry. I cannot agree with you here. Yes, private property is a very important area in life, but there are also other very important areas such as friendship, individual freedom, social justice and equity, democracy and the love for people and the world.

IMAGOD wrote:

I am against any CENTRALISATION of power or organization. I believe that left alone, human beings can organise themselves without the need for a "Central Mind" (referring to Orwell's 1984)

You said you are against ?any CENTRALISATION of power or organization? by equating it to Orwell?s 1984, but Orwell?s 1984 is not about centralization or organization per se. It is about totalitarianism and tyranny.

You also said, ?I believe that left alone, human beings can organise themselves without the need for a "Central Mind" (referring to Orwell's 1984)?. What do you think human beings had been doing long before Orwell was born even in the cavemen?s days? Had they not been organizing themselves to hunt or to gather food? Organization is central to the success of human civilization on Planet Earth.

IMAGOD wrote:

I am also against political action per se. What I stand for is market action - meritocracy. If you are good, then fight for your right to max out your "happiness". That would essentially mean adding value to your life. So if you are smart enough, diligent enough and better than all your competition, and want to own - say, the roads, rivers or the sea, you should not be prevented from doing so, as long as you do it without interfering with the property rights of others. If anyone stops you, they are iinterfering with your property rights.

You have painted an extremely misleading view of the free market economy. You want all of us to believe that it is solely based on honest meritocracy. You have conveniently left out the power of money which is often amassed by corruption, crimes, exploitation of the weak and the vulnerable and other evil means. Yes, you have also failed to disclose that money is the God of the free market economy.

IMAGOD wrote:

Market democracy requires 2 things:

(i) It is an HONOURIFIC - i.e. the right to participate in the market is guaranteed (use of your own property - your mind and body). However whether the rest of the market accepts you is not guaranteed. In other word you have to be of VALUE to someone else. You can only make an OFFER. No one is obliged to accept your offer.

In other words, you are saying that the free market economy operates on a willing buyer and willing seller basis. This should be the case, but it is not entirely true at all times.

IMAGOD wrote:

(ii) The second is a derivative of the first. In a political democracy, all you have to do is "vote with your conscience" on politicians' ideas. If he says "lets have socialised medicine, or public schooling" and if you agree with the idea, you vote YES. Notice: you didn't have to make any offer, nor add value, nor put up your own private property to take the position - you simply VOTE at the ballot.

So the politician wins. Then he and his govt legislate to have taxes so that they can pay for the healthcare and the schools. In other words, people now have their private property taken form them by FORCE.

These are complex social issues. Surely, there is nothing wrong for the people to vote for healthcare and education and then paying taxes for the benefits. If some people pay more taxes than others unfairly, then the issue is the inequity of the tax regime, not with the voting for healthcare and schools by the people who wants them and who are willing to pay taxes for them.

IMAGOD wrote:

POLITICAL ACTION, - all of it - is about the use of force. It uses for to get things done by installing a CENTRAL government. When this happens, regardless of constitutions or bills of rights, ALL private property is under threat.

You are a very confused man here. You want private property and individual rights to be protected by all means, and yet you are against the use of legitimate force. How is private property is going to be protected without the use of force of law or some other force?

IMAGOD wrote:

It doesn't matter WHAT you call it - reprocracy, false democracy, political democracy.... as long as people make decisions without OFFERING THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY, anything goes. The people can vote in anything they like... free money, free sex, banning a certain race, religion or GUNS... anything at all.

Yes, the people can vote for anything they like including the reverse of what you have just said they would vote for. Otherwise, they cannot vote for anything they like.

IMAGOD wrote:

And forget about meritocracy. In the political realm, everyone is "equal". You can be a bum with no property, but you can vote to have the property of someone richer than you stolen "for the greater good". i.e. welfare for the lazy and unproductive.

Do you know why, in the political realm, everyone is equal? Or are you saying that everyone is, in fact, not equal, since you use the word in double quotes ? ??

IMAGOD wrote:

3. Yes, market democracy relates to the free market. My system of social organisation aka "anarcho capitalism" is based on the free market. All exchanges are voluntary and require the use of one's personal private property.

No one gets a "free lunch". If you can't afford it, go get a job and accumulate some savings. It's that simple.

Would you like to elaborate on what you mean by ?anarcho capitalism?? Is there a government in it? Is there the rule of law?

IMAGOD wrote:

4. Exactly. With a free market, meritocracy, the rise of the natural elites from the natural order, and private ownership of EVERYTHING, there is no use for politics anymore.

With ?the rise of the natural elites from the natural order?, isn?t this creating a political system where the ?natural elites? rule society through their possession of most of the property and wealth of the country? In other words, the more wealthy one is the more socially powerful one becomes.

IMAGOD wrote:

The rule of law is fundamental. Because if you have private property, you are going to get envy from those who "have less". They will try to relieve you of your property by political means, because they can't do it in the market simply because they're "not good enough."

Agreed: The rule of law is fundamental.

Now, who makes the laws and who administers them?

IMAGOD wrote:

Constitutions work ONLY if there is a COMPLETE seperation of powers, and backed up with a Bill of Rights to fully protect the individual. Even then, because of democracy, the people could vote in another govt and that govt could screw everything up, and violate the constitution and bill of rights.

What do you think that makes the people vote in a government to violate the Constitution and the laws that protect their personal and property rights? Do the people really want this?

IMAGOD wrote:

At any of the opposition parties', in blogs and forums all over the net. Even right here, in this forum.

So these are the people, you said, who are ?constantly demanding political reforms for democracy in Singapore?. I find most of them differently. They are constantly demanding political reforms for democratic rights in order to abuse them. They are not interested in democracy. They are only interested in the abuse of democracy. Most of them hardly understand what democracy is and what democracy requires of them in order for democracy to be viable in Singapore.

IMAGOD wrote:

Compulsory acquisition of land for a public purpose happens not only in a democracy, but also in other forms of government. Surely, you are aware of this. The real issue is whether a fair and reasonable compensation is paid for the acquisition.

IMAGOD wrote:

?. If I have a freshwater lake and there's a water shortage, my lake would be seized. I own the lake. I like to sail my boats on the lake. To me, that is the most important thing I can do with my property.

The people's govt OTOH see me as "greedy and selfish". Perhaps. But greedy or selfish, I still have my rights. Rights to property have got nothing to do with "morality". And something is only for sale if it is offered for sale. If I don't want to sell my land or lake, no one and no govt has the right to "comandeer" it.

Are you saying that you would insist on sailing your boats in your lake when your neighbours are dying of thirst?

What is the nature of the rights to the property you supposedly ?own?? Do you know?

IMAGOD wrote:

Firstly, I am not obliged to answer any question, so you can quit posturing ;-)

We are in conversation. If you do not wish to answer a question, please say so. Otherwise, I have to take into account the possibility that you may have inadvertently missed it.

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

My definition of democracy: Mob rule. Kiss your private property rights goodbye, and embrace statism and eventually some form of socialism (either left wing socialism or right wing fascism)

In that case, democracy means entirely different things to both of us, rendering any meaningful discussion of democracy impossible other than what democracy means to me and what it means to you.

_________________
Best Regards
lpc1998

PRIVATISE THE PLANET!

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:26 pm

IMAGOD

Ordinary Member

Joined: 03 May 2005

Posts: 63

Location: "Pussy Galore Ago-go" Patpong, Bangkok

lpc1998 wrote:

I won't be raising many questions. I already have my answers :-) But I do agree about the long posts.

Quote:

I shall show you why when we come across your extreme positions again.

There is nothing to be concerned about "extreme" positions. In fact, libertarians do take many "extreme" positions. i.e. positions that are non-negotiable nor subject to compromise.

Libertarians also believe in Sovereign Individualism (self-ownership) and the freedom to associate/disassociate. So it is ok to disagree, even if it is dis-agreeable.

Quote:

IMAGOD wrote:

EVERYTHING is based on PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!

Exactly. No country has EVER existed with this extreme position and that is why there is war, conflict, political strife, poverty, govt controls etc etc etc.

Quote:

Moreover, if everything is based on private property rights, then on what do private property rights based? And how are they enforced?

Property rights are based on the fact of nature that we all own ourselves, and the property we either produce or buy.

The mere fact that you are arguing with me PROVES that you own yourself?your mind, your speaking organs and perhaps the computer you are using in your house.

No one can escape the fact that human beings are Sovereign Individuals?having free will, an integrated mind and body which is entirely their own.

Property rights form the basis of "respect" and a foundation for the non-agression axiom. For e.g. you use your property to debate me, I use mine to debate you. At no time may we over-step our boundaries and smash each other over the head because one of us disagrees with the other.

Quote:

I am sorry. I cannot agree with you here. Yes, private property is a very important area in life, but there are also other very important areas such as friendship, individual freedom, social justice and equity, democracy and the love for people and the world.

No need to apologise. You have the right to be wrong :-)

Quote:

You have painted an extremely misleading view of the free market economy. You want all of us to believe that it is solely based on honest meritocracy.

I don't "want" or "need" anyone to believe anything, even if they have an incorrect view of the free market. I am a free market player, I think I know what I'm talking about... but please, don't take my word for it.

Afterall, it is a, believe it or not free market. No one has to "buy" what I'm selling. :-)

Quote:

You have conveniently left out the power of money which is often amassed by corruption, crimes, exploitation of the weak and the vulnerable and other evil means. Yes, you have also failed to disclose that money is the God of the free market economy.

Ah. So now you are saying "money as a god is evil"? A value judgement, hardly "objective" I would say.

Quote:

In other words, you are saying that the free market economy operates on a willing buyer and willing seller basis. This should be the case, but it is not entirely true at all times.

It is true all the time. You have to "buy" love, friendship, respect and honour. Even if you want a "smile" out of someone, you have to use your private property in such a way to "make an offer"?i.e. you might try smiling first, or doing something silly. You will probably not get a smile if you shouted an expletive or made an obscene gesture at the person you are dealing with.

It invariably boils down to the use of private property and exchange. I repeat: No One has to buy and no one has to sell. Playing in the market is an HONOURIFIC - i.e. you can "pursue your happiness" but your "happiness" is not guaranteed by anyone or any thing.

Quote:

If people have needs, that's fine. However having "needs" does not automatically give them a claim to other people's property.

Property take by force, is THEFT. Property surrendered by the threat of force is property obtained by EXTORTION.

Quote:

very confused man here. You want private property and individual rights to be protected by all means, and yet you are against the use of legitimate force. How is private property is going to be protected without the use of force of law or some other force?

The ONLY legitamate force is the force use to protect private property. All other force, under NATURAL LAW is ILLEGAL.

To protect one's private property, the fundamental responsibility is with self. Self-defense. People have the natural right to defend themselves, therefore in a "civilised" society individual weapons ownership will be encouraged (but not forced).

There is no reason why the rule of law couldn't be provided by PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

Quote:

he people can vote for anything they like including the reverse of what you have just said they would vote for. Otherwise, they cannot vote for anything they like.[...]
[...]Do you know why, in the political realm, everyone is equal? Or are you saying that everyone is, in fact, not equal, since you use the word in double quotes ? ??

Which is why politics are flawed. No one can be "equal" except if they are "equally free" defined in the context of self-ownership?that they have the right to be left ALONE.

Since we are all unique with different skills and abilities, no one can really be "equal". Politics is founded on myths which are essentially anti-nature?the nature of HUMANS.

Quote:

Would you like to elaborate on what you mean by ?anarcho capitalism?? Is there a government in it? Is there the rule of law?

No elaboration from me, only a few basic comments. I have provided some links. If you are interested and motivated, educate yourself :-)

Anarcho= no government, capitalism= private enterprise.
No govt?everything is privatised. rule of law provided by private enterprise and self-defense.

Quote:

Nope. Even the smallest idiot has property rights. He cannot be violated because of the rule of law. Since the law providers are PRIVATE, they'll lose their reputation (and go out of business) if they compromise.

LINKS

MP3's From audio book of "For A New Liberty?The Libertarian Manifesto" by Murray Rothbard

"2 Property And Exchange" : http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/2.mp3

"3 The State" : http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/3.mp3

Download the book in PDF: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

On line HTML version : http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp#preface

PER BYLUND

http://www.anarchism.net/ founder: Per Bylund

http://www.perbylund.com/ website

"Only people not able to grow tall from their own efforts and achievements seek to subdue their fellow man. Only people not being able to find comfort in their own mind seek to silence others. Those who are unable to produce their own wealth aim to confiscate the wealth of others."?Per Bylund

_________________
"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims". - Ayn Rand

Re: PRIVATISE THE PLANET!

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:00 am

lpc1998

Silver Member

Joined: 30 Apr 2005

Posts: 219

IMAGOD wrote:

Libertarians also believe in Sovereign Individualism (self-ownership) and the freedom to associate/disassociate. So it is ok to disagree, even if it is dis-agreeable.

So when you talk about Sovereign Individuals what you mean is that the individual is his own owner. Is this correct?

IMAGOD wrote:

Exactly. No country has EVER existed with this extreme position and that is why there is war, conflict, political strife, poverty, govt controls etc etc etc.

Or could it be that no country could ever exist with this extreme position of ?everything is based on private property rights? regardless of the conflicts and strife in human history? Moreover, private property rights are themselves a major contributor to conflicts and strife among people.

IMAGOD wrote:

Are you saying that people and their body parts tradable commodities? Once a person has sold himself in the free market, his buyer could deal with him in any way he (the buyer) pleases including dismantling the seller?s body parts and auction them to the highest bidders?

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

No need to apologise. You have the right to be wrong :-)

This is wonderful of you. Your right to be wrong will be respected too.

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

Ah. So now you are saying "money as a god is evil"? A value judgement, hardly "objective" I would say.

You are quick to defend your god? No, I didn?t say that. I just want to know whether you are a money worshipper because you sound like one.

IMAGOD wrote:

It invariably boils down to the use of private property and exchange. I repeat: No One has to buy and no one has to sell. Playing in the market is an HONOURIFIC - i.e. you can "pursue your happiness" but your "happiness" is not guaranteed by anyone or any thing.

HONOURIFIC? Honourable? We are living on different planets. On Planet Earth, there are lots of cheaters, swindlers, CBT offenders, bullies, blackmailers, loan sharks, profiteers and other criminals in the free market.

IMAGOD wrote:

The ONLY legitamate force is the force use to protect private property. ?.

This is arbitrary and discriminatory. Either the use of force is legitimate or illegitimate. The legitimacy should not depend on your agreement or approval for its use.

IMAGOD wrote:

?.. All other force, under NATURAL LAW is ILLEGAL.

Is this your law? Do you know how is the Natural Law enforced?

An activity or action that is illegal is one that you are not allowed to do because of a law or rule of the country you are in. Offenders are prosecuted by the government in a court of law. The illegality of act has nothing to do with the Natural Law. Offenders of the Natural Law are not criminals. They are sinners.

IMAGOD wrote:

To protect one's private property, the fundamental responsibility is with self. Self-defense. People have the natural right to defend themselves, therefore in a "civilised" society individual weapons ownership will be encouraged (but not forced).

You must be a fan of the wild, wild west movies where the civilized American cowboys shot the uncivilzed native Red Indians in defence of their property rights and where the fastest gun is king.

IMAGOD wrote:

There is no reason why the rule of law couldn't be provided by PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

You must be joking again. You want everyone to make his own laws and enforced them on others?

IMAGOD wrote:

You have again misunderstood the meaning of equality in the political realm. Here, it simply means that every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law. It has nothing to do with the equality in skills and abilities or in size and weight.

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

Would you like to elaborate on what you mean by ?anarcho capitalism?? Is there a government in it? Is there the rule of law?

No elaboration from me, only a few basic comments. I have provided some links. If you are interested and motivated, educate yourself :-)

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

Oh yes, if the law providers are private companies they will quickly lose their reputation and go out of business, if they compromise in their services to their best clients, the rich and powerful who will pay these companies handsomely for making and enforcing laws in their favour or advantage. On the other hand, if these companies makes and enforces laws in favour of those who are too poor to pay them, they would also quickly go out of business, but maybe, this time, with their reputation in tact.

_________________
Best Regards
lpc1998

PRIVATISE THE UNIVERSE!

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:51 pm

IMAGOD

Ordinary Member

Joined: 03 May 2005

Posts: 63

Location: "Pussy Galore Ago-go" Patpong, Bangkok

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

Libertarians also believe in Sovereign Individualism (self-ownership) and the freedom to associate/disassociate. So it is ok to disagree, even if it is dis-agreeable.

So when you talk about Sovereign Individuals what you mean is that the individual is his own owner. Is this correct?

Absolutely, 100% spot on.

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

Exactly. No country has EVER existed with this extreme position and that is why there is war, conflict, political strife, poverty, govt controls etc etc etc.

The idea of PRIVATE PROPERTY is to prevent conflicts?i.e. ownership is delinieated?who owns what etc... all very precise.

At any one time, resources are scarce, thus the idea of "ownership" is fundamental from keeping people in a constant state of war.

The lectures linked in my last post explain that.

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

People should be able to trade their body parts only by consent. "Slavery" is not slavery if the party wishing to be enslaved decides by himself that that is what he wants. If he chooses to be killed and his parts auctioned?if it is his VOLUNTARY (not coerced) choice, no one should stop him. In fact, it would be a violation of HIS RIGHTS TO HIMSELF AS A SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL if anyone stopped him.

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

Ah. So now you are saying "money as a god is evil"? A value judgement, hardly "objective" I would say.

You are quick to defend your god? No, I didn?t say that. I just want to know whether you are a money worshipper because you sound like one.

What I "sound like" and what I am might be different, ;-)

Money is a medium of exchange. It is also a unit of account and a store of "wealth"?both these factors derived form the fact that money being a medium of exchange.

It makes no sense to worship or idolise anything?animate or inanimate. People worship invisible supreme beings who live in the sky or in the bowels of the earth.

As if that is not bad enough, you also get people who worship inanimate objects and ideas?like money.

In a free society, where everyone ones himself, the choice of what or who to worship is a basic right.

In other words, having private property as a right is a right to act and believe irrationally if you so choose. And provided you don't forcibly interfere physically with anyone else, your right to do so is defended.

In other words, whether I worship money or whether you worship goat's genitals is irrelevant to this discussion :-)

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

Absolutely. And God bless them too!

BTW, you can't cheat an honest man.

Loan sharks and profiteers perform important market functions.

There is only one crime: the violation of property rights. All other crimes like drug peddling and consumption, prostitution, illegal gaming etc etc are fictions concocted by the state.

In a libertarian society no such "criminals" would exist. OK, these people may not be the "nicest folks around", but as long as they confine their activities to their own circle of voluntary participants, they too have rights TO BE LEFT ALONE!

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

The ONLY legitamate force is the force use to protect private property. ?.

This is arbitrary and discriminatory. Either the use of force is legitimate or illegitimate. The legitimacy should not depend on your agreement or approval for its use.

It is discrimitory, but NOT arbitrary. As long as the force is used to defend or restore private property, by this definition, it is legitimate.

Illegal force is the force, by definition, used to offend or aggress against private property.

However if you didn't believe in the idea of private property, you shouldn't even attempt to argue this point. :-)

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

?.. All other force, under NATURAL LAW is ILLEGAL.

Under a libertarian system, "sinners" are left alone to answer to their creed and its "followers". What NATURAL LAW is is based on self-ownership and the ownership of PROPERTY.

The State itself is the main violator of natural rights. The funny thing is, the Old Liberals (Whigs, Republicans, Democrats etc), after defeating the feudal, aristocratic and monarchic systems argues that A State was a necessary institution?dig this?to protect the sovereignty of individuals and their property ??!!??

OK, so man is imperfect. He makes mistakes in his reasoning, and his best intentions, when acted upon bring "unwelcome" consequences.

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

You must be a fan of the wild, wild west movies where the civilized American cowboys shot the uncivilzed native Red Indians in defence of their property rights and where the fastest gun is king.

I might be a "fan of movies" but your reference to it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Some people?those who cannot keepo their mitts to themselves?need to be shot and killed, when all attempts to reason with them fail. It is a sad fact, but it is true.

I am not one of those "fluffy" sensitive types who is against killing. The "morality" of killing another human depends on the: CONTEXT.

I can guarantee you if someone with a big axe came to threaten your family, and you have a gun, you would shoot to kill?i.e. shoot to STOP a violation of life and property from occuring.

If you didn't shoot when you had a gun, IMO that would be IMMORAL.

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

There is no reason why the rule of law couldn't be provided by PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

You must be joking again. You want everyone to make his own laws and enforced them on others?

No I am not joking. Google: Hans-Hermann Hoppe "The Privatisation of defense/security". There are already private defense and security organisations. They are even active in Iraq and Afganistan. Google: Blackwater Security?it is a private army, LEGALLY formed, operated and managed in the United States.

Yes, in a libertarian society, everyone makes their own "rules" (not laws). There is only ONE LAW?the non agression axiom: respect for a person's person (not his ideas necessarily) and his property.

No one should ever "enforce" his rules on others. The only time this is warranted is when 2 parties form a VOULUNTARY CONTRACT, and by doing so agree to each other's "rules".

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

Any law of the state which interferes with a person's sovereignty and his property IMO is a "nonsense" law, and should be disobeyed, resisted and defied wherever possible.

That includes real estate seizure laws (eminent domain) as practiced by the LTA, and taxation. We have already discussed "Tax is Theft" in the old STIC forum, so to save time, I agree to disagree with whatever "constitutional" argument you may come up with. ;-)

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

Would you like to elaborate on what you mean by ?anarcho capitalism?? Is there a government in it? Is there the rule of law?

No elaboration from me, only a few basic comments. I have provided some links. If you are interested and motivated, educate yourself :-)

This is another way of saying that you only have a hazy idea of what ?anarcho capitalism? is. And reading those links you have provided would only result in me having my own interpretation of what the authors say about ?anarcho capitalism?. It would not enlighten me on what you yourself would have meant by ?anarcho capitalism?. So this would not answer my question.[/quote]

OK, insult me or bait me as you wish, that's your perogative. I write and consult on this as part of what I do for living, so I get paid for it regardless of your opinion ;-)

And you are right: It was my intent to get you to have your own interpretation of what anarcho-capitalism is. Because as a Sovereign Individual yourself, you do have a different world view from me, and the rest of the 6+ billion people on this planet.

Anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism is not a dogma to be blindly followed. It begins with a premise that we are all unique individuals. That having been said, how is a "dogma" possible?

It can only work on VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT with one simple principle: that NO initiation of physical interference on another person or his property is allowed under ANY circumstance. Now, some libertarians like objectivist Ayn Rand say under certain situations, interference is allowed?for e.g. if the country is at war, the govt can "rightfully" seize private property to assist in the defense (only for defense. Never if the govt itself is the aggressor) efforts.

However many other libertarians (paleo-libertarians including myself) disagree with Rand's postition on this?whilst we appreciate she is still a giant intellectually.

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

Many of the private companies of today are protected cartels and oligopolies only possible becasue of The State?i.e. they receive "favouritism" by the state.

One such industry are the banks. There are huge barriers to entry (put up by the state), intense regulation (for e.g. lending ratios and interest rates) and a comfortable relationship with the State's Central Bank?who assist the private banks in creating mountains of revenue from DEBT, and placing people in INDEBTEDNESS.

Without state protection and regulation, these banks will have to compete with other finace brokers?including your neighbourhood Ah Loong, and Ton Tine operators.

In contrast to what you probably believe, libertarianism is not about ARISTOCRACY or FEUDALISM. It is the "rise of the middle class'?the class which was non-existent in former times because PROPERTY RIGHTS were the preserve of those born into aristocracy or monarchy.

Back to your "cowboys and indians" example: This is a classic case?the "white" Chrisitan cowboys had rights to property, the "red" savage and heathen indians had NO rights to property.

The same argument for the negro slaves, and the aboriginals of Australia and maoris in New Zealand, tribes people from all over the world who were "conquered" by "civilised(????)" God-fearing man.

That's what happens when there are no property rights.

_________________
"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims". - Ayn Rand

Re: PRIVATISE THE UNIVERSE!

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:01 am

lpc1998

Silver Member

Joined: 30 Apr 2005

Posts: 219

IMAGOD wrote:

Oh dear, where have you been all this while? On Planet Earth, disputes over private property are so common, both in and out of courts, with and without bloodshed, precisely because ownership of a private property can be a very litigious or contentious issue.

Maybe, would you like to explain in details what you mean by private property? How private property ownership could be very precise all the time. Ordinarily, private property rights are defined by man-made laws that often have many gray areas and loopholes, let alone new interpretations by the courts in changing circumstances. Similarly, with the law of contracts.

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

Your dream society is nightmarish where the rich and powerful could commit murder with impunity. Nobody in his right mind would want to be a slave. This is why there have to be laws to protect the weak, poor, vulnerable or desperate from the excesses of the rich and powerful.

IMAGOD wrote:

Okay, you are not a money-worshipper in the same sense as those who worship their deities, but money being a medium of exchange for private property rights is everything to you since according to you, ?everything is based on private property rights?. Is this correct?

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

Oh I see. In your ideal society, there will be no crimes except those against private property because you would repeal the Penal Code relating to all the other crimes. In your ?Anarcho-Capitalism?, there will be no anarchy because you would abolish the meaning of anarchy. This is indeed very ingenious of you and your fellow believers in ?Anarcho-Capitalism?.

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

This is arbitrary and discriminatory. Either the use of force is legitimate or illegitimate. The legitimacy should not depend on your agreement or approval for its use.

This definition of the legitimacy of the use of force is yours and of people like you. Nobody else would define the legitimacy in the use of force in this manner.

IMAGOD wrote:

However if you didn't believe in the idea of private property, you shouldn't even attempt to argue this point. :-)

Certainly, I don?t believe that ?everything is based on private property rights?. However, I do accept that private property rights are very important for an orderly and prosperous society.

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

?.. All other force, under NATURAL LAW is ILLEGAL.

Under a libertarian system, "sinners" are left alone to answer to their creed and its "followers". What NATURAL LAW is is based on self-ownership and the ownership of PROPERTY.

You have failed to explain how the Natural Law as defined by you is enforced. You can imagine all of sorts of laws, but they will remain figments of your imagination until they are enforceable.

IMAGOD wrote:

The State itself is the main violator of natural rights. The funny thing is, the Old Liberals (Whigs, Republicans, Democrats etc), after defeating the feudal, aristocratic and monarchic systems argues that A State was a necessary institution?dig this?to protect the sovereignty of individuals and their property ??!!??

OK, so man is imperfect. He makes mistakes in his reasoning, and his best intentions, when acted upon bring "unwelcome" consequences.

The ?Old Liberals? are right. Only the state as an organized society is capable of protecting the individual and his property and other rights by the Rule of Law and by the use of legitimate and legal force. Any right that is not enforceable is as good no right at all.

Oh yes, you would prefer a private shoot-out in the event of a dispute, but in this case, the sure winner is the one who is better in using the gun or who has a better weapon or who could employ the best professional killers. Otherwise, even if your rights are truly violated, you are dead meat.

IMAGOD wrote:

Some people?those who cannot keepo their mitts to themselves?need to be shot and killed, when all attempts to reason with them fail. It is a sad fact, but it is true.

So you are the prosecutor, judge and executioner of your neighbour?

IMAGOD wrote:

I am not one of those "fluffy" sensitive types who is against killing. The "morality" of killing another human depends on the: CONTEXT.

Provided the one killed is not you or your loved ones, right?

IMAGOD wrote:

I can guarantee you if someone with a big axe came to threaten your family, and you have a gun, you would shoot to kill?i.e. shoot to STOP a violation of life and property from occuring.

If you didn't shoot when you had a gun, IMO that would be IMMORAL.

Acting in self-defence is permissible by law, but first you must have a licence to own a gun.

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

There is no reason why the rule of law couldn't be provided by PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

You must be joking again. You want everyone to make his own laws and enforced them on others?

Oh dear, you are now equating private defense and security organizations with the Rule of Law.

These organizations are just private contractors for the US military, operating within the laws of the US, a nation state and not in lieu of the nation state.

IMAGOD wrote:

Yes, in a libertarian society, everyone makes their own "rules" (not laws).

Rules? Of course everyone can make his own rules for himself, but we are not talking about self-made rules. We are talking about laws, the laws of the country.

IMAGOD wrote:

There is only ONE LAW?the non agression axiom: respect for a person's person (not his ideas necessarily) and his property.

Up to now, you have failed to state who makes this ONE LAW and how it is enforced. A private shoot-out between armed individuals is not an enforcement of the law. It is often an incident of lawlessness.

IMAGOD wrote:

Any law of the state which interferes with a person's sovereignty and his property IMO is a "nonsense" law, and should be disobeyed, resisted and defied wherever possible.

Provided you do it within the law. Otherwise, you would become an outlaw, notwithstanding your ?nonsensical? personal opinion to the contrary.

IMAGOD wrote:

That includes real estate seizure laws (eminent domain) as practiced by the LTA, and taxation. We have already discussed "Tax is Theft" in the old STIC forum, so to save time, I agree to disagree with whatever "constitutional" argument you may come up with. ;-)

So here you are against the Rule of Law that requires everybody to respect the law regardless of personal opinion of whether it is nonsense or not.

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

IMAGOD wrote:

lpc1998 wrote:

Would you like to elaborate on what you mean by ?anarcho capitalism?? Is there a government in it? Is there the rule of law?

No elaboration from me, only a few basic comments. I have provided some links. If you are interested and motivated, educate yourself :-)

OK, insult me or bait me as you wish, that's your perogative. I write and consult on this as part of what I do for living, so I get paid for it regardless of your opinion ;-)

No insult or bait is intended. I just want to know what you mean personally by ?anarcho capitalism?. I would have thought you would seize this opportunity to expound or share your understanding of ?anarcho capitalism?.

IMAGOD wrote:

And you are right: It was my intent to get you to have your own interpretation of what anarcho-capitalism is. Because as a Sovereign Individual yourself, you do have a different world view from me, and the rest of the 6+ billion people on this planet.

You are wrong here. I am not interested in the 6+ billion other views of ?anarcho capitalism?. I am presently only interested to hear your view.

IMAGOD wrote:

Anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism is not a dogma to be blindly followed. It begins with a premise that we are all unique individuals. That having been said, how is a "dogma" possible?

That premise alone does not explain how ?anarcho capitalism/libertarianism? functions as a viable political system that could replace the existing ones.

IMAGOD wrote:

It can only work on VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT with one simple principle: that NO initiation of physical interference on another person or his property is allowed under ANY circumstance. Now, some libertarians like objectivist Ayn Rand say under certain situations, interference is allowed?for e.g. if the country is at war, the govt can "rightfully" seize private property to assist in the defense (only for defense. Never if the govt itself is the aggressor) efforts.

However many other libertarians (paleo-libertarians including myself) disagree with Rand's postition on this?whilst we appreciate she is still a giant intellectually.

That one simple principle has never been viable on Planet Earth because:

1 not everyone would make such a voluntary agreement; and

2 there is a false presumption that voluntary agreements would be honoured voluntarily. Very often, the party that finds itself at a disadvantage owing to a change of circumstances or a mistake, or ignorance of certain material facts or carelessness would be quick to try to wriggle out of it or to ?tear it up? unilaterally unless enforcement of the agreement could be made through the court or by some other means.

Ayn Rand is only being a realist. Unlike the other dumb libertarians, she is smart enough to understand that should foreign invaders, especially barbarous ones, take over the country, all her property and her personal freedom and life could be seized by the invaders. So the lesser evil is to concede to the government the power to ?mobilize? private property for the national defence. Alternately, for the sake of ideological consistency, it may be argued that, in the case of true national defence, people would ?voluntarily? allow the necessary mobilization of some of their private property for the defence of all their properties and their lives from the foreign invaders.

IMAGOD wrote:

Many of the private companies of today are protected cartels and oligopolies only possible becasue of The State?i.e. they receive "favouritism" by the state.

These are complex matters. Regulations imposed on the sellers in the market place are meant to set certain standards for the goods and services for the benefits of the buyers, but very often corruption and incompetence as a result of lack of transparency make them works against the consumers instead.

IMAGOD wrote:

One such industry are the banks. There are huge barriers to entry (put up by the state), intense regulation (for e.g. lending ratios and interest rates) and a comfortable relationship with the State's Central Bank?who assist the private banks in creating mountains of revenue from DEBT, and placing people in INDEBTEDNESS.

Without state protection and regulation, these banks will have to compete with other finace brokers?including your neighbourhood Ah Loong, and Ton Tine operators.

Do you really think that neighbourhood Ah Loong, Ton Tine operators, loan sharks, etc, are good for the country?

IMAGOD wrote:

In contrast to what you probably believe, libertarianism is not about ARISTOCRACY or FEUDALISM. It is the "rise of the middle class'?the class which was non-existent in former times because PROPERTY RIGHTS were the preserve of those born into aristocracy or monarchy.

It is simply the transfer of political power and influence from one ruling class to the next.

IMAGOD wrote:

Back to your "cowboys and indians" example: This is a classic case?the "white" Chrisitan cowboys had rights to property, the "red" savage and heathen indians had NO rights to property.

The same argument for the negro slaves, and the aboriginals of Australia and maoris in New Zealand, tribes people from all over the world who were "conquered" by "civilised(????)" God-fearing man.

That's what happens when there are no property rights.

Do you know why ?the ?white? Chrisitan cowboys had rights to property, the "red" savage and heathen Indians had NO rights to property?? It was because there was no Natural Law to protect the Indians? property rights. At that time, property rights came out of the barrel of the gun.

_________________
Best Regards
lpc1998

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:06 pm

sae_0203

Princess Ambrosia

Joined: 27 Apr 2005

Posts: 2398

Location: NE, Singapore

alpha wrote:

Book: The Tao of Democracy
Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World
That Works for All
by Tom Atlee

ah.. it might just be a book, i can share during my presentation?

_________________
Out of cluster, we can find simplicity and, in the middle of difficulty, lies opportunity

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:18 am

Rio

Silver Member

Joined: 15 May 2006

Posts: 225

Hi to all in this thread. I am trying to follow what has been debated but find it hard going. Seems to me that no agreement can be reach as some ideas here are not achievable in our life time. Can we pass on and get to what Alpha had initiated? It makes for a very interesting and enlightening read. I trust we can proceed focusing more in the Singapore context. Then it would be of more relevance to all of us as some IMO would be more than happy to participate. Thank you.

_________________
It isn't a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have none......Anthony Weston

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:48 pm

lpc1998

Silver Member

Joined: 30 Apr 2005

Posts: 219

Rio wrote:

Hi [Rio].

Yes, you have made a good suggestion. We can use Singapore as a specific case in discussing democracy which is a global concern. This discussion would be of more interest to most of us here, being more familiar with local democratic issues.

[IMAGOD] has rightly appointed out the abuses of democracy in the world, and he has proceeded on that basis to reject democracy on the ground that the democracy itself necessarily leads to the abuses of democracy. What he has failed to see or refused to see is that such abuses are made possible by the way the existing Constitution is written and through the control of the mass media, the ordinary people are generally kept inadequately informed and thinking on public issues and matters, and politically non-participating. And furthermore, throughout the ages, the ordinary people have been ruled by the promotion of greed, fear and superstition.

For instance, the American founding fathers had rejected democracy in their time for fear of the mob rule which was historically up to that time a political illness as the result of many failed democracy attempts in other countries. So instead, they opted for the republican governance which is a ?repocracy? (the Rule by Representatives), but packed with democratic rights. Even that, their most important democratic rights were introduced after the Constitution was adopted by a series of constitutional amendments now popularly known as the Bill of Rights.

He instead promotes what he called ?Anarcho-Captalism?, but from his description of it, it is an economic system based almost totally on anarchy, except for a law on private property rights. Moreover, on one hand, he insists this is a Natural Law (meaning it exists by itself), but on the other, it has to be enforced by the people by private means like a gun shoot-out. In less civilized times in the history of mankind before the advent of organized society, there used to be stone shoot-outs over private property rights including the ownership of women. It is actually not a new idea.

By the way, would you like to elucidate your views on those ideas discussed here you think that are not achievable in our lifetime?

_________________
Best Regards
lpc1998

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:41 am

Rio

Silver Member

Joined: 15 May 2006

Posts: 225

lpc1998 wrote:

Rio wrote:

Hi Ipc 1998,

Thank you.

Sorry for this belated response. I had a hard time doing my own study of the subject of this thread. Alot of catching up to do. In response, I think the objective to bring about change in the way "democracy" is being practise in Singapore is achievable. I doubt very much it will happen in our generation, maybe the next generation.

The reasons why I say this is:

1. Presently we are in the age of cultural co-stupidity, defined as:

* lack of citizen involvement in public discourse and societal learning (whether from distraction, disillusionment, confusion, or otherwise)
* individual and collective denial (motivated by fear, habit, ignorance, or otherwise)
* the suppression of information that threatens special interests (by corporations, media, politicians, lawyers, etc.)
* a level of specialization that makes it difficult to know the significance of data from outside one's sphere and virtually impossible to understand how diverse pieces of the picture fit together
* dysfunctional forms of public discourse that fail to generate public wisdom and will
* fashion-driven information distribution (e.g., sexy news), lacking context and follow-up
* competitive or conformist political cultures that keep public opinion from adapting to changing circumstances.
* lack of platforms and forums for effective dialogue where the meaning of such information can be explored

Should the above be overcome (not necessary 100%), much work need to be done to effect the gradual positive social change (and increase the level of societal intelligence) the entire population, provided obstacles to these change will not be resisted by parties unwilling to relinguish their power. This change will not come about overnight and may take a very long time.

The present situation we are in, allows little freedom for public discourse and participation. I do not see how Singapore's environment can be conducive for such innovative ideas to gain a foothold in a short period. As it is, the institutions are scrambling to remove blogsites, websites so as not to allow Singaporeans access to information and exchange of ideas. Definitely we have to depend on many other first world countries to set the stage before it becomes acceptable to Singaporeans. We can forget about our immediate neighbours as they are in no better position than we are.

So I doubt collective-intelligence to bring about change in democracy as is practised here is achievable in the short term. We will have to rely on the change globally as preached by Tom Atlee in his book and this will take an even longer period and beyond our life time.

_________________
It isn't a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have none......Anthony Weston

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:41 pm

lpc1998

Silver Member

Joined: 30 Apr 2005

Posts: 219

Rio wrote:

Sorry for this belated response. I had a hard time doing my own study of the subject of this thread. Alot of catching up to do. ?.

Many thanks for your thoughtful reply. I could be slow in my reply too. We are so bogged down by work, study or family commitments. That is generally why carefully considered social or political changes initiated by the ordinary citizens are so difficult.

Rio wrote:

?.. In response, I think the objective to bring about change in the way "democracy" is being practise in Singapore is achievable. ?.

It?s good you have a positive view of a democratic future for Singapore.

Rio wrote:

?. I doubt very much it will happen in our generation, maybe the next generation.

The reasons why I say this is:

1. Presently we are in the age of cultural co-stupidity, defined as:

* lack of citizen involvement in public discourse and societal learning (whether from distraction, disillusionment, confusion, or otherwise)
* individual and collective denial (motivated by fear, habit, ignorance, or otherwise)
* the suppression of information that threatens special interests (by corporations, media, politicians, lawyers, etc.)
* a level of specialization that makes it difficult to know the significance of data from outside one's sphere and virtually impossible to understand how diverse pieces of the picture fit together
* dysfunctional forms of public discourse that fail to generate public wisdom and will
* fashion-driven information distribution (e.g., sexy news), lacking context and follow-up
* competitive or conformist political cultures that keep public opinion from adapting to changing circumstances.
* lack of platforms and forums for effective dialogue where the meaning of such information can be explored

Should the above be overcome (not necessary 100%), much work need to be done to effect the gradual positive social change (and increase the level of societal intelligence) the entire population, provided obstacles to these change will not be resisted by parties unwilling to relinguish their power. This change will not come about overnight and may take a very long time.

One generation is like a flash in historical time. If full true democracy could be achieved in Singapore within a generation, it is very good news indeed, not only for Singapore, but also for mankind. Only with true democracy, could collective intelligence and resources be harnessed efficiently for national prosperity and for the eventual rational management of the much-abused Planet Earth when society and humanity are free from individual madness in the decision-making processes in the public affairs and from the blind pursuit of human greed.

You are right about the many problem areas we have today, but they are mainly the symptoms of the disease in the existing political system. As the existing political system gives way to the new political system, many of them will dissolve away by themselves.

So the way to true democracy is to focus primarily on two crucial areas: 1) to create a rally point where as many citizens as possible could learn and upgrade themselves to be democracy ready {this is the most difficult part of the entire process} and 2) to introduce democratic principles and procedures into the larger society wherever possible. In other words, we should not concern ourselves with what is not possible for the time being. There is already so much to be done on what is possible.

Rio wrote:

The present situation we are in, allows little freedom for public discourse and participation. I do not see how Singapore's environment can be conducive for such innovative ideas to gain a foothold in a short period. As it is, the institutions are scrambling to remove blogsites, websites so as not to allow Singaporeans access to information and exchange of ideas. ?.

The little freedom we have is more than sufficient for the necessary public discourse and participation. The sad truth is that people are making the most unfruitful use of it. This is evident even here at FindSingapore. Look at the nearly 40,000 posts here. How many of them contribute to a democratic Singapore? And how many of the forumers are democracy ready, able and willing to participate in public discussions as informed and thinking voters or potential voters?

Rio wrote:

?.. Definitely we have to depend on many other first world countries to set the stage before it becomes acceptable to Singaporeans. We can forget about our immediate neighbours as they are in no better position than we are.

Nope, unfortunately, the first world countries have many democratic rights embedded in an undemocratic political system, a condition that would allow many bad and evil things to be done in the name of democracy, directly or indirectly, by a tiny group of controlling politicians. This results in either a weak government and near social anarchy and decay or a strong government that threatens the democratic rights. And together with all the other evils done in the name of democracy in the other countries, many distinguished statesmen have spoken against ?the liberal western democracy?.

Anyway, voter turnouts have dropped so much in many important elections that render the balloting measures democratically meaningless. Many people in these countries are now suffering from democracy fatigue or disillusionment because of bad experiences from having lived in a false democracy.

Ironically, the countries or societies that have the best chances at the moment of achieving true democracy are Hong Kong, Singapore and China in that order because they have an effective government that could ensure social and economic stability together with a people who are hungry for democratic rights mistakenly thought to be democracy itself. This is because social and economic stability is an essential condition for the people to develop democracy readiness. Getting a sufficient majority of the people to be democracy ready is the most difficult part of the entire democratizing process.

Rio wrote:

So I doubt collective-intelligence to bring about change in democracy as is practised here is achievable in the short term. We will have to rely on the change globally as preached by Tom Atlee in his book and this will take an even longer period and beyond our life time.

Collective intelligence is an integral feature of the Information Age. Tiny countries like Singapore with an open economy in global competition could not afford in the long run not to use it. The economic imperative would eventually ensure this.

And collective intelligence like democratic rights works best in a true democracy, simply because generally people cannot be ?informed and thinking? and ?ignorant and idiotic? at the same time.

Anyway, full democracy cannot be achieved overnight in a country that has neither meaningful democratic traditions nor institutions and that has a people frozen in democratic infancy. So democracy has to evolve in stages commencing in areas that have the greatest promise of success ? using democratic principles and processes to achieve better results in social and economic progress for the people.

_________________
Best Regards
lpc1998

Democracy in Social System - Collective Intelligence

Find Singapore.Net Forum Index » International Issues

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1