Grundrisse
Posted by Jameske at 01:25, 25 Aug 2009In searching for the news today I came across an article that does not really belong in the news but is worthy of a read. I see it as a kind of early warning. So as not to be mistaken, I do not take this article in the way it is intended to be read, but rather as a foundation or an early blueprint for the arguments that will be used to adopt some kind of global control over human behaviour. I am not thinking in terms of some sinister conspiracy by a global elite. I am thinking in terms of where knowledge production meets political, or common, policy. Something cannot be done about nothing, only about something. Where knowledge production meets political policy it is always crisis or there is no meeting to begin with. So something must be done to avert crisis - and when in crisis the individual cannot be trusted to find the best solution that fits their situation. It is always in crisis that governments exert their greatest powers over the individual. In this case, the crisis demands the rationing of resources, and apportioning of resources to each individual by governments - a prohibition on human behaviour. This stands in contrast to how individuals would deal with crisis, real or imaginary, - through free markets and pricing.
Bookmark/Search this post with
- Jameske's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
12 April 2007
3 hours 14 min
I'm not sure why you're against the arguments expressed by the article, which I find that I agree with in many things.
Maybe because I live in Mexico and I'm accustomed to a society where people always seek a way to break the rules for their personal benefit. We have two sayings here: "El que no tranza no avanza" (he who doesn't cheat doesn't advance), and "Al que se apendeja, Dios lo deja" (kind of crass, let's just say that fools are not favored by God).
I do agree that it's better to seek a way in which you reward good conduct, instead of punishing the trespassers but leaving the good citizens unrewarded. That's exactly what happens in Mexico, so there's no incentive to follow the rules.
Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program seems to be a huge success. Here in Mexico the government is trying to implement the same program, but it has been a COMPLETE failure. Not only because of all the red tape surrounding it; but also because, apart from the fact that they only pay you a thousand miserable dollars for your clunker (instead of the 3500 you get in the US), there are so many taxes on new cars that only a fool would consider to trade his old faithful 1988 Chevy for a more expensive vehicle.
Plus, the government does nothing to control the arrival of all the junk vehicles that the migrant workers buy in the US, so... in a system where not only you don't punish the trespassings hard enough, but you ALSO don't reward good behavior, you're only fooling yourself.
Now, if the government had sought to cut the taxes on the purchase of all new cars, plus the thousand dollars in exchange for the clunkers, THAT would have made the difference. That's the approach you need to have in order to make people change their habits and do what you want.
What's the card the industrialized nations have to play with the developing world in order to achieve agreements? Technology.
You go and say to Latin America and Africa: "if you promess to stop polluting, we'll give you cheap access to novel renewable technology. We'll install solar and wind generators in your country, and after 10 years we will pass ownership to you." Preposterous? Copyrights are the ultimate commodity in the modern world? Well, you don't get something for nothing, and in the end the cost of doing nothing is bigger than doing the right thing.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
52 weeks 13 hours
Just imagine for a moment i am concerned about individual liberty. You ought not to be confused anymore.
Where does government get the money for the handouts? Current taxation, printing money (taxation of monetary value), borrowing (future taxation).
If someone does not want or cannot afford to go for this cash for clunkers scheme, they will be paying for it anyway.
Meanwhile back to my article: i was pointing out that these are the kind of arguments that will be used for the prohibition of human behaviour. I should say most human behaviour because you can be certain that it wont involve the political classes. Most of humanity will be deemed to have giant, vile smelling, carbon footprints. To take it to an extreme: you breathe out more carbon dioxide than you breathe in - government tax on breathing? Billboards with government information on them like "Be silent - Don't waste your breath."
12 April 2007
3 hours 14 min
The article discusses a lot about free agents: mainly people that are receiving more than they gain. In theory there shouldn't be any free agents allowed. On the same time, the state is supposed to compensante for the people who have less capabilities because of their personal condition.
Example: suppose I refuse to pay taxes that are intended for a ramp for wheelchair users, for the simple fact that i don't need it. Would that be fair?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
52 weeks 13 hours
I dont think you should be forced to pay taxes. if you volunteer to pay taxes, and you pick and choose what taxes you want to pay then that is fair. what is unfair is that you are forced to pay for something you do not want to pay for, or approve of.
We are coming from completely different perspectives. The article featured in my blog i see as a potential blueprint for the application of yet more government force on individuals. The example was deliberately extreme for the purpose of humour. A - what do you want? blood? - example.
12 April 2007
3 hours 14 min
My perspective comes from my life in Mexico city. A city that has experienced the enforcing of some things that would be appalling for most of you guys. We are restricted of the use of our cars one day of the week —provided your car is older than 10 years— and one Saturday of the month. And now that the water is beginning to be scarce, we're seeing 30% reductions in the supply to counter the effects. There have appeared several posters and billboards intended to scare people about the fact that, if we don't change our habits, there will not be any water in the city by February of 2010. Is this a plan to dupe the public? Maybe, but personally I'm convinced that the threat is real.
So, what I say is that I know from experience that plans in which you only punish bad behavior is doomed to fail. Sure, nobody likes paying taxes; I'm sure that if you chose what taxes you didn't want to pay, most people would choose to pay none! But then, what about the rights? If you choose not to pay for electricity and water, do you have a right to electricity and water from the municipal grid?
And, getting back to my former example: what about the taxes that don't benefit you directly, but are intended to level the opportunities, so that theoretically we will all be better off indirectly? You could choose to refuse paying a tax for public education, but then you're risking the outcome where you will be assassinated by a teenager who decided to choose to be a criminal after his options in life got severely reduced. You could choose to refuse a tax that pays the salaries of police officers, but then... are you going to carry a gun everywhere you go?
So, what I propose is a program of "carrots" instead of just "sticks". Give the people a reward for doing the right thing: a tax break for the people who pay them regularly and on time. A tax break for people who share their vehicle or buy a small or medium-size car. An attractive program to help young couples get a house if they choose to relocate t another city, instead of straining the resources of the megalopolis; and incentives to companies who hire employees living withing a 10-mile radius of the workplace. That sort of thing.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
52 weeks 13 hours
I understand you come from a different culture and background. I dont know about the situation in Mexico or how much in tax you pay. So i cannot comment on that.
I'm not an anarchist, so i am prepared to accept small and limited government, and that can be paid for by national import and export duties. Personally I dont like public education. It has led to an awful lot of the simple-minded gimboids that i have to suffer the company of everyday :-D
The police do perform a service but for some reason they are never ever guilty of wrong doing - now there is a miracle. Maybe could be better done by local private services.
But notice your examples are fear mongering - i am not saying that a libertarian nation would be a utopia. I am suggesting it would be better than what exists now because individuals know better what to do with their money than governments do. Consider what is wasted in wars, and quangos (jobs for the boys), perks for the political elite.... sigh. It could go on and on, and it will. And it will end in communist tyranny. We are half way there.
12 April 2007
3 hours 14 min
I think we can still find a middle ground where most of us can work together.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
52 weeks 13 hours
Hmmm, it means swallowing a purple pill....
12 April 2007
3 hours 14 min
That, or gulping the red AND the blue at the same time :-P
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
52 weeks 13 hours
would work, BUT, the problem is, the pills are not the same strength. A purple pill can only take you further along the road. One pill takes you back to square one the other does not.