It's the State, Stupid.
October 25, 2011 7:16 PM Subscribe
Rather, the State is the 1 Percent. "Let's understand through a simple example. Let's say you go into a restaurant and hate the wallpaper. You can complain and try to persuade the owner to change it. If he doesn't change it, you can decide not to go back. But if you break in, take money out of the cash register, buy paint, and cover the wallpaper yourself, you will be charged with criminal wrongdoing and perhaps go to jail...
But the state is different. If it doesn't like the wallpaper, it can pass a law (or maybe not even that) and send a memo. It can mandate a change. It doesn't have to do the repainting: the state can make you repaint the place. If you refuse, you are guilty of criminal wrongdoing.
Same goals, different means, two very different sets of criminals. The state is the institution that essentially redefines criminal wrongdoing to make itself exempt from the law that governs everyone else."
This post was deleted for the following reason: This is maybe not going over so well here. There may be good single link articles about this issue, but this one is not it. -- jessamyn
Did you read it?
posted by fantodstic at 7:19 PM on October 25, 2011
posted by fantodstic at 7:19 PM on October 25, 2011
In a democracy we are (ideally) the state? Please bash my knee-jerk reaction to this article....Yes I know that our democracy is hijacked etc.
posted by Jibuzaemon at 7:19 PM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Jibuzaemon at 7:19 PM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Nice propaganda. Have you cashed the Koch Brothers' check yet?
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:19 PM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:19 PM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year.
posted by unSane at 7:19 PM on October 25, 2011 [6 favorites]
posted by unSane at 7:19 PM on October 25, 2011 [6 favorites]
Articles like this continue to portray libertarians as poor thinkers who struggle with basic concepts. Accurately so. Which is why I love that people keep writing them.
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:20 PM on October 25, 2011 [13 favorites]
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:20 PM on October 25, 2011 [13 favorites]
I'm confused. What are we dividing into percentages again?
I thought it was the citizenry.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:21 PM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
I thought it was the citizenry.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:21 PM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
What is it about Libertarianism that ensures such a wealth of absurd analogies.
Can we have a car analogy now, or maybe something involving a household budget?
posted by pompomtom at 7:21 PM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Can we have a car analogy now, or maybe something involving a household budget?
posted by pompomtom at 7:21 PM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
I mean, why is it that when I tell my friend "you're going to jail" nothing happens, yet when a judge says "you're going to jail" they send someone to jail? That's totally unfair. No more judges.
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:21 PM on October 25, 2011 [16 favorites]
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:21 PM on October 25, 2011 [16 favorites]
Yes I read it. Did I miss the section where it proposed what should be implemented instead of the whole "nation-state + central bureaucracy" thing that's pretty much the norm since ancient Egypt?
posted by Chekhovian at 7:22 PM on October 25, 2011
posted by Chekhovian at 7:22 PM on October 25, 2011
Libertarians: Because not serving black people, or selling tainted food, or having a kitchen that injures or maims your employees is exactly the same as having ugly wallpaper.
posted by Grimgrin at 7:23 PM on October 25, 2011 [13 favorites]
posted by Grimgrin at 7:23 PM on October 25, 2011 [13 favorites]
For the record: yes, I did read it.
Which is how I learned that the article failed to address the point that The State is comprised of individuals HIRED by and FUNDED by the wealthiest 1%. So the rich and The State are effectively one and the same.
Which is one of the very things that OWS is saying is wrong.
I suppose this author was too busy trying to make his own point to listen to that, though.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:25 PM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Which is how I learned that the article failed to address the point that The State is comprised of individuals HIRED by and FUNDED by the wealthiest 1%. So the rich and The State are effectively one and the same.
Which is one of the very things that OWS is saying is wrong.
I suppose this author was too busy trying to make his own point to listen to that, though.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:25 PM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
In the end, we end up with about 3 million people who constitute what is commonly called the state. For short, we can just call these people the 1 percent.
The 1 percent do not generate any wealth of their own. Everything they have they get by taking from others under the cover of law. They live at our expense. Without us, the state as an institution would die.
Ah, the Austrian school. They're not anarchists. They're Fuedalists - they want to re-instate aristocracy, and put the wealthy in charge of, well, everything. They seethe at the notion that there is a government that can put any kind of restraint on private power, and cloak it in libertarian hand-waving. They won't be happy until we're all bonded chattel.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:25 PM on October 25, 2011 [8 favorites]
The 1 percent do not generate any wealth of their own. Everything they have they get by taking from others under the cover of law. They live at our expense. Without us, the state as an institution would die.
Ah, the Austrian school. They're not anarchists. They're Fuedalists - they want to re-instate aristocracy, and put the wealthy in charge of, well, everything. They seethe at the notion that there is a government that can put any kind of restraint on private power, and cloak it in libertarian hand-waving. They won't be happy until we're all bonded chattel.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:25 PM on October 25, 2011 [8 favorites]
I'll give you my anaglypta when you steam-peel it from my cold, dead... walls.
posted by Kandarp Von Bontee at 7:27 PM on October 25, 2011
posted by Kandarp Von Bontee at 7:27 PM on October 25, 2011
The state is the source of all ills, eh? Where have I heard this one before...
posted by mek at 7:28 PM on October 25, 2011
posted by mek at 7:28 PM on October 25, 2011
They're Fuedalists - they want to re-instate aristocracy, and put the wealthy in charge of, well, everything. They seethe at the notion that there is a government that can put any kind of restraint on private power, and cloak it in libertarian hand-waving. They won't be happy until we're all bonded chattel.
Unfair and incorrect. They legitimately think that most people would be happier, freer, and more prosperous under stateless captalism. I they're wrong, but I think it's their genuine opinion.
posted by shivohum at 7:28 PM on October 25, 2011
Unfair and incorrect. They legitimately think that most people would be happier, freer, and more prosperous under stateless captalism. I they're wrong, but I think it's their genuine opinion.
posted by shivohum at 7:28 PM on October 25, 2011
I tried to read the article, and I think I got about halfway through. I don't have anything to contribute except the same anger that seems to have inspired most of this thread. This is just a single-link FPP...maybe it should be deleted?
posted by uosuaq at 7:33 PM on October 25, 2011
posted by uosuaq at 7:33 PM on October 25, 2011
Unfair and incorrect. They legitimately think that most people would be happier, freer, and more prosperous under stateless captalism. I they're wrong, but I think it's their genuine opinion.
There's an interesting book by the Austrianist Hoppe. It's called Democracy: The God That Failed. It's all about how democracy is less preferable than monarchy, which is in turn less preferable than the fabled anarcho-capitalist utopia. The fact that monarchy is preferred to democracy should get you thinking about why Austrians hate the state so much. The state, under ideal conditions, prevents mere citizens from attaining unchecked power.
The game is different - compare the divine right of kings to the sort of aristocracy you get when there are no checks whatsoever on income equality, nepotism, and monopoly - but the results are indistinguishable on the macro level. The result in either case is a fascination with total power - and of course the Austrians presume that they'd be on the happy end of that stick.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:34 PM on October 25, 2011 [2 favorites]
There's an interesting book by the Austrianist Hoppe. It's called Democracy: The God That Failed. It's all about how democracy is less preferable than monarchy, which is in turn less preferable than the fabled anarcho-capitalist utopia. The fact that monarchy is preferred to democracy should get you thinking about why Austrians hate the state so much. The state, under ideal conditions, prevents mere citizens from attaining unchecked power.
The game is different - compare the divine right of kings to the sort of aristocracy you get when there are no checks whatsoever on income equality, nepotism, and monopoly - but the results are indistinguishable on the macro level. The result in either case is a fascination with total power - and of course the Austrians presume that they'd be on the happy end of that stick.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:34 PM on October 25, 2011 [2 favorites]
Well, someone is wearing the crazy pants today.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:34 PM on October 25, 2011
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:34 PM on October 25, 2011
Dear Libertards please go read a book already.
Don't tell them that. They'll just reread The Fountain Head and Human Action. While not literati, they are quite the literalists.
To all Libetarians: How can market dynamics alone possibly resist the petrifying influence of debt without the state-sanctioned institution of bankruptcy? Please mefimail me the answer so as not to derail.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:35 PM on October 25, 2011
Don't tell them that. They'll just reread The Fountain Head and Human Action. While not literati, they are quite the literalists.
To all Libetarians: How can market dynamics alone possibly resist the petrifying influence of debt without the state-sanctioned institution of bankruptcy? Please mefimail me the answer so as not to derail.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:35 PM on October 25, 2011
So, this article is a stupid rehash of libertarian theology? Who cares?
Anyway the actual 'occupy wallstreet' protest is all about the state. Specifically, they feel that Wall Street has too much control over the state
So the protest is very much about the state, but rather then dismantling the state, they want to get control over it.
The idea that simply restating, for the zillionth time the basic premise of the Libertarian ideology is somehow a refutation of OWS means that you don't actually know what OWS is about.
posted by delmoi at 7:36 PM on October 25, 2011
Anyway the actual 'occupy wallstreet' protest is all about the state. Specifically, they feel that Wall Street has too much control over the state
So the protest is very much about the state, but rather then dismantling the state, they want to get control over it.
The idea that simply restating, for the zillionth time the basic premise of the Libertarian ideology is somehow a refutation of OWS means that you don't actually know what OWS is about.
posted by delmoi at 7:36 PM on October 25, 2011
So what are we looking at? The pathetically contrived arithmetical gymnastics gone through to get a number that corresponds to the percentage du jour? Ain't nothing else to see here.
posted by howfar at 7:36 PM on October 25, 2011
posted by howfar at 7:36 PM on October 25, 2011
« Older The Fruit of Dionysuis Thrax | Bangkok Floods Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Maybe we should all go Peter Thiel's private island, grab a free gun from the pile of free guns, and let nature take its course. Yeehaw.
posted by Chekhovian at 7:18 PM on October 25, 2011