Can Someone Justify The Trickle Down Theory?
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
You can have law because law is based on natural rights and responsibilities.
If anything, anarchy is the utmost respect for law at its most natural because you are entirely responsible for the rights you exercise. None of this corporate shield, judicial immunity, executive privilege garbage.
Constrast that with what is in place today with corporations, courts, judges, politicians, and whites who get the rights but never have to bear responsibility for their actions.
On the other hand, black people are held responsible without the rights.
The current legal system is a crime against natural law.
To bring this back to trickle down theory, it is a crime against natural law because it assumes that corporations have the right BUT ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for how wealth is distributed.
There still has to be an official arbitor when there are disputes and there will be disputes. There has to be someone who everyone can respect, not necessarily agree with, who can have final word in legal/financial/civil situations.
Couldn't agree more. Law is inescapable. But the law and the Clintons, Gore's, Bush's Obama's are two separate things. There is no royalty, we are all equal, created by our Maker with inalienable rights. No one has power over anyone except what is conceded.
man I respect your opinion Nittie.
However, there's few instances that I agree with thoughtone. That anarchy stance is pretty crazy.
I'm for freedom and all of that, however, you do need order also.
I'm actually surprise that Thought hasn't tried to make me out as the far right kook he thinks I am. It's kinda funny because I think he is a left wing kook.... *yea kook is a Rush Limbaugh term
*
However, there's few instances that I agree with thoughtone. That anarchy stance is pretty crazy.
I'm for freedom and all of that, however, you do need order also.
I'm actually surprise that Thought hasn't tried to make me out as the far right kook he thinks I am. It's kinda funny because I think he is a left wing kook.... *yea kook is a Rush Limbaugh term
*The honor system
Principles!
The power held by those you named was conceded in public elections.
man I respect your opinion Nittie.
However, there's few instances that I agree with thoughtone. That anarchy stance is pretty crazy.
I'm for freedom and all of that, however, you do need order also.
I'm actually surprise that Thought hasn't tried to make me out as the far right kook he thinks I am. It's kinda funny because I think he is a left wing kook.... *yea kook is a Rush Limbaugh term
There do seem to be some odd, and I'm sure temporary, allegiances going on in this thread.
So, you mean I can stop warning people the term is not permissible on this board and I can stop threatening a ban (and meaning it) if the rule is not adhered to ???
Good point.
but true.The rule is and can be enforced because, as in Life, whether in reality or the movie, there will be ”Consequences & Repercussions” for violations..
The prohibition against the use of the “N” word and the other prohibitions in the Rules of the Board are “Rules of Law.” No one is permitted to use the term; and the prohibition is enforced evenly. There is only one recognized exception to the rule, though it is unwritten: discussion of the origins and usages of the term is permitted.
By posting in this forum, Posters voluntarily submit to a Locke-like “Social Contract” accepting the rule of law and ceding or surrendering all claim to live (or post) in the dog-eat-dog, every-poster-for-himself existence of the State of Nature - which is in many ways, perhaps, comparable to the so-called Main Board.
Hence, as the comments of the posters clearly imply, while there may be voluntary acceptance and compliance with the rules, there is central government which enforces the rules against those who choose to post, contrary to the rules. The antithesis of anarchy.
QueEx
Anarchy doesn't mean there is no law that would be chaos. Anarchy means that people are governed by their beliefs and principles instead of a Big Brother central government. We can enter into a Locke like social contract if the majority agrees that it is a fair and equitable contract and we will conduct ourselves accordingly. With a central government the law is enforced by power and if the law becomes oppressive the government responds with more force and power. Anarchy or no government is a alternative to the type of government we have now. We see how effective it can be in Afghanistan, those tribes are governed by codes, principles, but they can battle the mightiest nations in history and win.
Government wants people to believe that without them, life would be impossible.
They want people to be so mistrustful of each other and their own abilities, that they feel compelled to turn to government, the courts, the police, and the military to tell them what to do.
It's not quite exact (since all the posters and QueEx are still living), but I'll let Thomas Paine take this...
On inherited social contracts, Paine said that
Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and generation which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave, is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies.
So, according to the "Social Contract" for...
the world to come, that a certain body of men, who existed a hundred years ago, made a law; and that there does not now exist in the nation, nor ever will, nor ever can, a power to alter it.
Furthermore, Paine argues the idea of government originating as a "Social Contract" between governors and governed fails the test of logic. He wrote,
It has been thought a considerable advance toward establishing the principles of freedom, to say, that government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed: but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as a man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with.
The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government; and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.
In my words, according to the natural order of anarchy, if people, of their own free will decide the government is tyrannical, unjust, or unnecessary, and it does not affect his fellow man, the government has no authority over that person in any natural sense.
If the government violates this natural order, and imposes by force, its will on a person, it is a violation, and is not a natural act, therefore it is an unlawful one. It is an act of chaos.
Therefore trickle-down, Keynesianism, too big to fail, the war on drugs, and legal tender, to name a few are acts of chaos, not order.
Once the government becomes too chaotic in its acts, the natural order, anarchy, will overcome it.
So you want to emulate Afghanistan?
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder
So you want to emulate Afghanistan?
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder
Afghanistan is on the verge of defeating the USA. They defeated the USSR, the Mongolian empire and Rome they have never been defeated or conquered. This is without a central govt or banking system. So yes I think America should move away from a materialistic, competition driven, central govt to one that is based on something stronger than the dollar.
They defeated the USSR with backing from the US and they were routed by US forces at the beginning of our invasion but the Administration at the time diverted major resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, giving the resurgent effort time and ability to reform.
Afghanistan was run by the Taliban before our invasion due to the chaos left in the wake of the USSR invasion and American abandonment. They had anarchy and it led to Taliban-rule.
So what you're saying is their culture is superior. Because when it's all said and done they won. They are 2-0 against 20th century super powers.
That might makes right attitude does not translate in to a superior society.
That might be what you're saying but no adult with a reading level above 2nd grade could interpret my post as that.
Afghanistan isn't even an example of an anarchistic society either so how does this fit?
C'mon bro; I know you're just playing like this, right? You know damn well if we played by the same rules as everyone else in that part of the world, there wouldn't even be a war in Afghanistan to speak of. As Upgrade intimated, when we had the gloves off (the country was then angry over 9-11) the Taliban was routed, makenomuthafukingmistakeaboutit routed. We let the air out of that balloon through an escape valve known as Tora Bora and a diversion known as Iraq.
Again, as Upgrade aptly pointed out, the Soviets downfall wasn't the Afghans; it was the Afghans aided and abetted by the U.S., in a pay-back move from Vietnam - where countless Americans lost their lives at the hands of Russian hardware and Intel. And, inasmuch as turn-about is fair play and one turn deserves another -- somewhere in Afghanistan there is a Russian and/or Iranian hand, as we speak.
But, more closely to the point: You can't take facts in your in hand like clay and mold them into the outcome you prefer today. The fundamental flaw in the underpinnings of your mythical utopia is as plain as the nose on your face: your sound-good voluntary society without government fails for the simple reason that it cannot protect itself, from itself. As I see it, everywhere that anarchy has come to past, however brief, it has been supplanted by the very animal that preceded it: some form of government, to act for their mutual benefit and protection.
Even the denizens of Haight Ashbury have themselves succumbed.
QueEx
War is not just the resources to fight. It is the WILL to FIGHT.
The US started a war it had no WILL to WIN!
It lost in Vietnam.
It lost in Somalia.
It will lose in Afghanistan.
Big government creates Big enemies (communism, poverty, drugs, terrorists, dictators, etc.)... since it is easier for Big government to defeat 1 Big enemy, rather than 10,000 little ones.
Anarchy triumphs over BIG government (that which has moved into chaos like the United States).
This argument is ludicrous.
After exposing the illogic of your "social contract" nonsense, you still hold to this fantasy.
Government preceded man? That makes no sense.
Last edited:
They met on the battlefield and Afghanistan has the upper hand, their culture is at least 2000 years older. This is not a matter of interpretation it is a scientifically proven fact. If anything you are in denial which is something no adult with a reading level above the 2nd grade would indulge in.
You are reciting American propaganda. What would you expect this govt to say? They defeated a country we cannot defeat? Cmon man.
this dude lost me when he said "I want to emulate Afghanistan"...
this dude lost me when he said "I want to emulate Afghanistan"...
You know they are going to turn on you don't you : lol:
Anyway I never said anything about emulating anyone. I was pointing out how countries with small govt and strong traditions and values are better than countries with big govt. Anarchy or small govt with capitalistic incentives, democratic elections, strong military and a fair judicial system would be much better than what we have today.What is there that needs to be justified? "Trickle Down Theory" is probably a name that was actually invented by someone with political motives; wouldn't be surprised if it was a liberal opponent of the general idea. But it's not really hard to understand? Do you not understand it or something? Are you opposed to it's premise?
<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=5896151564855675002&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VIs5r3ujBmw&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VIs5r3ujBmw&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VIs5r3ujBmw&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VIs5r3ujBmw&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
It would be if that's what he said.
They met on the battlefield and US forces ran them into the mountains. The Taliban, the then government of Afghanistan (how is this an example of anarchy again?), was demolished. Karzai, as corrupt as he is, was placed in his position with backing of the US government, in large part. Without us, he would be where he is.
Who, the Soviets? If the Soviets really wanted to move on Afghanistan, they had the larger, stronger, more advanced military but moving too powerfully against them would have led to a direct conflict with us.
No one ever said we couldn't beat the Soviets. But no one wanted to engage that conflict. I remember the phrase being "mutual assured destruction".
You know they are going to turn on you don't you : lol:
No "we're" not. AAA, thoughtone, Que and myself just happen to be on the same side: rational thinking. We'll find points to disagree with eventually, possibly even in this thread.
You don't explicitly say we should emulate Afghanistan, you just say they're a better country than us, which is just as ridiculous.
We do understand it and it's so flawed and so thoroughly exposed as a failure and morally inexcusable that we've gone off on a tangent about anarchy.
Not only do you have a habit of not citing evidence or examples to support your ridiculous claims, you're a liar as well. It was YOU who quoted Paine as postulating that the contract theory presupposed that government preceded man.
Nevertheless, Locke's theory is just that, theory. Its not a historical treatment of the original of government vis-a-vis man and I didn't pose it as such. BUT, for the purpose I raised the contract theory, its valid -- that is, posters voluntarily agree to discuss matters on this forum without resort to the "N" word or by trying to prove/make points by personal attacks.
Now, if you feel that according to the natural order . . . by your free will, you believe the rules of this board to be tyrannical, unjust and unnecessary, then go ahead and post as though they are inapplicable to you and central government has no authority over you, in any natural sense.
QueEx
I don't know why you even got into with that guy. I thought I was taking the bullet for everyone else. Now my sacrifice is for naught.
^^^^^^^^^^^^6
Similar threads
