/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

>>13314

>The people defend themselves against outside forces

And inside forces? I assume that you take this as an inevitable conclusion, and so the purpose of this government is to set to that bomb the longest fuse possible.

>Subversion is negligible with a minimal government

And if its roots are an outside source? How do you prevent espionage and foreign interests undermining local ones? For example, the US is in a unique situation in that it has a large and varied land mass with which to prosper economically. Compare that with, say, Greece, whose stony mountains and large swathes of ocean force its economy to rely on trade and mercantilism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US could easily outproduce Greece simply due to economies of scale, meaning that in the event of economic war, sanctions, investment, mergers, corporatism, etc. allow the US to swallow Greece economically, rendering its people unto poverty. If I'm not mistaken, this can be accomplished in the absence of governing forces.

>A valid criticism, but not economically

Ruling is more than economic matters. Basic economic theory presents that one of the main role of governments, in terms of the economy, is to regulate markets that produce socially undesirable goods and services. Now, we know that such things (porn, drugs, conspiratorial/subversive media, misleading educational practices, and so on) are bad for people, especially if they develop a negative feedback loop and become ingrained into your society. The government, by regulating 'degeneracy' thus has a twofold effect: to stamp out bad social practices, and their manifestation economically. If the people are led to believe one thing - take the case of mass media control and proliferation from above - and the government posits another, you have a crisis.

>Rights are absolutes designed to give you freedom, otherwise the government will work to the detriment of the people

You're simply going to presume that a tyrant or a fool sits at the helm of the state and must have his freedom limited for the good of the people, and that the people are capable of self regulation and hence must be afforded their freedoms? Can you please explain your ruling class?

>>13319

>And inside forces? I assume that you take this as an inevitable conclusion, and so the purpose of this government is to set to that bomb the longest fuse possible.

Like I said, for it to resist any outside or inside force, people must oppose it by violence. I never stated it as an inevitable conclusion, I just said that it is expected for them to consider any invader as an actual threat. If they consider them a threat, then it will not be economically worthwhile to invade, since the native population will go against the aggressor. If they don't consider them a threat, then the invader won't need to bring a single tank across the border to gain control, since there would be an insignificant amount of resistance.

>How do you prevent espionage and foreign interests undermining local ones?

Espionage seems rather pointless in this matter, since it wouldn't really be the government they would be fighting, but instead trying to win the favour of the inhabitants themselves. For foreign interests I would prefer more detail or a few examples.

>US against Greece in economic war

That is a legitimate threat, but even WITH large government it would be a problem, just look at the economic war between the US and Russia. And as shown by the economic war between the US and Russia, they will both seek alternative markets where possible to help reduce the impact on the economy.

>The government, by regulating 'degeneracy' thus has a twofold effect: to stamp out bad social practices, and their manifestation economically. If the people are led to believe one thing - take the case of mass media control and proliferation from above - and the government posits another, you have a crisis.

I agree with this. It can be done by economic means but in general there should be minimal attempts to influence the government. The negative side to this is that any businesses that find loopholes or exploit a gray-area will gain more power through a lack of competition. The resulting effect may have a significant impact and thus the legislation will have fulfilled its role, but the risk is still there.

>You're simply going to presume that a tyrant or a fool sits at the helm of the state and must have his freedom limited for the good of the people, and that the people are capable of self regulation and hence must be afforded their freedoms?

Well in reality, things like the Consitution in the US are designed to control the government, but really the only way it does this is by reminding the people what they must prevent from happening. If the people themselves stop giving a shit about it, then anyone that may want to do it will do so. It is perfectly viable to have a beneficial and competent leader, such as a monarch, I just think that the government should be set up as a moral agent, instead of a welfare agent.

>Can you please explain your ruling class?

Companies used democracy as a means of gaining power within the government. Paid off enough politicians and got laws passed, that would benefit them and inconvenience everyone else, by making it nigh impossible to start up a successful business. All those bank bail-outs were done by lobbying, not because of competition by the free market.

Any other British AnCaps?

>>13337

anarcho capitalism is hilarious

as long as you allow jewish banks you are just a goy, not an anarchist

>>13313

>Are you then going to tell me that all people deserve equal rights, on account of them all being living beings?

yes

and there is a distinction between negative rights and positive liberties vs positive right and negative liberties

there are also privileges which are neither liberties nor rights, obviously

>>13321

>Let the people give a threat assessment in order to tackle any supposed infringement of sovereignty

And if they don't all give the same assessment? A common enemy can unite the people, but conflict is far more nuanced than that. All it takes is a few subversive actions and ideals (see: communism) to rip a state to pieces and warring factions. Moreover, imagine that, today, a country immersed in exported Americanisms and globalised culture (as they all are) decides to adopt this ancap state. Despite all rationale supporting the contrary, the people will undoubtedly follow the shallow materialism in which they've been surrounded to the death of them and their state. The people cannot coherently decide in a logical fashion.

>Espionage / foreign-led subversion is unnecessary in the absence of government

Well, observe that America has been subverted by foreign finance and corporations, despite its originally minimal government – or so I presume, I'm not American. This can be observed in a number of seemingly sovereign states: since the object of subversion is not control of the government, but the people (as the people are the deciding factor in a limited government), all that needs to be done is to influence them. Cultural Marxism has rotted the occidental world, regardless of the size of the state. Indeed, it can be wrought by state powers if they are corrupted (see: EU, Common Core), but it can be done in the absence of government, if private institutions – which exist without moral imperatives – are granted enough power to do so. Usury, fractional reserve lending, and multinational capabilities of firms allow them to exceed the boundaries of states and exist on a supranational level; business can wield power between, through, and often in spite of, states. One only needs to observe the middle east and the second world war to see this.

>>13344

>yes

Why? To maintain the balance of power? Also, what defines a right and what defines a liberty?

>>13367

>Also, what defines a right and what defines a liberty?

From what I understand a liberty is the non restriction of your abilities. A right is the privilege of equal treatment. It mostly applies to differences in law.

good read