The Fundamental Problem

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Majormoney's picture
Majormoney
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Posts: 21
The Fundamental Problem

First: I join the chorus of congratulations to Chris for a magnificent achievement.

Second, and at the risk of injecting a very discordant note into the proceedings on this website:

The fundamental problem is not energy, nor economy, nor environment.  Most of the challenges in these realms are the result of a much more fundamental and pervasive problem which is common to all of them, but which has not been identified in the discussions on this site.  An understanding of this problem is absolutely essential to answering the question: What should I do? And it is also absolutely essential to the survival of the human race.

The fundamental problem is the existence of the philosophically flawed paradigm of social organization known as Government.  This paradigm has been inherited from the distant past.  As we all know only too well, it was--and is--derived from the premise of "To the victor go the spoils"--not only the spoils of violent conflict, but equally the spoils that result when the ballot is substituted for the bullet.

The Marketplace evolves spontaneously as individual human beings pursue their own self-interests.  The result is a society that is built 'from the bottom up'--by the voluntary exchanges to mutual advantage among all the producers and consumers in the Marketplace.  The result--which has been demonstrated historically over and over again--is Prosperity and Peace.

The distinguishing characteristic of the Political Process is the absence of 'primary' contracts between the politicians and the people, and the resulting suboptimal accountability and responsibility of the politicians to the people.  The result is a society that is built 'from the top down'--by the involuntary imposition of political power and control by the Rulers upon the Ruled.  Government is superimposed upon the Marketplace by fraud and force.  The result--which has been demonstrated historically over and over again--is Conflict and Violence--Chaos, Destruction, and Death.  The political way of doing things is riddled through and through with lethal contradictions, as tomorrow's negative news, whatever it may be, will again confirm.

The problems of energy, economy, and environment will never be addressed rationally, which means they will never be solved successfully, as long as the decision-making to address and solve them originates outside the Marketplace--i.e., inside the Political Arena.

The fundamental problem we face goes far, far beyond the daunting challenges of energy, economy, and environment.  The fundamental problem involves identifying the raw, unvarnished truth about the nature of Government, and then replacing our coercive and anachronistic political institutions with voluntary and modern economic institutions which enshrine the individual human being--not the abstract collective--as the basic unit of society.

What should we do?  We should run--not walk, run--to http://www.tolfa.us -- The On-Line Freedom Academy -- for a magnificent tutorial on the nature of this fundamental problem, and its ultimate solution.  And when we're finished with TOLFA, we should run--not walk, run--to http://www.strike-the-root.com and http://www.mises.org for much more information on this vitally important subject.

Again, the survival of the human race depends upon it.

Let the flak begin!    :-)

MAJORMONEY 

 

 

 

DurangoKid's picture
DurangoKid
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 25 2008
Posts: 174
Re: The Fundamental Problem
Part of this is the question of scale. Obviously, the in the nationstate, accountability is impossible. On the village scale, where people have to live with each other, it's not only possible but mandatory. When oil based mobility is a thing of the past, we'll all be in villages in some way. We will also have to function in societies where the level of complexity is much lower. Perhaps this will mean the dissolution of nationstates and a return to a smaller scale. What form the decision making takes is anyone's guess. I would suggest James Howard Kunstler's "World Made By Hand". It explores three different strategies.
homosapiens's picture
homosapiens
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2008
Posts: 11
Re: The Fundamental Problem

Majormoney,

 

I must disagree: Government is not a Fundamental Problem. As a matter of fact, Government is nothing else than a mirror of ourselves, the population that has elected and installed government in just the way it operates:

 Our society (Industrial Civilization) is entirely built on a platform of perpetual growth philosophy:  Drilling down, we find that this platform stands on the sands of the deepest of our fundamental beliefs in religion, economic principles and individual social behavior. Humanity rotates around this one ideological center of gravity. This human mindset is genetic: Since Homo erectus, growth has been equivalent of better protection [against wilderness and predators], of improved success [hunting together, farming, construction], of increased power [striking power of armies, packs of wolves], of emerging structures of civilization [trade, comfort, money, bible, laws, states, nations].  The short period on Earth with “an infinite environment condition” has formed today’s Homo sapiens by basic Darwinian selection.  Hence, perpetual growth can only exist [and favorite the Darwinian model] in an endless environment. With Earth becoming finite due to exponential population explosion of an emerging industrial civilization, Homo sapiens had no time for mitigation. [We know that Darwinian evolution of species can only follow environmental changes and events.] Let’s see us as a “two-dimensionally-thinking” Homo sapiens having unexpectedly been catapulted by the power of oil into the three dimensional environment of a finite sphere which we are unable to understand. In light of the above it becomes clear that our choice is very limited to either “ultra rapid mitigation of mindset” or the extinction of our species. Terminal decline begins just now.  

Talking of “The Fundamental Problem”, it should be attributed to some fact in order to make sense. If the attributed fact you forgot to refer to is the present financial crisis, well, IMHO the fundamental problem is exponential world population growth having depleted resources beyond peak!

 

Sincerely,

 

Tom

joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
Re: The Fundamental Problem

major money

been to tolfa . took the test got a 91 but have not been able to get into it because of time i will keep you posted.

people only change when they can no longer stand the pain. the american people are thoroughly 

anesthetized. we have been the frogs in the proverbial pot and have not realized we were being boiled to death.

i agree that we are being controlled in a top down  system, as a matter of fact they have been very open about it.

"the trickle down theory of economics"  no sooner was the ink dry on the constitution than hamilton and his monarchist buddies set us on a course of rulers and ruled. it has taken over 200 years but here we are. in my gut i feel we are in for a major sh*t storm. out of which what evolves will be very different from what we have now. but it will only come with a lot of pain. imho

om shanti

joe

.

krogoth's picture
krogoth
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 576
Education and Hunting Predators

Joe,

I just wrote to you about this. MajorMoney, sounds revolutionary, will you be leading the army? Homosapiens, my bro Joe- Very interesting. I love how people on here have so many different views. Very intelligent and great conversations!

You know how a hunting species is defined? It's defined by eyes. If the eyes are in the front, facing forward or slightly forward, and you have shredding or grinding teeth (as we do) for flesh eating, your a predator.

To my vegan and vegetarian friends I always say this. We are all meat eaters, predators or hunters. The meat has simply turned into money. We evolved. But we evolved and changed into the dominant species STILL having these predatory skills in our DNA.

This is a people problem, folks, not a government problem, a people problem. We allowed ourselves not to be educated about these truths, allowed our government for 200 years to be based on a foundation of lies and deceitfulness, and allowed the current historical economic situation to happen. We allowed ourselves and past generations to turn our eyes away. We slept, we ate, we consumed, we stressed, we got brainwashed and conditioned, and we fought in wars probably for no reason but money. It happened, its happening again and it will happen again for our greatest treasure, our children. And they all got rich! The government, the banks, the executives. Now we have 2 classes of predators so we are evolving once again. The have and soon to be have nothings. But guess what, we all are still predators!

You can blame the government, as I do on many occasions here, or blame religion, or call it terrorist activity or whatever. Goddammit I want to blame somebody! I want to vent this intense feeling inside me. It's the feeling of hope being drained out of me. Hope for what we could have been or should be. But all in all, it's us as a nation and people. In fact, it's the whole world. And it always will be unless we can evolve into something better, and fast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Liberator's picture
Liberator
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Posts: 22
Re: The Fundamental Problem
Very interesting exchange; here's an attempt at fusion.

I suggest first that Majormoney is clearly right. Government may not be responsible for depletion of resources like oil and copper, though it has certainly made those depletions more wrenching by (a) intervening to boost the use of one resource (eg oil) over others (eg alcohol, said to have been favored by Ford in the 1920s) and (b) intervening to prevent or limit extraction of resources (eg oil from coastal waters and Alaska.) But government is certainly responsible for most of the major problems that Chris has so well portrayed; the 20th Century catastrophe of bogus money, for example, was 100% made in D.C. and other capitals.

Secondly though, Homosapiens and Krogoth were not wrong; in some sense government is a mirror of society, and society has allowed it to grow like a gigantic weed. Even next month, in the teeth of the present massive evidence of the chaos it has produced, tens of millions of voters will flock to the polls and vote for more of it, eerily like a herd of lemmings. Yes, the fundamental root could be called a "people problem."

A fusion might be that society has not systematically set about creating and growing government in a proactive manner, but has acquiesced in its formation and growth - it has passively accepted and failed to prevent its formation. In America, this is said to have taken the form of the "consent of the governed", meaning perhaps that everyone did not refuse to obey its orders.

When that phrase is examined, however, it makes no sense at all. If one is governed by another, consent is irrelevant; or if consent is prerequisite, there is no governance. This is a fatal contradiction.

"Passive acceptance" of government's continued existence, therefore, is the factor to be expunged. http://tolfa.us was commended here, and I agree; it teaches anyone systematically why consent should be withdrawn, and provides a means for everyone to do so.
Ray Hewitt's picture
Ray Hewitt
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 5 2008
Posts: 458
Re: The Fundamental Problem

Homosapiens at #2 says:

Majormoney,

 

I must disagree: Government is not a Fundamental Problem. As a matter of fact, Government is nothing else than a mirror of ourselves, the population that has elected and installed government in just the way it operates:

I think the disagreement is in the wording, not the concept. It's more accurate to word it this way: the social solution of government is a fundamental problem.

 

The problem will resolve itself, but it won't be because the general public decides to free themselves of government perquisites. Rather the solution is a Darwinian one. As human population grows and capitalism expands, there will be more competition for natural resources. If a nation is to survive, it has to eliminate waste. That means reducing the most flagrant form of waste: government. We are living at a time of a great turning with government heads around the world fighting for their survival in an age where the resources aren't there to support them in a manner they have become accustomed to.

Ray Hewitt's picture
Ray Hewitt
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 5 2008
Posts: 458
Re: The Fundamental Problem

I agree with Liberator on every point, but I can't grasp what he calls a contradiction.

When that phrase is examined, however, it makes no sense at all. If one is governed by another, consent is irrelevant; or if consent is prerequisite, there is no governance. This is a fatal contradiction.

One consents for differerent reasons.

There is certainly a small minority of independents who do not consent to be governed in the voluntary sense, but consent to be governed in the coercive sense. They see no purpose in being a martyr.

But for the majority, it's perfectly consistent to consent to being governed; it saves the trouble of thinking independently.

Then there is another small minority who consent actively.

The passives and the actives are actually interdependent. It's a symbiotic social relationship that's been with us since pre-history. I don't see that relationship changing. See my post at #6.

There is an outstanding book on this subject: The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Etienne DeLa Boetie http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Obedience-Discourse-Voluntary-Servitude/dp/1419178091/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225023891&sr=8-1

"Passive acceptance" of government's continued existence, therefore, is the factor to be expunged.

Yes. And passive resistance is the factor to be encouraged. I don't vote because voting registers my consent. I know a lot of people who don't vote out of laziness and disinterest, which is fine with me. Among those who do vote, I've gotten nowhere in convincing them not to vote.Not a good sign.

 

Liberator's picture
Liberator
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Posts: 22
Re: The Fundamental Problem
[quote=hewittr]

I agree with Liberator on every point, but I can't grasp what he calls a contradiction.

When that phrase is examined, however, it makes no sense at all. If one is governed by another, consent is irrelevant; or if consent is prerequisite, there is no governance. This is a fatal contradiction.

[/quote]

Try it this way. If you wish to direct my life in some respect, and force your will on me despite my wishes, you would be governing me - in whole or part. You would be violating my right to own and operate my own life - my self-ownership. That is what all governments always do.

If however I say "Yes, okay, I'll agree to do what you wish in this matter" then you are not governing me at all; what happened is that we made an agreement, each of us maintaining our respective sovereignty over ourselves.

Such interpersonal agreements (among two or more people) comprise the manner in which a free market society would function, and provide the "rules" that would keep it orderly in the total absence of laws. Usually - no, always I'd say - there is a quid for the quo; if I agree to follow your will in some matter, it's because you've agreed to provide me some benefit in exchange. Otherwise (or if that benefit is just that you will abstain from locking me in a cage) you'd be forcing your will down my throat - governing me, in fact.

"Consent to be governed" is therefore a contradiction. If there is true consent, it's an agreement and no governing occurs.

Perhaps this will labor the point, but here's another way: can there be such a thing as voluntary slavery? I think not. At the instant before transferring oneself to another person as his slave, one would be conveying a self-owning human being. What is to be received in the transfer is therefore also a self-owning human being. However a self-owning human being can not also be a master-owned human being; the two are absolutely in contradiction. Therefore, consent to enslavement is impossible. (We may choose not to incur the heavy additional cost of active resistance, but that doesn't imply consent.)

 

 

Ray Hewitt's picture
Ray Hewitt
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 5 2008
Posts: 458
Re: The Fundamental Problem

Liberator

We share a similar libertarian background, but there is another way to look at this. I'll elaborate with some overlap and we'll let it go at that.

You use "govern" and "slavery" in a stricter sense than I do. Alternatively, we may not consent, but we'll be governed anyway. We may prefer to think we're not governed, but we can't escape the fact that our actions are limited by law. We could ignore the law, but then we risk losing all liberty. There are ways to maximize our liberty, which I'm sure you and I are both doing, but it is only at the margins. Simple example. I don't recognize the dollar as money, but I have no choice but to use it, though I do give a lot of time and thought to financial independence. Even then, there is no choice but to use the common currency whatever it is.

A voluntary society is only a dream. There are only two means of escape: leave the territory or commit suicide.

The same applies to "voluntary slavery." De La Boetie uses "voluntary servitude" in the title of his book. The State cannot government without common consent. Creeping socialism is a form of voluntary servitude where a citizen agrees to give up liberty for safety. Debt is a form of voluntary slavery, or more precisely "indentured servitude." It's a contract between consenting adults.

I agree that the State cannot enslave our minds against our will, but it can enslave our bodies and our freedom of action - and it does. The enslavement is not absolute, otherwise the State would have no resources to confiscate. The enslavement is partial: it feeds from the the production of its subjects while encouraging voluntary dependance, thus producing a cooperative culture, or have you: voluntary slaves.

 

Liberator's picture
Liberator
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Posts: 22
Re: The Fundamental Problem
[quote=hewittr]

A voluntary society is only a dream. There are only two means of escape: leave the territory or commit suicide.

[/quote]

Thanks, and that I think is the point at which we must part company. "Field of Dreams" was fiction, but I go along with the principle that in order to achieve pretty well anything, one must first dream, or imagine, it. Then engage in a rational course of action to make it happen. Then "they will come."

I'm not interested in leaving either America or life; I'm interested in helping liberate America.

It's only too easy to see the monstrous power of government and wonder how it could possibly be overcome - but when we do so, we forget that in true truth govenment has no power or resource whatsoever, except that which its victims consent to provide for it. When that support is withdrawn, it will necessarily cease to exist.

Check out www.TOLFA.us - it's a means both to learn why such support is ill-placed, and quietly, peacefully and systematically to spread that understanding until nobody is left to provide it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: The Fundamental Problem

Majormoney & DurangoKid,

I partly agree with both of you.  It's great we want to continue the human race, but we are a species nonetheless and therefore should not be regarded as anything more.  I believe we have an innate desire to continue the human race since I believe we are only vehicles for the propagation of our genes ("The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins).  If we look at the human species as we look upon others, then we must ask ourselves why we desire any particular species to "survive".  Why?

Thousands, maybe millions, of species come into existence every day and maybe just as many go out of existence every day.  If we regard all species in the same way, then why are we so beleaguered with our own species?  Why does our species take primacy over others?  Does it make sense?  Is it rational to believe this?

The human species, I used to think, was intelligent.  But I now think otherwise.  Most species depend upon their surrounding species for their existence.  Their "intelligence" is proven by the results of they symbiotic activities.  I'm not sure we have passed on the genes necessary for the survival of the human species, i.e., we have not managed to properly interact with our environment which is necessary for our survival.  This means the human race has a very high probability of ending.  Leaving ethics, morals, and virtues aside, we can be sure that, logically and scientifically, we will end as a human race if we continue down this path.

All those "save the planet" people are wrong. The planet will still be here long after the demise of the human race.  We, as a human race, believe ourselves to be superior in intelligence but intelligence is nothing without the existence of a body.  Maybe there has been a glitch somewhere.  It's plausible that the necessary genes have not been passed down.  If they have been successfully passed down and we possess the inherent information to become symbiotic, then something powerful has overridden this programming-- maybe religion?

What I'm trying to say is that we do not regard other species in the same light as ours.  But in order to survive, rationally speaking, we must procure other species as we would ours.

It's probably too late to attempt to recover from this idea of "humans are special".  We're no more special than a tree.  The genes gave us our "ego" and "eccentricity" to give us the determination  keep living.  It was in the genes' very interest for us to continue down this path.  But the genes, of course are not infallible, and have not imagined this ego trip of ours would supersede necessary and sufficient responses to other species.

The human race is not "special".  We can go extinct just as any other species.  Somehow people just don't believe that could ever happen- which is very odd to me.

Ask yourself a few questions to see where you stand on the issue and whether you are rational or irrational to matter of the human species.

1.  Do you feel the human species is special?

2.  Why?

3. ...or in What ways?

4.  Do you believe all those "save the planet" people really want to save the planet or are they really saying "save me"?

5.  ...or is it that by "saving the planet" we are saving ourselves?

6.  Do you or do you believe that we must depend upon other species for our survival?  If not, then what do you depend up on for the survival of you and/or the human species.

7.  If you are in the camp of people who are not worried about "saving the human race", then how do you feel about your children's children's children's children?  Do you "care" or do you think it will just "work itself out when the time comes".

If the human race doesn't have any qualms about the suffering of millions of people, and you have the stomach to watch mass starvation, then keep propogating.  Our genes are smart enough to initiate their own forms of population control.  It may not be something we would like to see.  Disease is one form and cancer is another.  Somehow scientists and religious people think they can "outsmart" the genes by irradicating cancer or viruses and bacteria.  Cancer, viruses, and bateria are not "bad" or "evil" things.  We just place a value on these occurances, when in fact we should've just taken the hint in the first place.  Reduce popluation.... blah, blah, blah....

 

Liberator's picture
Liberator
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Posts: 22
Re: The Fundamental Problem

A nice one, caroline_culbert!

Yes, I think we're special. But then, probably a dog thinks the same, and that we are there just to provide his species a useful service. The blades of grass on my lawn may have a different view.

But it's hard to prove we're special, without leaping into mythology and inventing a god who said it was so. The first reason that comes to my mind is: Brahms. Whale songs are simply not in the same class.

Perhaps the only way to substantiate the claim of special-ness is to reason that we humans have adapated our environment to our own purposes to an unique degree, many orders of magnitude better than any other species. That makes us quantitatively special but not qualitatively so. Make sense?

On Qs 4 and 5, I suspect these folk are bears of limited cranial capacity, reaching out for political power. Luftmensch.

Species clearly depend on each other, but not absolutely; some emerge, some disappear every day, and while wholesale destruction of all forests would certainly end life as we know it, profitable harvesting of those a person actually owns is a perfectly valid way of advancing his interests and ours.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments