Halfbrite wrote..

THE ARMY DIDN'T FIRE ON THEIR OWN PEOPLE. If the army in Egypt won't shoot (in our modern, worldwide, communications age), the army/police in America WON'T SHOOT EITHER - NO WAY, NO HOW. The politicians have lost control of the use of force by their government paid thugs. (army/police)

I believe that the conclusion that you draw is based on parallels that do not actually exist.

First, it has been reported via press accounts that Egyptian police forces/security forces did fire on and attack the protesters and, in the early days until called off, actually went house to house executing people merely suspected of being sympathetic to the protesters, in some cases killing the relatives of absent suspects. Our own police and/or federal LEOs frequently kill US civilians with impunity during "normal" times; I doubt if they will be any more hesitant to do so if/when the US population expresses open dissatisfaction with the gov't.

Second, the Egyptian military is essentially a conscript army, ours is not. Al Jazeera had an interview with someone who pointed out that a majority of Egyptian families had someone in the military, and that this was a major factor in their belief that the troops would not fire on civilians. Since we do not have a conscript army, that dynamic is absent. Further, there are examples of our military obeying orders to shoot US civilians during confrontations, Kent State and the urban riots in the 60's being two examples.

Obviously, I can't say what our military may or may not do if such a situation arises here, but it appears to me that the methodology you use to conclude that they will not is faulty.

Correction:

Quote:

The Certain People Win: Egypt

"All governments exist only with the consent of the governed."

No offense, but... ever heard about China or Zimbabwe? ... :-)

You arguably have, since you mention it later in your post, but still... Reading your above quote (as much as I agree with it in theory) had me laughing my ass off.

Surprised no one has mentioned it yet, but what's with all the conviction that Egypt will go the way of Hamas, rather than the way of Turkey?

With the military in control and the apparent guardian-of-last-resort of the Egyptian state, that looks a lot more like the Turkish model than the Islamist one.

Ican wrote..

Surprised no one has mentioned it yet, but what's with all the conviction that Egypt will go the way of Hamas, rather than the way of Turkey?

Because Turkey is going the way of Hamas.

Quote:

but what's with all the conviction that Egypt will go the way of Hamas, rather than the way of Turkey?

Because, IMHO, a lot of people here (and elsewhere) know nothing about Egypt other than there are mummies there, and scary stories of eeevil muzzies that people like Dick Morris tell them. Technically, it's not even in the dreaded middle east. Go there, get to know some egyptians, you might be surprised. They've got bigger balls, so to speak, than we do:-)

Can't believe anyone is flashing those obnoxious "told ya so" smileys in this thread. Unbelievable foolishness to think anything's settled at this point.

I wouldn't sell Americans too short. We are so far from Egyptian living conditions we can't even imagine what they have put up with. Luckily, we have the vote, and if that doesn't work, I believe, we would stand up and force changes. We just aren't there yet.

This news was the best news I have heard in a long time. The Egyptian people are a real source of inspiration. Un****ingbelievable that some would have a problem with the people overthrowing their cruel dictator and starting down the path to democracy. Yeah, they may have problems along the way, but they sure as hell won't succeed if they don't try. It's a good thing colonial Americans had better attitudes or we'd still be drinking tea.

Trivia for the day:
About 1 in 4 in world is Muslim and the numbers are growing.
Three countries with largest Muslim populations: India, Pakistan, and Indonesia
Each has a democratic form of government.

If you listen to some of the protesters who were interviewed, you'll see the Egyptian situation had a lot to do with people not having enough to eat.

It makes people fearless when their perceived alternative to political change is to starve to death.

cameljoe,

i love that "i see debt people". :)

i agree with downside. inflation always hits the poorer countries first, and a lot harder. americans are just starting to feel the pangs of deflation in what you own, and inflation in what you need.

Pssst, Mubarak

Take your billions and leave the country. At the very least, leave Cairo and go to your resort. We'll take it from here. Maybe the suckers will buy it,
but even if they don't, we have the (American) tanks. What are they going to do?

Sincerely,
Egyptian military (aka meet the new boss, same as the old boss)

So the Egyptian people 'won'. Maybe they won round one, but the hard work starts from this point forward.
Right now, looks to me like the Army is (still) in charge, as they have been since the 50s. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Wage wrote..

You want to extract something, via force, from those who wouldn't sell it at your price voluntarily. That is, you want the government to steal it or fix the price for you.

Karl wrote..

You accuse me of something like this you now must prove where I've called for that.

Okay, Karl. Please follow carefully, and understand I mean you no disrespect.

You said:

Quote:

The mutual assistance principle says that symbiosis is indeed possible. That is, the cost of personally providing a safe water supply, electrical power, defense and similar things is quite-possibly higher than the price of doing so collectively through a thing called "government."

When you say "symbiosis" you must mean there is a net benefit to "the people" resulting from the implicit force/theft of government. Symbiosis connotes a mutual parasitism, so your choice of language seems telling. Follow so far?

You then elaborated that this benefit takes the form of reduced prices (relative to the free market, one surmises) of all those things you mentioned--safe water, etc.

In other words, your statement appears to justify the use of force (government) to fix prices that free, voluntary exchange might set higher.

Hence my statement: "You want to extract something, via force, from those who wouldn't sell it at your price voluntarily."

Now maybe you don't really want it--and I apologize if I took that too far, or seemed disrespectful (seriously, man: no disrespect). Perhaps "advocate" would have been a better word. Leaving aside my clumsy verb choice, though, my statement followed directly from my observations above about your statement.

Look. I don't want to pollute your ticker thread further. And in fact, if you wish to ban me, please don't--rather, just say "don't come back" and I'll ban myself. My IP will never again appear in your logs... ever... that's a promise. Such is my respect and consent for your wishes here in your house.

If you would indulge me that special treatment (which would be very generous and duly appreciated), you'd have opportunity to see again the fundamental incompatibility between consent and force, and how one precludes the other.

Samadams wrote..

any case, how does denying government revenue shut it down when the CB prints to pay for the deficit?

This is a good question I think. The .GOV is operating as if gov't debt doesn't matter and thus far they have been right, thanks to the CB's. They have convinced the world that the old math doesn't apply anymore, That there are no negative consequences to endless borrowing; seriously where are they? I haven't seen any yet. Why are they even collecting taxes anymore, they have been holding out on us. Just issue more treasuries! As long as everyone acts as if everything is ok, then everything is ok.

I think that only a general labor strike would remind them that the value of money comes from labor and is not simply intrinsic itself in the printed paper.

Wageslave: Free markets cease to exist if they are looted by criminals and invaded by enemies. The job of suppressing crime and repelling invaders, which belongs to governments, is what makes free markets possible. And since everybody benefits, everybody has to pay.

Period, end of story. NEXT!...

Quote:

You said:

Quote:

Quote:
The mutual assistance principle says that symbiosis is indeed possible. That is, the cost of personally providing a safe water supply, electrical power, defense and similar things is quite-possibly higher than the price of doing so collectively through a thing called "government."

When you say "symbiosis" you must mean there is a net benefit to "the people" resulting from the implicit force/theft of government.

Baloney. Symbiosis is mutual benefit. The withdrawal of said symbiotic consent results in BOTH PARTIES incurring additional cost and undergoing the risk of possible collapse.

Quote:

Symbiosis connotes a mutual parasitism, so your choice of language seems telling. Follow so far?

Now you're twisting words. Symbiosis is mutual assistance, not mutual parasitism.

Government exists for the purpose of coordinating common actions that the vast majority of the population agree are to their mutual benefit. This in turn allows certain services to be provided that could not be afforded by the vast majority of people if not done in a collective fashion.

Most people cannot afford to run their own sewage treatment plant. Yes, I know, you can run a drainfield. Ok. That works great if you have enough land for it and your land meets perc requirements. What if you want to live in a higher population density environment or your land doesn't perc? Now such an attempt leads to disease and death. Therefore, you either cannot make that decision or you are forced to come up with some sort of accommodation that provides for clean water and the disposal and processing of human waste on a collective basis. Whatever you wish to call it, this is the formal definition of "government" as defined in The Declaration of Independence; the collective exertion of will for the alleged benefit of the population, provided with the population's consent.

Quote:

You then elaborated that this benefit takes the form of reduced prices (relative to the free market, one surmises) of all those things you mentioned--safe water, etc.

In other words, your statement appears to justify the use of force (government) to fix prices that free, voluntary exchange might set higher.

No. You're free to source your own water and dispose of your sewage if you choose the correct place to live, even now. You're free to source your own electricity too. I've built such installations for the latter for people who live in remote places where the tie-in to the utility grid would be prohibitive in cost (one friend was quoted more than $25,000 to extend service to his land. He declined.)

The fact remains that for the amount of electrical energy that I desire to use I would pay three times or more as much without "government rights of way" than I do with them. I voluntarily live in a place where such rights of way were granted and enforced. I do so because it is my decision to cede certain freedoms voluntarily in exchange for the lower cost of living.

This relationship is symbiotic. The power company and gas company are both public utilities and have a right of easement across my front yard. They have (formally, in my land records) the right to dig up that earth if necessary to maintain and keep operating these utilities. Same with the water and sewer system.

I can provide all of these things for myself and my family without them, but the cost is much higher to do so individually. I, and my neighbors, therefore have mutually decided to consent to these abridgments of our property rights in the land we purchase. We made that decision voluntarily and with full knowledge that these easements existed before we purchased our land.

Nonetheless should I refuse to pay for water, sewer, and electrical service I can do so. The utilities will then shut off those services. If I can source drinkable water and dispose of my sewage without polluting the land I'm free to do so. If I can generate my own power I'm free to do so as well. The fact is that I can't do that at a lower price than I can buy it from the monopoly provider and as a result I choose of my own free will to pay the monopoly provider's price for those services.

This does not mean that I agree with everything the government does. But that does not change the fact that all government is undertaken with the consent of the governed. Proof of this is simple; the government can only exist so long as nearly all of the population in a given area consents through the exposure of their personal output to taxation.

In Egypt, as in the former Soviet Union and East Germany, the people withdrew that consent. In the Soviet Union and East Germany it took quite a while for the dissent to grow to the point that collapse ensued.

In Egypt it took less than three weeks.

But in all three cases there was no violent revolution, there was none of the sort of anarchist crap that is common among "big-mouthed but small-balled" people who love to sit behind a keyboard and rant. The fact of the matter is that those people lack the will, collectively or otherwise, to rise and simply cut off the government's funding through legal and peaceful means, say much less do what they keep hinting at and advocating through furtive language (and justly so, as openly advocating armed overthrow of the government is a federal offense.)

One is forced to wonder if those people who post such furtive bull**** are in fact in the employ of the government. After all, we saw that in Egypt. Rifles are prohibited from civilian ownership in that nation. So who were the snipers putting 7.62 caliber holes in people's heads from over a hundred yards away? That was not pistol fire I heard on the television. No, those were government goons who were attempting to incite the public to commit violent acts through their own acts of lawless violence, exactly as certain people clearly do here in the United States.

If you disagree with the founding fathers, have at it. If you wish to attempt to stir the population into armed resistance through various rhetorical devices and outright lies, whatever and whoever is motivating you to do so, go do it somewhere else. It is my considered position that not only is such an obvious attempt to incite other people to commit felonies for which they can be punished and that the most-likely entity behind such incitement, given history, is in fact government, but in addition such actions, were the people to decide upon them, are nearly-certain to lead not to liberty but rather enslavement.

I have no tolerance for that advocacy, whether thinly-veiled or performed in the open, and will immediately remove anyone from this system that, in my sole judgment, is doing so.

The goal of liberty is better and more-certainly served through peaceful and lawful means of refusal to grant continued consent should the body politic decide to do so. Egypt serves as the last in a long line of examples where the people have done exactly that.

So long as the government operates with the consent of the governed then that government is legitimate in the eyes of the people, irrespective of whether the outcome is good or bad. My goal is to inform and educate so that the people make good decisions on their granting of consent and any conditions they wish to impose on doing so going forward.

I agree with you Karl, but the key lies in whether or not the army stays cohesive in their refusal to commit violence against the people. With Tienanmen, China first had to bring in poor ignorant soldiers from rural areas to do the deed. In Burma, it's the army in control and when the people refused to play ball, the army just massacred monks (the most powerful symbols of the people's uprising) until they forced everyone back in line. In Bangkok, the army was fractured, and ultimately had to make a (successful) decision to SUPPORT the existing regime (monarchy) but in the process had to take out its rogue leaders and their weapons caches, hence the extreme period of violence smack in the middle of Bangkok.

To me, that's the key. We should be communicating with army members as much as possible for this reason, everywhere in the world, to make sure they stay connected to the people.

The military can shoot people but it cannot compel people to perform work.

Every person the military shoots is one person who will not contribute ever again to the tax base of the government.

The simple fact of the matter is that such a display of violence is intended to coerce. If that coercion fails then the military is left only with destroying itself, as if you kill all the citizens there is no longer a tax base upon which the military depends for its ammunition, weapons and pay.

I posit that government can only exist so long as the total cost of government imposed on a group of people (financial, emotional, and physical) does not exceed the perceived benefits PLUS the additional financial, emotional and physical cost that would be accompany resistance, peaceful or otherwise.

Whether the Egyptian people “as a whole” consented to government is a vague statement. The government was (presumably) ended because enough people were sick of the theft and violence imposed by the state that they perceived it to cost more to do nothing. With a population of near 80 million people, I sincerely doubt a majority attended this peaceful revolution, whether or not they gave consent to it.

If a fox steals one out of 2000 chickens everyday, and I do not kill the fox, nothing about my actions is proof of my consent of the theft. I just believe the expense of hunting and killing (or placing barricades to exclude) is more than the cost to me of one chicken everyday. If it rises to 100/day, then I start to get really irritated and would probably do something about it. (whether or not a fox is a good analogy for government, people might argue)

To paraphrase someone who said something once: You only have rights you are willing to defend.
Words on a piece of paper notwithstanding.

I believe the Egyptian revolution succeeded because a number far smaller than a majority placed their own lives at risk for their freedom while the majority probably did no more than tweet.

Military Dictatorships are inherently unstable.

Low level Officers are fully aware that there are only two paths towards regime change: hierarchy realignment ( unlikely ) and insubordination/mutiny ( inherently dangerous and destabilizing ).

Karl wrote..

If we're going to annex other nations, then let's quit ****ing lying to everyone and just do it.

I second this.

IF the United States is going to impose Itself then I see no reason that the US Constitution and prevailing Federal Laws should not likewise be imposed.

I find it difficult to conceive why under such an arrangement US Federal Political Mechanisms and Regulatory Standards ( Individual, capital, property, environmental, wage, etc. ) would not wholly be appropriate -and to some extent welcome...

The US is a non-contiguous Union.
While I am not an advocate of outright Imperialist Adventures; -I see no preclusion against admission of Territories anywhere on the globe where peoples might wish to join.

I conceive of the likelihood of a preference for the unambiguous confederacy of several Client States with the US where those States are dependent upon the US Military Protection and Trade Status -especially under circumstances where the the US makes it clear that the continuation of those Protections and Tariff-Free Access to US Markets would henceforth become wholly dependent upon joining the Union under conditions generally unilaterally dictated by the US.

Frankly: IF the US is going to continue to be the World's Policeman and largest Consumer it is appropriate for those being protected to pay their fair share of the US Military Budget and for those that wish to access the US Markets to harmonize their Standards and Practices with those imposed upon US Business and Individuals.

"The People Win:"

Did they? Military Junta? We will see, I am ambiguous on the situation right now, but good post.

Echoes of La Boétie (1530-1563) . . .

From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tienn....

Quote:

La Boétie’s writings include a few sonnets, translations from the classics, and an essay attacking absolute monarchy and tyranny in general, Discours de la servitude volontaire ou le Contr'un (Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, or the Anti-Dictator).

The essay asserts that tyrants have power because the people give it to them. Liberty has been abandoned once by society, which afterward stayed corrupted and prefers the slavery of the courtesan to the freedom of one who refuses to dominate as he refuses to obey. Thus, La Boétie linked together obedience and domination, a relationship which would be later theorised by latter anarchist thinkers. By advocating a solution of simply refusing to support the tyrant, he became one of the earliest advocates of civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance. Lew Rockwell summarizes La Boétie’s political philosophy as follows:

To him, the great mystery of politics was obedience to rulers. Why in the world do people agree to be looted and otherwise oppressed by government overlords? It is not just fear, Boetie explains in “The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude,” for our consent is required. And that consent can be non-violently withdrawn.

However, I disagree with La Boetie's comment,
(from http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/se.... )

La Boetie wrote..

One never pines for what he has never known; longing comes only after enjoyment and constitutes, amidst the experience of sorrow, the memory of past joy. It is truly the nature of man to be free and to wish to be so, yet his character is such that he instinctively follows the tendencies that his training gives him.

Nearly all in Tahrir Square disprove that assertion. Egypt's experience suggests that "the nature of man to be free and to wish to be so" is not so easily overcome by training.

I agree that it is in the nature of human beings "to be free and to wish to be so." However individual sovereignty (a.k.a. "citizenship"), as a practical reality in the world, is contingent. The fact of the matter is that rulers can force people to work, via the institution called slavery. A slave is forced to either work or die. I mean, well, just look at the pyramids.

Liberty, in the first instance, is contingent upon the collective commitment of enough individuals to fight to gain it. Committed, that is, to "live free or die." And once won, to be established, liberty requires that there be a sufficient number individuals who possess the moral and ethical rectitude to make it work. That is, individuals who are able and willing to govern themselves uncoerced.

Once established, Thomas Jefferson applies: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."