There are no breaks given for the good works of capitalists when vengeful Marxists take power.
In reading the news today I was reminded of what a good thing it was for the fledgling United States that our differences with Britain were mainly differences over policy, rather than ideology. This meant that when the war was over, both sides soon realized that mending fences and working together for mutual benefit was better than holding a grudge and keeping hostilities going to everyone's detriment down through the years.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Clavos
Furthermore, it's not all that apparent that the Chilean people were deprived of their freedoms under Allende. Unless you mean of course the freedom of the rich landowners and the business class to do what they do best.
Why were the union workers, usually the strongest supporters (except for the apparatchik) of Marxism/socialism, against Allende?
27 - pablo
Cindy 6 you said:
"Dave,
What the hell kind of person for liberty thinks like this, Dave? You have been supporting dictatorships and totalitarian regimes in service of your beliefs all along. Every time I have called you out on some US-friendly dictator being installed by the US, in place of democratically chosen leaders, you've handed me some trumped up rubbish about people not being ready for democracy. You support child slavery, sweatshops, and abuse of human beings by corporations. Because they're the good guys! You make claims like legalized prostitution works, when you've never investigated your claims."
You have hit the nail on the head here regarding Nalle. His libertarian is fake, as is the so called liberty group that he chairs. He is nothing more than an apologist for tyranny, despotism, and genocide, all while hiding under his so called libertarianism. I saw through his guise several years ago, and it is refreshing to see you call a spade a spade Cindy.
28 - Clavos
Regimes in many Central and South American countries from both the left and right have proven to be equally murderous and corrupt.
This is true. latino societies are for the most part corrupt and murderous.
There's something in the water.
That's a joke, but we ARE a murderous corrupt bunch.
29 - roger nowosielski
Well, Clavos. I read the little Wiki article, I'm certain not the most accurate or sufficiently penetrating, and it's kind of hard to say. Plenty of factors - the plummeting economy being the main reason, I suspect. Do you have a clearer idea?
30 - roger nowosielski
C'mon Clavos. Be serious.
31 - Clavos
I am, Roger.
32 - Clavos
Going all the way back to the Aztecas yanking the hearts out of living people...
Read Inca history.
On up to modern times.
33 - Dave Nalle
Ah, Cindy and Pablo, the dynamic duo of delusional self-deception. So convinced that their absolutist beliefs are the only way to achieve liberty that they're perfectly willing to let the entire world go down in flames rather than make any reasonable compromise.
In some ways they're worse than the usual lefties on here, because at least those on the left are honestly devoted to a failed ideology which they think will actually do good, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Cindy and Pablo, on the other hand, see that statism is the problem, but are unable to overcome their ideological fanaticism long enough to work towards any rational solution.
To those who say I have no "heart" I reply where is your heart when millions suffer at the hands of despots whose ideology you happen to agree with or whose rights, lives and property are taken from them by the force of mob rule?
I find it incomprehensible that some of you can dismiss massive society-wide oppression and exploitation and yet blame me for accepting that there are costs to progress and that liberty sometimes has to be paid for in blood.
Some people value liberty as an idea, but value the reality so cheaply that they are willing to talk and talk and talk about it, but not willing to pay any real price for it as individuals or as a nation. That's the real shame here.
Dave
34 - roger nowosielski
#34.
I've heard the same said of the Anglo-Saxon heart - there isn't a day when there isn't murder in his heart.
35 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
I'm certain that neither Cindy or Pablo condone ruthlessness and tyranny - whether it issues from whatever political quarter or ideology. They just don't believe in your notion of human progress, or in costs involved.
And I haven't accused you of any lack of heart - spoke only metaphorically. Certainly not in any personal kind of sense but only in terms of how lightly at times you seem to speak of the human costs involved.
36 - Dave Nalle
Roger, whether they choose actively to promote these things, or just passively encourage them through their refusal to be realistic, the result is the same. If they don't believe that progress can be made towards liberty and are unwilling to pay to achieve liberty, then every time they bitch about the state they are lying, because they really don't care.
As for human costs, I've just accepted that there will be a price paid for ANY action. That being the case, I'd prefer that the end result be something desirable.
Dave
37 - Cindy
...they're perfectly willing to let the entire world go down in flames rather than make any reasonable compromise.
No problem, Dave. I'll start by being willing to sacrifice you and everyone you care about. How's that? Now you can't say I'm not willing to make any sacrifices or be realistic. If ideas based on love don't work, then I'll be wrong and you'll be my sacrifice. But, if they do, then we can clean up this pile of shit, you and people like you have turned the place into. Turning people into commodities, violence, murder, crime, self-loathing, fear.
To those who say I have no "heart" I reply where is your heart when millions suffer at the hands of despots whose ideology you happen to agree with or whose rights, lives and property are taken from them by the force of mob rule?
The only people suffering at the hands of despots are the one's you're killing off in some noble sacrifice. I don't see any murderous dead Zapatistas yet. I don't see the Argentina worker run factory movement stalling because people can't cooperate. On the contrary, it's growing and spreading. And the community likes it. They're supporting it. People like to have a say. They get used to cooperating and not being bossed around. They like to count, even if they just sweep the floor. People seem to like acting like real human beings. One rule Dave--no one rules! That's it. Everyone can understand that rule and know exactly how not to break it.
And let's face it, if Clav is right, if those Latin American folks are as he said--that's even all the more reason us 'civil' white folks can make it work. If they can do it.
Some people value liberty as an idea, but value the reality so cheaply that they are willing to talk and talk and talk about it, but not willing to pay any real price for it as individuals or as a nation. That's the real shame here.
Real price? Sacrificing the lives of other people is what you call your payment of a real price?
I find it incomprehensible that some of you can dismiss massive society-wide oppression and exploitation and yet blame me for accepting that there are costs to progress and that liberty sometimes has to be paid for in blood.
No problem. Try using your own blood though, cowboy.
38 - Cindy
I like the title of your article too Dave. As long as you're ruthless, we'll have to be relentless.
By the way, while I was attending the worker-run movement panel in NYC, we thought we'd eat at the worker-run restaurant despite that it was very expensive and posh. But, when we got there, they were closing. Without the need to make unlimited money for some non-worker's profitable pleasure, they could actually run it like human beings and go home to their families at a reasonable hour.
39 - roger nowosielski
Except that -
"you and people like you have turned the place into. Turning people into commodities, violence, murder, crime, self-loathing, fear."
I wouldn't blame Dave for this state of affairs. It had come about without his active doing/participation - by the actions of others.
I'd like to believe there is a difference between what (some) people post on BC and what they do in their real life.
I don't think you believe, Cindy, that Dave is a slave trader, owns a sweat shop, or holds a majority stock in Hershey enterprises. He probably doesn't even beat his wife, most likely is kind to children and feeds the animals.
So there is this gentle Dave that somehow we're all losing sight of, or who get lost in the shuffle in the course of these diatribes. Let none of us ever forget that.
40 - roger nowosielski
Except that -
"you and people like you have turned the place into. Turning people into commodities, violence, murder, crime, self-loathing, fear."
I wouldn't blame Dave for this state of affairs. It had come about without his active doing/participation - by the actions of others.
I'd like to believe there is a difference between what (some) people post on BC and what they do in their real life.
I don't think you believe, Cindy, that Dave is a slave trader, owns a sweat shop, or holds a majority stock in Hershey enterprises. He probably doesn't even beat his wife, most likely is kind to children and feeds the animals.
So there is this gentle Dave that somehow we're all losing sight of, or who get lost in the shuffle in the course of these diatribes. Let none of us ever forget that.
41 - Baritone
I am neither a socialist nor a capitalist. I believe that there are good things to be had from both systems, just as there is a lot of bad.
Neither the good nor the bad spring from the respective ideologies, but rather from their practitioners - mainly the people in charge and/or those few who manage to wield power by whatever means. It is, therefore, not a failure of ideology - neither socialism nor capitalism are inherently good nor evil. It has far more to do with those who discover the means to use and abuse whatever system they live under to gain for themselves power and riches. All political/economic systems can be and usually are corrupted to one degree or another. It is human failure - the old power/corruption thingy.
Socialism is no more a failure than is capitalism. Pure socialism could in fact prove to be quite utopian if people were mature and wise enough to make it work for all. I suppose the same could be said for capitalism, though, frankly, I don't see that so clearly. Capitalism, by its very nature, implies winners and losers.
Our government, our economy and our society as a whole are, as we know, currently a mixture of both systems. As we continue onward, that mixture is likely to list from one side to another, but never wholly in one direction or the other. It's simply a matter of what works best in any particular point in our history.
There are always alarmists who look upon change with fear and dread - expecting the worst - when such eventuality is rarely the case. But in the process of change, its proponents are invaribly demonized owing to that fear being disproportionately inflamed by the opposition.
B
42 - roger nowosielski
I know, I know.
Now you're gonna say that so they argued on behalf of all the Nazis - that they'd come home after day's work at Auschwitz, patted their children, ate their dinner and watched TV.
But that's where you're wrong. We don't have any concentration camps in Texas, and certainly nowhere near Austin.
43 - Cindy
Roger,
I wouldn't blame Dave for this state of affairs. It had come about without his active doing/participation - by the actions of others.
Yes, through the ideas of people who think just like Dave.
I don't think you believe, Cindy, that Dave is a slave trader, owns a sweat shop, or holds a majority stock in Hershey enterprises. He probably doesn't even beat his wife, most likely is kind to children and feeds the animals.
Dave doesn't have to be a slavetrader or run a sweatshop. It's Dave's ideas that create those things. It's Dave who is willing to sacrifice other people.
Now that may sound to some like a meaningless statement. How can Dave sacrifice anyone. Roger pay very close attention to what we've been reading. My opinions: Those inculcated ideas are what IS the problem with the world. Accepting them IS the problem. Each person who accepts and promotes them is causing the problem. Dave x millions = the problem that other people have to die and suffer for. They change their minds? There is no problem. It's really that simple.
So there is this gentle Dave that somehow we're all losing sight of, or who get lost in the shuffle in the course of these diatribes. Let none of us ever forget that.
I won't forget that. I see that. But, I can't any longer pretend that this is all some big mistake, he knows not what he does and all that. He is intentionally turning off empathy toward other human beings and justifying it. I don't think it serves Dave even to pretend that's okay.
44 - roger nowosielski
I understand, Cindy. I just don't want to break anybody's spirit.
Could you check out my last comment in culture. Tried to introduce some of the new ideas into general conversation. Not certain, of course, of the kind of reception it will get.
Let me know what you think.
45 - Cindy
...the Nazis - that they'd come home after day's work at Auschwitz, patted their children, ate their dinner and watched TV.
Not just the Nazis. They took Traces of the Trade down. If you ever get to see it. These were people who were lauded in their communities as the very best citizens. Look at them: "...they were known as 'the great folk' in Bristol. They were professors and writers, artists and architects..."
46 - Cindy
People look at Nazis and slave traders as though they would be some kinds of demons with horns. They were a mostly just average people. The same as now. Just like the Milgram study. It showed then that 75% of people would electrocute a person to death then and as replicated recently, it shows that 75% would now.
All they need is cultural approval. And they have had it. Look what they've done. People don't think much about the state of war. It's 'normal'. (that word)
47 - Baritone
I don't think there is any chance that any of us here can "break Dave's spirit."
But I think Cindy has a valid point. It is Dave, afterall, who published at least one or perhaps two articles here at BC in which he promoted the idea of reinstituting workhouses. It is Dave who sincerely believes that most of the world's poor prefer to be poor. It is Dave who believes that the right to vote should be restricted.
It is such ideas that are to my mind antithetical to a free society, of which Dave is supposedly the champion.
Dave, and those who share his perspective, at least as considered from our perspective, serve as the seed from which such ideas may flourish.
B
48 - roger nowosielski
Cindy/B-man
Of course Nazis didn't have horns. And yes, after a while, it was "normal."
I just don't believe in demonizing anyone. Not only it doesn't serve any purpose; the ways of power, remember, are subtle and sublime. We're not dealing with principalities, and powers and dominions in high places and low but with ordinary human beings. So I haven't lost sight of the fact.
As long as you confront him and his ideas with yours, you're doing your job; all I'm saying, there are many ways of doing so, and in some cases direct response may not be the best.
49 - roger nowosielski
It should be: "principalities, and powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places."
(The inversion of Eph 6:12)
50 - Dave Nalle
No problem, Dave. I'll start by being willing to sacrifice you and everyone you care about. How's that?
Lovely, but that's not your choice, is it?
Now you can't say I'm not willing to make any sacrifices or be realistic. If ideas based on love don't work, then I'll be wrong and you'll be my sacrifice.
But this is not the actual choice which you face. The choice is not between sacrificing me and ideas based on love, it's between ideas based on love which are exploited by despots and tyrants and opposing that tyranny at the possible cost of some of those lovely pipe dreams.
But, if they do, then we can clean up this pile of shit, you and people like you have turned the place into. Turning people into commodities, violence, murder, crime, self-loathing, fear.
People like me didn't turn the world the way it is today. People like me provided the one source of hope for people dragged into all those dark things you revile by oppressive and exploitative states and their allies and minions.
The only people suffering at the hands of despots are the one's you're killing off in some noble sacrifice. I don't see any murderous dead Zapatistas yet.
These movements look all cuddly and heroic when they are out of power, but inevitably the ideology which drives them becomes the source of tyranny when they win power. Happens every time.
I don't see the Argentina worker run factory movement stalling because people can't cooperate. On the contrary, it's growing and spreading. And the community likes it. They're supporting it. People like to have a say. They get used to cooperating and not being bossed around. They like to count, even if they just sweep the floor. People seem to like acting like real human beings.
Why would I have anything against this? Sounds great to me. How long do you think it will be before the Marxist regime in Argentina finds it threatening and cracks down on it just as the Bolsheviks did on the anarchists and collectivists in Russia.
One rule Dave--no one rules! That's it. Everyone can understand that rule and know exactly how not to break it.
Except that this does not equip them to deal effectively with established governments and outside opposition.
By the way, while I was attending the worker-run movement panel in NYC, we thought we'd eat at the worker-run restaurant despite that it was very expensive and posh. But, when we got there, they were closing. Without the need to make unlimited money for some non-worker's profitable pleasure, they could actually run it like human beings and go home to their families at a reasonable hour.
And where did you go to eat? And where would you have eaten if ALL the restaurants were run on that basis?
Dave
51 - Dave Nalle
Capitalism, by its very nature, implies winners and losers.
And what's wrong with that? Socialism's answer to this is to make everyone a loser. That's not acceptable.
Dave
52 - Dave Nalle
But I think Cindy has a valid point. It is Dave, afterall, who published at least one or perhaps two articles here at BC in which he promoted the idea of reinstituting workhouses.
Just one, and if you read the article, you'll see that it's a pretty pratical reimagining of what was a very positive idea in its time. In fact, the workhouse fits in very much with the kind of utopian anarchism which Cindy espouses.
It is Dave who sincerely believes that most of the world's poor prefer to be poor.
When on earth did I say that? I believe that the world's poor are happy to have opportunities to advance themselves. I certainly don't think anyone likes being poor.
It is Dave who believes that the right to vote should be restricted.
Not the right to vote, necessarily, but the right to rule based solely on a vote, certainly.
It is such ideas that are to my mind antithetical to a free society, of which Dave is supposedly the champion.
This is because you believe that the goal is a "free society" which is an oxymoron (Cindy might even agree on that), while I believe in a society of free individuals, which is entirely different.
Dave
53 - Dave Nalle
Dave doesn't have to be a slavetrader or run a sweatshop. It's Dave's ideas that create those things. It's Dave who is willing to sacrifice other people.
No, Cindy. It is YOUR ideas which create such things by disempowering the people and serving them up as victims to the state.
Each person who accepts and promotes them is causing the problem.
So to accept and promote the idea of universal rights for individuals is to promote slavery and sweatshops? Utter nonsense.
Dave x millions = the problem that other people have to die and suffer for. They change their minds? There is no problem. It's really that simple.
No, Cindy. It is people like you who deny responsibility and don't look forward to consider the consequences of your beliefs who create the situation which others have to suffer and die for. It is the willingness of people to give up their rights to the state or to an ideology which is the source of the problems which need to be addressed.
But, I can't any longer pretend that this is all some big mistake, he knows not what he does and all that. He is intentionally turning off empathy toward other human beings and justifying it. I don't think it serves Dave even to pretend that's okay.
Except that this is exactly what I am not doing. I just realize that if you want to help people you have to actually help them and address their real needs on a fundamental level, and most importantly help them to help themselves, not just offer them fairycake and pretty lies and naive mantras which have failed time and time again.
Dave
54 - roger nowosielski
"He is intentionally turning off empathy toward other human beings . . . . " (Cindy)
"Except that this is exactly what I am not doing." (Dave)
If that's truly the case, Dave, then I commend you for your consistency and perhaps even as a human being. Perhaps even for your ends which, as you say, are "to help people to help themselves." What I do disagree with is your means - especially insofar that the means you're espousing you think necessary.
You realize, of course, it's quite the opposite of the stance that Christ took when on earth - turning off the empathy, that is, in favor of "tough love." Not that it matters since you're not a believer, but still . . .
Anyways, I've always believed that you're more human than most people give you credit for. So no, you haven't disappointed me.
It was a good conversation.
55 - Cindy
Roger,
I have talked to Dave for a few years now. I have given his ideas the benefit of the doubt. He's made it utterly clear through his conversations with me, where he stands.
I may have a man's mind, but it's not a man who casually talks about human beings as necessary casualties.
Personally I think it's horrific. I find my reaction is pretty tempered. However, I didn't grow up with those little soldier sets. I don't have a little switch that lets me turn off the part where the dead people Dave is discussing aren't actual people.
My recommendation: every time Dave talks about blood being spilled, make sure you put your own closest loves relations in that snapshot.
56 - Dave Nalle
I may have a man's mind, but it's not a man who casually talks about human beings as necessary casualties.
It's hardly casual, it's just realistic. You really have to be able to separate personal empathy from dispassionate objectivity to function as a rational being in a world which is sometimes quite inhumane.
Personally I think it's horrific. I find my reaction is pretty tempered. However, I didn't grow up with those little soldier sets. I don't have a little switch that lets me turn off the part where the dead people Dave is discussing aren't actual people.
What you didn't do is grow up in parts of the world where human life and human suffering were valued quite a bit differently than they are in the US and where governmental oppression and brutality were commonplace. I did think you were old enough to remember Vietnam, but perhaps you took no lessons there, either.
My recommendation: every time Dave talks about blood being spilled, make sure you put your own closest loves relations in that snapshot.
Probably a good idea. But at the same time imagine them and their children and their friends and their children for generations bound into chains in a city of gray stone where light and hope are cut off forever, living as meaningless cogs in the machinery of the state. Then ask yourself if one person out of all those you know had to die so that all the others could be free, would it be worth it?
Dave
57 - Doug Hunter
"Pure socialism could in fact prove to be quite utopian if people were mature and wise enough to make it work for all."
That is true of any system. A socialist utopia replaces forced slaves with willing slaves, the problem is that willing slaves are in short supply. Yes, if smart hard working capable people would do all the work then those in poverty in a capitalist system could set on their front porch and smoke pot while having all the necessities of life provided for them. The problem is that the former group would rather the fruits of their labor come back to their own family (greed).
That's one of the crazy mental gymnastics you have to go through to make the logical desire for socialism match the emotional one... you must consider it greedy and selfish to want to keep what you have earned while it is neither to expect someone else to take care of you. A very strange concept to my mind.
58 - Cindy
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." �"Mikhail Bakunin
59 - Cindy
Thus, Libertarian Socialism.
60 - Lumpy
Oxymoron.
I find it interesting to read the defensiveness and the personal attacks tthis piece generated from the left. Makes me wonder just how insecure some of u are about your dubious beliefs.
61 - Baritone
What personal attacks? No one has attacked anyone here including Dave except with regard his ideology which is the heart of the entire article. Would you have us just say "Way to go, Dave?"
There is no insecurity here. We believe what we chose and we will defend those choices just as all narrow sphinctered rightys do ad nauseam.
B
62 - roger nowosielski
B-man is right, Lumpy. It wasn't Dave that was attacked but his ideology. An honest disagreement, that's all.
Why would you want to read insecurities into it?
63 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
I agree with the quote...and thus has been the path of all real democracies (not the faux democracies that are only despotism in disguise) - some quickly, some more slowly, but all embrace socialism to greater or lesser extents. Is America more or less socialist than 40 years ago? More, of course. Is America more or less conservative than 40 years ago? Less, of course.
Things are getting better - and that's why I'm an eternal optimist.
64 - Dave Nalle
I agree, Glenn. The ultimate devolution into socialism is why democracy as a means of government is inherently tyrannical and must be opposed. As a method of resolving elections democracy works just fine, but as the primary basis for policy it is inherently dangerous outside of a larger structure which applies strict checks on its excesses.
Representative government and government by the consent of the people are wonderful things in general. Democracy is a two-edged sword which should only be used with extreme caution.
Dave
65 - roger nowosielski
I don't think that was the import of Glenn's comment. I took it to mean that all "real" democracies eventually embrace some sort of socialist agenda, and that this is a good and a natural progression.
I may be wrong, of course, but that's my reading.
66 - Jet Gardner
Dave: "democracy as a means of government is inherently tyrannical and must be opposed"
I never would've pegged you as a Michael Moore fan?
67 - Jet Gardner
Roger:"I may be wrong, of course" Fred Sanford staggers into the room "It's It's the big one 'lizbeth! I'm commin for ya honey!"
68 - roger nowosielski
Jet,
I do apologize for prompting you so, I had no right. I know how these threads can be annoying and nerve-wrecking. It took me close to six months to adjust to the BC climate. Now I'm having fun, keep the proper distance and emotional detachment and engage in all kinds of strategies - like in a game of chess.
But again, I didn't really mean to force your hand if you're not up to it. And the reason I gave you as to why you're needed here was on the level - we do need enlightened voices here or the site will go to hell in a handbasket.
Just wanted to let you know.
69 - roger nowosielski
Shoot, Jet. I loved those episodes.
70 - Doug Hunter
"I took it to mean that all 'real' democracies eventually embrace some sort of socialist agenda, and that this is a good and a natural progression."
I have no argument with that precise statement. It's the myopic view that the luxury of social spending IS the progress that I strongly disagree with. It's sorta like assuming that buying a bigger house and fancier car will increase your ability to pay for them... not so, you must increase your earnings first or you'll just end up bankrupt (which is incidentally exactly where we are as a country). Social spending at the expense of future economic growth and real technological progress or at the expense of our children's future just simply is not worth it.
71 - roger nowosielski
I would have said that Glenn's formulation took "the ability to pay" for granted. So your argument with him is not one of principle but over timing and the feasibility of having things now rather than later.
72 - Doug Hunter
"I would have said that Glenn's formulation took 'the ability to pay' for granted."
That's a core issue, not something to be taken for granted. Also, I'm certain we differ on how to analyze the effects of different policies although there will be much overlap.
"So your argument with him is not one of principle"
I think most people want the same things, security, peace of mind, 62" Plasma screens (just kidding). You're also looking at it a bit different than I would. I think more than a few left wing thinkers have envisioned a world where you were sort of beyond the need for the state. We have the same destination, just different paths. Plan A is to empower the state and regulate the people into the proper mindset where the state and it's regulations are no longer needed. I think that won't work, the state will never release it's grip on power, and it is morally questionable to top it all off. Plan B is to allow free people to make free choices which, through our shared humanity and common goals, hopes, aspirations, and dreams will unite us for the common good. One of the biggest lies we've been sold is the idea that change can only come through the state and the idea of individual change, choice, and free will is something to scoff at.
"and the feasibility of having things now rather than later."
Yes, the crux of the issue in many, many financial discussions. In my personal life I'm a 'later' kind of guy and that same value reflects in my politics.
73 - roger nowosielski
"Plan B is to allow free people to make free choices which, through our shared humanity and common goals, hopes, aspirations, and dreams will unite us for the common good. One of the biggest lies we've been sold is the idea that change can only come through the state and the idea of individual change, choice, and free will is something to scoff at."
Definitely preferable, except I don't see the possibility (a realistic possibility, that is) for the dissolution of the state - which isn't to say individual, insulated and self-sustained communities may be not possible outside the state apparatus. So the best combination, it seems, would be Plan A, along with an enlightened, non-interfering, minimal State.
Plan A, taken by itself, it the idea of Plato's Republic. Not only utopian but, when it comes down to it, kind of authoritarian (even if the Philosopher-King is a benevolent despot and knows best what's good for the rest of us). Popper criticized this vision in "The Open Society and its Enemies."
74 - Doug Hunter
I agree with you on the feeling that there will likely always be need for small, efficient government of a sort. My mind just can't wrap itself around the idea that the best way to a small government is a big one any more than it can the idea that the best way to move beyond race is to focus on race/racism.
I understand the concept is to use that power and focus to retrain people into whatever you perceive is the proper state of mind and once that is done to voluntarily relinqish the power and move on.
I might follow up on this Popper fellow it is sometimes interesting to read how other people look at these things.
75 - roger nowosielski
Popper's work is a classic.
As to the earlier point, I was only talking about what's preferable. But what I think will happen is a global government (sort of like a Federation). It may be workable as long as the individual members retain a measure of autonomy.