Aint No Right

I know Hoka's pretty gung-ho about Libertarianism and related ideas (privatization seems to be pretty common among neo-Libertarians...). I came across this video of something of a social experiment that seems to me to highlight the value of public property and public services:


It's really interesting to note that it's private security that seems to be incapable of understanding individual rights/freedoms, and the public police are more than happy to support individual rights. (Sort of the opposite of fascism...)

Now just consider what things would be like if more things were privatized (e.g., roadways, sidewalks, parks, etc.)

interesting. I think any extreme is a bad thing. Balance and debate keep things in line.

It's a Scylla and Charybdis scenario... on the one hand, you have the power of governmental authority (given by the Law, and legitimated by social contract theory) which can become fascism if left unchecked. On the other hand, you have the power of any given private individual or group, the authority (over others, that is,) of which is granted solely by power, or capacity to enforce a given intention. Clearly both of these can reach untenable and morally objectionable extremes (either of too much power, or too little). It's also true that imbuing one side with power is often an attempt to forcibly limit the power of the other.

What is wrong with American libertarianism is essentially what's wrong with naive anarchism or naive communism, the view that all the power should be concentrated on one side of things. But if you do that, as with the Scylla and Charybdis, you'll either get sucked down and drowned or dashed against the rocks.

and on a side note, not to start a fire here, but look at what privatizing and big business has done to this country even with some restraints involve. Letting companies run free as hell with no consequences has caused so much of our problems, from unemployment, to losing jobs to oversea workers, campaign funding, special interest, polluting and dumping crap into our neighborhoods causing illness.

you've got to be Hype. Your vocabulary is too broad not to be.

guysmiley wrote:you've got to be Hype. Your vocabulary is too broad not to be.

Yeah, I let Hoka know that I signed up under a new name. I don't mind still being referred to as "Hype", but I wanted to distance myself from "Hypersonic" because: a) I don't listen to Strays, and b) most people forgot that the album was originally supposed to be called "Hypersonic", and that's why I choose that name back in 2002 or so. The same way "kingsvikes" decided to go with "k-v" (because that's what we were calling him anyway), I guess I could've changed it to just "Hype", but that's got connotations I don't like. "Adurentibus Spina" is a rough translation of "caustic thorn" into Latin (it's probably more literally "burning thorn"), but I like it.

Good issue... I have to say, if I lived in a house I wouldn't like to see random people just standing there and taking pictures; however, if they are being taken from public space, I shouldn't have the legal right to formally complain about it (within a framework of common sense, of course. If I think I'm being stalked or I feel threatened, that's a whole different issue). If I simply didn't want pictures taken, I'd just have to build a wall tall enough. Or a dome.

Larry B. wrote:Good issue... I have to say, if I lived in a house I wouldn't like to see random people just standing there and taking pictures; however, if they are being taken from public space, I shouldn't have the legal right to formally complain about it (within a framework of common sense, of course. If I think I'm being stalked or I feel threatened, that's a whole different issue). If I simply didn't want pictures taken, I'd just have to build a wall tall enough. Or a dome.

Chile hasn't got Google Streetview yet?

Only some specific sectors, that I know of. It hasn't brought up any public issues yet.

Not too long ago, a TV show did a cool "experiment", which I relate to this.

The Chilean government house ("La Moneda") is usually visited by tourists and Chileans. Of course, before going in you're frisked and your bags have to go through a X-ray machine or something. And the entrance is guarded by 2 or 4 cops.

So, the TV showed a couple of tourists (actors)... the cops greeted them and they went in without any problems.
Then, a guy dressed like a typical Mapuche (Chilean aborigines, who are constantly fighting for a piece of land) tried to get in and he was stopped even before actually approaching the entrance. He was then asked to leave the area.

Foreigns can go into the Chilean government house, sure. Chileans? They just might have to think it twice. They probably have the same policy for Muslims. Anyone looking terrorist-ish might get the extra-frisk bonus.

Edit: I found the video



They first go to La Moneda and then to the US embassy.

To be fair, Chile has a fucked up, violent, recent history. It's easy to demand that everything be better than it is; difficult to put that into practice in any case.

Chile's civil/military unrest ended between 1990 and 1994... I think it's time politicians leave that excuse behind (you know, "our democracy is just starting") and just start setting things straight.

1- Thou shall not discriminate against your own ethnic groups.

Larry B. wrote:Chile's civil/military unrest ended between 1990 and 1994... I think it's time politicians leave that excuse behind (you know, "our democracy is just starting") and just start setting things straight.

1- Thou shall not discriminate against your own ethnic groups.

It takes a lot longer than 20 years to get over a thing like that, Larry. It'd be nice if they got over it sooner, but it's doubtful.

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

Larry B. wrote:Chile's civil/military unrest ended between 1990 and 1994... I think it's time politicians leave that excuse behind (you know, "our democracy is just starting") and just start setting things straight.

1- Thou shall not discriminate against your own ethnic groups.

It takes a lot longer than 20 years to get over a thing like that, Larry. It'd be nice if they got over it sooner, but it's doubtful.

Yup, you're right... it will most likely take 2 or 3 generations... I guess expecting it to happen sooner is just wishful thinking.

Larry B. wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

Larry B. wrote:Chile's civil/military unrest ended between 1990 and 1994... I think it's time politicians leave that excuse behind (you know, "our democracy is just starting") and just start setting things straight.

1- Thou shall not discriminate against your own ethnic groups.

It takes a lot longer than 20 years to get over a thing like that, Larry. It'd be nice if they got over it sooner, but it's doubtful.

Yup, you're right... it will most likely take 2 or 3 generations... I guess expecting it to happen sooner is just wishful thinking.

It helps that Chile is relatively wealthy. Btw, I didn't mean this to excuse the maltreatment of aboriginal Chileans --- the opposite, really. But it helps to understand the causal history of fuckedupness.

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

Larry B. wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

Larry B. wrote:Chile's civil/military unrest ended between 1990 and 1994... I think it's time politicians leave that excuse behind (you know, "our democracy is just starting") and just start setting things straight.

1- Thou shall not discriminate against your own ethnic groups.

It takes a lot longer than 20 years to get over a thing like that, Larry. It'd be nice if they got over it sooner, but it's doubtful.

Yup, you're right... it will most likely take 2 or 3 generations... I guess expecting it to happen sooner is just wishful thinking.

It helps that Chile is relatively wealthy. Btw, I didn't mean this to excuse the maltreatment of aboriginal Chileans --- the opposite, really. But it helps to understand the causal history of fuckedupness.

Yeah, I know

Right now, a big part of the population is fighting for a more equal distribution of that wealth. I think Chile is the country with the biggest inequality in the world, and with the most expensive education system. That's one big fuckedupness.

guysmiley wrote:Letting companies run free as hell with no consequences has caused so much of our problems, from unemployment, to losing jobs to oversea workers, campaign funding, special interest, polluting and dumping crap into our neighborhoods causing illness.

I'm at work and cant watch the video in the OP right now, but there's so much wrong with the above it's unbelievable.

Large companies have had no consequences because my tax dollars ensure that no matter how badly they eff up they will be propped back up. That has nothing to do with privatization.

Unemployment is being caused because the housing market crashed, which was because of government supported mortgages that had no business being offered, and now companies are watching their bottom line and stock piling reserves for fear of what's to come (have you paid attention this week to how all of this money printing has been helping us?).

Jobs are shipped overseas because the business environment is more friendly there. That's what happens when you increase taxes. Businesses and people find ways around paying them.

Campaign funding and special interests are a mess exactly because the government has it's hands in so many pots. Pull your hands back and no one's trying to grease them. Politics becomes a less lucrative venture and we get less slick business men running the show.

If companies are polluting and dumping in to water you sue them.

Adurentibus Spina wrote:I know Hoka's pretty gung-ho about Libertarianism and related ideas (privatization seems to be pretty common among neo-Libertarians...). I came across this video of something of a social experiment that seems to me to highlight the value of public property and public services:


It's really interesting to note that it's private security that seems to be incapable of understanding individual rights/freedoms, and the public police are more than happy to support individual rights. (Sort of the opposite of fascism...)

Now just consider what things would be like if more things were privatized (e.g., roadways, sidewalks, parks, etc.)

britland is a weird place.

If companies are polluting and dumping in to water you sue them.

... How is that a good system?... The corporation with the billion dollar profits can hire a team of top lawyers... I can't. That's why the government is there.

hokahey wrote:

guysmiley wrote:Letting companies run free as hell with no consequences has caused so much of our problems, from unemployment, to losing jobs to oversea workers, campaign funding, special interest, polluting and dumping crap into our neighborhoods causing illness.

I'm at work and cant watch the video in the OP right now, but there's so much wrong with the above it's unbelievable.

Large companies have had no consequences because my tax dollars ensure that no matter how badly they eff up they will be propped back up. That has nothing to do with privatization.

Unemployment is being caused because the housing market crashed, which was because of government supported mortgages that had no business being offered, and now companies are watching their bottom line and stock piling reserves for fear of what's to come (have you paid attention this week to how all of this money printing has been helping us?).

Jobs are shipped overseas because the business environment is more friendly there. That's what happens when you increase taxes. Businesses and people find ways around paying them.

Campaign funding and special interests are a mess exactly because the government has it's hands in so many pots. Pull your hands back and no one's trying to grease them. Politics becomes a less lucrative venture and we get less slick business men running the show.

If companies are polluting and dumping in to water you sue them.

Unless its BP then we just sit back and take it

I thought jobs were moving abroad for lower labor/land costs, not lower incorporation/corporate fees/taxes?

That's what happens, in a partially globalized (or 'globalizing') world. It's not Michigan v Missouri - it's everyone v everyone else in the world (not totally, but y'know what I'm getting at.

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

guysmiley wrote:you've got to be Hype. Your vocabulary is too broad not to be.

Yeah, I let Hoka know that I signed up under a new name. I don't mind still being referred to as "Hype", but I wanted to distance myself from "Hypersonic" because: a) I don't listen to Strays, and b) most people forgot that the album was originally supposed to be called "Hypersonic", and that's why I choose that name back in 2002 or so. The same way "kingsvikes" decided to go with "k-v" (because that's what we were calling him anyway), I guess I could've changed it to just "Hype", but that's got connotations I don't like. "Adurentibus Spina" is a rough translation of "caustic thorn" into Latin (it's probably more literally "burning thorn"), but I like it.

"Wordy Muthafuckah" would also have been an appropriate new screen name.

I'm verbose.

Pure Method wrote:I thought jobs were moving abroad for lower labor/land costs, not lower incorporation/corporate fees/taxes?

That's what happens, in a partially globalized (or 'globalizing') world. It's not Michigan v Missouri - it's everyone v everyone else in the world (not totally, but y'know what I'm getting at.

That's part of it. And in that regard, you have unions to thank.

Even blowing up the unions would fix everything. If you wanted to make labor cheaper in this country, then cost of living would have to go down, the prices of goods would have to adjust, and workers could potentially loss rights along the way if they wanted to work. It could happen, but I don't trust it would, nor would it happen in a timely matter.

Fuck it, the US should just annex Mexico, then set up a real apartheid wall and use them as an even cheaper source of labour.