Not really, I think you misunderstood something. Are you maybe confusing him with Hayek?

Circular argument. A new state will ALWAYS rise from the ashes of anarchy, ruled by cannibals as they will be the most healthy and well fed group in such a world.

Without government there is only war and murder. It is what we as a species do. Our flock of 100 similarly leaning people against whatever is left.

AKA the Guilded Age, an era where economic growth provided a thin veneer to massive social problems. And it was various movements in reaction to these problems that gave rise to many of the government programs and regulations that you likely take issue with. Something you seem to overlook, with your tenuous grasp of history, is that most of the government regulations your criticize came about because of very real problems that arose in their absence. This isn't to say that there may not be some better alternatives, but acting like simply getting rid of certain government regulations will make things better ignores the history of problems that gave rise to those regulations, and indicates a very shallow understanding of the issues at hand.

oh man ...

Good point, seems a bit over the top to me.

Regards

thanks obama...

Great post. For certain, better analysis than mine, which admittedly had zero analysis in it. And way less, far less offensive than mine, due to the words i chose to put it in... Also, kudos for wondering about the obvious, which NO ONE did; why all pamper the DRM proponents and cater to all their needs or demands, while DRM FREE gets bashed all the time around, like clockwork.

Don't wonder about people, though. Even if facts and proofs are before their eyes, either they choose to ignore them themselves and invalidate them, or they still cannot see them, due to ineptitude and inability. As it is well known, the speaker of truth is always and everywhere hated, blacklisted and unpleasant for others to hear or see. While the speakers of lies and their sugar or threatening bipolarly coated forked tongues are hot and always popular with masses, in demand sometimes, even...

What worries me though more, is not the fact some people dislike me or my opinion. But the fact they try hard to bash and downvote, so as my opinion will be hidden and not displayed to others. That is what i myself call ***"DEMOCRACY" AT ITS FINEST***. This is exactly what democracy has all been about since 1700s onwards. Censorship, (social or of any other type) execution, ostracizes, lies ("everyone's opinion must be heard out and anyone can be elected"), oppression etc. Anything that is not part of the system is the enemy, something or someone that must be forced outside of it at any cost, dressed up to appear as evil, or even worse, as a laughing stock.

No, Kelsen did believe in the State because he was a positivist who believe in a flawless law. Not sure about Hayek; haven't study him so much besides "Road to Sedform" so can't talk with property about him.



It is circular indeed; first notice in Greece before Christ. Well, thanks to the Greeks we, western countries, are what we are now.

Aristotle and later Polybius write a linear cycle that States face trough several government styles, from monarchy to democracy so yes, it is circle because all human expressions aren't static; we force things to chance, with the problem that many of us have short memory, meaning we repeat past errors.


I guess you disagree with Locke's state of nature.
To me, Locke was too much romantic but I have to admit he was kinda right; if we see Africa tribes were western civilization haven't reach, they aren't fighting each other (tribes members), they are happy living together in dust, without technology and all western stuff. They aren't in a state of war.

Hobbes explanation that we are always in state of war, therefore, we need to control a Leviathan, takes sense when we understand that there is always a human being that wants to be more powerful than the rest, so a superior authority should be needed to control that kind of behavior. That's the only reason I could say I agree with a State.
However, without a State I am sure there will be several security companies (In glorious capitalism, of course), main problem is that those without money will not have sources to afford it so the history will necessarily repeat in order to create a State to protect those, the problem is when bureaucrats wants believe they are people's live architects, so they keep dragging power, and for power they need money, resulting in taxes, regulations and all that kind of crap.

It all was in Machievelli's Il Principe.




Say who, socialist? Ok, let's raise taxes to increase welfare, let's control companies so they can't "oppress poor people", let's believe in socialism and let's go, vote for Hillary and see how history repeats and how another Empire could broke and lost power. Wow, kinda sadistic how socialism works.

After all that money waste, guess who will be called to gain money again... Yeah, liberalism to create a free market, as Obama did with Friedman's theories to recover from 2.009 crisis.

Look, it is true that we all have a human side that want us to help the others. I do it my self. I provide free law services in a community center just because I want to show people that the State is not the only who can do it; private companies do help people, they (people) just have to be patient; if they don't want to work is ok, but then don't claim they have "rights". Rights to what, make others pay for they laziness? No, I don't support that.

There is a "middle" bridge called Social State, that operates under the Rule Of Law. However, the main problem is that population grown very fast and tax money became insufficient to cover all State/poor needs, therefore, Social State is doom to broke.
See examples in Spain, Greece, Portugal, Venezuela, Argentina, and even USA, which is different because they don't actually broke, when they "broke" they ask money to the FED so they have unlimited money... Of course that couldn't be perfect, as inflation raise every time money is created from air.
How many times have Obama increase FED's debts? I believe not even both Bush plus Clinton did it so many times.
For all those reasons and more, Hayek says Social State isn't a evolution from Liberal State, but a scamm.


There has been several republican presidents who have tried to recover many values from that era, including Reagan and old Bush. The son not so much.
Of course nothing can be perfect so a pure Liberal State won't take place, but some measures could be taken.
I read in the last week news that in France several laboral reforms takes place in order to create jobs and help companies to grown. What kind of measures? Free markets ones. That makes my day the day I read it, because France is a very socialist country and look, they realize free market is needed.



You shouldn't not regret for your post has you haven't insult people but ideas. Isn't your fault that some people found it offensive and takes it against them, as, again, you didn't insult people there. Well, I didn't read a single phrase were you were insulting someone but a system.


Humanity likes to repeat errors. Even the most advanced ones. It is very curious. I guess we lost ourselves into passions rather that ration and intelligence.


Sorry pal, but I have to ask, are you socialist or no? Hahaha
You are from Greece, and you have talked with so many passion against capitalism forms that makes me believe you are a very left believes; however, you have analyze every answer someone have given to you and in some way, you seems to be against the State. It is very interesting.

Speaking as a US Independent/Libertarian...you are crazy, man. It is very clear you don't really understand how the theory you're studying plays out in the real world.

Leveling the playing field between individuals, governments and corporations (civil rights, due process and consumer protection, etc) and limiting the power of corporations (anti-monopoly and collusion laws, right to unionize, etc) are absolutely necessary. Capitalism only works if multiple parties have rough parity in information and power (this is why forced arbitration is such a vile thing), otherwise it devolves rapidly into worse forms of government. Countries that don't recognize this delicate balancing act wind up in socialism, feudalism or oligarchies pretty quickly.

Just to pick 2 examples, have you not studied the history of trade guilds/unions at all? Or what happened before food protection laws were put into place? Capitalism requires functioning marketplaces where demand and supply aren't trapped by artificial constraints. That means a solid legal framework that gives both parties multiple options when it comes to contract conflicts, etc, and doesn't let any one party abuse greater power or information.
QFT.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Nothing defines me, i do not belong to anything, i don't fit anywhere, i cannot be characterized, labelled, attracted to anything. I merely research, make simple (or simplistic) observations and specialize in locating wrongs of any kind, flaws or workarounds for me to bypass hindrances that others set against me and my life, through "democratic" means.

You seem to be making quite a few assumptions about my politics, all of which are off the mark. However, I'm not particularly inclined to get into it any further with you, as you lack both the requisite understanding of history and a nuanced enough understanding of social and economic policies to make such a discussion worthwhile for me. All I'll say is that you should take a closer look at any historical periods that you think seem to capture the kind of government you want to see. It can be quite instructive to see how the policies one likes in theory played out in practice, and if done honestly serves to inform one's personal politics much better than engaging in rants on the internet.

Sounds like a form of Epicureanism.
How do you live without taking part in a political and controversial country? Right now, Greece seems to be 1.992 Venezuela. Hope someone like Chávez does not appear there.
Best way to know politics behavior is taking care of their economics choices. However, sometimes there will be surprises, like has happen with Hollande, which, seems to be hate for nowadays French socialist.




Well it is funny how it seems I am the only who is wrong here just because I disagree with you guys (Guys that aren't showing a proper academic manage on the subject, but opinions; empirical knowledge rather than academics, bravo!), therefore, I am who "lack the necessary understanding to talk to you", visionary people that do understand law better than Piero Calamandrei, a socialist who talked about perfect law implementation by the judge, but latter assume he was wrong because law cant be taken as is, but to the spirit it represent.

Other funny part, is that you keep saying that laws, regulations and nowadays States exist due past problems that make necessary today institutions creation, like if I am denying it, and curious enough, is that you kinda show that society will vanish and we all will die if all that is taken away because, our evolution has been flawless.

Universities all around the world should be demolish, let's all make opinions that doesn't take advantage of pass ideas in order to progress and evolve but let's save only those books we agree with because there is only 1 true. The Inquisition 2.0 will be called. (Sarcasm)

I guess Hayek's "Road to Sedform" is just a pity book that went in a rant to the Social State, which, is indeed an evolution from Liberal State, isn't guys? (Sarcasm)

Yet, people still ask why is that UK Rock music is far better than USA one. Inside joke. Doubt someone will understand :P
EDIT: While americans were singing about love in a elevator, UK singers were talking about bible characters. Isn't hard to detect who received better education to make more complex music.
DISCLAIMER: I do like Steven Tyler music, however, Mick Jagger superiority take us from the very beginning.



EDIT 2: I get this in the Chat by someone who doesn't want to take part in the discussion here (Maybe for those disrespectful members that keep insulting instead of sharing ideas). I respect his privacy choice, so I will maintain him anonymous. So, with his venia, here is a fragment of what he says, and will share it here because I believe he explain very clear all this situation (Remarks and black letters are mine): Yep, that resume pretty much the whole situation, and that's why I am shock of all this situation. Not to mention, some users defend an overpower State that wants to take part something that could be perfectly taken by the citizens.