I think it all makes sense. I think that society has been operating like this since the dawn of civilization.

[deleted]

Every state, heck every form of society, that ever was or will be will punish innocent people. No society is ever going to make perfect sense.

But a society that attempts to have everyone playing by the same rules is probably more sensible than a society with none.*

*ymmv depending on how sensible you deem the products of human civilization thus far

Society does make sense. The people that are in charge are just doing what comes naturally to them and protecting their own interests. The state is not punishing innocent people. The state is trying to justify all of it's expenses.

[deleted]

I see the fraud everywhere... I choose to ignore it so that I can get on with my life and put money in my 401k.

[deleted]

I don't have a 401k. I don't really have any savings. The coming catastrophe will probably not effect me. I don't live anywhere near a large metropolis. Also, I would love to see somebody come and disarm my part of Alabama... Lolz. The fact that I can see the fraud everyday is overshadowed by the fact that I can do nothing about it. I could come out and tell everybody about it all the time when I see it, but nobody would believe me. Most likely, people would start trying to avoid me. I love how people think that the "coming catastrophe" isn't already happening. Genocide goes on everyday in this country (and others). Flouride in the water. Prescription drugs that have worse side effects than the ailments they are prescribed for. Cigarettes. A million different kinds of poison that we buy and consume. They don't need to shoot us to kill us. They are already feeding us the poisons to kill us. They need to take our guns away so that we won't have them when we realize that they have been poisoning us for years.

[deleted]

We'll see. Thus far its been large corporate holdings making money off gold/silver and not individual buyers.

[deleted]

I also buy news papers and watch network news. I think that Piers Anthony guy really has his finger on the pulse of America.

This is exactly what The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose is about. The only difference is that he focuses only on government and the belief in authority and leaves out society. He specifically points out that government =/= society. You should check it out.

Government =/= society, it is a subset/trait.

You're right, I worded that wrong. He says that society is not a subset/trait of government.

I prefer "The Financial system is a flawed. The Voting system is a flawed. The School system is a flawed."

You know why they're flawed? People. The system is imperfect and probably always will be.

[deleted]

So the War of Independence was fought to get out from underneath borrowed money, and then after the colonists won the war they set up a new rigged system?

[deleted]

Your understanding of history is off a bit. Colonial script was a fiat currency, and the notes were by definition bills of credit.

The colonists were not happy. Trading between colonies was a mess because each had their own (multiple) systems. There was a trade deficit between the colonies and england. But the trade was still happening so the bank of england was happy. All they want is volume, typically they don't care who wins or loses. When the bank does want to pick winners that may be an instance of fraud but individual people who act on a fraudulent basis do not make the system fraudulent. Their fraud is one of the flaws of the system. Metallic debasing was fraud, and that was aflaw of a gold based economy.

It wasn't the bank of england that was upset, it was the british merchants, who were getting screwed because the colonies were using an inflationary fiat system to counter the trade imbalance.

The colonies did in fact fight the war in part to gain control of their currency, and rightly so, but not for the reasons or the outcome you describe.

The Most Dangerous Superstition

First, I'm not trying to contradict anything you're saying. This is just super-related to something I was reading last night. What you say is true, but Larken Rose argues that this is even more true for government. And government is what forces us to participate in these kinds of things against our will. Think about this. We give the right to forcibly control people through threats of violence to our "government" that "represents us".

To wit, if human beings are so careless, stupid, and/or malicious that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own, how is it that the situation would be improved by taking a subset of those very same careless, stupid and/or malicious human beings and giving them societal permission to forcibly control all the others? Why would anyone think that rearranging and reorganizing a group of dangerous beasts would make them civilized? The answer hints at the mythological nature of the belief in "authority." It is not merely a different arrangement of human beings that authoritarians seek, but the involvement of some superhuman entity, with rights that human beings do not have, and with virtues that human beings do not have,which can be used to keep all the untrustworthy humans in line.

To say that human beings are so flawed that they need to be controlled—a common refrain among statists—implies that something other than human beings needs to do the controlling. But no matter how hard you study "government," you will find that it is always run entirely by people.

Basically, my point is that I don't care if the "system" is flawed until it it threatens me into participating in it. So many of the things that people think are wrong with "society" are really just symptoms of government.

To say that human beings are so flawed that they need to be controlled—a common refrain among statists—implies that something other than human beings needs to do the controlling.

He's attacking a strawman, stating that anyone who believes in authority must automatically believe in despotism. Government is not necessarily designed to "initiate violence and extortion against innocent people" as you stated elsewhere.

The US government was designed in the spirit of what John Locke had in mind. He was very much a classical liberal, if not the classical liberal, and he wisely conceded that some government was an improvement over pure natural law.

He's not saying that statists believe in despotism, but that they unwittingly support it and are partially responsible for it.

As soon as you accept the premise of government and authority and a ruling class, the only thing keeping it "limited" is the conscience of the master. Like if you’re a slave, and you say, “I accept that I’m your slave, master, I belong to you, but please be nice to me.” Well, maybe he will and maybe he won’t -- but it's not up to YOU any more. And that’s the problem with “limited government”: As soon as it’s government, it’s the master.

...

Whether an "authority" is seen as absolute or as having conditions or limits upon it may have a bearing on how much damage that"authority" does, but it has no bearing on whether the underlying concept is rational. The United States Constitution, for example, is imagined to have created a very limited "authority," the right of which to rule was, in theory, severely restricted. Nonetheless, the Constitution still sought to create an "authority," with the right to do things, such as "tax" and "regulate," which the average citizen has no right to do on his own. Even though the Constitution pretended to give the right to rule only over certain specific matters, it still claimed to bestow a certain amount of "authority" upon a ruling class, and as such, is just as much a target of the following criticism of "authority" as the "authority" of a supreme dictator would be.

...

It should also be mentioned that some have claimed (including Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence) that it is possible, and desirable, to have a"government" which does nothing except protect the rights of individuals. But an organization which did only that would not be "government." Every individual has the right to defend himself (and others) against attackers. To exercise that right, even through a very organized, large-scale operation, would not be "government" anymore than organized, large-scale food production automatically constitutes "govern-ment." Exercising the right of self-defense (individually or collectively) does not, by itself, constitute "government," as it does not require the right to rule. For something to be "government," it must, by definition, do something other than what average people have the right to do. A "government" with the same rights as everyone elseis not a "government" any more than the average man on the street is "government."

Look, I know I'm not going to be able to change you're mind by just giving you snippets of this stuff, but I assure you he addresses every argument you're going to make here. If this is something that you care about, that is worth arguing about, then you should at least see his argument first hand.

Part of the reason I posted this was to show nighthawk1961, that it's not "society", it's government that doesn't make sense.

Government is society's attempt at making sense (order) of things.

There is no perfect sense to be made, therefore the way a society governs itself will always be somewhat flawed.

Government is society's attempt at making sense (order) of things. There is no perfect sense to be made, therefore

...people have difficulty understanding why an entity with the right to forcibly control everyone and legislate morality will inevitably lead to more violence and injustice...

or

the way a society governs itself will always be somewhat flawed.

...therefore people should have not have respect for a system that dictates what is "moral" and backs it with threats of violence.

Look, just read The Most Dangerous Superstition. He explains it better than me. If you have arguments, he always replies to comments on his youtube channel. Seriously just check it out... give it a shot. How could it possibly hurt?

No, he addresses every argument he wants me to make here. That's the strawman.

the only thing keeping it "limited" is the conscience of the master

And checks and balances, term limits, the 2nd amendment, the media, the economy. Jeepers creepers, the US doesn't elect dictators.

which the average citizen has no right to do on his own

This is the whole point of government, especially as described by the US constitution. Cordoning off a space where government shoudn't go, establishing justice, promoting the general welfare, etc. I can't be expected to arrest, adjudicate, and incarcerate people who violate the law, or the natural law on my own (unless every crime is a capital crime - see sharia law). The power is conceded to the government by the people, under a constitution that describes limitations to it's power, to prevent the situations you're talking about. No, it's not perfect. If you think some anarcho-capitalist society is an improvement, then drive on your own roads.

It should also be mentioned that some have claimed (including Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence) that it is possible, and desirable, to have a"government" which does nothing except protect the rights of individuals.

Gosh, maybe they should have thought of that when they were writing the bill of rights.

A society in itself makes perfect sense.

The Financial system is a fraud. The Voting system is a fraud. The School system is a fraud. The quote of this post is meant for people exactly like you who will not see the fraud because it would so shake your core beliefs that it would shatter your psyche.

Right, that means our society is shit. It doesn't mean "society doesn't make sense". Saying "society doesn't make sense" doesn't make sense.

[deleted]

Right. But it's not implemented the same way in every country, others have none of the problems that ruin ours and others have far worse problems. You say what you say as if it's always implemented the same horrible way.

I subscribe to this theory. I think it's why we have things like the TSA, we think we can control everything

Nice, lets just lump millions of people together because they dont share POV's. Whats the real world then? You picking out all the worst traits of the US government, while any noble or positive things wont be mentioned?

It can and does work both ways.

Just because someone is aware of what goes on, doesn't mean they should believe it only goes on for a sinister reason.

Was this in relation to the McCarthy Trials though?

[deleted]

So hollywood people are jewish and have intolerant views but you then say hollywood people were dragged over the coals for not wanting to conform to these intolerant views? The very same people who have them?

Indeed it was about conformity but McCarthy did believe in a fifth column operating in America and his obsession with communist agents was very real.

One of my heros Pete Seeger was brought before the trial, you should check out his response to it.

Right now I'm waiting for my copy of The Most Dangerous Superstition to come in the mail. You can read the first fifty something pages there. He makes a pretty strong case that the government the belief in legitimate "government" authority is the cause of almost everything that is wrong with "society".

The belief in "authority" (which includes all belief in "government") is irrational and self-contradictory, it is contrary to humanity and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in"authority"is the arch-enemy of humanity.

Basically his point is not that the state has lost it's mind, but that it is doing a great job of doing exactly what it was designed to do (which is to initiate violence and extortion against innocent people).

[deleted]

Let's all congratulate ourselves on how we can see what the sheeple can't. Give me a break, McCarthy's desperate search for fifth columners has resurfaced in the hunt for hollywood zionists by conspiritards. The rest of us stopped believing in the boogeyman.

Government is society's attempt at making sense (order) of things. There is no perfect sense to be made, therefore

...people have difficulty understanding why an entity with the right to forcibly control everyone and legislate morality will inevitably lead to more violence and injustice...

or

the way a society governs itself will always be somewhat flawed.

...therefore people should have not have respect for a system that dictates what is "moral" and backs it with threats of violence.

Look, just read The Most Dangerous Superstition. He explains it better than me. If you have arguments, he always replies to comments on his youtube channel. Seriously just check it out... give it a shot. How could it possibly hurt?