Been doing some thinking

I know I know dangerous stuff and all that. But this comes under the heading of political theory, which probably makes it even more dangerous.

First before we even start jettison the notion of left and right as we currnelty conceive it as connected to politics. Nothing I am about to put into play has anythig to do with those now rather antiquated concepts.

Now consider a line segment. On the left hand side is the number zero. (if i didn;t suck at graphics this would be much easier) from there on it continues toward infinity or whatever number suits.

Further consider the idea that all government exist for exactly one purpose and that purpose is to control human behavior. Now to be sure some behaviors need to be controlled.

So at zero place anarchy that is to say no attempts at all to control any one's behavior in regard to anything. Anarchies in the real world seldom last for more than a few weeks simply because as previously stated there are now and I suspect always will be behaviors in which peple engage which need to be controlled murder rape robbery etc springing immediately to mind. further there are no duly constituted authorities to deal with such behaviors an so no way to enforce a legal code.

The minute you pass your first law, rule or regulation and vest in some one the authority to enforce it you no longer have an anarchy.

Now as I stated this is a political line. It is not however based on purely subjective views by anyone as to what constitutes right wing and left wing thought. Rather it is based upon one simple fact. The more types of behavior you wish to regulate the closer you approach the other end of the line from anarchy at which lies totalitarianism.

Any thoughts? Or criticisms. YOu may fire when ready Mr. Gridley....

Very interesting Gary. If you don't mind I took it upon myself to whip up a graphical version of what I imagine you are conveying.




I propose something to build upon this premise relating to government control over an economy. When we accept that a market economy is actually just the actions (or behaviors) of individuals, the graphs move simultaneously in the same direction.




For similar reasons as anarchy, completely free markets never last long because they trend toward efficiency. The inefficient behavior is purged from the marketplace. If we view a free market and anarchism as being 'chaotic', both truly do move toward some form of order and control.

But I do propose a different idea. Perhaps at some early point on these graphs "government" as we know it truly appears, rather than at the very first step away from 0. Up until this 'government' threshold is reached, perhaps the control of human behavior is just a condition of human nature. For instance, in all forms of tribal societies there are human behaviors that are considered desirable or undesirable, but not all tribal societies have a governing body that exerts control over said behaviors. Likewise, government control is not needed for a free market to trend away from chaos by favoring the wanted over the unwanted and therefore organizing toward efficiency. This is apparent in the formation of currency or barter system standards.

You misunderstand my point here a bit markets are another form of behavior.

All I'm trying to do here is quatify the amoount of behavior control a given governmental entity is attempting to exert as compared to another. for instance because Obama is attempting to control more forms of behavior than GWBush did he aprroaches more closely to totalitaianism than did GWBush.

In this scale libertarians are about as far from totalitarianism as you can get without falling into anarchy.

You will also have to find me a tribal society than doesn't have a power structure of some sort. Even chimps and gorillas have a power structure and enforce rules albeit fairly primitive ones upon their groups.

Interesting that I missed your point but what I interpreted still makes perfect sense to me.

garyd wrote:In this scale libertarians are about as far from totalitarianism as you can get without falling into anarchy.

Indeed. And libertarians represent the maximum amount of individual freedom before reaching a state of anarchy and free market economics (as typically espoused by libertarians) represents the maximum amount of economic freedom before reaching a state of economic chaos. So it would just make sense to me that wherever we place Obama or Bush on the spectrum, the economic scale I made would likely show similar placement.

garyd wrote:You will also have to find me a tribal society than doesn't have a power structure of some sort. Even chimps and gorillas have a power structure and enforce rules albeit fairly primitive ones upon their groups.

- What I meant was not that tribal societies lack power structures, but that many don't have power structures that attempt to exert control over unwanted behaviors. For instance, it's been found that tribal societies (particularly those with minimal civilized contact) do not invent or write up laws. Rather, they adhere to codes of conduct that were formulated over many years of social evolution. If I applied that notion to the scale above, it would follow that many tribal societies, with minimal exerted control over human behavior, are very close to a system of anarchy as well. Of course, there are some tribes that are the opposite and trend toward totalitarianism, but just as we could judge the rule of individual presidents, we could judge these societies individually as well.

Rules of conduct and laws were brought about not neccessarily because of a desire to exert power but because a problem was recognized. Not being a scholar I can't quote but I do remember reading a book by James Michener called 'The Source' that in some ways explained how some societies or groups of people may have evolved over many milenia.

I don't feel that we are near what you would call a totolitarian society because of rules or laws enacted. In fact some of your totolitarian governments of the last century threw out laws. As Nazi Germany. So far this country has had some watchdogs like the infamous ACLU who, though much maligned, try to keep us a free society.

Patom Nazi GErmany had more laws, rules and regulations than you can shake a stick at the same is true of the former USSR. NOt all laws, rules and regulations are bad things. Too many however and the powers that be will enforce them at there whim against their opponents to the benefit of themselves and their allies. Sort of like how Obama and company are trying to get suport for health care plan...
I did not claim we had yet become a totalitarian society merely that based upon espoused policy decisions Obama is more nearly totalitarian than was Bush.

PPS last I read the sole enforement mechanism against those who break taboos social and other wise is banishment from the tribe and the way that works is that essentially in the eyes of the tribe , in many cases though not all, you would not longer be considered no longer a memeber of the tribe but not even any longer a human being which meant simply that anyone could kill you without having to worry about retribution from former family members. And in a few cases you could even be considered a legitimate food source.

Gary, do you consider present day France, Britain, Germany, Canada totolitarian countries? They all have universal health insurnace of one form or another. If that is your standard for totolitarianism, I'm all for it. The problem here is that your sainted private insurance companies are really writing this legislation to their advantage. Don't worry they will be more money than ever.

Sorry that is only one step down the road Patom It requires a lot more than trying to control (eventually) what everyone eats and drinks and what health services they are permitted to have to get there but it does make a hell of a good start.

I trust private insurance. I trust them to dictate what and when they will give you coverage. I trust them to try and not deliver coverage if they have the slightest chance of keeping OUR money. You have to remember that it is OUR money that is keeping the private insurance industry alive. They are in the business of keeping as much of OUR money as they can in their hands.

We need a single payer system. Where everyone is covered. Where people are not locked into a job simply because of benefits. Where a small business can compete for employees without haveing to go broke trying to give their employees health insurance.

Garyd, you are afraid of control. WTF do you think we have now? We are being played for suckers to the myths that the insurance industry is feeding us.

Patom the govenment will find itself doing exactly the same damn thing and there won't be anyway to get around the government. With insurance you can find somebody to cover you eventually. It may cost a bit more but that bits the hell out of dying of kidney failure or having to stay on dialysis for the rest of your life because the government doesn't think you ought to have a kidney transplant at your age.

Patom somethings need to be controlled murder, rape and theft coming immediately to mind. My health care doesn't. Governments should not be trusted. The more power they obtain the more corrupt they become. And no matter how much power they currently have they always want more. It is now and always has been the nature of government.

Obama promised us transparency. Thus far his administration has been about a stransparent as a 6 brick thick brick wall absent any windows.

garyd, if you need dialisis and are uninsured, you can't afford the insurance. Your best bet is to build your own dialisis machine. Can be done. Under the present system there are thousands of people who will spend the rest of their lives on dialisis. Lack of suitable doners, poor prospect to survive transplant surgery, etc.

With the laws on the books about freedom of information, interested parties should be able to insure that any government run health insurance plan will remain transparent. Are private insurnance companies transparent?

Yep the lawyers see to it. And in France after sixty seven you better build that Dialysis machine because the government won't give you one.

A greek american on another Board has a Grandmother still livng in the old country. She is dying because of a benign tumor on her neck that is easily operable and 100% curable but the government won't pay for the procedure.

If you think bean counters who wor for the government are any different than bean counters workinf for private insurance companies you are dreaming.

True, bean counters are the same all over. The difference is that the bean counters in private insurance companies are answerable only to their stock holders.
You will find examples of poor health coverage anywhere in the world, including the good old USA. Cherry pick any situation and you can be frozen into your position.

Great thread. I'm learning something.

Yes and Bean counters in the Public sector are answerable to no one.

In the private sector bean counters are also accountable to a whole host of lawyers

A whole host of lawyers that they hire to make sure they can make more money.

I'm going out on a limb and saying the super bowl will be Jet's vs Vikings.

I'd agree with that asseesment. Then again As crappy as Dallas played how the hell do you judge? Three points in four trips into the red Zone and on Farve's first touch down pass a DAllas defender is running stride for stride with the reciever The guy catches the ball about the fifteen and the Dallas defender never even tries to tackle him.

It would be one for the archives geezer vs rookie .

Of course, who the hell am I to be calling a 40 year old geezer?

Yeah tell me about it. Between the two of ust we have forty odd year on the man and everybody acts like he's a dinosaur or something...