Acorn breaking into houses

[guartz]

Kuya, I can't say I feel sorry for the victims. I too was offered a chance to get a huge effing loan to buy a house I can't afford. I didn't take it. Stopped my mother from doing the same mistake too. They called us idiots.

Now the same people are bawing like waterfalls, and I couldn't give less of a shit about them.

[Kuya]

I think that what happened to them is morally depraved, especially after what happened to Glass Eagle and considering who lobbied for that to happen. I find it ingenious that these people can suffer so much for their mistakes, but all it requires to avoid responsibility is having a lot of money.

[guartz]

Well, that's government for you.

[Kuya]

But that's an overly simplistic way to look at it. Saying that government is evil is no different than saying that the reason people commit murders is because they're evil; no context. I don't know what you blame this on, but i don't think even Pohi denies that the government in the US is simply rotten with private interests, and by private interests i mean the war industry and the banking industry. So i find it hard to not feel that these people were cheated and that they deserve some justice.

[guartz]

But that's an overly simplistic way to look at it. Saying that government is evil is no different than saying that the reason people commit murders is because they're evil; no context. I don't know what you blame this on, but i don't think even Pohi denies that the government in the US is simply rotten with private interests, and by private interests i mean the war industry and the banking industry. So i find it hard to not feel that these people were cheated and that they deserve some justice.

justice from whom? You admit that government and these private banks are essentially the same people. If you can scam people and get away with it for your own interest, what's exactly stopping you? It's a simple realization that greed is a constant in humanity, blaming self interest on people is like blaming gravity for a plane crash. It doesn't change, you have to work around it. Having a government will always mean that the most greedy and self-interested of us will be elected, because that position gives them authority that 99.9% of us do not have, and that shouldn't exist. I'm not surprised that private interests cater to authority like that, neither should you be.

So either magically change humanity to stop having self-interest or realize that government and its use of force is evil for humanity.

[Kuya]

I don't intend to get in an argument about anarchism, because i'm sure i don't know enough about the principles nor do i actually take it seriously enough, but that kind of attitude that "that's human nature" is not a new idea. What do i mean? If you've ever read political literature of ancient Athens and Rome, you'll find that during the times of decadence, that is, the decline of the empires, there were two characteristics that stood out. One, was a move towards a more individualistic and sedentary philosophy of life, and by sedentary i mean more concerned with one's individual enjoyment, and second the belief that human nature is inherently X Y or Z. Take for example Seneca who wrote around the time of Nero, and a time where corruption was rampant, his conclusion was that human nature was inherently evil, which was later picked up by the Christian philosophy. Take the stage of Athens when it was an empire, and the sophist philosophy, it reflects the accepted believes of people who feel that their lives and society are decaying as is their belief in government, and coincidentally, the belief that arose during this time, completely contradictory to what they believed before, was political profession for the purpose of self interest, for one's own glory and fame; the end result was Alcibiades. Look him up.

What i'm trying to say with this is something that i essentially unite with a bit of economic theory, and that is that as a recession takes control, a pessimistic wave takes over people that causes them to spend less and invest less, which in on itself worsens the economic cycle's effect and assures its own death knell by leading it towards a depression. The psychological effect during recessions is well known. I then see these things as the same, as pessimism takes over a society, as corruption become rampant, people tend to have a more negative and determinist view of human nature, one that often tries to blame the failures of the time on some inherent human flaw that caused it.

I can't argue against your anarchism, but i can at least say that i would not doubt that a belief that human nature is X and that therefore government is Y is very related to the times, when the paradigm starts to fall apart.

TL;DR: Fuck you.

real tl;dr: What i'm saying amounts to that the idea that this natural human self interest and the idea that it often manifests itself in this way is not based on any factual account of human nature, but rather a product of the
disillusionment of the times, as there seems to be a pattern to this.

[guartz]

That's actually a good point to bring up antiquity and compare their demise with ours, as there is such a fitting correlation. How the romans during their death knell would "stimulate the economy" to burrow current terms by mixing copper with gold coins, or shaving off the edges. Now whether anarchism is a product of the times or not, doesn't take away it's significance or logic.

TL;DR: Your mom.

[Kuya]

Read my real tl;dr!

[guartz]

Read my real tl;dr!

I'd like to point out, that the self-interest and the like is a quite new concept of understanding. Human-self interest is undeniable, much like preferred behavior.

Maybe you notice a pattern simply because it's precisely in dire situations when the topic seems to catch any noteworthy attention?

[pohibaba]

I stopped frequenting most of the libertarian boards that I used to like because I couldn't stand arguing with anarchists. I'd like to think that I'm pretty far towards laissez-faire, but even I recognize some regulation being beneficial, and so even for me, arguing with an anarchist was like arguing with a brick wall because there was simply no common ground at all.

[Kuya]

Probably; i don't deny that these sorts of individualistic or "thatanus" like philosophies don't sprout independently of any seeming social collapse, but that in almost every case these similar tendencies leads one to wonder, but then again one of the reasons why i would notice this is because i'm already against highly individualistic and anarchical ideas.

That as Athens turned into an empire and that citizens began to feel they've lost control and ceded to the ideas that what they once thought as the epitome of human accomplishment, public office, then turned into a private business, and that the belief that laws and rules are established by the weak to restrain the strong, and that justice is the rule of the strong over the weak just happened to be a coincidence is unlikely to me.

Or as that Roman empire was falling, that instead of the once lauded virtues of being a Roman jurist suddenly become usurped by the desire to live virtuously in one's own home and separated from reality, as well as the idea that government is created to control the imperfect and wildly immoral nature of humanity as opposed to the idea that government was a natural evolution of the human social nature, was also a coincidence; unlikely to me.

But as i've said, this does not take away from the virtues that anarchy or self interests might and do have. I just find we live now in those same times where we feel society around us is falling apart, and as a seemingly natural tendency we tend to get more negative and pessimistic which in turn strengthens the social decay and might eventually lead to a collapse. I also use the psychological theory of self fulfilling prophecies from Rosenberg to somewhat justify my outlook here.

[guartz]

I stopped frequenting most of the libertarian boards that I used to like because I couldn't stand arguing with anarchists. I'd like to think that I'm pretty far towards laissez-faire, but even I recognize some regulation being beneficial, and so even for me, arguing with an anarchist was like arguing with a brick wall because there was simply no common ground at all.

Anarchists are annoying. I agree. Specifically that moral argument where we equate government with force and ask "IS FORCE EVIL OR WHAT?" works on everything.

Nah, but most anarchists I spoke with believe that natural progression with government is to grow, so any government leads to soviet union.

[Kuya]

I don't think any government turns into Soviet Union, but that the ones that tend to prefer military force and authoritarian philosophies will tend towards becoming empires if not destroyed by another nation; i think it possible for a nation with a government to remain peaceful, but anything can happen if we assume an infinite or ridiculous amount of time, which then makes that argument, sort of cheap.

So yea, you could say, either a government is destroyed or it becomes an empire, given an infinite amount of time, but it follows that nothing lasts forever so nor will a government last forever, whether it be destroyed or transformed into a tyranny, but anarchism probably doesn't last forever either.

[Jaybar]

While most of you are putting blame on the people buying homes that they could not pay off in the future, I think some people dismiss the fact the banks were partial to blame. They became far less strict in giving out loans than in previous years (preventing a lot of people from moving out of apartments and such and into suburbs/homes). I remember this was brought up before with an article that talked about how banks became far more lenient. I also remember someone trying to blame it on Clinton and it being shot down.

I just forget the reason for the leniency. I remember my father going through hell to get a mortgage on our 2nd home that he could almost pay off within 6 months if he wanted back in the early 90's. What happened to that?

[guartz]

Probably; i don't deny that these sorts of individualistic or "thatanus" like philosophies don't sprout independently of any seeming social collapse, but that in almost every case these similar tendencies leads one to wonder, but then again one of the reasons why i would notice this is because i'm already against highly individualistic and anarchical ideas.

That as Athens turned into an empire and that citizens began to feel they've lost control and ceded to the ideas that what they once thought as the epitome of human accomplishment, public office, then turned into a private business, and that the belief that laws and rules are established by the weak to restrain the strong, and that justice is the rule of the strong over the weak just happened to be a coincidence is unlikely to me.

Or as that Roman empire was falling, that instead of the once lauded virtues of being a Roman jurist suddenly become usurped by the desire to live virtuously in one's own home and separated from reality, as well as the idea that government is created to control the imperfect and wildly immoral nature of humanity as opposed to the idea that government was a natural evolution of the human social nature, was also a coincidence; unlikely to me.

But as i've said, this does not take away from the virtues that anarchy or self interests might and do have. I just find we live now in those same times where we feel society around us is falling apart, and as a seemingly natural tendency we tend to get more negative and pessimistic which in turn strengthens the social decay and might eventually lead to a collapse. I also use the psychological theory of self fulfilling prophecies from Rosenberg to somewhat justify my outlook here.

Now... correct me if i'm wrong, but I think you are simply describing secular crisis and generation gap.

[guartz]

I don't think any government turns into Soviet Union, but that the ones that tend to prefer military force and authoritarian philosophies will tend towards becoming empires if not destroyed by another nation; i think it possible for a nation with a government to remain peaceful, but anything can happen if we assume an infinite or ridiculous amount of time, which then makes that argument, sort of cheap.

So yea, you could say, either a government is destroyed or it becomes an empire, given an infinite amount of time, but it follows that nothing lasts forever so nor will a government last forever, whether it be destroyed or transformed into a tyranny, but anarchism probably doesn't last forever either.

There is still a net gain to government as time progresses, that's the point. Anarchism, in simplest definition, is opposition to a monopoly on force, which makes them anti-government and thusly, anarchists.

[Kuya]

Now... correct me if i'm wrong, but I think you are simply describing secular crisis and generation gap.

Don't know what you mean by those two things.

Also, it was my understanding that the banks were in favour of becoming more leniant of lending, or so i was told. The left may have been candid in seeing this as a good thing, but it seems the banks already knew that they were going to profit from it. Am i wrong?

[Jaybar]

I recall an analogy that was along the lines of "A few bad apples won't spoil the bunch" in response to banks going ahead with bad loans. I thought it was for a different reason other than profit.

And by that I mean, you are probably right; the banks did it solely for profit.

[guartz]

Don't know what you mean by those two things.

Also, it was my understanding that the banks were in favour of becoming more leniant of lending, or so i was told. The left may have been candid in seeing this as a good thing, but it seems the banks already knew that they were going to profit from it. Am i wrong?

Secular crisis is almost like a nietzschian god is dead thing, where the absurdity of traditions dawns on people. Generation gap is the tendency of rebelling to prior generations.

The way I see the mortgage crisis, is the bank's CEOs, feeling invulnerable due to lack of competition and protectionism from the government, decided to see how far they can take recklessness and their stock profits. Also everyone was doing it.

[Kuya]

Secular crisis is almost like a nietzschian god is dead thing, where the absurdity of traditions dawns on people. Generation gap is the tendency of rebelling to prior generations.

Have to read up on those things, but secular crisis, if you mean in the sense that the seemingly pessimistic change was because people were waking up to the absurdity of old outlooks on life, then i suppose we'll be stuck in a perpetual secular crisis since said crisis happened again. As for the generation gap, i think using that is a bit anachronistic, since generations did not diverge as much as they do now, in fact, i'd say nowhere near as much as they do now. Technology is probably the key factor to generation gap.