Preponomics

Sublime Non-Interventionism

9 posts in this topic

Non - Interventionism

I contend that ALL economic intervention is immoral and destructive for the individual. I see today’s division of left/right a deliberate manipulation of the economic interventionist for the purpose of a threaded plunder, and would like to know if that is the heart beat here as well?

Lately I have witnessed in other forums to my surprise, how many people want economic intervention. I find that most want only a little, but with that little, is a formidable defense of it. Upon diversity a little with many, quantifies for much economic intervention.

I see economic intervention a deadly poison to any society, and feel our ability to stop it would mean a premise in common, that eschews it in all of its various forms. I feel our nation receives injections of economic intervention from the left, and then the right upon every election. Though cronyism unto calamity and socialism unto poverty does mature, I am emboldened, that a new wind of liberty is going to blow, and when it does, will this globe be saturated with individuals, who guard their sovereignty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No policy or program will work the way you hope, until it is anchored in the sanctity of the individual. I have spent countless hours trying to get this principle over to the pragmatists I encounter. I am staggered at the number of people who gladly throw their liberty principles away for altruistic compromise. They do not see the rights of the individual as absolute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Non - Interventionism

I contend that ALL economic intervention is immoral and destructive for the individual. I see today’s division of left/right a deliberate manipulation of the economic interventionist for the purpose of a threaded plunder, and would like to know if that is the heart beat here as well?

Lately I have witnessed in other forums to my surprise, how many people want economic intervention. I find that most want only a little, but with that little, is a formidable defense of it. Upon diversity a little with many, quantifies for much economic intervention.

I see economic intervention a deadly poison to any society, and feel our ability to stop it would mean a premise in common, that eschews it in all of its various forms. I feel our nation receives injections of economic intervention from the left, and then the right upon every election. Though cronyism unto calamity and socialism unto poverty does mature, I am emboldened, that a new wind of liberty is going to blow, and when it does, will this globe be saturated with individuals, who guard their sovereignty.

Law prohibiting and punishing fraud are a kind of intervention. Are you against such laws?

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No policy or program will work the way you hope, until it is anchored in the sanctity of the individual. I have spent countless hours trying to get this principle over to the pragmatists I encounter. I am staggered at the number of people who gladly throw their liberty principles away for altruistic compromise. They do not see the rights of the individual as absolute.

Well said, a breath of fresh air, to hear another voice sound out from thresholds of individual liberty, I too agree with your premise that principles must be anchored in the individual, but with arrogance, I contend that liberty is contagious, and this earth will soon in the coming generations be anchored as you suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Non - Interventionism

I contend that ALL economic intervention is immoral and destructive for the individual. I see today’s division of left/right a deliberate manipulation of the economic interventionist for the purpose of a threaded plunder, and would like to know if that is the heart beat here as well?

Lately I have witnessed in other forums to my surprise, how many people want economic intervention. I find that most want only a little, but with that little, is a formidable defense of it. Upon diversity a little with many, quantifies for much economic intervention.

I see economic intervention a deadly poison to any society, and feel our ability to stop it would mean a premise in common, that eschews it in all of its various forms. I feel our nation receives injections of economic intervention from the left, and then the right upon every election. Though cronyism unto calamity and socialism unto poverty does mature, I am emboldened, that a new wind of liberty is going to blow, and when it does, will this globe be saturated with individuals, who guard their sovereignty.

Law prohibiting and punishing fraud are a kind of intervention. Are you against such laws?

ruveyn

You provide a wise discerning question that causes me to separate that which is despotism, from that, which is ambiguous law.

Would you consider the law that abides only in a local society, which also reacts to despotism upon evidence, as being interventionism, or proper lawful procedure unto justice? Now in my question can I also add further, that no municipality strong arms the reaction of the law unto an arrest, but instead an autonomous society via plebiscite holds fast the standard of the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Non - Interventionism

I contend that ALL economic intervention is immoral and destructive for the individual. I see today’s division of left/right a deliberate manipulation of the economic interventionist for the purpose of a threaded plunder, and would like to know if that is the heart beat here as well?

Lately I have witnessed in other forums to my surprise, how many people want economic intervention. I find that most want only a little, but with that little, is a formidable defense of it. Upon diversity a little with many, quantifies for much economic intervention.

I see economic intervention a deadly poison to any society, and feel our ability to stop it would mean a premise in common, that eschews it in all of its various forms. I feel our nation receives injections of economic intervention from the left, and then the right upon every election. Though cronyism unto calamity and socialism unto poverty does mature, I am emboldened, that a new wind of liberty is going to blow, and when it does, will this globe be saturated with individuals, who guard their sovereignty.

Law prohibiting and punishing fraud are a kind of intervention. Are you against such laws?

ruveyn

No. it isn't. These laws in fact protect from intervention, that is-initiation of force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Non - Interventionism

I contend that ALL economic intervention is immoral and destructive for the individual. I see today’s division of left/right a deliberate manipulation of the economic interventionist for the purpose of a threaded plunder, and would like to know if that is the heart beat here as well?

Lately I have witnessed in other forums to my surprise, how many people want economic intervention. I find that most want only a little, but with that little, is a formidable defense of it. Upon diversity a little with many, quantifies for much economic intervention.

I see economic intervention a deadly poison to any society, and feel our ability to stop it would mean a premise in common, that eschews it in all of its various forms. I feel our nation receives injections of economic intervention from the left, and then the right upon every election. Though cronyism unto calamity and socialism unto poverty does mature, I am emboldened, that a new wind of liberty is going to blow, and when it does, will this globe be saturated with individuals, who guard their sovereignty.

Law prohibiting and punishing fraud are a kind of intervention. Are you against such laws?

ruveyn

No. it isn't. These laws in fact protect from intervention, that is-initiation of force.

So far, three people have made assertions -- many of which I agree with -- but nobody has given any reasons why their assertions are true. Since there is disagreement about the assertions, justifying them with facts and reasoning is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Non - Interventionism

I contend that ALL economic intervention is immoral and destructive for the individual. I see today’s division of left/right a deliberate manipulation of the economic interventionist for the purpose of a threaded plunder, and would like to know if that is the heart beat here as well?

Lately I have witnessed in other forums to my surprise, how many people want economic intervention. I find that most want only a little, but with that little, is a formidable defense of it. Upon diversity a little with many, quantifies for much economic intervention.

I see economic intervention a deadly poison to any society, and feel our ability to stop it would mean a premise in common, that eschews it in all of its various forms. I feel our nation receives injections of economic intervention from the left, and then the right upon every election. Though cronyism unto calamity and socialism unto poverty does mature, I am emboldened, that a new wind of liberty is going to blow, and when it does, will this globe be saturated with individuals, who guard their sovereignty.

Law prohibiting and punishing fraud are a kind of intervention. Are you against such laws?

ruveyn

No. it isn't. These laws in fact protect from intervention, that is-initiation of force.

So far, three people have made assertions -- many of which I agree with -- but nobody has given any reasons why their assertions are true. Since there is disagreement about the assertions, justifying them with facts and reasoning is required.

Fair enough. An intervention is any action which prevents, promotes or otherwise modifies the actions of others.

This is approximation one to a definition. Please feel free to add refinements. I most likely will find them useful.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Non - Interventionism

I contend that ALL economic intervention is immoral and destructive for the individual. I see today’s division of left/right a deliberate manipulation of the economic interventionist for the purpose of a threaded plunder, and would like to know if that is the heart beat here as well?

Lately I have witnessed in other forums to my surprise, how many people want economic intervention. I find that most want only a little, but with that little, is a formidable defense of it. Upon diversity a little with many, quantifies for much economic intervention.

I see economic intervention a deadly poison to any society, and feel our ability to stop it would mean a premise in common, that eschews it in all of its various forms. I feel our nation receives injections of economic intervention from the left, and then the right upon every election. Though cronyism unto calamity and socialism unto poverty does mature, I am emboldened, that a new wind of liberty is going to blow, and when it does, will this globe be saturated with individuals, who guard their sovereignty.

Law prohibiting and punishing fraud are a kind of intervention. Are you against such laws?

ruveyn

No. it isn't. These laws in fact protect from intervention, that is-initiation of force.

So far, three people have made assertions -- many of which I agree with -- but nobody has given any reasons why their assertions are true. Since there is disagreement about the assertions, justifying them with facts and reasoning is required.

I give my argument unto historical accounts, and facts that will hopefully cause all to reason unto clarity, that all economic intervention is an immoral action of aggression against the individual.

Can we look at the Ancient Babylonian Empire, and deduct quickly that Nebuchadnezzar was in fact an Imperialistic tyrant that would subdue many nations unto spoils and taxation? I contend that he acting in similar fashion to his predecessors, the Assyrians, and Egyptians of old, was to simply use oppressive means of force to overwhelm all nations within their reach. Upon these actions was slavery, disease, and poverty the consistent result. A purity, if you will, that the ultimate economic intervention of all, is simple force applied unto totalitarianism.

Further, can we also ponder that Alexander the Great, and even the historic City-States of Ancient Greece, which ushered in the first models of Democracy, leveraged the subservience of women, slavery, and death against all who were not among the few aristocratic factions of elite society? Much oppression, death and abysmal results came from their economic interventionist configuration.

Again can we look closely at Ancient Rome, possibly the greatest imperialistic republic of all time, who sought to plunder the world economically? Were not the economic interventionist Caesars, even seen as demigods, often times willing to roast anyone alive in a fiery brass crucible of torture unto a perilous death, providing they refused to worship in their state of plunder?

A republic we say? Are we to understand a true republic to be where the law is of the people, or is it plain to see that a republic can be easily perverted, when economic intervention moves the seats of power unto despotism, using economic distortions? Can we also see clearly that purposeful action for the despot, is unto power, and economic intervention is the tool of the ages to obtain it?

Then upon the era of social contracting where the advocates of Hobbs and proponents of Locke battled in the minds of society for a contractual role of sovereignty for either side, can we see economic intervention do its deadly work? Unto Hobbs, and State sovereignty have we not witnessed the diabolical assassination of uncountable millions under, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, where intervention was on every side? Or even unto Locke in the sublime Classical Liberal tradition, can we not see here in my nation even today that economic intervention has caused uncountable trespass unto despotism, lawful plunder and imminent economic collapse?

Though Locke profound in protecting the individual with principles of natural law, it must be clear that individual sovereignty regarding ambiguous law can be lost to the endless expansive arbitrations of the economic interventionist, that will plunder a nation consistently. Shall we agree that vigilance is necessary for survival?

Save a proper law that locally stands up reactively upon evidence, managed by sovereign people, in a local society, who will address the acts of aggression, is there really any place for ambiguous earthly law to provide anything good? Is there really any seat of power proper for man or woman to judge society ambiguously in thier morality, or to make all things fair? Even is it sensical to enable them to manage all things unto safety if plunder be the result? Who is qualified to wield such a seat, and groom an individuals faith or reason?

Is there a case in history, where a good-deed of economic intervention did not get overshadowed by an even more invasive negative action against society that did not lead unto poverty, and trespass? I have not found it.

Only upon an immature lawful action of social rescue contained in a short space, can a good thing maybe be counted, but I contend, that upon this lawful rescue reaching maturity, a disastrous result will manifest consistently, and become historically clear as just one more act of economic intervention that harmed the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites