If it's a requirement of the employer, then that's fine - it's their job, so they can arbitrarily set up demands for it - and pay accordingly. A union interjects itself between the employer and worker as a third party essentially going "if you want to work for that guy over there, you gotta talk with us".

It doesn't feel right.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^gwiz665:
When unions start being monopolizing - "you must be a part of this union to work here, or you're a scab" I have a problem with them.
What's the issue with "you must be a part of this union to work here, or you're a scab"?
When you agree to work for an employer, you're required to agree to all sorts of things you might not like. For example, as a programmer you're pretty much always required to sign away the intellectual property rights to anything you develop for the company. Hell, a lot of times you have to consent (nice oxymoron there) to drug testing, and maybe even an FBI background check.
At the most fundamental level, you're agreeing to let them own your labor for X number of hours, in return for money. Unless you're exceedingly lucky, chances are you'll be asked to do things in those hours that you wouldn't have chosen to do if you weren't being paid.
It seems to me that compared to those things, being required to become a part of a union isn't really the worst of the things you agree to when you agree to work for an employer.
If you don't like that condition (or any of the others), you're free to find work elsewhere.

>> ^gwiz665:

When unions start being monopolizing - "you must be a part of this union to work here, or you're a scab" I have a problem with them.

What's the issue with "you must be a part of this union to work here, or you're a scab"?

When you agree to work for an employer, you're required to agree to all sorts of things you might not like. For example, as a programmer you're pretty much always required to sign away the intellectual property rights to anything you develop for the company. Hell, a lot of times you have to consent (nice oxymoron there) to drug testing, and maybe even an FBI background check.

At the most fundamental level, you're agreeing to let them own your labor for X number of hours, in return for money. Unless you're exceedingly lucky, chances are you'll be asked to do things in those hours that you wouldn't have chosen to do if you weren't being paid.

It seems to me that compared to those things, being required to become a part of a union isn't really the worst of the things you agree to when you agree to work for an employer.

If you don't like that condition (or any of the others), you're free to find work elsewhere.

Regulations tend to favor people with expensive lobbies. Perhaps a better way to go about it is clearer definitions of properties rights more specifically, in this case, when it comes to drinking water. And access to a plain English, laymen system of court proceedings that a normal person could use and large companies couldn't use as leverage. Seems like a lot of the pollution problems could be bettered with a more defined system of property definitions. If people can extract money justice for polluters quickly, and for sizable sums, it would most likely be cheaper and faster than a regulatory body, imo.

>> ^blankfist:

Let me stop you right there. I knew if I said something about individuals owning property and a political body owning a property, you'd miss the obvious point and think groups of individuals (or cooperative) means the exact same thing as a political body. It does not, and you know this.

I haven't the faintest clue what point you're trying to make here.

My point is that whatever kind of entity the government is, be it a single person, a group of people operating within a framework laid down by a constitution, a giant brain-shaped computer, a collective of sentient insects, or a box of Christmas ornaments, the government holds the ultimate property rights to the land within its territory.

If you want to contest that, contest that.

You seem to think that if you invent a whole different nomenclature for government asserting its property rights, it somehow excuses you from having to take on my basic argument, which is really pretty simple: government owns the land, and property owners get to exercise the kinds of powers government exercises.

In case you're curious, this is part of the reason why I don't believe that property rights should command that kind of power.

@blankfist, since you're sick, I'll try to make my point directly. My overall argument is that you're already living in a "voluntaryist" society, and just don't like the implications of the contract you've agreed to. What I'm saying here isn't how I see the world, but how I think you should be looking at the world based on your own principles. I am, indirectly, trying to show you that your own principles bear reexamining, or at least the conclusions you're currently drawing from them.

Now, back to making my argument:

You don't need to sign things to give consent. In your last comment you agreed that there can even be unwritten implications inherent in all agreements that must be considered binding (i.e. that a rental agreement with the mother would naturally allow her permission to add a child). Now the only missing piece is that I think there's an open question about the kid's options are if the mother dies or merely decides to move out, and the kid wants to stay in my house. For the sake of argument, let's say he's an adult when this happens.

I say that since it's still my house, the son is still obligated to follow the house rules, and obligated to contribute the way his mom was. I decide that since he was born here, it's only fair that I consider him a signatory to the agreement mom signed, and entitled to the full range of rights and duties contained therein. If he decides he can't abide by that agreement, then he should know he can't live in the house anymore, since he only gets the right to live there via that agreement.

More broadly speaking though, if I allow guests into my home, they implicitly agree to abide by my rules in the house. If they don't want to follow those rules, I'm within my rights to ask them to leave. If they don't, I'm within my rights to use force to remove them.

This is entirely the situation with the US (or any other nation, for that matter). The government of the country holds allodial title to the land within its borders. What citizens buy when they buy title to land is fee simple -- it's ours, but not in the sense that it becomes sovereign territory exempt from all US law.

In other words, I think if you want to be assiduous about property rights being the sole determinant of authority, you are essentially making the argument that the government has a legitimate authority to levy taxes and enforce laws. Taxation isn't theft, refusal to pay taxes is theft. Violence against police who enforce laws you disagree with isn't self-defense, it's a breach of contract, and willful destruction of property (namely the bodies of the cops you injure).

Again, this is not how I see the world. I reject the notion that property imbues its owner with absolute authority, and I reject the notion that all contracts are inviolate.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sorry all.

*kill

SUBJECT: INFRINGEMENT OF FOX RIGHTS - Black Swan sex scenes clips

Notice of Infringement via Email

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
P.O. Box 900
Los Angeles, CA 90035
WebEnforcement@fox.com <mailto:webenforcement@fox.com>

01/14/2011
videosift.com http://www.videosift.com

Dear videosift.com:

I, the undersigned, confirm that I am an authorized agent of Twentieth
Century Fox Film Corporation and/or its subsidiaries and affiliated
companies ("Fox") and am authorized to act on Fox's behalf in this
matter.

I am writing to notify you of the infringement of Fox's intellectual
property rights on your site as identified below and demand that you
take immediate action to permanently stop the infringing conduct.

I have a good faith belief that the links / files identified in the
attached addendum are not authorized by Fox, any of its agents or the
law, and therefore infringe Fox's rights. On behalf of Fox, I demand
that you immediately remove and disable these links / files.

This email is not a complete statement of Fox's rights in connection
with this matter, and nothing contained herein constitutes an express
or implied waiver of any rights, remedies, or defenses of Fox in
connection with this matter, all of which are expressly reserved.

I may be contacted at:
Email: antipiracy@dtecnet.com

Sincerely,
DtecNet

>> ^gorillaman:

Here we are with our downvotes and promote powers, an elite of an elite, privileged members of the internet class, which is itself already practically superhuman, talking about our democratic website? LOL.

I'm noticing that you aren't really responding to my argument, but instead are trying to declare Videosift...what? An oligarchy? An Aristocracy? Totally devoid of any wisdom of crowds?

I've never really seen downvotes make a difference when it comes to getting on the Top 15. Hell, I can't even remember the last time I saw a video get more than 3 downvotes.

All promote and quality do is increase exposure. They can make a difference between a video "sifting" instead of going to pqueue, and it can pad the number of votes it gets after it hits the Top 15, but I doubt you could get, say, a video of silent blackness into the top 15 purely with quality and promote.

>> ^gorillaman:
The misconception I see in your posts is this arbitrary distinction between the oppressors and the oppressed. The average man on the street is as guilty today as the plutocrat with his snout in the trough, because if their positions were reversed they'd each behave in the same way.

It's not a misconception, it's that I disagree with your assertion. I doubt reversal would make no difference. In any case, my aim isn't to "reverse" their positions, but to equalize them.

>> ^gorillaman:
Accountability to 'the people' is hardly a check on corruption if the people themselves are corrupt.

The theory is, if people vote for politician A, and A does things that fuck them over, they can vote for another politician next time. To use the favorite conservative example, you can't raise taxes with impunity, because if people don't think it's justified, they'll vote you out. Get rid of the vote, and those eeevil government bureaucrats can raise taxes, and spend all of it on palaces for themselves instead of healthcare. The only "accountability" valve then comes in terms of an armed rebellion.

You're vaguely alluding to a tyranny of the majority issue, but in practice every tyranny I can think of has been a "tyranny of the elite".

>> ^gorillaman:
There's a linguistic issue here as well. Over time 'democracy' has become perversely synonymous with 'freedom'. There's an essential difference between taking power away and taking freedom away. Power here means the power to enforce ones will over others, freedom is the freedom from the power of others. Removing power from the majority will actually increase their freedom.

Again, it's not a linguistic issue, it's that you disagree with other people's feelings about democracy. Maybe that's justified, maybe it's not, but it's not that people don't understand what the words mean.

As for freedom vs. power, it's a slippery thing. I'd say they're synonymous in this context in a lot of ways.

Do I have the ability to own a house because I'm "free" to do so, or because I have the power that comes from having the talents to build a decent career for myself? Or am I "free" to have land like this because the government is ensuring that my property rights will be respected? Or am I somehow a slave to the majority because I pay taxes to a democratic government?

>> ^gorillaman:
Look at the progress of this thread. I don't see much ideological territory left to the democrats, squeezed as you are from both sides. While dft lectures blanarchist on the need for a government to protect free men from one another, you want to turn around and give those same men a stake in that same government with all its might and authority. Even on the site of your last stand - the desperate, impossible compromise of constitution, you admit to massive deception and malfeasance and even in the strongest and best designed democratic state an apparently irredeemable collapse. With all this you still believe democracy is moral? It amounts to a kind of political stockholm syndrome.


For all the proclamations of victory, I notice that the vast majority of that paragraph refers to things people other than me have said. I haven't used the word "constitution" until just now, for example.

I do think the US's implementation of democracy is headed for a collapse. Not because people left to their own devices slit their own throats (which you seem to think is inevitable), but instead because a wealthy elite has effectively subverted the mechanics of democracy.

So you say to me, as the elite stands over our wounded democracy, choking the last life out of it, that this is proof that the corruption and stupidity of the people has finally led to democracy's demise, and demand that we empower the elite to rule over us.

That's Stockholm syndrome.

Hell, you have yet to even try to explain what it is you're really suggesting, beyond that you want Superman and the Justice League to come and save us from ourselves. Not only that, you want them to totally ignore what we might say about their edicts, lest our filthy corruptness infect them.

After much thought and consideration, I don't come to the same conclusion. Let me take the situation we have here in the USA.

Voting is relatively easy here in the US, the biggest obstacle are lines, and the will to stand in said line. Yet, at best you can expect for an average national election is 40%. In that, 100% are bound by that 40%. And of that 40%, you only need majority in most cases to pass legislation. Let us say of that 40% that voted, it was perfectly partisan; 20% red, 20% blue. This would mean that at best in most instances, 100% of us are bound by what 20% of people have said.

Making voting easy has seemingly cheapened it in peoples minds, I think. And my conjecture is that is because you never really "op in" to being a voter in any significant way. There is never a time where one commits himself to his country, and his country to him. There is no right of passage other than age. This is the connection I am seeking to create in my mind. Where there is a true act of commitment by both parties to one another, and that imbibes a since of responsibility and worth.

There is a problem of who manages the rights of the non-citizens, but that is a problem we already have with resident aliens and such. This would just be taking that idea to a new level. There are lots of ins and outs to manage in my theoretical construct, but they are by no means insurmountable, or poise any real problems of liberty any more than a person who chooses not to vote does now. My point is being born is arbitrary. Making a choice to partake in a social contract isn't implicit, or explicit in birth. What I am proposing bears much in common with the confederation in Star Ship troopers if you have ever read it. While I think I would discourage military as a main means for obtaining citizenship, I think citizens would be highly motivated to make their country free from corruption because of the investment they made with time, sweat and blood, personally.

In reply to this comment by mgittle:
My reply to gwiz dealt with your post as well. Really, I should have combined or separated them for more clarity. My bad, you're right, it does look like I was saying you agreed with the property rights thing, and the @ to you should have probably been in the second one along with the one for gwiz.

However, I stand by my opinion that voting needs to be easier instead of harder, and governments don't need more power to disenfranchise people. If we want better results, we need a more informed and educated public or a different form of governing ourselves. Like I said, I agree with the sentiment you and others are expressing, and restricting voting is a logical solution, but I think there are many unforeseeable and unintended consequences in implementing tests/classes/etc for voting. See my comments in that thread about corruption, etc.

Regarding birth in a country giving you specific rights, well, that's just how it happens to work culturally, right? I mean, if you look objectively at the concept of countries, they're automatically going to be fairly arbitrary simply due to the lack of choice in being born. Historically, it was and easy way of determining citizenship in a world where lines on a map could help you determine a lot. In today's world, those lines are all blurred, and technology gives us all sorts of options for keeping records, administering tests, etc. So, we have new options and there's nothing wrong with thinking out loud about that.

A person can't anonymously drop off "incriminating documents" to the police?

Anyway, this is a fascinating law case. The "treason" charges are laughable, but some of the issues regarding free speech and intellectual property rights are quite intriguing. This may have large implications for the ever-increasing digitization of information.

My reply to gwiz dealt with your post as well. Really, I should have combined or separated them for more clarity. My bad, you're right, it does look like I was saying you agreed with the property rights thing, and the @ to you should have probably been in the second one along with the one for gwiz.

However, I stand by my opinion that voting needs to be easier instead of harder, and governments don't need more power to disenfranchise people. If we want better results, we need a more informed and educated public or a different form of governing ourselves. Like I said, I agree with the sentiment you and others are expressing, and restricting voting is a logical solution, but I think there are many unforeseeable and unintended consequences in implementing tests/classes/etc for voting. See my comments in that thread about corruption, etc.

Regarding birth in a country giving you specific rights, well, that's just how it happens to work culturally, right? I mean, if you look objectively at the concept of countries, they're automatically going to be fairly arbitrary simply due to the lack of choice in being born. Historically, it was and easy way of determining citizenship in a world where lines on a map could help you determine a lot. In today's world, those lines are all blurred, and technology gives us all sorts of options for keeping records, administering tests, etc. So, we have new options and there's nothing wrong with thinking out loud about that.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
You obviously didn't read anything I wrote because I didn't agree with the prospect of land being the basis for voting. I spin your comment on critical thinking back at yourself and challenge you to read my comments for how they were intended. GWIZ has a comment right above yourself that mimics what I have said in a much better phrasing. Perhaps try and be a bit more transcendent yourself, sir.

In reply to this comment by mgittle:
@GeeSussFreeK @Winstonfield_Pennypacker

Let's do a fun critical thinking exercise! You guys really need it.

Say someone's company asks them to move to a different state or city and take a position for 2 years, after which they'll be asked to move again to a possibly more permanent position. That person looks at the local rental/housing market and decides it'll be cheaper to rent for those two years because the cost of the loan/interest and the potential hassle of selling the house (possibly at a loss) is really risky to deal with when you know you're going to move.

That person, who is capable of making an intelligent and informed decision, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Even using your "logic", I can see how someone could feel it prudent to prevent "temporary" residents from voting on local matters like millages, mayoral elections, etc, but state and national elections? Really?

This also doesn't consider college students, people who are living together but not married (such as with significant others or family members who own homes), or millions of other people who simply can't afford homes or don't want the lifestyle, maintenance costs, etc of owning a home.

I was really trying to avoid making any sort of personal attack with this...but I have to ask, did you even think about what you were saying before you typed it out?

@dgandhi, thanks for finally clarifying your confusing question above. I disagree with your assessment of property rights, and here's why. First, you're confusing the idea of a contract. A contract has three elements: offer, acceptance and legal consideration (promised value). Your position is that you haven't agreed to a contract not to use the car, but here's where your logic is faulty:

A) You know how to operate and use the car so we can reasonably assume you understand it's not a wild plant growing in a field somewhere but instead specific property (wealth) that typically requires ownership;
B) The owner of the car hasn't given you an "offer" to own it;
C) By your own admittance you haven't "accepted" an "offer".

To summarize: A. is the acknowledgment of an item being property and not owned by you, B. & C. shows the two parties didn't engage in a voluntary contract. That is textbook theft.

@dgandhi, government is the monopoly on violence and everything they do is violent. When you say everything they do "except" property, what do you mean? If you're citing DFT's wiki definition, then in that instance government is being used to protect property rights (as well as private contracts) by way of force. So, that's violence as well. I'm not sure what you're driving at.

Forcing people to do things that aren't voluntary is wrong. Forcing people to redress damages is not wrong.

To that end, @dystopianfuturetoday, your social contract notion is fallacious in nature. There are three elements of a contract: offer, acceptance and legal consideration. For your social contract example there's neither an offer or acceptance on the part of the people. A contract is also called a what? An agreement.

It's pretty much in the word that contracts are to be voluntary, not forced.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Also, I'm calling fallacy on your 'coercion' argument. You are begging the question. Your argument that taxes are 'coercion' is an opinion that is far from universal and thus cannot be assumed. Taxes are part of the social contract you enter into when living in a representative democracy.


I have been thinking about this idea for awhile now. Did any of us actually accept the contract? Citizenship is merely bestowed upon us at birth. I have been toying around with the idea of explicit citizenship. In part, I find it could perhaps make the general population more interested in the affairs of government, and perhaps stave off the entropy of the system. It would also make people more aware of the roles of government.

I have also been reading on some neat alternatives to the ways to construct a legislature (from fiction). One that was of particular neatness factor was a 2 part legislature. One branch only passed legislation and needed a 2/3s majority to do so. The other part was a body dedicated to the repeal of legislation and only needed a 1/3 majority to revoke legislation. I thought this was a rather neat concept for organizing a legislature. It helps prevent the tyranny of the majority (nothing can stop it in a democracy), while also being a democratic way to adopt to things that most all people hold to.

To that end, I see unregulated capitalism very closely tied to democracy in the way it needs to be setup. With the proper foundations, you don't really need "regulations". If contract fraud, property rights, and constitutional rights are all well defined, you shouldn't need government regulators. You would need government legislators and democracy to determine what level of justice to extract from wrong doers, but that is something that works itself out through democracy quite well.

I think that is where a lot of the verbal confusion comes in on "free markets" is when it comes to fraud and disputed contracts. A more classical liberal would say let what happens happens, and if there is a dispute, the courts can handle it. A liberal today would want to regulate the market through government oversight to marginalize the occurrence in addition to the courts being available. The second option seems harmless enough, and indeed wanted, but as we have seen how it has played out..and it is into the hands of those with power and influence (which aren't voters). I agree with the idea of "a well regulated market" to the end that fraud/contract disputes have a government avenue available for resolution that is binding, this would include standard of indisputable denominated units (you can't claim to be selling pounds of beans that are your own version of what a pound is), among other things. But pre-government intervention isn't a good idea (in practice).

In closing, I think "free markets" is a loaded word. What I think is right in a market is a post regulated one established on a solid framework of understandings that are iron clad. I am currently trying to work out a system that also makes it harder for people to pass down wealth; that wealth is only earned, but that is a subject of a different conversation.

>> ^quantumushroom:

First of all I do respect you for defending yourself quantumushroom, Sorry about the cheap jab earlier.
No biggie.
Hate to oversimplify, but generally, when government gets involved, costs for everyone go up and innovation suffers. When government practices the lost art of 'benign neglect', the free market rapidly punishes and rewards ideas. People do more when you allow them to keep more of what they earn.
As the necessary evil it is, government has vital, mandated roles, such as protecting the borders and enforcing private property rights.
Battling child obesity, making smokers second class citizens (while spending tobacco tax revenue), providing "free" healthcare and making land owners get 'permission' to chop down a tree on their own property are not legitimate government functions. Nor can the buffoons "run" markets, except into the ground.
Right now, the federal mafia is simply too damned big, and they don't know what they're doing, just as FDR didn't know the long-term effects of his alphabet soup agencies that are STILL with us. Yes, you won't budge; just be aware there is evidence FDR's policies prolonged the Depression. Or you can merely observe today's scamulus doing nothing.
As blankfist can point out better than me, the Federal Reserve is about to print another trillion dollars, making the money in your wallet and savings account less valuable.
The left has an important part in this narrative; I just disagree with their conclusions.


I don't understand this. "The government" should essentially be us. They should be a good friend selling us shit at cost. When I buy weed off my pot dealing friend, he sells it to me at the same price he gets it. Cost. If I buy off the other guy, I pay a good amount more. If the government is the people serving the people, the people are the greatest benefactors.

I think it's wrong that, in Canada, we sell the right to build lines all through our country, and then the we let the people we sold it to(Bell and Rogers) gauge us for an internet connection.

I can see, however, how it could happen that government run programs might have people in charge who want to look good, so they might strive for a profit. I think this is wrong. It would be wrong for them to turn a profit and then redistribute the profit to other government run programs, but even wronger for them to take that profit and give it as bonuses to their CEO's.

At the end of the day, the problem with "Government" is that it doesn't serve the people, and it won't, unless the people keep on top of them.

We need to call a spade a spade. Like the recently passed law stating corporations can donate unlimited amounts, anonymously. How the eff is there not more outrage regarding that? It doesn't essentially mean the ultra rich control politics, no, not essentially, it 100% means the ultra rich control politics. Why not allow each party a set amount? Wake the fuck up...

"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population." -Noam Chomsky

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think it's more of a philosophical issue than one of semantics, though there's definitely a semantic component.
...
There are probably many logical conclusions that you could take my premise to, but I do not take it to the particular one you insist is required.

That's why I'm saying the issue I'm raising is largely a semantic quibble. I don't think you mean what you're saying. I think you mean to say something close to, but not exactly what you said.

I think you meant to say this:

A totalitarian system has to break the will of every person trapped inside it before freedom can truly be eradicated. Even then, it seems that eventually it springs up anew in people, sometimes it just takes a little longer than others.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
To say one has freedom of speech doesn't mean there are no repercussions for speaking freely. If I go downtown and start screaming racial obscenities, I'm probably going to get my ass kicked (and rightfully so). That doesn't change the fact that I can do that if I want to.

True, but the threat of those repercussions constrain you from acting as you would like to. To draw on the Babylon 5 clip above, they told him to submit, or die. He was already locked in a cell. He'd already been tortured. He'd been beaten. Starved. Deprived of sleep. Poisoned. They even threatened his father's life. The lives of everyone he'd ever loved. In the end, they threatened his own life. They even staged a mock execution, and only at the last second...they just started over at the beginning, as if nothing had happened.

Had he submitted, would you consider his freedom stolen, or surrendered willingly?

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Understand that, in this context, I'm talking about freedom as in our 'self-evident', 'inalienable rights'. Clearly, being imprisoned takes away your physical freedom, but I draw a distinction between that and what I'm talking about. I realize many (most?) people do not.

Yeah, but are they really self-evident? Are they really inalienable? Those were beautiful words, and they were a massively revolutionary sentiment at the time, but it wasn't really a statement of fact about how the universe works. It was a declaration of how things should be, not how they are.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Or maybe they do. How many people here on VideoSplif are waiting for pot to be legalized so they can have a joint? And how many people light up whenever they feel like it? Do you believe the government has given us the right to smoke pot, or is it a right we've taken?

Since pot is still illegal, it's clearly not a right government has given us. It's also clearly not a right -- I can't demand that I can smoke pot, anywhere, anytime, regardless of how anyone else feels about it. I also can't expect pot to be provided to me, whether I can pay for it or not.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I disagree that liberals are "pro-freedom" and conservatives are "anti-freedom"; they simply have different definitions of freedom or, at least, different priorities.

I agree with that, and I was phrasing things the way I was more to illustrate those different ideas about freedom than because I'm enslaved by some black and white view of the world.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
What freedoms do you believe have been given to us by government?


For one, property rights only exist as function of government. Otherwise, "property" would just be whatever you could stop other people from taking away from you.

Most "rights" follow a similar pattern, e.g. right of habeas corpus, right to vote, right to a redress of grievances, etc.

As for "freedoms", you are free to change jobs (or quit entirely) because of government. You are free to demand, and expect pay for your labor. You are free to walk around unarmed thanks to the expectation of law enforcement. No one is allowed to force you to do anything, and if they try, the government is expected to stop them.

Government makes it so there is a threat of violence hanging over the head of those who refuse to respect individual freedom, and that's counterbalanced by a strong societal value that if the government stops respect individual freedom, that we have a duty to remove that government.

As I see it, there seem to be powerful people who are hell bent on eroding the laws and traditions that make up that equilibrium. (And yes, I think they largely wield "conservatives" as a blunt instrument to that end, using them like an auto-immune disease to kill government, so they can go back to the good old days of monarchy)

People on the right seem to act like rights and freedom are something they have that can't be taken away. I think that's insane. Without government, your "freedom" will be taken from you before you can say "caveat emptor." Freedom can and has been stolen, all throughout history. If anything we live in an unprecedented golden age of man where freedom is for most intents and purposes is in the hands of the individual, largely because we turned our governments into democratic collective entities charged with creating a society where individuals can expect to be free.