Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: Reason on August 24, 2013, 01:57 pm
-
Hello All,
I'd be very interested to see if some of my fellow and esteemed SR friends could convince me to take back up the banner of Libertarianism again.
As my subject suggests, I used to be a Libertarian. However, I slowly came to the conclusion that it just won't work. I've now concluded that Libertariansim is a lot like Communism, they both look pretty good on paper, but neither adequately incorporates certain realities of human nature. In fact, they both have the same basic failing, they assume too much uniformity in the human condition, and are too optimistic about that condition.
In Communism, the problem is that it assumes no one really has a desire to have "more" than someone else. It assumes that the most capable will be happy to get the same share as the least capable. Share and share alike. Ridiculous. Brain surgeons want Bentleys, not Yugos.
Libertarianism assumes everyone is ready and willing to compete and work hard, and that everyone has something special to bring to market, if only given the chance. Ridiculous as well. Here's why.
The world is filled with four kind of people in my estimation:
1) Those whom cannot "do"
2) Those whom can "do" a little but are not very motivated to do so.
3) Those whom can "do" a little and are motivated to do so.
4) Those whom can "do" a lot, and are super motivated.
In the perfect Libertarian society, those whom inhabit type 3 & 4 would represent a middle and upper class (modestly well off, and rich respectively). The 1s and 2s would all be poor, and with no governemnt hand-outs would live in squalor unless the 3s & 4s, out of the kindness of their hearts supported them (which is not going to happen, lets face it...we pity the poor...we don't actually like them).
The problem here is that the 1s & 2s...outnumber the 3s and 4s..by quite a large margin in my estimation. Incapable and unmotivated though they may be...they all want to live and feel dignified...and they can all fire a gun.
In the long term, this would lead to violence, and a displacement of the Libertarian system.
Thus I've concluded that the best system is pretty much like the one we have here in the US (and in many other Western contries). There is a safety net, designed to keep the 1s & 2s safe from falling too far into poverty...and keeping the 3s and 4s safe from angry and violent mobs. It's more like a firewall than a safety net.
The only question is...at what level the safety net must be placed...and this will constantly need to be adjusted (based on the economic and social conditions), which our republic is at least dimly able to do over time. It also allows the 3s and 4s to accumulate some wealth, and out of necessity forcibly extracts some of it from them for the safety net (taxes).
It is of course, not an optimal system, but the problem is...that people are not perfect...and thus our system must reflect this reality.
If you think differntly, then please share where has my reasoning failed me? :-)
-
My 2 cents on why Libertarianism & Anarchism can't work is that both of these theories assume all people are responsible and mature persons. But if you have any experience in dealing with people, you cannot possibly come to that conclusion. Some people just need parents to make sure they won't do anything stupid. That's why we unfortunately need a government. I'd love Libertarianism if everyone acted like a responsible person.
-
I agree Chil, it's an unfortunate truth that many people just don't have it goin' on.
I worked the polls for the Libertarian party one year, and this was the beginning of the end for me. I was absolutely blown away by the ignorance (willfull, or not) of the vast majority of the voters. I desperately tried to engage people in thoughtful discussion, but was dismayed that most people didn't know what the Bill of Rights was, nor how many branches of government we have, nor even how many states there were.
They didn't even really know why they were voting the way they did...most just came for the free donuts. They all however voted that day.
It was quite enlightening. It gave me a new appreciation of our system (flawed though it is).
-
Hey Reason, what are your thoughts on a stateless society? Any speculation on why it may or may not work?
The problem I see with the current social model is that it uses aggression to achieve results, i.e. taxation, throwing people in jail for having vegetation on their person. What don't have to be perfect to realize that's just plain BS. I don't think that we solve the problem of injustice and an imbalance of merely economic power by creating a monolithic leviathan state with the ability to start up its own laws, initiate force at will, print up its own money and to imprison at a whim.
-
I agree Chil, it's an unfortunate truth that many people just don't have it goin' on.
I worked the polls for the Libertarian party one year, and this was the beginning of the end for me. I was absolutely blown away by the ignorance (willfull, or not) of the vast majority of the voters. I desperately tried to engage people in thoughtful discussion, but was dismayed that most people didn't know what the Bill of Rights was, nor how many branches of government we have, nor even how many states there were.
They didn't even really know why they were voting the way they did...most just came for the free donuts. They all however voted that day.
It was quite enlightening. It gave me a new appreciation of our system (flawed though it is).
Hope this wasn't for the presidential race..... If you dedicate time to that endeavor then you are an idiot. Americans voting in the general presidential election are wasting there energy as those votes don't even really count. Presidential elections are nothing more than a boat and pony show to keep us quiet. Americans don't choose the President, the fucking electoral college does. And the good people of Washington DC get to pay taxes and don't get a presidential vote so anyone paying taxes in DC is fucking stupid too. You are taxed without ANY representation AT ALL and don't even get to participate in the FAKE ELECTIONS held every 4 years. Wake up people..... Voting for the president is like picking out a new pope. You have nothing to do with it and it is nothing more than a show for the people.
-
What about Ayn Rand's vision of a capitalist society? It is almost libertarian but I feel it addresses the shortcomings of base-libertarianism.
-
What exactly are the 3's and 4's doing for society that makes them super motivated? Seems like A LOT(by no means all, the advances our species has made are astounding) of them are stealing money, and not actually making many contributions. They're motivated by "more" with no real goal in mind. I suppose that you're right about some people just not ever being able to be with it. Although a lot of those greedy fucks are miserable. I'd rather be a poor farmer that is able to be happy his whole life then a miserable rich banker that has 45 houses. (the farmer may not be remembered but the banker will be remembered as greedy) Far enough down the timeline they'll both be forgotten.
I don't exactly think exploitation of our own species is the way forward, it's like we(some) think we're invincible and the earth is an endless mine to make profit off of. Our stupidity could easily be the end of us. Sometimes we mistake stupidity for intelligence...
Although just looking at the education system in America should tell you a lot. I'm not sure about other countries but i'm sure they aren't much better off. You can graduate high school without taking Algebra in some places... Look at the history that is taught, it's all watered down and then spoon fed.( of course His-story, will never be 100% but i mean really?) To do any actual learning you need to do it yourself. Most of the teachers are as boring and unethusiastic as the rest of the people. If you aren't already knowledgeable why the fuck would you be motivated to try and become more intelligent? Society classifies you from the beginning and makes you feel like shit if you aren't smart enough. Things like art and music aren't taken seriously. The world is this dark terrible place that you need to find your place in, and make a living the way the 3's and 4's say is ok. That's my opinion anyway.
Call me crazy but i have hope for the future, maybe it's too many drugs who the fuck knows. But seriously why the fuck aren't we in space? Nasa really only gets half a penny from our tax dollars? (might be a penny, ask my nigga neal) How much does the drug war get? I don't know how you can say this is the best system we have without laughing.
I don't think you need to classify your belief system, just believe what you think or feel is right. Why limit yourself to others view points? As far as people not being perfect you're right, so why would a system we created over a century ago be the best thing for us today? I think the most important changes need to be in education first, sure i'd love an irrational utopian society as much as the next guy, but i don't think humans will be capable of that for a long time. One mans utopia is another mans dystopia. That doesn't mean we can't create a system that is pretty fucking good though, and a hell of a lot better than the current one in place.
Why is buying fresh organic food harder than buying GMO's and other processed foods? And why are there so many government laws that go against small farmers? We really can't grow our own godamn food now?Since when do these psychos think they own the earth? It's almost laughable, then you realize it's the real situation. Fuck this society, it's collapse is inevitable.
I know there's a bunch of grammatical errors and non linear thoughts there, but it's certainly some stuff to think about i guess.
Some more food for thought, the majority of scientists think liberally minded. One of the most respected scientists, carl sagan thought this way. Just read cosmos. :) And listen to neal degrass tyson, very smart man.
-
Hello All,
I'd be very interested to see if some of my fellow and esteemed SR friends could convince me to take back up the banner of Libertarianism again.
As my subject suggests, I used to be a Libertarian. However, I slowly came to the conclusion that it just won't work. I've now concluded that Libertariansim is a lot like Communism, they both look pretty good on paper, but neither adequately incorporates certain realities of human nature. In fact, they both have the same basic failing, they assume too much uniformity in the human condition, and are too optimistic about that condition.
In Communism, the problem is that it assumes no one really has a desire to have "more" than someone else. It assumes that the most capable will be happy to get the same share as the least capable. Share and share alike. Ridiculous. Brain surgeons want Bentleys, not Yugos.
Libertarianism assumes everyone is ready and willing to compete and work hard, and that everyone has something special to bring to market, if only given the chance. Ridiculous as well. Here's why.
The world is filled with four kind of people in my estimation:
1) Those whom cannot "do"
2) Those whom can "do" a little but are not very motivated to do so.
3) Those whom can "do" a little and are motivated to do so.
4) Those whom can "do" a lot, and are super motivated.
In the perfect Libertarian society, those whom inhabit type 3 & 4 would represent a middle and upper class (modestly well off, and rich respectively). The 1s and 2s would all be poor, and with no governemnt hand-outs would live in squalor unless the 3s & 4s, out of the kindness of their hearts supported them (which is not going to happen, lets face it...we pity the poor...we don't actually like them).
The problem here is that the 1s & 2s...outnumber the 3s and 4s..by quite a large margin in my estimation. Incapable and unmotivated though they may be...they all want to live and feel dignified...and they can all fire a gun.
In the long term, this would lead to violence, and a displacement of the Libertarian system.
Thus I've concluded that the best system is pretty much like the one we have here in the US (and in many other Western contries). There is a safety net, designed to keep the 1s & 2s safe from falling too far into poverty...and keeping the 3s and 4s safe from angry and violent mobs. It's more like a firewall than a safety net.
The only question is...at what level the safety net must be placed...and this will constantly need to be adjusted (based on the economic and social conditions), which our republic is at least dimly able to do over time. It also allows the 3s and 4s to accumulate some wealth, and out of necessity forcibly extracts some of it from them for the safety net (taxes).
It is of course, not an optimal system, but the problem is...that people are not perfect...and thus our system must reflect this reality.
If you think differntly, then please share where has my reasoning failed me? :-)
1) If people aren't ready to compete or work hard, then why would you give them shit for free?
2) disabled people or people whom can't work, there are not a ton of those people, if you have proper definitions of what is considered disabled (not being able to dial a phone number is enough to get a disabled sticker on your car) then you cut the number of disabled down A LOT. So those people can be taken care of via other means.
3) People wouldn't need a safety-net, because you wouldn't be reliant on businesses to hire you. You could sell drugs, you could start up a service (be it car repair or whatever you want) If you are working for someone else and you get downsized or w/e you take what you learned from that business and start a competing business or a start up. If people aren't willing to do that, then they have to deal with that choice, why is my responsibility to make people happy or not poor?
I don't have all the answers or a solution for every problem, but I know hundreds, if not thousands of people whom have really good ideas, but can't do it because it takes so much money to even start a business. Get rid of the regulatory system and you will see business boom and unemployment drop to nearly zero. Will there be tragedy of the commons issues? absolutely, but just like anything else, people have a way to fix those issues. The market will find the bad businesses and destroy them then good business will thrive! There would be no LLC, no CORP protection. no government to protect big business interest, lobbying would die and businesses would thrive.
I'd rather go through growing pangs in a free market than the system we have now.
-
Sorry, but aside from the illegality of selling drugs, what exactly are these 'huge barriers to entry' for starting a new business that you believe aren't currently possible under the current western system?
(+1 for you, Reason. A nicely reasoned, non-dogmatic dialogue starter!)
-
Sorry, but aside from the illegality of selling drugs, what exactly are these 'huge barriers to entry' for starting a new business that you believe aren't currently possible under the current western system?
(+1 for you, Reason. A nicely reasoned, non-dogmatic dialogue starter!)
If you operate a Bitcoin exchange you need to know my customers. Running a digital currency exchange in the USA is begging to go to prison even if you try to follow the law. You need to figure out how much tax you owe, etc. If you make a new drug it needs to be approved by the FDA. There are regulations and laws galore, you are naive as hell if you think drugs being illegal to sell is the only way that the government strangles businesses.
-
The real issue is to deal with people who fall into #2, which would leave 3/4ths of the society that you've modeled in tact and functional--assuming #1 is no greater than ~1-8% of the population.
People of #2 are the reason why the rest suffer. In any economy that you structure, those people would be the ones you'd have to work around the most.
Also, you make one err: assuming that "hard work" equals more money. This has shown not the be the case, albeit somewhat indirectly.
1) Assume we live in an industrial nation (we do)
2) Assume said industrialization has moved labor from being physically-oriented to mental (it has)
3) Assume there are stratifications of "hard work," each coinciding by the level of difficulty of the mental task.
4) Thus the more challenging jobs are the ones that require the highest amount of thought.
There are Engineers making the next product, who will be outearned by a CEO who studied buisness and had a few connects. Clearly hard work does not always equate.
Honestly, although I enjoyed your post, it's very black/white, which is inherently the problem with non-dynamic government systems.
-
Sorry, but aside from the illegality of selling drugs, what exactly are these 'huge barriers to entry' for starting a new business that you believe aren't currently possible under the current western system?
(+1 for you, Reason. A nicely reasoned, non-dogmatic dialogue starter!)
If you operate a Bitcoin exchange you need to know my customers. Running a digital currency exchange in the USA is begging to go to prison even if you try to follow the law. You need to figure out how much tax you owe, etc. If you make a new drug it needs to be approved by the FDA. There are regulations and laws galore, you are naive as hell if you think drugs being illegal to sell is the only way that the government strangles businesses.
So Alternative B being you just release a new untested drug on the unsuspecting populous and then hide behind libertarianism when they start dying?
I know, I know....the response you just started typing runs along the lines of "Well, they're stupid and deserved to die because nobody forced them to take the drugs blah blah blah".
Again, this is the problem I have with especially US-style libertarianism. It's just so sanctimonious, non-empathetic AND is in complete denial when it comes to human psychology. Complete freedom is a myth. Heck, even Krauss doesn't believe in free will, and he's a popular science writer!
And why is it, that every time I meet or talk to a libertarian, they're always white, middle class, disaffected 'engineer-type' personalities? They don't understand or 'like' people, so they chew their xanax like lollies and grumble about how stupid people are and how the government is out to get them and how mum doesn't like their pot use.
Libertarians never work in the social sciences, they're never at the soup kitchens, helping the homeless, donating to NGO's, doing volunteer work....they're always snivelling white guys in black jeans complaining about things but never actually doing anything except pushing their own barrow. It's all about me, me, and people who think like me, look like me, could possibly help me out when things turn to shit because I'm not half as smart as I think I am type guys.
And there's always a 50:1 male/female ratio at libertarian meetups, to boot. That tells ya something. And that 1 female has some major daddy issues.
:)
-
So many thoughtful and interesting comments and questions! Many thanks to you all for engaging in this fun exercise.
Hey Reason, what are your thoughts on a stateless society? Any speculation on why it may or may not work?
I'm uncertain that this would work. My primary concern is that government (good government) provides a great deal of structure within which humans can conduct themselves safely, in other words rule of law. Without rule of law, we bascially have mob justice, and might makes right, and this would not allow non-violent people to be able to excel. This may seem odd coming from a SR user, however, I honestly believe that a large part of my willingness to participate is an act of civil disobedience. I don't agree with the law in this case and actively try to change it and defy it. I do however respect the concept of rule of law.
Complete freedom has no rules on behavior at all, and would descend into a lord of the flies world. Not attractive IMO.
-
I agree Chil, it's an unfortunate truth that many people just don't have it goin' on.
I worked the polls for the Libertarian party one year, and this was the beginning of the end for me. I was absolutely blown away by the ignorance (willfull, or not) of the vast majority of the voters.
Hope this wasn't for the presidential race..... If you dedicate time to that endeavor then you are an idiot. ...Americans don't choose the President, the fucking electoral college does. ... Wake up people..... Voting for the president is like picking out a new pope. You have nothing to do with it and it is nothing more than a show for the people.
I'm afraid that it was. However, I don't necessarily agree with your characterization of the electoral college. Granted, in most states the outcome is a foregone conclusion, however, there are many so called "battle ground" states in which the outcome is not only up in the air, but has a decisive effect on the outcome. Certainly this is why campaigns are so damned expensive. I can't imagine they'd drop that kind of cash for a simply show.
However, given the state of the electorate, these contests are not nearly as much intellectual debates of merit of the various platforms, but more akin to beauty contests. Participating as I did was not idiotic, but in retrospect it was rather ill informed.
-
What about Ayn Rand's vision of a capitalist society? It is almost libertarian but I feel it addresses the shortcomings of base-libertarianism.
While deeply involved in the ideas of Libertarianism I tried to read Atlas Shrugged. Ugh...it was awful and couldn't get through it. So I'm afriad I'm unfamiliar with her concepts. Can you share some of the core tenets?
-
What exactly are the 3's and 4's doing for society that makes them super motivated? Seems like A LOT(by no means all, the advances our species has made are astounding) of them are stealing money, and not actually making many contributions. They're motivated by "more" with no real goal in mind. I suppose that you're right about some people just not ever being able to be with it. Although a lot of those greedy fucks are miserable. I'd rather be a poor farmer that is able to be happy his whole life then a miserable rich banker that has 45 houses. (the farmer may not be remembered but the banker will be remembered as greedy) Far enough down the timeline they'll both be forgotten.
I don't exactly think exploitation of our own species is the way forward, it's like we(some) think we're invincible and the earth is an endless mine to make profit off of. Our stupidity could easily be the end of us. Sometimes we mistake stupidity for intelligence...
Although just looking at the education system in America should tell you a lot. I'm not sure about other countries but i'm sure they aren't much better off. You can graduate high school without taking Algebra in some places... Look at the history that is taught, it's all watered down and then spoon fed.( of course His-story, will never be 100% but i mean really?) To do any actual learning you need to do it yourself. Most of the teachers are as boring and unethusiastic as the rest of the people. If you aren't already knowledgeable why the fuck would you be motivated to try and become more intelligent? Society classifies you from the beginning and makes you feel like shit if you aren't smart enough. Things like art and music aren't taken seriously. The world is this dark terrible place that you need to find your place in, and make a living the way the 3's and 4's say is ok. That's my opinion anyway.
Call me crazy but i have hope for the future, maybe it's too many drugs who the fuck knows. But seriously why the fuck aren't we in space? Nasa really only gets half a penny from our tax dollars? (might be a penny, ask my nigga neal) How much does the drug war get? I don't know how you can say this is the best system we have without laughing.
I don't think you need to classify your belief system, just believe what you think or feel is right. Why limit yourself to others view points? As far as people not being perfect you're right, so why would a system we created over a century ago be the best thing for us today? I think the most important changes need to be in education first, sure i'd love an irrational utopian society as much as the next guy, but i don't think humans will be capable of that for a long time. One mans utopia is another mans dystopia. That doesn't mean we can't create a system that is pretty fucking good though, and a hell of a lot better than the current one in place.
Why is buying fresh organic food harder than buying GMO's and other processed foods? And why are there so many government laws that go against small farmers? We really can't grow our own godamn food now?Since when do these psychos think they own the earth? It's almost laughable, then you realize it's the real situation. Fuck this society, it's collapse is inevitable.
I know there's a bunch of grammatical errors and non linear thoughts there, but it's certainly some stuff to think about i guess.
Some more food for thought, the majority of scientists think liberally minded. One of the most respected scientists, carl sagan thought this way. Just read cosmos. :) And listen to neal degrass tyson, very smart man.
Ah the voice of a human with the heart of an artist in moral outrage. Always wonderful to hear! This is the voice of our collective conscience, reminding us of our responsibilities to the planet and each other. Give 'em hell friend!
You make many good points here. The bottom line is I agree with you largely. Our system must make room for the intellecual free thinker and yes the classic starving artist.
These folks are in 2 category. They have the ability to be very productive in a market economy, but are unmotivated to do so. Please don't mistake my saying this as passing judgement, rather I suggest that people of this ilk are making a moral and informed decision not to participate, and many of these people enrich our culture if not our wallets.
Thus again...the safety net has purpose here, we must be willing to support these type of people. Lest their creative genious be turned toward ill ends. I've known people whom were artists, and parents, and they railed against "the system", but when they had a baby, well...they needed medical support and feasted on government cheese. I loved their art and I loved them.
You also point out that the system allows devious an those with ill intent to rob and plunder. Indeed, this is true, and is a short coming. However, it is IMO, a necessary evil. The accumulation of wealth (illicit or otherwise) is necessary for the overall exercise. The ones and twos will be able to be fed and clothed from the treasure the government forcibly extracts from these folks.
BTW: Another important point in my worldview is that we must have a system that allows the advance of science. Our world is doomed, and this is just a fact. Perhaps we will do it (global warming, nucluear war, biological disaster), or perhaps it will be natural (massive commet, gamma ray burst, super-volcano, coronal mass ejection). Which means that we must get the hell off this planet and begin colonizing other worlds, and as soon as possible.
I agree whole heartedly with Carl Sagan's characterization of humanity, we are the universe "woken up" and just beginning to regard itself. Humanity is therefore precious. We must not let ourselves be extinguised. We're very groovy. :-)
-
Absolutely love this thread.
The fact is, the ideas brought forward as ideal "libertarianism" today are incredibly naive, simplistic and in many ways as deluded as religions in that they all "believe" in this invisible, intangible, unprovable "force" that will make everything right for everyone - namely, Adam Smith's invisible hand.
Libertarians today subscribe to this simpleton logic that "Ponderosa Ranch sells bad steaks, people will stop buying steaks from Ponderosa Ranch" as cure-it-all for any and all market failures. Obviously, this idea falls flat on it's nose as soon as the Ponderosa Ranch has enough liquid assets to spend on making sure their "bad steaks" aren't being exposed to the public, to hire "crisis managers" and "social media monitors" to mitigate the impact of "bad publicity". OP's observation that what people think would be working libertarianism is just as poppycock as communism is one of the sharpest observations and parallels I've seen on here in a while.... big +1.
I have for a very long time felt that those favoring extreme libertarianism in societies with extreme labor division simply lack the perspective to understand just how many "victims" their preferred form of market Darwinism would produce, and worse, how severe these failings would impact the affected.
Your life savings gone because some financial sheister screwed you? Your fault, you should have informed yourself better.
But please do tell how is a carpenter, electrician, HVAC maintenance guy etc. to inform himself in a subject matter so complex that even those within the industry don't understand the complexity of the instruments they trade. 2007 crash anyone?
Adam Smith is by and large considered the "father" of capitalism, and Wealth of Nations - particularly division of labor - is one of the most quoted works on capitalism still today. However, a lot of those purporting to be "libertarian" today will usually quote from the first half of the book, presumably because they don't like that even Adam Smith, father of capitalism himself, stipulated that the division of labor will reach a point where an external force (government, regulation) will be needed to maintain a healthy balance of interests.
Anyways, short on time just now but I'll sure be back for more....
-
1) If people aren't ready to compete or work hard, then why would you give them shit for free?
2) disabled people or people whom can't work, there are not a ton of those people, if you have proper definitions of what is considered disabled (not being able to dial a phone number is enough to get a disabled sticker on your car) then you cut the number of disabled down A LOT. So those people can be taken care of via other means.
3) People wouldn't need a safety-net, because you wouldn't be reliant on businesses to hire you. You could sell drugs, you could start up a service (be it car repair or whatever you want) If you are working for someone else and you get downsized or w/e you take what you learned from that business and start a competing business or a start up. If people aren't willing to do that, then they have to deal with that choice, why is my responsibility to make people happy or not poor?
I don't have all the answers or a solution for every problem, but I know hundreds, if not thousands of people whom have really good ideas, but can't do it because it takes so much money to even start a business. Get rid of the regulatory system and you will see business boom and unemployment drop to nearly zero. Will there be tragedy of the commons issues? absolutely, but just like anything else, people have a way to fix those issues. The market will find the bad businesses and destroy them then good business will thrive! There would be no LLC, no CORP protection. no government to protect big business interest, lobbying would die and businesses would thrive.
I'd rather go through growing pangs in a free market than the system we have now.
Interesting points, responded to in order:
1) Because otherwise they may organize themselves into a violent mob and take it from you (destroying all in their path on the way). The French revolution is a cautionary tale here. Also, we do have a moral imperative to care for those in our society whom are unable (and yes unwilling) to care for themselves. We are human beings, and reciprocal altruism is at the heart of how our minds evolved to work. We also therefore expect that should we fall, our neighbors will not sit idly by, they would carry us. Thus we are willing to carry others.
2) Yes there are always freeloaders, and they should not be coddled. It should not be easy or sexy to get government cheese. It must be however possible.
3) If only this were true. However even in a world of totally unfettered capatalism, there are many whom simply could not comete (again either willfully or not). Keep in mind, half of everyone is below average intelligence, and even those at the half point up...may not be willing to do so (for whatever reason). Dismissing thier needs would be dangerous, and morally questionable. Government is the means by which we as a community implement our decision to care for these people.
I also know a lot of people with good ideas, grand dreams and aspirations. I have them too. However, I soon forget about them and end up riding my bike or watching TV. This puts me solidly in the 3 category, I work, but not too hard, and I'd be a terrible business person (I'm just not that motivated by money). It's those 4s that are the engines of business...and if your friends were 4s..they cut through that red tape and make it happen (others have, and what one man can do another can do...given the drive and intelligence).
-
Sorry, but aside from the illegality of selling drugs, what exactly are these 'huge barriers to entry' for starting a new business that you believe aren't currently possible under the current western system?
(+1 for you, Reason. A nicely reasoned, non-dogmatic dialogue starter!)
If you operate a Bitcoin exchange you need to know my customers. Running a digital currency exchange in the USA is begging to go to prison even if you try to follow the law. You need to figure out how much tax you owe, etc. If you make a new drug it needs to be approved by the FDA. There are regulations and laws galore, you are naive as hell if you think drugs being illegal to sell is the only way that the government strangles businesses.
Firstly, thanks Yowie!
Secondly, there are always barriers to entry into a market. Surely the government puts them there, but so do competitors. The bottom line is that market is about whom can overcome and compete most effectively in the given environment. Surely we'd not complain that an American Nija Warrior (a popular show I'm told) has to surmount too many obstacles to win. It's part of the game!
-
People of #2 are the reason why the rest suffer. In any economy that you structure, those people would be the ones you'd have to work around the most.
...
There are Engineers making the next product, who will be outearned by a CEO who studied buisness and had a few connects. Clearly hard work does not always equate.
Honestly, although I enjoyed your post, it's very black/white, which is inherently the problem with non-dynamic government systems.
Some very thoughtful insights.
I'd first say that passing judgement on everyone in the number two category as being "bad" is likely inaccurate. As I mentioned in another response, many of these people are artists, intellectuals, religious followers (idiots...I do pass judgment on these leeches...ugh don't get me started. Religion is one of our biggest problems...but I'll save that for another post), and yes...just lazy people. The point is...that just because these people don't contribute to wealth, they may contribute in other ways. Regardless....wishing them away will not work. We must rationally acknowledge they exist, and find a way of integrating them effectively into society.
As to the CEO making more than the brilliant engineer, well...if the engineer is so brilliant and wants what the CEO has...why haven't they simply taken the steps to become the CEO and displace that dolt?! The answer...is that it takes a certain set of skills and intelectual abilities to become a rock-star CEO. These people (4s) are paid the way they are, because they have made money for the stockholders of the company. The government must be there to forcibly extract some money from the company and the CEO to pay for the 1s and 2s. The brilliant engineer is solidly in the 3 category, but is free to go for the green. But they are also free to just bitch about things over beer with their buddies. I'll drink to that too!
-
This is directly from aynrandlexicon.org, the book Atlas Shrugged is great but it is a slow start, once it gets going momentum wise it is actually quite good:
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
-
*All links clearnet*
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/
Atlas Shrugged: Part I
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1985017/
Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike
Just see the movies. Then read the best parts of the book such as the Money Speech.
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-speech/
Rand was a terrible writer but her thoughts about business and self interest are completely untouchable. Atlas Shrugged wasn't just a book she took 10 years to write. It's also a prophecy. One that's already come true in Detroit and in the process of coming true all across America and Europe.
-
Rand was a terrible writer but her thoughts about business and self interest are completely untouchable.
Bullshit. She was a downright weirdo who thought the ultimate "superman" was the child kidnapper/murderer she fell in love with.
I'm not even making this up.
-
From the Money Speech:
"Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed."
It's really amazing how spot on she was about the future. Society here IS doomed. Capitalism in America and most of Europe is already dead. We just don't know it yet.
Keep on slinging mud and rocks at Rand! Doesn't make her any less truthful or right.
Child murderer? Really??? Was she the first member of Al Qaeda too? ;D ::)
-
It happens to be true. Try reading a biography on your hero.
Yes, SHE NOTICED THE CONTRADICTION OF CAPITALISM. Congratulations.
PS, Marx noted it too, noted it more eloquently, noted it with better research, and with more impact. Oh, and first.
-
SHE NOTICED THE CONTRADICTION OF CAPITALISM.
Under Capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism it's the other way around.
-
Rocknessie +1000
Ayn Rand was a semi-psychotic whackjob on speed. Just watch her in interviews on youtube, certifiable amph'ed out psycho.
Quality criteria that made you a "hero" in Rand's eyes:
a) Have a lot of money
b) Shit on those that have less money than you
c) Don't in any way associate with or recognize the benefits of government
Meaning, the sheister banksters that crashed the world economy in 06/07/09 she would have been perfectly fine with, after all, they didn't use a bat or a gun to get their way, which were her sole simpleton criteria of defining "force"...
As for Atlas shrugged, one of the worst contrived, long-winded, pseudo-allegorical, (unintentionally) simplistic, badly written pieces in the history of writing itself.
-
SHE NOTICED THE CONTRADICTION OF CAPITALISM.
Under Capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism it's the other way around.
E for effort.
The contradiction of Capitalism is Capital is able to organise more effectively than Labour, as Capital is able to purchase the judicial system, political system, the media. Having established dominance Capital then seeks to increase itself though increased profits by activities such as lowering wages in real terms. So the workers are being paid less but required to buy as much and even encouraged to buy more, Credit is great for this. It then happens eventually the workers are unable to afford the goods and the system collapses.
There you go. The Contradiction of Capitalism in one paragraph.
PS. Even ADAM SMITH noticed it, as a consequence he was in favour of heavily regulated Capitalism.
-
Ann Rand
William Edward Hickman stated in 1928, "I am like the state: what is good for me is right." Rand wrote in her journal regarding his statement "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard." Hickman made quite an impression on Rand, because she deliberately modeled Danny Renahan, the hero of a planned novel titled The Little Street, on Hickman, according to Rand scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra. Rand also wrote regarding Renahan, "Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should."
By now you might assume that Hickman was a great philosopher or something like that. The Malefactor's Register and Fate, Death and The Fox documented the grisly reality.
In Los Angeles on 12/15/1927, the 19-year-old Hickman told the 12-year-old Marion Parker's school principal that her father had become seriously ill. The principal allowed Hickman to take her even though he had asked for “the younger daughter,” clearly ignorant of the fact that she was a twin. Hickman sent a letter to her father demanding money, a price was agreed upon, and a rendezvous was set. Her father gave $1500 to Hickman who was waiting for him in a Ford roadster. Her father saw his daughter in a package showing only her head on the passenger seat next to Hickman; her father assumed she had been chloroformed. After Hickman received the money, he drove down the block with Marion still in the car. Hickman stopped, pushed her out of the car, and drove away. Her father ran to her and only then realized that the package only contained her head and torso. Hickman had cut off her arms and legs and removed her internal organs and replaced them with rags. Her back showed signs of flogging. Marion’s arms and legs were later found in a park, wrapped in newspaper.
This was Rand's "real man," someone who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl, almost certainly raped her, and butchered her like a farm animal. One can only hope he killed her before butchering her, but one report stated that he believed she was alive when he began to dismember her.
Rand expressed contempt for those who disliked her heroic killer: "The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority' . . . It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal."
Source of the article, clearweb, includes other clearweb links giving citations of various facts:
http://saucymugwump.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/alan-greenspan-ayn-rand-and-child.html
Another one:
The mutilations Hickman inflicted on little Marian were worse than reported in the excerpt above. He cut the girl’s body in half, and severed her hands (or arms, depending on the source). He drained her torso of blood and stuffed it with bath towels.
…
In her notes, Rand complains that poor Hickman has become the target of irrational and ugly mob psychology:
“The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the ‘virtuous’ indignation and mass-hatred of the ‘majority.’… It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal…
“This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. It is the fact that a crime has been committed by one man, alone; that this man knew it was against all laws of humanity and intended that way; that he does not want to recognize it as a crime and that he feels superior to all. It is the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul.”
CLEARLINK WARNING #2, https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/ayn-rands-love-of-a-serial-killer/
Anyone who is a fan of rape-fiction author Ann Rand (ever try reading her sex scenes?) is someone you do not want to babysit any of your children.
-
I've now concluded that Libertariansim is a lot like Communism, they both look pretty good on paper, but neither adequately incorporates certain realities of human nature. In fact, they both have the same basic failing, they assume too much uniformity in the human condition, and are too optimistic about that condition.
Bingo. Same reason I no longer identify with libertarianism.
Like Marget Thatcher once said, "Socialism is great, until you run out of other people's money."
Or another famous Brit, Churchill said, "Capitalism is the worst form of government. Until you've tried all the rest."
-
Rocknessie +1000
Ayn Rand was a semi-psychotic whackjob on speed. Just watch her in interviews on youtube, certifiable amph'ed out psycho.
Quality criteria that made you a "hero" in Rand's eyes:
a) Have a lot of money
b) Shit on those that have less money than you
c) Don't in any way associate with or recognize the benefits of government
Meaning, the sheister banksters that crashed the world economy in 06/07/09 she would have been perfectly fine with, after all, they didn't use a bat or a gun to get their way, which were her sole simpleton criteria of defining "force"...
As for Atlas shrugged, one of the worst contrived, long-winded, pseudo-allegorical, (unintentionally) simplistic, badly written pieces in the history of writing itself.
This is a bit of an ad-hominem attack on her ideals. Her ideal person is simply one who is productive and makes no sacrifices (her definition of sacrifice probably differs than what most people have in mind). She was not against helping people, she was against helping someone out of a sense of duty or because "you had to".
Understanding Atlas Shrugged properly you would see that being "wealthy" was not necessary to fit that ideal persona, many of the railroad workers during the crisis were shown as great individuals, albeit without wealth.
She would not have condoned the behavior of the banksters having to do with the economical crash. The banksters behaved in much the same way the government subsidized organization in Atlas Shrugged behaved. Being wealthy as a result of sucking the government's dick is not something Rand would have looked highly upon. Furthermore, her definition of force was not limited to physical force. For example, in the states we pay taxes because we are forced; the IRS isn't going to beat the shit out of you for not paying but depending on the amount, you could end up in prison (that is the force). The bankers here were in bed with the gov't and were using the monopoly on force that the government currently holds.
Rand was also only opposed to government actions where force is used. This would cover all forms of welfare and any other government institutions that are funded through "forced" taxation. She did recognize the need for government for the protection of individual rights (aka courts, police, military, etc). In a government where its only function is to protect individual rights a voluntary tax system would likely be successful (I know I would pay a good 10-20% of my income for my own protection).
Lastly, she did make some mistakes in her personal life, no matter what mistakes she made, those decisions are independent of the philosophy and ideals she developed. I say, "murder is bad" if I go and kill someone, it does not make my original statement of "murder is bad" less valid, it just makes me a hypocrite at worst; the same can be applied to her.
P.S She did apply and receive gov't benefits in her life, why? because under objectivist ethics it is proper to reclaim taxes you were forced to pay during your working life in the form of benefits. If at any point the welfare you receive exceeds what you've been forced to pay, then it become unethical.
-xoxo
-
Lastly, she did make some mistakes in her personal life, no matter what mistakes she made, those decisions are independent of the philosophy and ideals she developed.
Absolutely not. Her "mistakes" in her "personal life" were to praise the very EPITOME of her philosophy. The trouble is the very epitome of her philosophy EXACTLY IS the kind of guy who would abduct and dismember a twelve year old girl.
-
What are your opinions on agorism and anarcho-capitalism?
-
Lastly, she did make some mistakes in her personal life, no matter what mistakes she made, those decisions are independent of the philosophy and ideals she developed.
Absolutely not. Her "mistakes" in her "personal life" were to praise the very EPITOME of her philosophy. The trouble is the very epitome of her philosophy EXACTLY IS the kind of guy who would abduct and dismember a twelve year old girl.
Again, while that is not very cool for her to praise the guy, and it has served to discredit her, it does not change the merit of her work. Would be the equivalent of, I dunno, say Jesus giving a high five to Hitler (in some weird alternate universe). It would be really fucked up of him to do and would go against his work, but it would not directly discredit his arguments/miracles.
Yeah it really sucks that she was fond of that guy, but it does not change the merit of her political and ethical writings.
I know where you are coming from though and actions like that are why it has become hard for a lot of people to understand/accept objectivism. In the end she, as a human, was fallible.
-
Rocknessie +1000
Ayn Rand was a semi-psychotic whackjob on speed. Just watch her in interviews on youtube, certifiable amph'ed out psycho.
Quality criteria that made you a "hero" in Rand's eyes:
a) Have a lot of money
b) Shit on those that have less money than you
c) Don't in any way associate with or recognize the benefits of government
Meaning, the sheister banksters that crashed the world economy in 06/07/09 she would have been perfectly fine with, after all, they didn't use a bat or a gun to get their way, which were her sole simpleton criteria of defining "force"...
As for Atlas shrugged, one of the worst contrived, long-winded, pseudo-allegorical, (unintentionally) simplistic, badly written pieces in the history of writing itself.
Actually if not for the government the banks would have serious competition and also would be prohibited from engaging in fractional reserve banking, so it is actually the governments fault that the banksters crashed the world economy.
-
Yeah it really sucks that she was fond of that guy, but it does not change the merit of her political and ethical writings.
It does because her fondness for that guy was BASED on her ethnics and philosophy.... praised of the unrestrained ego. She praised HIM and she praised him for a reason. It wasn't she fell in love with a hunk with a shady past. It was she loved him because he was the shining example of her philosophy incarnate. That's the point. SHE was weird and nasty - and so was her CREED.
And yes, as for your weird example, if Jesus were to praise Hitler it would indeed discredit him as a universal messiah. However, and at a tangent, him as a universal messiah is discredited by his own Sermon on the Mount, the reference to "pearls before swine, unholy before dogs" is not, as Christian apologist reinterpret, Jesus telling his flock to not preach to the unconverted. Both dogs and swine are Talmudic clichés for gentiles (the unclean). Literally Jesus was telling his flock not to preach the world of the Jewish god to non-Jews. The idea of Jesus as a messiah for non-Jews is something Jesus never contemplated - it was something Paul got into for there was lots of money in Greece.
-
Actually if not for the government the banks would have serious competition and also would be prohibited from engaging in fractional reserve banking, so it is actually the governments fault that the banksters crashed the world economy.
Do you have an EVIDENCE the lack of a rise of ethical, sustainable banking is due to any government preventing them?
Cite your working and evidence, please.
-
Actually if not for the government the banks would have serious competition and also would be prohibited from engaging in fractional reserve banking, so it is actually the governments fault that the banksters crashed the world economy.
Do you have an EVIDENCE the lack of a rise of ethical, sustainable banking is due to any government preventing them?
Cite your working and evidence, please.
It's not that government prevented anything, it is that government provided incentives for banks to practice unsustainable models (ie subprime lending on a mass scale).
-
I guess this kind of "argument" shows the true desperation of Rand haters. The Little Street was never finished and was only published after her death. But whatever dirt you can dig up on her and anyone else who disagrees with you right? Don't both to actually attack her theories on money and business. Just tar and feather her instead.
Everyone has done things that they're not proud of. EVERYONE. Especially a young, depressed person alienated in a foreign country with barely a pot to piss in. But I guess that's fair game to people like you. EVERYTHING is fair game to a proud Communist ::) :o
http://freestudents.blogspot.ca/2010/03/smearing-ayn-rand-nietzsche-and.html
Clearnet: Smearing Ayn: Rand, Nietzsche and the Purposeless Monster
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=604618
Clearnet: Did Ayn Rand idolize a serial killer?
Source of the article, clearweb, includes other clearweb links giving citations of various facts:
http://saucymugwump.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/alan-greenspan-ayn-rand-and-child.html
....
-
Actually if not for the government the banks would have serious competition and also would be prohibited from engaging in fractional reserve banking, so it is actually the governments fault that the banksters crashed the world economy.
Do you have an EVIDENCE the lack of a rise of ethical, sustainable banking is due to any government preventing them?
Cite your working and evidence, please.
It's not that government prevented anything, it is that government provided incentives for banks to practice unsustainable models (ie subprime lending on a mass scale).
Not even that, the sub-prime thing has been disproven as causal to the crash. If anything it was a LACK of government regulation, quite the opposite to too much government interference.
-
I guess you missed the blatant fact that the revolving door between the banks and government is the largest open collaboration between business and government there is.
Maybe you just aren't aware that the current head of Goldman Sachs was secretly negotiating with the former head of Goldman Sachs for who would survive and who wouldn't after the financial crisis was over. That former head of Goldman Sachs was the Secretary of the Treasury. Another former head of Goldman Sachs was Jon Corzine, the former governor of New Jersey. Lookup MF Global sometime. It's like a smaller version of Enron and Madoff put together.
But I don't think facts matter to you. I'm wasting my time just writing this.
Honestly why do I even bother? Hopefully this stuff won't fall completely on deaf ears in this thread.
Actually if not for the government the banks would have serious competition and also would be prohibited from engaging in fractional reserve banking, so it is actually the governments fault that the banksters crashed the world economy.
Do you have an EVIDENCE the lack of a rise of ethical, sustainable banking is due to any government preventing them?
Cite your working and evidence, please.
-
You're a funny guy! ;D ::)
Let me TRY to make it simple for you: a lot of money was plowed into housing from 2000 until about 2007. A LOT of money. Trillions of dollars. Government and the Federal Reserve ENCOURAGED it. In order to sell the mortgages on those properties- behavior that is 100% encouraged by the Treasury-backed government-sponsored enterprises (Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie)- the use of derivatives was again ENCOURAGED. The government through these GSEs was the biggest backer of mortgage-backed securities. They gave the investment banks a huge amount of business during the housing bubble.
Other kinds of derivatives were created to get through loopholes especially crafted by the bankers best friends in government. The two types of derivatives which directly caused the crisis were called Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Debt Obligations. Banks and other institutions wrote CDS "insurance" on CDO derivatives which were really just a basket of 3 different "slices" of mortgages. When housing prices took a big hit, the CDOs took a much bigger hit. That's when the CDS insurance was supposed to kick in. Too bad they were backed by little or nothing. Anyone (every financial institution out there) holding a CDS received no insurance at all. Anyone who wrote a CDS contract (every financial institution out there) was on the hook for tens of billions of dollars that were lost on the CDOs.
Who was the first casualty of all this? Fannie Mae. The government decided to start a crisis specifically designed to put more power in the hands of fewer commercial and investment banks. Goldman Sachs #1. Treasury bailed Fannie out for 90 cents on the dollar- not completely so that it would set off a run on all the CDS insurance on Fannie's paper. That's exactly what happened and Goldman's biggest competitor Lehman was gone in a week. The rest of the crisis followed and didn't end for another 6 months.
The problem is not not NOT (!!!!!) the lack of regulation. It never was. The problem is SELECTIVE regulation drafted and enforced under a gang of fascists and armed thugs. If you're part of the government's revolving door, special boy's club you're fine. If you're not then you're fucking dead meat if they want you to be. It's just that simple.
Asking the government to solve this problem or pretty much any other is like asking Richard Ramirez for a haircut.
I probably made a big mistake by even posting this.... Hopefully not.
Not even that, the sub-prime thing has been disproven as causal to the crash. If anything it was a LACK of government regulation, quite the opposite to too much government interference.
-
In a more layman style of argument. Notice the banks that didn't need bailing out....to my knowledge they are also the banks that are least involved with the gov't. What happened there was similar to Atlas Shrugged and the businesses that survived only because of favorable regulation, business that would have otherwise died on merit alone.
Like Baraka said, instead of attacking the person it would be nice for you to address specific theories/arguments that she made. aynrandlexicon.org (clearnet) is a good place where you can find her stuff in an organized fashion.
-
What are your opinions on agorism and anarcho-capitalism?
Hi Mr. Gonzo,
Thanks for asking (as it made me look up both terms...I love learning new things!). Hmmm..well based on the two definitions in WikiPedia, which are:
"Agorists consider themselves market anarchists, while many characterize it as a form of left-libertarianism.[2] Agorists generally oppose voting for political candidates and political reform. Instead, agorists stress the importance of alternative strategies rather than politics to achieve a free society. Agorists claim that we can achieve a free society more easily and sooner by employing such alternative methods as education, direct action, alternative currencies, entrepreneurship, self sufficiency, and most importantly "counter-economics".[1] Agorists consider their message to be scientific because science is an appeal to reason, which they believe is only possible in the Agora or free market. Agorists believe that State backed, regulated and funded science is illegitimate.[3]"
"[anarcho-capitalism] ...is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.[4][5] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics."
I guess the fact that I use SR, would suggest that at least I'm not wholly opposed to many of the ideas in Agorism (if we agree that counter-economics is the study and practice of engaging in the market of things forbidden by the government). Still, there are some things that are forbidden, that I'd not be interested in studying or in practicing (weird pedo porn, or nuclear weapons for example). I also would have to say that a great deal of basic science would not be pursued if not supported by the government (as there is very little profit in basic science, although basic science is needed to make the breakthroughs which eventually turn into goods and services). Therefore I consider basic science what Adam Smith called an externality to the market, and an appropriate area of government involvement.
As for the anarcho-capitalism, well...it sort of sounds like mob rule (with various private police forces being paid to enforce someone's version of the law for profit). I think this is probably how some of the old fiefdoms ran, as there were armies which could be rented for various engagements by various govenors or dukes. Sounds kinda scary in truth.
-
I guess you missed the blatant fact that the revolving door between the banks and government is the largest open collaboration between business and government there is.
Not at all. I get that fully. My counterpoint is THE BANKS RUN THE GOVERNMENT, NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.
A head of a bank is there for decades. A President just just a guy who spends his entire life getting into a job he might have just have four years at. And Presidential candidate CANNOT get elected without the backing of Capital in some form. But in a Globalised Market world the banks CAN move their Capital to wherever they like.
And it's been that way since, well, certainly in American since just before the first world war... (a war which was, of course, completely created and maintained by private capital - not by states or governments).
-
THE BANKS RUN THE GOVERNMENT, NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.
Agreed completely 100%. Did you think I somehow meant something else in my postings??
And Presidential candidate CANNOT get elected without the backing of Capital in some form.
From the end of the Money Speech: "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out."
Can you give me an example of a world leader who ISN'T backed by capital in some form? Whether they get it willingly or by force, all leaders are backed by capital. That's where the blood, whips, guns or dollars come from.
....a war which was, of course, completely created and maintained by private capital
And which war WASN'T completely created and maintained by private capital? Again whether it's done willingly or through theft (taxation, inflation and just plain seizure), war is not possible without capital. All of that capital is then destroyed in said war making war truly the most destructive thing ever devised. Right on par with the current banking system ;)
-
So many thoughtful and interesting comments and questions! Many thanks to you all for engaging in this fun exercise.
Hey Reason, what are your thoughts on a stateless society? Any speculation on why it may or may not work?
I'm uncertain that this would work. My primary concern is that government (good government) provides a great deal of structure within which humans can conduct themselves safely, in other words rule of law. Without rule of law, we bascially have mob justice, and might makes right, and this would not allow non-violent people to be able to excel. This may seem odd coming from a SR user, however, I honestly believe that a large part of my willingness to participate is an act of civil disobedience. I don't agree with the law in this case and actively try to change it and defy it. I do however respect the concept of rule of law.
Complete freedom has no rules on behavior at all, and would descend into a lord of the flies world. Not attractive IMO.
How does this differ from a the state which is a violent enforcement? The state that we inherited from ancient Greece thousands of years ago might not be the best way to run a modern society. There has to be a better way IMO. However, if anybody points out that the State is violent, they're told is voluntary. If anybody says we shouldn't have the violence if it's voluntary, then they're told the violence is necessary. Sounds like the hallmark of sociopathy and the lie told to steal your resources.
I think the state is exactly the result of propaganda, which is why you need public schools. Nobody wakes up believing that we need a monopoly of violence, that we can protect our property by giving a monopoly to violent people who can strip us of it, who can protect our freedom by giving a monopoly to violent people who can incarcerate and torture us at will. None of that makes any sense at all.
-
+1
Fucking fantastic post! Thank you :)
And btw if the police ever kill on the job they get away with it 999 times out of 1000. In the very rare event that they're sued and the victim's family wins guess who pays? WE DO. The taxpayers always cover murder "in the public interest" on their dime. That is some sick shit right there!!! >:( :o
How does this differ from a the state which is a violent enforcement? The state that we inherited from ancient Greece thousands of years ago might not be the best way to run a modern society. There has to be a better way IMO. However, if anybody points out that the State is violent, they're told is voluntary. If anybody says we shouldn't have the violence if it's voluntary, then they're told the violence is necessary. Sounds like the hallmark of sociopathy and the lie told to steal your resources.
I think the state is exactly the result of propaganda, which is why you need public schools. Nobody wakes up believing that we need a monopoly of violence, that we can protect our property by giving a monopoly to violent people who can strip us of it, who can protect our freedom by giving a monopoly to violent people who can incarcerate and torture us at will. None of that makes any sense at all.
-
Derailed thread derails fast.
Back to why Ayn Rand's pseudo-philosophy is poppycock. Ayn Rand categorically detested all forms of altruism. And therein lies the crux. At the current stage of scientific knowledge and commonly accepted theories in many different disciplines we are hardwired to be altruistic, some more some less.
For example, a number of neurobiology studies have found that altruistic behavior lights up the mesolimbic system (for the junkies in here, yep, that's the same part that makes coke feel so nice), thus, altruism is not a "failed social construct" as objectivists would stipulate, but in fact an evolutionary trait. Matter of fact, some biologists make a strong case that altruism is at the base of evolutionary reciprocity, which would in turn mean that without biologically hardwired altruism our species wouldn't worry about John Galt making money but rather about finding the next ant mound to lick some critters off a stick like our ape cousins.
In Rand's opinion altruism is a case of "failed" identity, identity being her warped perception of this conflated sum of self-interest actions and "rational" conclusions.
What I am saying is, her "philosophy" is completely and utterly debunked in that she misunderstands biologically hardwired evolutionary functions of our species as "identity-less whim-worship".
Way I see it, the woman was tremendously butthurt by communism in her own country, so she started writing these coked/amph'ed up "philosophy" pamphlets that really aren't much more than stipulations of the direct opposite of communism, which is of course a far cry from being an actual "philosophy" even remotely able to survive Hume's Guillotine.
-
Agreed.
Saw a great documentary on Game Theory. The presenter talked to the creator of Game Theory (the theory that all humans act aggressively - in naked self interest - towards all other humans all the time, creating equilibrium) and asked "what about altruism".
He paused for about a third of a second, grinned, and replied "I have no idea how to model that".
Which is a shame given how influential his ghastly ideas have been.
-
All good points. I said from first time I mentioned Rand earlier in this thread that her thoughts on money, business and self interest are untouchable. That Atlas Shrugged was a prophecy that has come true. When she starts talking about altruism things start getting messy. And messier still when talking about Objectivism. That's something I definitely don't subscribe to and I'm no atheist either which any real Objectivist MUST be. The worst were her views on Israel and the current views of the Ayn Rand Institute on Israel and its enemies. They're all out batshit crazy on that stuff.
Guess I should've said that I'm no worshipper of Rand-- except when it comes to business. Then again I wouldn't have had the fun of reading the responses of how my she's my "hero" and that I'm just a zombie who parrots everything she had to say ;D :P
Getting back to altruism, Rand made a lot of good points about how some form of altruism was instrumental to the regimes of Hitler, Stalin and most other mass murderers. What she was really talking about was state-sponsored altruism which is the worst of the worst. Too bad she didn't stop there. She applied her beliefs to ALL forms of altruism. Although she made a good point about no animal being able to survive if it helped every other animal but itself first, she struggled to make the same distinction with human beings. She also struggled to justify how caring and giving up for another in a relationship somehow WASN'T altruism. She made it seem like it was an type of exchange within the relationship. Really weak reasoning and I've never bought it.
I don't blame her though. She witnessed firsthand how people she knew in Russia were slaughtered by Communist thugs like they were pieces of trash. She saw how the government twisted people's beliefs into buying into the state's version of altruism (which always involved coercion, force, theft, torture and killing)- all for the "public good" of course. A term Rand uses again and again and again. Altruism is still often used today by both parties to justify giving up money, freedom, privacy and many other rights for the "public good". You'll be hearing a lot more about that in the coming days when the next war in the middle east starts.
-
I agree Chil, it's an unfortunate truth that many people just don't have it goin' on.
I worked the polls for the Libertarian party one year, and this was the beginning of the end for me. I was absolutely blown away by the ignorance (willfull, or not) of the vast majority of the voters. I desperately tried to engage people in thoughtful discussion, but was dismayed that most people didn't know what the Bill of Rights was, nor how many branches of government we have, nor even how many states there were.
They didn't even really know why they were voting the way they did...most just came for the free donuts. They all however voted that day.
It was quite enlightening. It gave me a new appreciation of our system (flawed though it is).
Hope this wasn't for the presidential race..... If you dedicate time to that endeavor then you are an idiot. Americans voting in the general presidential election are wasting there energy as those votes don't even really count. Presidential elections are nothing more than a boat and pony show to keep us quiet. Americans don't choose the President, the fucking electoral college does. And the good people of Washington DC get to pay taxes and don't get a presidential vote so anyone paying taxes in DC is fucking stupid too. You are taxed without ANY representation AT ALL and don't even get to participate in the FAKE ELECTIONS held every 4 years. Wake up people..... Voting for the president is like picking out a new pope. You have nothing to do with it and it is nothing more than a show for the people.
This is true. Did you know EVERY SINGLE president except for 1 is related by blood? Direct relations. Now that is no way a fucking coincidence. There was a young girl i think she was around 12 or 13 and for her school project she decided to research her president's family tree(obama) and found out he was related to them all, Search for it now if you dont believe me.
Obama is the most fake president ever. there are way too many reasons to name but here's a few that really piss me off.
His main slogan was "change", and yet he still implements sanctions on other countries and policies created by george bush SR. no the last one, His fucking dad.
he promised to welcome whistleblowers and offer them security, he said that they will be protected and are doing the right thing by exposing crimes, Well I guess that only counts if the crimes they expose are made by anyone bar the government. The obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than EVERY OTHER presidency combined!
What a fucking joke.
-
All arguments are moot.
Theft cannot be justified. No matter the reasoning. You're all the debating on how the system would work (and a lot of wacky conspiracy shit)
But what it really boils down to is that one person should not be able to steal from another. (taxes). Those of you who can't look after yourselves and want a safety-bracket are more than welcome to join a anarcho-socialist society. Just don't force me to participate.
Once you realise that taxation is theft, and the non-aggression principle (The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are.[1] Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.) is the only correct way for humans to co-exist. The rest will fall into place
-
Except taxes are not theft. They are a pool of resource needed for the common good.
In the Libertarian world my partner - ill with Multiple Sclerosis - wouldn't die. No. She'd be on a path of increasing, permanent, disability because I can't afford to purchase the thousands of pounds worth of medicine she takes each and every month. Basically blind in a wheelchair, with increasing pain. She worked before illness, I worked a well paying job for decades. For years and years each of us put into the system vastly more than either of us ever withdrew. It would have been fine with each of us if neither of us ever saw "value" for that taxation. But as she's the "lucky" one in a million to come down with a horrific illness it's nice that social pool of tax money is available.
And no, the money alone we put in wouldn't have been enough to cover all the costs. That's the point of spreading the cost over a larger user base. The larger the base the lower any individual contribution. Fairness would suggest the richer paid more than the poorer, as I did. Progressive taxation is the pinnacle of an insurance scheme like that.
This is, ultimately, why Libertarianism is a load of wank that only healthy young people straight from momma's spare room seem to guzzle up.
Oh yes, your taxation also pays for the jails and the police. No taxation and the cops go home and the prisoners get let out. I don't give three flying fucks how hard you say or think you are, that's a lot arse rape you have to face immediately prior to the *ACTUAL* theft of *ALL* your good shit. And, with a bleeding anus no hospital will treat, and no possessions, just you wait till they light your home on fire.
No Libertarian fireman is going to come out and put out that fire out of a sense of altruism... and you don't got shit to PAY with... so he'll SHRUG LIKE ATLAS and watch that motherfucker BURN!
This is not to say there is nothing about Libertarianism that's worthwhile. But it's like any doctrine or creed - Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Capitalism, Communism, whatever, - the fanatics are destructive weirdoes. Always. Because they're fanatic. And weird.
-
Except taxes are not theft. They are a pool of resource needed for the common good.
By common good do you mean funding wars to the tune of billions of dollars a year, including the war on drugs in the US, the maintenance of prisons where a huge chunk of the population are innocent people incarcerated for victimless crimes directly resulting from the war on drugs, public education, an enterprise which consistently fails to do what it sets out to do and the crumbling infrastructure? Sorry man, but you need to get your head out of your ass.
Taxation is Coercion. If you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint, and you are throw in jail, where if you try to escape, you are shot. I don't know how you are able to be honest with yourself and try to justify that.
-
By common good do you mean funding wars to the tune of billions of dollars a year, including the war on drugs in the US, the maintenance of prisons where a huge chunk of the population are innocent...
The majority of prisoners are very guilty, and guilty of some horrific crimes, including murder and rape, sometimes multiples of each.
You're arguing we should have no healthcare provision, no firemen, no prisons, etc., on the grounds some of the money is also used to start wars?
Interesting. But that is not the Jedi way.
Taxation is Coercion. If you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint, and you are throw in jail, where if you try to escape, you are shot. I don't know how you are able to be honest with yourself and try to justify that.
I'll re-justify it to you... each and every time I see my partner and she's not in a wheelchair.
-
Except taxes are not theft. They are a pool of resource needed for the common good.
-Snip-
Sorry to hear about your partner mate. It's a bitch of a disease :(
And, agreed again. Taxes are theft is one of these ridiculous tenets I will never understand. How narrow-minded does one have to be to subscribe to it? In the US they have this saying that goes "Republicans are democrats after being mugged", I'd go one further and say "libertarians are republicans that haven't been kicked in the groin by life yet" ...
To believe that Shell/BP/Exxon would stop polluting for any other reason than government sanctions is ridiculous, just look at Southern Africa. To think that big corp would fund a proper school system for all out of "self-interest" is laughable, just look at Nevada. To think that big corp would innovate and improve to gain market share when it is so much cheaper and efficient to displace/buy-out/destroy is preposterous, or why do you think that semi-socialist Northern European countries have cheap 100/100 home fiber lines while "free market" US customers usually have one carrier available that offers 35mbit lines as "high-speed" highly overpriced and without competition in their respective local markets? To believe that somehow UPS will build proper roads to your suburban home so they can deliver packages there is just so naive, but a core libertarian belief. Someone wanting to do business will do it somehow...
There are things to be said for libertarianism, I still like some of it's core ideas. The problem is, as always, human nature. Libertarians solely rely on punishment after the fact, but if a corporation kills me with poisoned food that won't do me much good now will it? I don't want to be one of the hundreds of people dying in a faulty car that are needed for market forces to kick in so people stop buying the bad car. I dun give a shit if my death will eventually make people choose another car.
To circle back to Ayn Rand, here is yet another reason why libertarians religiously following her writings should scratch their heads. Libertarians commonly stipulate that taking care of the disadvantaged/ill/incapable should be done through charity and not by the state. However, charity is an expression of altruism, without altruism, there can be no charity. So please do tell libertarian Ayn Rand followers, if the state does not take care of the fallen and weak ones, but Randian thought says that altruism is bad, then who will take care of those that didn't make it? What are we going to do with them?
In lessaiz-faire capitalism, all that is self-interest is allowed. One common big-corp practice in the US is to have people work for your company for decades by promising pensions, etc., but when the pension liabilities become high corporations simply restructure their debt, and pensioners are fucked out of what they thought was their nest egg. Detestable practice, but it happens on a daily basis in the US. According to Randian thought these fucked-over individuals are "the weak", not deserving of love, and not entitled to altruistic measures to lighten their burden.
I guess my question is, what are you going to do with all those that don't become industrial magnates? Because according to her, those are the only ones deserving of any consideration at all. Are we going eskimo and start to send those that have expired useful shelf-lives off on an ice shoal? This is the great question that no libertarian has answered to this point. All you get is vague and ambiguous insinuations that the invisible hand will take care of that somehow, which is yet another "Randian Paradox", because by her own philosophy and writings one should not rely on the metaphysical but on reason. Somehow the market will solve that somewhen is an epitome of the metaphysical.
-
Johnwholesome, have a +1 for insight and clarity.
-
The majority of prisoners are very guilty, and guilty of some horrific crimes, including murder and rape, sometimes multiples of each.
You're arguing we should have no healthcare provision, no firemen, no prisons, etc., on the grounds some of the money is also used to start wars?
Interesting. But that is not the Jedi way.
The very guilty should stay behind bars.
I'm arguing for the idea that government should not use aggression to force you to do something that you don't want to. Or the idea that an individual shouldn't be extracted to pay for something they don't want. The source of aggression and destructiveness lies in our culture, not in the individual, and the state propagates that agression. And everything that reinforces the fragmentation of our personality and closes off access to our inner world contributes to the creation and growth of our destructive drives. And again, the state reinforces this aggressive nature through taxation, incarceration, the constant yearning for war, the whole thing is stone cold evil. There has got to be a better way.
-
By common good do you mean funding wars to the tune of billions of dollars a year, including the war on drugs in the US, the maintenance of prisons where a huge chunk of the population are innocent...
The majority of prisoners are very guilty, and guilty of some horrific crimes, including murder and rape, sometimes multiples of each.
You're arguing we should have no healthcare provision, no firemen, no prisons, etc., on the grounds some of the money is also used to start wars?
Interesting. But that is not the Jedi way.
Taxation is Coercion. If you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint, and you are throw in jail, where if you try to escape, you are shot. I don't know how you are able to be honest with yourself and try to justify that.
I'll re-justify it to you... each and every time I see my partner and she's not in a wheelchair.
You literally have 0 idea how a free-market system works. Also, I think something like 47% of prison inmates (I tried to look up the statistic but they varied from 40-70%) are NONVIOLENT offenders.
-
You literally have 0 idea how a free-market system works.
You're right, I have no idea how, in a free market, she would not be cripplingly disabled.
So please write a short essay "Multiple Sclerosis in the Free Market".
Bear in mind that, like Tyrion Lannister, I'm not as intelligent as you so please use small words.
-
You literally have 0 idea how a free-market system works.
You're right, I have no idea how, in a free market, she would not be cripplingly disabled.
So please write a short essay "Multiple Sclerosis in the Free Market".
Bear in mind that, like Tyrion Lannister, I'm not as intelligent as you so please use small words.
I believe that very soon healthcare will become mandatory under Obama's administration, if I understand it correctly. So there will be a gun involved in the provision of healthcare. Another instance where state will use a gun to achieve it's purpose. You or your partner won't have a say in the matter either way.
-
I believe that very soon healthcare will become mandatory under Obama's administration, if I understand it correctly. So there will be a gun involved in the provision of healthcare. Another instance where state will use a gun to achieve it's purpose. You or your partner won't have a say in the matter either way.
I don't live under Obama's jurisdiction, hence the use of UK alias and the use of mainly UK Vendors. Living with the "gun to my head", i.e. taxation for healthcare, is the very reason she is not currently severely disabled.
Americans can be weird about healthcare. Saw an interview with an African American. Diabetes had taken his toes. Nevertheless he didn't want universal healthcare because it was a step towards Communism. You just gotta LAUGH.
-
I believe that very soon healthcare will become mandatory under Obama's administration, if I understand it correctly. So there will be a gun involved in the provision of healthcare. Another instance where state will use a gun to achieve it's purpose. You or your partner won't have a say in the matter either way.
I don't live under Obama's jurisdiction, hence the use of UK alias and the use of mainly UK Vendors. Living with the "gun to my head", i.e. taxation for healthcare, is the very reason she is not currently severely disabled.
Americans can be weird about healthcare. Saw an interview with an African American. Diabetes had taken his toes. Nevertheless he didn't want universal healthcare because it was a step towards Communism. You just gotta LAUGH.
I've herad that David Cameron put regulations in place to sell off the NHS to private companies. Sounds like many poor people with severe disabilities will be dead. Different government, same BS
-
By common good do you mean funding wars to the tune of billions of dollars a year, including the war on drugs in the US, the maintenance of prisons where a huge chunk of the population are innocent...
The majority of prisoners are very guilty, and guilty of some horrific crimes, including murder and rape, sometimes multiples of each.
You're arguing we should have no healthcare provision, no firemen, no prisons, etc., on the grounds some of the money is also used to start wars?
Interesting. But that is not the Jedi way.
Taxation is Coercion. If you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint, and you are throw in jail, where if you try to escape, you are shot. I don't know how you are able to be honest with yourself and try to justify that.
I'll re-justify it to you... each and every time I see my partner and she's not in a wheelchair.
You literally have 0 idea how a free-market system works. Also, I think something like 47% of prison inmates (I tried to look up the statistic but they varied from 40-70%) are NONVIOLENT offenders.
I take that to mean that you favor civil services being delivered by free-market enterprise. Riddle me this then. The US has the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the world. Higher than those of the last remaining communist nations China and Cuba.
As it just so happens, historically, the rise in incarceration coincided with the rise of the privately owned prison-industrial-complex. Wall St. just looooooooves incarcerating non-violent offenders and drug users because there is really big money in it, look up some of the most notorious players on a stock ticker, your eyes will pop. You thought prostitution is recession-proof? Try incarceration!
Those that think the war on drugs was an oppressive government project should rethink their stance and do some real digging into how most of the draconian drug laws came into being. One of the foulest and vile players in that field is ALEC - a.k.a the American Legislative Exchange Council, a darling think tank of many a conservative and libertarian. They have systematically bought up conservative and libertarian candidates brute-forcing draconian incarceration policies into state after state. Of course most libertarians will attribute the US's high incarceration rate to oppressive government, when in fact free-market privateers are the driving force behind it.
Mind you, I am not defending the government as such, most current govs are broken and corrupted beyond belief. But again, their "brokenness" is the result of free-market self-interest, not a stymieing force working against it.
Let me formulate it another way, drawing another parallel here. Most libertarians are ardent defenders of the right to bear arms (lets not derail into that debate though), their line of argument usually is that guns don't do bad deeds, the people with the gun do the bad deed. If you subscribe to that logic, however, then I could stipulate that the same applies to government. Government is merely the instrument, just like the gun. It is in the way that this instrument is used that defines whether the outcome is good or bad.
Now lets compare. The US has by and large the biggest privately owned prison-industrial complex, and, it has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. Most other Western, democratic first world countries that have no to limited privatization have much lower incarceration (and incidentally also recidivism) rates.
This begs the question if privatization paired with Randian self-interest propagation is the culprit here. After all, this modus operandi of big corporations using their political influence to lobby draconian incarceration policies into law to feed the complex is merely an expression of "free trade" entities looking out for their own interest. This is what happens if you incorporate an attitude of "free trade profit motive" being the pinnacle of noble motivations.
Sound about right?
-
I've herad that David Cameron put regulations in place to sell off the NHS to private companies. Sounds like many poor people with severe disabilities will be dead. Different government, same BS
Not quite. Anyway, that's the NHS of England and England alone. The Welsh and Scottish Health Services are separate and distinct... and much better. And not under his control.
An priceless example of national vs private enterprise is the water system. In England the water companies were sold off, from being state-run to private companies. The promise was lower bills. They've driven them into the ground, leakage is up, and the prices have risen dramatically and profits have been exported to Capital. In Scotland it's state-organised. The result is investment into the infrastructure, reducing leakage, and much lower prices.
Ann Rand can tongue my balls.
-
I've herad that David Cameron put regulations in place to sell off the NHS to private companies. Sounds like many poor people with severe disabilities will be dead. Different government, same BS
Not quite. Anyway, that's the NHS of England and England alone. The Welsh and Scottish Health Services are separate and distinct... and much better. And not under his control.
An priceless example of national vs private enterprise is the water system. In England the water companies were sold off, from being state-run to private companies. The promise was lower bills. They've driven them into the ground, leakage is up, and the prices have risen dramatically and profits have been exported to Capital. In Scotland it's state-organised. The result is investment into the infrastructure, reducing leakage, and much lower prices.
Ann Rand can tongue my balls.
Libertarians don't argue that all private companies are better than public ones, they argue that they would be if there was a lassiez-faire true market.
-
"during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man" - Hobbes, Leviathan.
-
Hobbes was the first neocon! He beat out Dick Cheney and company by nearly 400 years. Amazing ;D
Anyway, great going! I like the quote. Here are some other good random ones:
-"We need laws to make men good; without laws, all men would live like apes and society would descend into chaos."
-"The legalization of marijuana and other dangerous drugs will spell the end of civil society."
-"Equality of the races will mean the end of America."
-"Allowing women to have the right to vote will destroy politics forever."
-"Without the government to keep us safe, we would all soon become victims of terrorism/communism/separatism/insert_danger_here."
-"Without the Federal Reserve's watchful eye over the economy, all the markets would become disorderly and crash."
-"The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
I don't have sources for first 6. I just wrote them out off the top of my head. The last one is from everybody's favorite billionaire, David Rockefeller ;)
"during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man" - Hobbes, Leviathan.
-
The majority of prisoners are very guilty, and guilty of some horrific crimes, including murder and rape, sometimes multiples of each.
Not in America they ain't. These links (clearnet) will set ya straight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
Incarceration in the United States
http://www.policymic.com/articles/20186/war-on-drugs-how-private-prisons-are-using-the-drug-war-to-generate-more-inmates
War on Drugs: How Private Prisons are Using the Drug War to Generate More Inmates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrections_Corporation_of_America
Corrections Corporation of America (the largest private corrections company in the United States)
I take that to mean that you favor civil services being delivered by free-market enterprise. Riddle me this then. The US has the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the world. Higher than those of the last remaining communist nations China and Cuba.
As it just so happens, historically, the rise in incarceration coincided with the rise of the privately owned prison-industrial-complex. Wall St. just looooooooves incarcerating non-violent offenders and drug users because there is really big money in it, look up some of the most notorious players on a stock ticker, your eyes will pop. You thought prostitution is recession-proof? Try incarceration!
Wrong. The dramatic rise in incarceration in America is a direct and very obvious symptom of the War on Drugs. That's it. Private prisons sprung up because they're looting the taxpayer by holding hands with the fascist government. Every war has its crony capitalist parasites. After the Rockefeller drug laws were passed in 1973 in NY just after Nixon declared his drug war the Feds adopted the same policies on a national scale. Can you say "cha-ching"? 8)
Of course most libertarians will attribute the US's high incarceration rate to oppressive government, when in fact free-market privateers are the driving force behind it.
I'll let you in on a little secret: just because you SAY you're something doesn't mean that you are. Anyone can claim to be a libertarian, the Pope or Elvis. Case in point from ALEC's Wikipedia page:
"Corrections Corporation of America and The GEO Group, two of the largest for-profit prison companies in the US, have been contributors to the American Legislative Exchange Council."
In other words they're a perfect example of a fascist-created, fascist-run and fascist-catered lobbyist group. About as far away from libertarian as you can get. They love government. LOVE IT. The bigger the better!
Government is merely the instrument, just like the gun. It is in the way that this instrument is used that defines whether the outcome is good or bad.
Seriously?? Can a gun get up and walk around on its own and shoot people in the name of the "public good"?
Now lets compare. The US has by and large the biggest privately owned prison-industrial complex, and, it has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. Most other Western, democratic first world countries that have no to limited privatization have much lower incarceration (and incidentally also recidivism) rates.
Again, you're mixing up capitalism and fascism. As the size of government grows fascism grows along with it. That means certain large corporations become a lot larger at the expense of everyone else. Politicians play favorites because they know that's their meal ticket. These companies loot everyone else just because they can. Powerful government is their vessel. They lobby for more and more laws and larger and larger government. The fascist system exists just to do that.
This begs the question if privatization paired with Randian self-interest propagation is the culprit here.
Everyone has self interest. EVERYONE. To deny that is to deny the sky is blue. What Ayn Rand clearly said is that the self interest of the individual is above all else. When self interest is mixed with powerful government the self interested get special protection at the expense of their competitors. The free market dies. The remaining companies and their political thug counterparts become "moochers" and "looters" as Rand called them. All of this is spelled out in the Money Speech I linked earlier here.
The scumbags that you've described in your post ARE THE VERY EPITOME OF WHAT RAND DESPISED AND RAILED AGAINST. Men "who produce nothing", "who deal, not in goods, but in favors" and "get richer by graft and by pull than by work". Here's the best current example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402354/Peace-envoy-Tony-Blair-yacht-Mediterranean-West-debates-air-strikes-Syria.html
Peace envoy Tony Blair on yacht in Mediterranean as West debates air strikes on Syria
;D :o (I really wish there was a smiley face with barf coming out of it)
-
As I have said before in these forums, a major difficulty I see with libertarianism is 'how do we get there from here?'
Clearly most libertarians would agree that our current system consists of a terrible distortion of the free market, and thus the wealthy under this system are not the most deserving or hard working, but those who have played our corrupt system most successfully.
So, Libertarian year zero. The state is abolished (or shrunk to a rump legal system to enforce contracts and perhaps keep the peace). But let's say you have 1000000 bitcoin and I have 10. You also have 100000 acres of land which fortunately contains an oil well and a supply of fresh water and a port. (you were cunning enough to acquire these advantages by bribing politicians etc under our present fascist system) Alas, I am a landless peasant. Let's play a few generations of 'free market'
Hmmmm. My descendants still appear to be working for your descendants. They seeming to be working really hard but are struggling to pay the rent on the house you rent them. After they pay the fuel and water and food bills (all to you or your class) every month they have nothing left.....meanwhile your descendants get more and more wealthy. I guess they must be a naturally superior kind of people?
It seems then that to begin a Libertarian society some kind of redistribution of illegitimately acquired wealth might be in order. But how to achieve this without violating the first libertarian commandment 'do no harm'? We cannot seize wealth by violence as that will make our claim equally illegitimate.
Another difficulty I have with libertarianism is the characterisation of most of those in class 1 or 2 as lazy, parasitic useless mouths. No doubt some are, but many of the unemployed are both capable and willing to work, its just that the tidal fluctuations of the market have left them high and dry. "Ah hah!" crys the libertarian "but this is because of government interference; under a truly free market, the surplus labour will cause wages to drop until we have nearly full employment" But, high unemployment in Europe and US is a result of factories etc moving to poorer countrys where wages are lower. I have heard libertarians argue that under a free market, wages and living conditions will rise in these countrys. This makes sense, if we had a free market you would expect conditions to equalise.
However, it seems likely that the market might prefer higher unemployment than society finds desirable. High unemployment keeps wages low and so might be more profitable than full employment, despite 10% of people lying idle. The market has no mechanism to correct this. (you can contradict me here, but this is a well understood and widely accepted criticism of lassiez faire)
Once wages have equalised worldwide we might run into another problem: increased automation. Already most manufacturing is done by robots. The humans are basically employed to load/unload the robots. If in the future robots become cheaper and cheaper (as seems likely) then less and less humans will be needed. We would then see the paradox of technology producing great abundance, and yet much of the population being unemployed. Would anyone argue that the unemployed in this situation are lazy parasites?
The contrasting assumption is that those in classes 3 and 4 are the virtuous engines of society. Particularly that those in class 4, driven to enrich themselves at all costs, are mostly engaged in useful and productive work. This is certainly the case for many of the entrepreneurs and businessmen. But what about the large number who are engaged in buying and selling derivatives? What useful function does this wholesale gambling serve, other to enrich the participants? Since the market for these financial instruments exceeds the 'real' economy by several orders of magnitude this is an important question.
Finally, I want to discuss that classic libertarian trope: that taxation is theft. if you do not pay your taxes, men with guns will come and put you in prison. Why should the government decide what I spend my money on? if I wanted to give to charity etc etc. Often the words 'mafia' and 'protection racket' feature.
Well guys, got some bad news for you: at whatever point in history you lived, men with weapons ruled over you. They took a certain fraction of your produce, and in return they promised to protect you with their weapons. When america was colonised, the first thing the colonists did was evict the previous occupants with their superior weapons. They pretty quickly established a new government backed by men with guns (I admit I am compressing history somewhat here!)
Libertarians basically say "Fuck this! If I want men with weapons, I will HIRE MY OWN!" The trouble with hiring men with guns, though, as many small time dictators discovered too late, is: they have guns. As Kipling put it "when you have once paid the Danegeld, you can never get rid of the Dane"
If we were to get rid of the current government, I predict that before long you would be paying 'taxes' to a genuine mafia. At least under the current system the protection money is used to provide care for the elderly and poor and sick. I really have no problem with money being taken by force from the wealthy and used to deal with some of the problems caused by their activities.
Of course, a lot of the tax money is spent on things like putting drug users in prison and waging wars on oil producing countrys. I agree that these should cease, but this is not a problem with taxation. Its a problem with the current government. It does not make taxation itself illegitimate.( And, by golly, we do like oil. In a libertarian society perhaps the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan would have been carried out by BP and Shell directly, rather then their government sock puppets.)
Put simply, my main problem with libertarianism is that it idolises the market above all else. The market is a fantastic mechanism for determining prices but its decisions are not it binding. We should be free to interfere with it wherever we see fit, the market is robust enough to adjust to whatever we do. So things like banning child labour, providing welfare to unemployed, and regulating employment conditions are all fine, despite being anathema to libertarians.
In particular, the libertarian stance on child labour demonstrates their extremist philosophy perfectly. In this forum I have seen libertarians argue, in all seriousness, that laws restricting very young children from working are wrong, as they interfere with that child's rights. "If a child wants to work, because his family need the money, who are we to stop him"
I leave that for your consideration
-
Just a clarification on the fly here. There was talk of the "fascist" government (presumably US) and this always makes me cringe. The US government is anything but fascist.
Granted cops in SWAT gear breaking down grandma's front door ransacking the house because little Billy bought a gram of weed earlier in the day obviously is quite reminiscent of the brownshirts kicking in doors to look for Jews, but that doesn't mean that the government system is fascist.
The three defining characteristics of fascism are ultranationalism (check), militarism (check) and control of the regime over national resources and production while retaining private property.
And therein lies the crux. In the US, government doesn't control big business, big business owns government. Also, the nationalism aspect is also weak at best, for underneath all the red white and blue redderick and national pride pomp the leaders of the US ever so happily stand by as big multinational corporations sell the country out to China, export jobs to wherever labor is cheap and watch the national currency deteriorate.
Now, granted, there are many aspects that are reminiscent of fascist regimes throughout history, but by definition, the US can't be fascist because it lacks certain key characteristics of fascism. I'm not saying that the system is any better than fascism, just wanted to point it out as I am a stickler for proper labels :P
-
Did you know a WW1 veteran Smedley D Butler was asked by DuPont to organise a fascist coup? He refused, of course.
Worth reading up on.
-
I believe that very soon healthcare will become mandatory under Obama's administration, if I understand it correctly. So there will be a gun involved in the provision of healthcare. Another instance where state will use a gun to achieve it's purpose. You or your partner won't have a say in the matter either way.
I don't live under Obama's jurisdiction, hence the use of UK alias and the use of mainly UK Vendors. Living with the "gun to my head", i.e. taxation for healthcare, is the very reason she is not currently severely disabled.
Americans can be weird about healthcare. Saw an interview with an African American. Diabetes had taken his toes. Nevertheless he didn't want universal healthcare because it was a step towards Communism. You just gotta LAUGH.
Once I saw an interview with two African Americans. Kidney failure was about to take both of their lives. Nevertheless, they did not want some random person to be killed so they could harvest two working kidneys. You just gotta LAUGH.
-
As it just so happens, historically, the rise in incarceration coincided with the rise of the privately owned prison-industrial-complex. Wall St. just looooooooves incarcerating non-violent offenders and drug users because there is really big money in it, look up some of the most notorious players on a stock ticker, your eyes will pop. You thought prostitution is recession-proof? Try incarceration!
Those that think the war on drugs was an oppressive government project should rethink their stance and do some real digging into how most of the draconian drug laws came into being. One of the foulest and vile players in that field is ALEC - a.k.a the American Legislative Exchange Council, a darling think tank of many a conservative and libertarian. They have systematically bought up conservative and libertarian candidates brute-forcing draconian incarceration policies into state after state. Of course most libertarians will attribute the US's high incarceration rate to oppressive government, when in fact free-market privateers are the driving force behind it.
Buuuuuuuuuulshit. If libertarians were in charge of the USA the prison population would plummet. Not only would all drug offenders be released from prison, but so would the people busted with CP and probably a lot of people locked up for statutory rape. Probably a lot of people locked up for tax evasion would be released as well if hard line libertarians took control of the country. Hell a ton of the people in prison in USA today did no wrong in the eyes of libertarians.
-
I believe that very soon healthcare will become mandatory under Obama's administration, if I understand it correctly. So there will be a gun involved in the provision of healthcare. Another instance where state will use a gun to achieve it's purpose. You or your partner won't have a say in the matter either way.
I don't live under Obama's jurisdiction, hence the use of UK alias and the use of mainly UK Vendors. Living with the "gun to my head", i.e. taxation for healthcare, is the very reason she is not currently severely disabled.
Americans can be weird about healthcare. Saw an interview with an African American. Diabetes had taken his toes. Nevertheless he didn't want universal healthcare because it was a step towards Communism. You just gotta LAUGH.
Once I saw an interview with two African Americans. Kidney failure was about to take both of their lives. Nevertheless, they did not want some random person to be killed so they could harvest two working kidneys. You just gotta LAUGH.
Although we have universal healthcare in the UK, we very rarely kill random people to harvest their organs. You are an enigma kmfkewn, sometimes you come back with devastating logic that is difficult to argue with, other times you come out with odd non sequiturs like this.
As far as incarceration goes I am unsure how the legal system will function under libertarianism. Will the police, courts and prisons still be state controlled and funded through taxation? Who will make the laws....shit, I have just realised I sound like this song:
Crass
If There Was No Government
If there was no government, wouldn't there be chaos
Everybody running round, setting petrol bombs off?
And if there was no police force, tell me what you'd do
If thirty thousand rioters came running after you?
And who would clean the sewers? Who'd mend my television?
Wouldn't people lay about without some supervision?
Who'd drive the fire engines? Who'd fix my video?
If there were no prisons, well, where would robbers go?
And what if I told you to Fuck Off?
What if there's no army to stop a big invasion?
Who'd clean the bogs and sweep the floors? We'd have all immigration.
Who'd pull the pint at the local pub? Where'd I get my fags?
Who'd empty out my dustbins? Would I still get plastic bags?
If there were no hospitals, and no doctors too,
If I'd broken both my legs, where would I run to?
If there's no medication, if there were no nurses,
Wouldn't people die a lot? And who would drive the hearses?
And what if I told you to Fuck Off?
If there were no butchers shops, what would people eat?
You'd have everybody starving if they didn't get their meat.
If there was no water, what would people drink?
Who'd flush away the you-know-what? But of course MINE never stink.
What about the children? Who'd teach them in the schools?
Who'd make the beggers keep in line? Learn them all the rules?
Who's tell us whitewash windows? When to take down doors?
Tell us make a flask of tea and survive the holocaust?
-
As a sidebar (not sure how it fits in to either side of argument) I recommend a book 'the new Jim Crow' and a film 'the house I live in' both about the prison system in america. Both portray the prison industry as largely economic in motivation. With the collapse of heavy industry in the US due to cheaper labour costs elsewhere, many cities are left with a huge surplus of mostly black workers. In most inner cities the vacuum has been filled by the drug business. The inhabitants of these areas are not criminals, they are simply taking the only form of gainful employment available.
At the same time the huge prison complexes are major employers that bring great economic benefit to the area. So its a win win; by passing punitive laws against drugs the troublesome surplus black workers can be rounded up and imprisoned, at the same time providing jobs for other impoverished communities.
The logical next step would be to use the imprisoned workers as slave labour to produce goods for sale and indeed this is already beginning.
I'm not sure how these things fit into the argument about libertarianism, as I am unclear how laws will be enforced or even made without a central government funded by taxation. I suspect many libertarians are also unclear on this.
I mean, clearly the legal system could be made self funding by levying large fines, seizing assets and forcing prisoners to work, but introducing the profit motive in this way could have negative consequences on the impartiality of judiciary!
-
Once I saw an interview with two African Americans. Kidney failure was about to take both of their lives. Nevertheless, they did not want some random person to be killed so they could harvest two working kidneys. You just gotta LAUGH.
Exactly the same except (a) my story happened and (b) my story didn't require harm to a third party for his medical treatment?
-
Once I saw an interview with two African Americans. Kidney failure was about to take both of their lives. Nevertheless, they did not want some random person to be killed so they could harvest two working kidneys. You just gotta LAUGH.
Exactly the same except (a) my story happened and (b) my story didn't require harm to a third party for his medical treatment?
You think sending armed thugs with guns to rob people doesn't cause harm to the robbed person? Where do you think the money for socialized health care comes from? It comes from tax dollars. Tax dollars that are collected by the IRS. If you don't pay taxes they will come and arrest you. If you resist arrest they will point guns at you. Socialized health care is funded by armed robberies.
-
Once I saw an interview with two African Americans. Kidney failure was about to take both of their lives. Nevertheless, they did not want some random person to be killed so they could harvest two working kidneys. You just gotta LAUGH.
Exactly the same except (a) my story happened and (b) my story didn't require harm to a third party for his medical treatment?
You think sending armed thugs with guns to rob people doesn't cause harm to the robbed person? Where do you think the money for socialized health care comes from? It comes from tax dollars. Tax dollars that are collected by the IRS. If you don't pay taxes they will come and arrest you. If you resist arrest they will point guns at you. Socialized health care is funded by armed robberies.
People that do not get health insurance get sick. THEY go to the ERs of county hospitals for colds and flu and ear infections thus driving up MY health care costs. The "choice" to be uninsured is funded by depriving me and anyone else. How is that any better?
Some people are so maladjusted and antisocial that they only stop harming others at gunpoint. What's the news?
-
Once I saw an interview with two African Americans. Kidney failure was about to take both of their lives. Nevertheless, they did not want some random person to be killed so they could harvest two working kidneys. You just gotta LAUGH.
Exactly the same except (a) my story happened and (b) my story didn't require harm to a third party for his medical treatment?
You think sending armed thugs with guns to rob people doesn't cause harm to the robbed person? Where do you think the money for socialized health care comes from? It comes from tax dollars. Tax dollars that are collected by the IRS. If you don't pay taxes they will come and arrest you. If you resist arrest they will point guns at you. Socialized health care is funded by armed robberies.
People that do not get health insurance get sick. THEY go to the ERs of county hospitals for colds and flu and ear infections thus driving up MY health care costs. The "choice" to be uninsured is funded by depriving me and anyone else. How is that any better?
Some people are so maladjusted and antisocial that they only stop harming others at gunpoint. What's the news?
How are you deprived by someone else being uninsured? Do you own the hospital? The hospital can decide who they treat and who they do not treat, it is their right. If they don't want to treat people who cannot afford it, then that is up to them as well. Nobody is depriving you of shit, you want to deprive others of the right to not be insured and apparently you want to deprive the hospital of the right to treat whoever they want. You are the one who wants to use guns pointed at others to solve all of your problems, regardless of if you want to point the gun at a person without insurance or at the doctor who decides to treat people without insurance. You are the one who wants to use guns for your own benefit.
-
Once I saw an interview with two African Americans. Kidney failure was about to take both of their lives. Nevertheless, they did not want some random person to be killed so they could harvest two working kidneys. You just gotta LAUGH.
Exactly the same except (a) my story happened and (b) my story didn't require harm to a third party for his medical treatment?
You think sending armed thugs with guns to rob people doesn't cause harm to the robbed person? Where do you think the money for socialized health care comes from? It comes from tax dollars. Tax dollars that are collected by the IRS. If you don't pay taxes they will come and arrest you. If you resist arrest they will point guns at you. Socialized health care is funded by armed robberies.
People that do not get health insurance get sick. THEY go to the ERs of county hospitals for colds and flu and ear infections thus driving up MY health care costs. The "choice" to be uninsured is funded by depriving me and anyone else. How is that any better?
Some people are so maladjusted and antisocial that they only stop harming others at gunpoint. What's the news?
How are you deprived by someone else being uninsured? Do you own the hospital? The hospital can decide who they treat and who they do not treat, it is their right. If they don't want to treat people who cannot afford it, then that is up to them as well. Nobody is depriving you of shit, you want to deprive others of the right to not be insured and apparently you want to deprive the hospital of the right to treat whoever they want. You are the one who wants to use guns pointed at others to solve all of your problems, regardless of if you want to point the gun at a person without insurance or at the doctor who decides to treat people without insurance. You are the one who wants to use guns for your own benefit.
Utter bullshit,
hospitals are required to provide emergency care under the Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed in 1986. That act became necessary because in the world you fantasize about "admissions officers" would ask bleeding people for an insurance/credit card and send them off to die on the corner if they had neither. Some utopia... you can keep that.
No matter what your stance on this is, whether it is morally okay to let people die or not, whether you favor socialistic or libertarian approaches, no libertarian ever answers the question, what do you do with the uninsured if they have an emergency? Do you just let them die on the road? How long do you think it will take until the mob starts rioting in the street if you have uncle Bobs and granny Maples dieing in the streets everywhere? All libertarians offer is some metaphysical insinuation that somehow this will sort itself out if only regulation is removed. Might as well try praying...
-
Put simply, most modern societies are a symbiosis between the State and the Market. Both are necessary for a functional society.
Communism is the belief that we can do without the market, the state will provide and decide everything.
Libertarianism is the idea that we can do without the state, the market will provide and decide everything.
Both are flawed, utopian philosophys that could not be made to work in the real world.
I think the problems with communism as it was tried in USSR are so well known as to need little discussion here.
My main objection to libertarianism us that it refuses to acknowledge the inequities of capitalism. In the libertarian world view, the poor are poor because they are lazy and unimaginative. The rich are rich due to their hard work and superior merit. I think this is why it is so popular in the US, where the myth that anyone can make it rich if only they try hard enough is engrained in the culture. In fact social mobility in the US is very restrictive. The children of rich parents get all the advantages of good education, good health care, good diet and access to finance, and thus have much greater opportunity than similar poor children.
It is a fact that most poor people work extremely hard merely to maintain their position. They are paid sufficient to feed and house themselves in most cases but lacking capital their only option is to sell their labour to employers. The employers, possessing capital use it to purchase raw materials, machinery and labour, and sell the goods thus produced for a profit, enabling them to live well for much less work. This is then characterised as 'providing work' for the poor and is regarded as great generosity.
-
The whole 'men with guns' argument is tired, and relies on a very tendential, emotive characterisation of taxation.
Nearly everyone, even libertarians, agree that use of force is justifiable in certain circumstances. For instance, a man has a knife to someone's throat, most people would accept the use of force to prevent murder.
But what if one person has plenty of food, and another is starving to death. Is it acceptable to use force to redistribute the food? I would say yes, but most libertarians would say no I think?
These two situations are not the same, but they do both exist on a line running from 'acceptable use of force' to 'unacceptable force'.
Further along the same line is:
One man has a nice iPhone, another does not. Clearly no one would argue it is acceptable for the phone less man to seize it by force.
So, its not black and white. Redistributive taxation falls somewhere along the line. It depends on your beliefs whether you place it closer to one end it the other. But to characterize it as 'men with guns coming to takje your money by force' is a distortion.
Libertarians often talk as if they would prefer a voluntary system. So instead of playing taxes for police, fire service, roads etc. they would choose to pay into the system of their choosing for these services.
What they overlook is that the current system of taxation IS voluntary. If you don't like it you can take your business elsewhere, to a country where the taxation system is more to your liking. By choosing to live in a country you are accepting its laws....
-
Libertarians often talk as if they would prefer a voluntary system. So instead of playing taxes for police, fire service, roads etc. they would choose to pay into the system of their choosing for these services.
What they overlook is that the current system of taxation IS voluntary. If you don't like it you can take your business elsewhere, to a country where the taxation system is more to your liking. By choosing to live in a country you are accepting its laws....
I am ashamed of this argument.
-
Libertarians often talk as if they would prefer a voluntary system. So instead of playing taxes for police, fire service, roads etc. they would choose to pay into the system of their choosing for these services.
What they overlook is that the current system of taxation IS voluntary. If you don't like it you can take your business elsewhere, to a country where the taxation system is more to your liking. By choosing to live in a country you are accepting its laws....
I am ashamed of this argument.
You shouldn't be, for it is right. Most libertarians hold the belief that just being born means some sort of inherent set of "rights" is bestowed upon them. I think that humans are just another species of animals, so the only right you really have is to be eaten by the next best thing that is faster, stronger, better suited to eat you. The reason we aren't being eaten is that we have achieved a certain level of intellectual and technological superiority over claws and fangs. When you are born you benefit from this, hence you are "indebted" to your herd for it has made that possible. You can't just reach adulthood by the grace of these benefits and then say oh hai, I dun like that, I choose not to contribute to it.
-
Libertarians often talk as if they would prefer a voluntary system. So instead of playing taxes for police, fire service, roads etc. they would choose to pay into the system of their choosing for these services.
What they overlook is that the current system of taxation IS voluntary. If you don't like it you can take your business elsewhere, to a country where the taxation system is more to your liking. By choosing to live in a country you are accepting its laws....
I am ashamed of this argument.
You shouldn't be, for it is right. Most libertarians hold the belief that just being born means some sort of inherent set of "rights" is bestowed upon them. I think that humans are just another species of animals, so the only right you really have is to be eaten by the next best thing that is faster, stronger, better suited to eat you. The reason we aren't being eaten is that we have achieved a certain level of intellectual and technological superiority over claws and fangs. When you are born you benefit from this, hence you are "indebted" to your herd for it has made that possible. You can't just reach adulthood by the grace of these benefits and then say oh hai, I dun like that, I choose not to contribute to it.
I think slaves said something similiar to "oh hai, I dun like that, I choose not to contribute to it." Not everything we've been provided by our herd is beneficial, in fact a lot of it is detrimental. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be grateful for the things we have. For instance we still have nuclear bombs, just in case we want to end the world i guess? I think it's rather childish, it's like these leaders have no foresight whatsoever. Does anyone give a fuck about the children of the future? I guess they'll just leave it for the next generation to decide. The part about saying i choose not to contribute doesn't make much sense to me, because i can think of plenty of people who do just that.
Mental slavery isn't much better than physical slavery, if anything it's worse. This is the case for a large majority of the population. They are either too lazy or unintelligent to educate themselves. If humans continue down the road of endless consumption there may not be any more species on this planet. If there are it certainly won't be humans. Personally i like humans, I think some of us are fucking great. I'm all for keeping our species alive and going into space. If we don't kill ourselves before we leave the planet then something from outerspace will. The universe could honestly care less.
Personally i believe the amount of left over money that is WASTED, on the countless wars would be more than enough to provide people with quality educations, better healthcare, food and housing. That doesn't even factor in the other useless services people unwittingly waste their tax dollars on. After that we could work on viable solutions for overpopulation and get serious about space exploration.
I agree that many libertarians opinions aren't exactly agreeable with reality, although at least some of them are trying to think. The argument of "since we didn't come up with anything better, the system we have must be the best there is" is utter bullshit in my opinion, and isn't much better. You guys act like being born in a country is fucking optional, you think the people in north korea agree with you? It isn't exactly easy to move from one country to another. And even if you did the most of the same fuckheads with no foresight except monetary growth are still in charge, making the laws. Deciding the future of humanity for us.
-
The whole 'men with guns' argument is tired, and relies on a very tendential, emotive characterisation of taxation.
Nearly everyone, even libertarians, agree that use of force is justifiable in certain circumstances. For instance, a man has a knife to someone's throat, most people would accept the use of force to prevent murder.
But what if one person has plenty of food, and another is starving to death. Is it acceptable to use force to redistribute the food? I would say yes, but most libertarians would say no I think?
These two situations are not the same, but they do both exist on a line running from 'acceptable use of force' to 'unacceptable force'.
Further along the same line is:
One man has a nice iPhone, another does not. Clearly no one would argue it is acceptable for the phone less man to seize it by force.
So, its not black and white. Redistributive taxation falls somewhere along the line. It depends on your beliefs whether you place it closer to one end it the other. But to characterize it as 'men with guns coming to takje your money by force' is a distortion.
Libertarians often talk as if they would prefer a voluntary system. So instead of playing taxes for police, fire service, roads etc. they would choose to pay into the system of their choosing for these services.
What they overlook is that the current system of taxation IS voluntary. If you don't like it you can take your business elsewhere, to a country where the taxation system is more to your liking. By choosing to live in a country you are accepting its laws....
Two men are born equal, Man A decides to work his ass off for a living, while Man B decides to do the opposite. It is not ok to come at Man A with a gun and tell him to pay for man B's food because B is a lazy, unmotivated human. But that is what is going on right now. I don't understand why any one would argue for force to be used.
We are all in control of our own destiny, Man B has to suffer with the choices he has made in the past at this very moment.
When it comes to the mentally/physically disabled, I find it fine to come after Man A with force, Man A has plenty to eat while talking a very small amount from his pay would not make his life any worse. While the disabled man never had a choice.
I do believe that everyone is born equal, and even if someone is born in the hood (which would rarely happen with a good economy and an unemployment rate close to 0) they are still able to go to school, get their scholarship to a good high school/college. They just have to make their own choices and do what is best for them. Even though everyone around the person from the hood is dropping out and pushing them too also, they have to take control of their own destiny and not let society take control of it for them.
-
I do believe that everyone is born equal, and even if someone is born in the hood (which would rarely happen with a good economy and an unemployment rate close to 0) they are still able to go to school, get their scholarship to a good high school/college. They just have to make their own choices and do what is best for them. Even though everyone around the person from the hood is dropping out and pushing them too also, they have to take control of their own destiny and not let society take control of it for them.
Two things here; I'm not sure that libertarianism will bring unemployment rate close to zero, or that if it did those in the hood would be lifted out if poverty. Presumably those now unemployed would be provided with sub current minimum wage work which they would be forced to accept by removal of benefits. Is this an improvement?
Secondly, this is once again the pernicious myth that someone born into poor circumstances has plenty of chances to work hard, go to college and change their life, and therefore those who fail to do this are deserving of their fate.
Libertarians talk about freedom a lot but why should a child born to poor parents have so much less opportunity than one born into wealth? I am reminded of the phrase "justice in England is like the Ritz hotel: open to everyone" The whole aim of redistributive taxation is to level this uneven playing field somewhat.
I remember seeing an episode of "The Secret Millionaire" (a sick making maudlin show where some wealthy nouveau riche type goes to a poor neighbourhood in guise of a fellow pauper, involves himself in some worthy projects and on the last day whips off his mask and starts handing out cheques and patronising praise). This particular program featured a young man from a wealthy suburb of Liverpool whos father had a large student property portfolio. On his 18th birthday his dad gave him £1 million, with the understanding he would have to manage with that. The boy proudly described how by buying student property during the boom of the early century he had doubled his money to £2million, and paid his father back. He therefore regarded himself as a self made millionaire.
After I took my foot out of the TV, I reflected that this little Lord Fauntleroy would probably look down on the poor oiks who hadn't made a fortune out of property to lift themselves out of poverty.... after all he had managed. They must just be lazy or stupid or both.
The thing is that a child born to wealthy parents can be lazy or stupid and make plenty of mistakes but still go to college and be given a well paying job by daddy's friends. A child born in the hood who dares take his eyes off the ball briefly will end up stuck in a rut of poverty, working two jobs to pay the bills, no time to consider education and god help him if he falls expensively I'll or has legal trouble or is black.
I have no problem with taxation taking money from the wealthy to attempt to provide the poor with some of the opportunities for self improvement that they may lack. The better off aren't going to do this voluntarily. My definition of freedom rates equality of opportunity more highly than an individuals right to use their wealth to acquire advantages for their children.
Libertarianism promises freedom for the rich to oppress the poor. Their is an unpleasant thread of social Darwinism present in its advocates.....they constantly talk about the poor in such terms as lazy, unmotivated, parasites. You always get the impression they are imagining themselves as being healthy, wealthy and successful under a libertarian system, so why should they pay for the upkeep of an indigent pauper class?
-
And now another punk song:
The Business. 'Do they owe us a living?'
Fuck the politically minded, here's something I want to say,
About the state of nation, the way it treats us today.
At school they give you shit, drop you in the pit,
You try, you try, you try to get out, but you can't because they've fucked you about.
Then you're a prime example of how they must not be,
This is just a sample of what they've done to you and me.
Do they owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.
Don't want me anymore, cos I threw it on the floor.
Used to call me sweet thing, I'm nobody's plaything,
And now that I am different, 'd love to bust my head,
You'd love to see me cop-out, 'd love to see me dead.
Do they owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.
The living that is owed to me I'm never going to get,
They've buggered this old world up, up to their necks in debt.
They'd give you a lobotomy for something you ain't done,
They'll make you an epitomy of everything that's wrong.
Do they owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.
Don't take any notice of what the public think,
They're so hyped up with T.V., they just don't want to think.
They'll use you as a target for demands and for advice,
When you don't want to hear it they'll say you're full of vice.
Do they owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.
-
I'm in a simular boat to you, used to strongly champion libertarianism in all its forms, but after studying sociology my opinion somewhat shifted. I think libertarianism is the default of what human social structures will shift towards - we are naturally selfish (or self-interested) and unchecked we will seek to acquire as much liberty as possible. That is only a problem when the liberties you take impact other people - and in this complex world they almost always do.
My position now centres more around communitarianism - I recognise individual success relies heavily on others. No individual achievements would be possible without all of our collective achievements. Humans are at their greatest when we work together.
You should read John Stewart Mills, he was very competent in articulating libertarianism. I agree whole heartedly with his "harm theory" - no law should prohibit behaviour that does not dirrectly impact another human being.
That's my rant done
-
Libertarians often talk as if they would prefer a voluntary system. So instead of playing taxes for police, fire service, roads etc. they would choose to pay into the system of their choosing for these services.
What they overlook is that the current system of taxation IS voluntary. If you don't like it you can take your business elsewhere, to a country where the taxation system is more to your liking. By choosing to live in a country you are accepting its laws....
I am ashamed of this argument.
You shouldn't be, for it is right. Most libertarians hold the belief that just being born means some sort of inherent set of "rights" is bestowed upon them. I think that humans are just another species of animals, so the only right you really have is to be eaten by the next best thing that is faster, stronger, better suited to eat you. The reason we aren't being eaten is that we have achieved a certain level of intellectual and technological superiority over claws and fangs. When you are born you benefit from this, hence you are "indebted" to your herd for it has made that possible. You can't just reach adulthood by the grace of these benefits and then say oh hai, I dun like that, I choose not to contribute to it.
I think slaves said something similiar to "oh hai, I dun like that, I choose not to contribute to it." Not everything we've been provided by our herd is beneficial, in fact a lot of it is detrimental. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be grateful for the things we have. For instance we still have nuclear bombs, just in case we want to end the world i guess? I think it's rather childish, it's like these leaders have no foresight whatsoever. Does anyone give a fuck about the children of the future? I guess they'll just leave it for the next generation to decide. The part about saying i choose not to contribute doesn't make much sense to me, because i can think of plenty of people who do just that.
Mental slavery isn't much better than physical slavery, if anything it's worse. This is the case for a large majority of the population. They are either too lazy or unintelligent to educate themselves. If humans continue down the road of endless consumption there may not be any more species on this planet. If there are it certainly won't be humans. Personally i like humans, I think some of us are fucking great. I'm all for keeping our species alive and going into space. If we don't kill ourselves before we leave the planet then something from outerspace will. The universe could honestly care less.
Personally i believe the amount of left over money that is WASTED, on the countless wars would be more than enough to provide people with quality educations, better healthcare, food and housing. That doesn't even factor in the other useless services people unwittingly waste their tax dollars on. After that we could work on viable solutions for overpopulation and get serious about space exploration.
I agree that many libertarians opinions aren't exactly agreeable with reality, although at least some of them are trying to think. The argument of "since we didn't come up with anything better, the system we have must be the best there is" is utter bullshit in my opinion, and isn't much better. You guys act like being born in a country is fucking optional, you think the people in north korea agree with you? It isn't exactly easy to move from one country to another. And even if you did the most of the same fuckheads with no foresight except monetary growth are still in charge, making the laws. Deciding the future of humanity for us.
So if "the market" tells you fucko, you is shit out of luck, you trained the wrong skills, you made the wrong investment, you made a/some wrong decision(s), please confine yourself to a life of mere substandard subsistence then that is okay, if you are born into a country with taxation that tells you fucko you want to use lighted roads and get an ambulance to get you if need be and we make sure big corp doesn't poison you then that is terrible and tyranny.
I guess what I am trying to say is I can't for the life of me understand how (radical) libertarians make that distinction that being tyrannized by society/government is da worst thing evah whereas being tyrannized by capital is just great and dandy. To me being tyrannized is always terrible regardless of the source of said tyranny. And make no mistake, it has become painfully obvious what big capital will do to you without blinking once over the last couple decades. In the US, every major bill deregulating something has resulted in people getting hurt big time by the $$$-elite.
Here's the thing, and this is my beef with libertarians, there has never been a truly libertarian society in world history. Hence, all the assertions that some invisible greater force will swoop in and make everything right for everyone if only any and all regulation is removed can be regarded as little more as wishful thinking. There isn't really any scientific indication that anything would get better. For all we know things would get worse. To go back to the US as an example: banking got deregulated, look at what happened in 2007/2008 (number of financial breakdowns in Canada since the nation was founded: 0), telecommunications got deregulated look what happened. Most Americans have literally only one carrier available to them, whilst people in "socialist hell" Europe get to choose between 3 or 4 different carriers offering 50/50 highspeed lines.
And that's just it, most hardcore libertarians seem almost like religious people to me, for they don't base their assertions of what would be not on observation of that which we have already seen, but on something that is mere belief, just like Jesus (I'm an ardent atheist by the way so that wasn't a compliment).
Long story short: show me one sports team that will improve it's performance by removing a formal training regimen, show me one business organization that will improve it's profit by removing conduct regulations and requirements from its employees, it just doesn't make sense.
Does that mean the status quo is acceptable or even good? No, of course not, most governments in the world are broken beyond belief, however, the solution to that is fix government, not get rid of it. The proper solution to slippery slopes is proper oversight, not inaction.
If the last 300 years have taught us anything then it is that the proper response is democracy with sensible oversight and regulation.
As for the poor man/rich man comparisons above, I don't want to punish or take from an achiever, but I do want a society where the playing field is level and everyone starts from the same starting line. Libertarianism will invariably lead to a situation where the financially privileged will start 50 yards ahead of everyone on the inside track, that is not freedom, that is not liberty, it's oppression only that here money is used to oppress instead of state force.
-
As my subject suggests, I used to be a Libertarian.
Libertarianism assumes everyone is ready and willing to compete and work hard, and that everyone has something special to bring to market, if only given the chance. Ridiculous as well. Here's why.
The world is filled with four kind of people in my estimation:
1) Those whom cannot "do"
2) Those whom can "do" a little but are not very motivated to do so.
3) Those whom can "do" a little and are motivated to do so.
4) Those whom can "do" a lot, and are super motivated.
If you think differntly, then please share where has my reasoning failed me? :-)
With an perception like that, you were never libertarian... you only claim to be.
In your mind... what is "do"?... What is "a lot"... "a little"... "motivated"?
To you what may seem "a lot", may seem like nothing to another... and/or vice versa. I may find taking a shit in the morning motivational, yet others not so much. So how do you define these perceptions then?
Sounds to me like you just want a big mud slinging socialist circle jerk...
-
Sorry, but aside from the illegality of selling drugs, what exactly are these 'huge barriers to entry' for starting a new business that you believe aren't currently possible under the current western system?
(+1 for you, Reason. A nicely reasoned, non-dogmatic dialogue starter!)
If you operate a Bitcoin exchange you need to know my customers. Running a digital currency exchange in the USA is begging to go to prison even if you try to follow the law. You need to figure out how much tax you owe, etc. If you make a new drug it needs to be approved by the FDA. There are regulations and laws galore, you are naive as hell if you think drugs being illegal to sell is the only way that the government strangles businesses.
So Alternative B being you just release a new untested drug on the unsuspecting populous and then hide behind libertarianism when they start dying?
... As you're simultaneously surfing and buying (unknown) shit off SR. lol
Hypocrite?
And there's always a 50:1 male/female ratio at libertarian meetups, to boot. That tells ya something. And that 1 female has some major daddy issues.
Like your occupy chicks are real gems...
-
Except taxes are not theft. They are a pool of resource needed for the common good.
In the Libertarian world my partner - ill with Multiple Sclerosis - wouldn't die. No. She'd be on a path of increasing, permanent, disability because I can't afford to purchase the thousands of pounds worth of medicine she takes each and every month. Basically blind in a wheelchair, with increasing pain. She worked before illness, I worked a well paying job for decades. For years and years each of us put into the system vastly more than either of us ever withdrew. It would have been fine with each of us if neither of us ever saw "value" for that taxation. But as she's the "lucky" one in a million to come down with a horrific illness it's nice that social pool of tax money is available.
And no, the money alone we put in wouldn't have been enough to cover all the costs. That's the point of spreading the cost over a larger user base. The larger the base the lower any individual contribution. Fairness would suggest the richer paid more than the poorer, as I did. Progressive taxation is the pinnacle of an insurance scheme like that.
This is, ultimately, why Libertarianism is a load of wank that only healthy young people straight from momma's spare room seem to guzzle up.
Oh yes, your taxation also pays for the jails and the police. No taxation and the cops go home and the prisoners get let out. I don't give three flying fucks how hard you say or think you are, that's a lot arse rape you have to face immediately prior to the *ACTUAL* theft of *ALL* your good shit. And, with a bleeding anus no hospital will treat, and no possessions, just you wait till they light your home on fire.
No Libertarian fireman is going to come out and put out that fire out of a sense of altruism... and you don't got shit to PAY with... so he'll SHRUG LIKE ATLAS and watch that motherfucker BURN!
This is not to say there is nothing about Libertarianism that's worthwhile. But it's like any doctrine or creed - Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Capitalism, Communism, whatever, - the fanatics are destructive weirdoes. Always. Because they're fanatic. And weird.
First... let me incinerate your straw-man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_fire_department#United_States
"69 percent of firefighters in the United States are volunteers"
"In the United States, the Department of Labor classifies volunteer firefighters as firefighters that receive no compensation or nominal fees up to 20% of the compensation a full-time firefighter would receive in the same capacity"
Yeah... obviously the world would just burn down and bodies would pile up in the streets.
And since you think writing fictional red herrings equates to factual reality, let me take a shot at some of my own fiction...
In the Libertarian world your partner - ill with Multiple Sclerosis - wouldn't die. No. She'd be on a path of increasing, permanent, health... because someone like me without the weight of the FDA et al. on my back, was able to create a cheap cure. The End.
Talk about weird... The only reason you fear ass rape is because you're not allowed to protect yourself; FYI no need to fear that when you're carrying an M-4. But it's fine with me if you prefer to watch and wait (20 minutes?) for police while your wife is being gang banged... that is, if you're even able to make the call. Whatever floats your boat, bud.
-
Once I saw an interview with two African Americans. Kidney failure was about to take both of their lives. Nevertheless, they did not want some random person to be killed so they could harvest two working kidneys. You just gotta LAUGH.
Exactly the same except (a) my story happened and (b) my story didn't require harm to a third party for his medical treatment?
You think sending armed thugs with guns to rob people doesn't cause harm to the robbed person? Where do you think the money for socialized health care comes from? It comes from tax dollars. Tax dollars that are collected by the IRS. If you don't pay taxes they will come and arrest you. If you resist arrest they will point guns at you. Socialized health care is funded by armed robberies.
People that do not get health insurance get sick. THEY go to the ERs of county hospitals for colds and flu and ear infections thus driving up MY health care costs. The "choice" to be uninsured is funded by depriving me and anyone else. How is that any better?
Some people are so maladjusted and antisocial that they only stop harming others at gunpoint. What's the news?
How are you deprived by someone else being uninsured? Do you own the hospital? The hospital can decide who they treat and who they do not treat, it is their right. If they don't want to treat people who cannot afford it, then that is up to them as well. Nobody is depriving you of shit, you want to deprive others of the right to not be insured and apparently you want to deprive the hospital of the right to treat whoever they want. You are the one who wants to use guns pointed at others to solve all of your problems, regardless of if you want to point the gun at a person without insurance or at the doctor who decides to treat people without insurance. You are the one who wants to use guns for your own benefit.
Utter bullshit,
hospitals are required to provide emergency care under the Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed in 1986. That act became necessary because in the world you fantasize about "admissions officers" would ask bleeding people for an insurance/credit card and send them off to die on the corner if they had neither. Some utopia... you can keep that.
No matter what your stance on this is, whether it is morally okay to let people die or not, whether you favor socialistic or libertarian approaches, no libertarian ever answers the question, what do you do with the uninsured if they have an emergency? Do you just let them die on the road? How long do you think it will take until the mob starts rioting in the street if you have uncle Bobs and granny Maples dieing in the streets everywhere? All libertarians offer is some metaphysical insinuation that somehow this will sort itself out if only regulation is removed. Might as well try praying...
Clearly you've never had a huge bill from a hospital in the US before... a charity may help you out. (and in many cases, they will)
You commies/socialists make libertarians out to be the cold ruthless ones, when it is you that are. People being responsible for their actions will only lead to more charity and altruistic philanthropy, not less. This is proven by the US people being more charitable than you more socialist types. By far, monetarily. And monetarily, 75% of this charity comes from private individuals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-us-ran_n_1159562.html
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers
Dead bodies will not be piling up, at least not in the US...
"what do you do with the uninsured if they have an emergency?"
Doctors will treat patients because they want to treat them... because it's why they became doctors in the first place, to help. Money is not the primary issue with us, even-though apparently it is with you.
-
In the Libertarian world your partner - ill with Multiple Sclerosis - wouldn't die. No. She'd be on a path of increasing, permanent, health... because someone like me without the weight of the FDA et al. on my back, was able to create a cheap cure. The End.
Talk about weird... The only reason you fear ass rape is because you're not allowed to protect yourself; FYI no need to fear that when you're carrying an M-4.
Of course how foolish of us. Without the jackboot of government tyranny on our neck all diseases would be cured, average income in real terms would quadruple and wine would fall from the sky like rain. And of course you would never have to worry about anything because you would have a big fucking gun.
You have pretty much summed up the quality of libertarian thought.
-
By the way I suspect the reason that US citizens are more charitable is because they need to be, as their government is failing to care for its less fortunate citizens properly.
It is always amusing the way libertarians characterise anyone who disagrees with their extremist philosophy as communist. We are not communist or socialist. It's just our culture hasn't taken as big a swing to the right as yours in the past 40 years. In the 50s and 60s the US government enjoyed the greatest period of growth in recent history while enacting policies that you would no doubt characterise as extreme socialism.
-
Doctors will treat patients because they want to treat them... because it's why they became doctors in the first place, to help. Money is not the primary issue with us, even-though apparently it is with you.
This is very reminiscent of the response to someone asking a communist, "why would anyone bother to become successful if everyone is paid the same?"
The response is often , "well someone would become a doctor because they want to help people rather than for money, for example"
As has been said already, these stonewall ideologies are always naive "in an ideal world..." type philosophies.
-
According to a Harvard study medical bills is the biggest and most prevalent cause of bankruptcy filings in the US accounting for 62.1% of all personal bankruptcies filed. Poor and/or excessive/irresponsible use of credit only ranks at number three. I guess there is less charity than you thought then maybe? Even more peculiar, the study found that 78% of those cases involved people that actually had paid for some form of health insurance.
But hey, at least we aren't under the tyranny of having to suffer regulations that would force insurers to do what you paid for instead of finding reasons to drop you off the plan so the ever-present and abundantly available charities can take over. /sarcasm
***CLEARNET***
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/petrie-flom/workshop/pdf/warren.pdf
***CLEARNET***
So, basically, that whole wall of text tl;dr rant of "commie circle jerks" was nothing but the usual semi-illiterate ideologically charged ramblings one usually gets to hear on the intarwebz.
-
+1000
This whole thread has turned into a socialist circle jerk. That's why I stopped posting in here. Well except for this ;)
Sounds to me like you just want a big mud slinging socialist circle jerk...
-
+1000
This whole thread has turned into a socialist circle jerk. That's why I stopped posting in here. Well except for this ;)
Sounds to me like you just want a big mud slinging socialist circle jerk...
Communist circle jerk - Translation: I ran out of or didn't have in the first place any empirical arguments and my unfounded unproven assertions aren't treated as "fact" hence I pout and leave dropping something derogatory on my way out the door...
Very "libertarian" :P
-
That's fucking hilarious considering that you *****ignored***** EVERY SINGLE EMPIRICAL ARGUMENT of mine from earlier in this thread!!!
But you're an epic hypocrite so that's just par for the course, isn't it? ;)
+1000
This whole thread has turned into a socialist circle jerk. That's why I stopped posting in here. Well except for this ;)
Sounds to me like you just want a big mud slinging socialist circle jerk...
Communist circle jerk - Translation: I ran out of or didn't have in the first place any empirical arguments and my unfounded unproven assertions aren't treated as "fact" hence I pout and leave dropping something derogatory on my way out the door...
Very "libertarian" :P
-
That's fucking hilarious considering that you *****ignored***** EVERY SINGLE EMPIRICAL ARGUMENT of mine from earlier in this thread!!!
But you're an epic hypocrite so that's just par for the course, isn't it? ;)
+1000
This whole thread has turned into a socialist circle jerk. That's why I stopped posting in here. Well except for this ;)
Sounds to me like you just want a big mud slinging socialist circle jerk...
Communist circle jerk - Translation: I ran out of or didn't have in the first place any empirical arguments and my unfounded unproven assertions aren't treated as "fact" hence I pout and leave dropping something derogatory on my way out the door...
Very "libertarian" :P
Uhm, whilst I appreciate exchanging thoughts with you and respect your opinions I do have to say that in my humble opinion you just might have to read up on the definition of "empirical" maybe? ...... :)
<3
-
Adjective
empirical (not comparable)
Pertaining to or based on experience.
Pertaining to, derived from, or testable by observations made using the physical senses or using instruments which extend the senses.
(philosophy of science) Verifiable by means of scientific experimentation.
Which is exactly what I did and you decided to completely ignore what I had to say. I guess it's just more convenient to pretend arguments that you disagree with don't exist or "aren't empirical" than to actually take the time to address them.
I appreciate exchanging thoughts with you
And when have you ever exchanged thoughts with me?? If you bothered to respond to any of my (referenced, empirical) arguments then that would be true.
and respect your opinions
No you don't. Is that some kind of a joke? ::)
-
Clearly you've never had a huge bill from a hospital in the US before... a charity may help you out. (and in many cases, they will)
Did you really advocate the "rely on charity" system of state healthcare? Did you... really?
-
Clearly you've never had a huge bill from a hospital in the US before... a charity may help you out. (and in many cases, they will)
Did you really advocate the "rely on charity" system of state healthcare? Did you... really?
It's the magic unicorn of libertarianism buddy, donchu know? It's there! It's true! It happens! But as any shy mythical, magical or religious creature it only comes out when it feels unwatched! It will only show itself when any and all regulation is abandoned! Also, people will stop murdering each other if only you'd remove laws against murder.
Everyone will start to behave well if only we'd remove "regulations" against behaving bad.
Boy if ever a horse was saddled from the rear...
-
....people will stop murdering each other if only you'd remove laws against murder.
Libertarian thought today is loosely based upon the Constitution. That means very limited government. Not ZERO government which would be anarchy. Basic laws would be in place to protect life, liberty and private property. Fraud, murder, rape, assault, abduction, extortion, property destruction and pollution would all be covered by these laws and fully punishable by criminal penalties. Civil penalties would also apply under a modified court system where the plaintiff and defendant would be on equal footing unlike how it is today. All trade, production and creation would be completely unregulated and no permission would be needed from the government to do any of those things. Money would be completely unregulated and untracked. Legal tender laws would be thrown in the trash heap of history and people would be able to trade amongst themselves however they see fit with whichever currencies they choose. They could even introduce their very own currencies for this purpose. The terrible distortion of the money supply that's fucking up everything today would almost instantly cease to exist when that happened. So would the capacity for the government to wage war domestically and internationally. And government's ability to expand would be halted. Permanently.
This would lead to a minimum reduction in the size of government of 90%. Taxes would plummet accordingly and so would the prison population. I don't know about you but that's the kind of world I want to live in. The current one is turning into an Orwellian nightmare with unlimited government crushing anything and everything in its path that is seen as a threat to the fascist Establishment. Unlimited wars. Unlimited taxes. Unlimited debt. Unlimited destruction. FUCK THAT.
-
Oh it sounds awesome! Sign me up, I'd love all that! Seriously, I mean it.
But then again, as the original poster has so astutely observed, it has one fundamental chink, the very same chink communism had................. it fails to account for human nature, and stipulates that some superordinate metaphysical mechanism will make it all right somehow.
The power amassed by the few is so tremendous that no market mechanism in the world could possible provide a level playing field. Look at the US, do you think people will start moving away from their jobs and homes because they are unhappy with the fact that there is only one utilities provider in any given region establishing defacto pricing monopolies? Do you think people will give up careers to move somewhere else where another cable provider provides better internet speeds? These issues aren't caused by government, they are caused by entities becoming so big and powerful that it becomes cheaper to outspend upcoming competition than to innovate.
That is the problem with this whole libertarian thought. Wealth and power are too concentrated already. They can leverage any market dynamic simply by outspending it.
Yes, nowadays governments are pretty much shite and they make shite policies, but, please do tell if you will, since most governments are big-corp pwns these days, what makes you think that the very big corp entities that buy up entire governments would behave better if you were to remove the last couple restrictions that are placed on them? Do you think anyone in big oil, big power, big healthcare is even still susceptible to 100, 500, 100, 10,000 rage-quitters? They fart on that!
There is no invention or market interruption in sight that would theoretically allow for new players to become so succesful in basically anything that they would be able to shake up the top 10% of the global money machines.
How would you handle that? How would these libertarian market mechanisms ensure that the required market interruptions would be met with innovation instead of being simply smothered with a money pillow?
I like these libertarian ideas, I really do. Gosh who wouldn't want to live in a "fair" world like that. The thing is though, it's simply unrealistic and unfeasible. There is no empirical evidence in history whatsoever that would indicate that abandoning the vast majority of regulations would indeed improve anything for anyone except the top 10% money elite of the world. The division of labor has advanced way too fast to be leveraged by mechanisms that may have worked well in a world of Peter builds cabinets, George is a doctor, Peter is sick and George needs a new cabinet, Susan adds a chicken for some medicine.
Ever since humans started banding together to hunt mammoth the same structures emerged, from pack leaders to dukes and counts and kings to presidents and chancellors and central committee secretaries to CEO/CFOs. Different systems, same effect.
The only way to counteract this ever-emerging pattern of suppression of the many by the few is found in proper social democracies (provided people are engaged enough and educated enough to properly vote for their interest).
All these changes interwebz-libertarians suggest these days would lead to nothing else but going back to oppresive aristocracies, except now we'd call counts CFOs, dukes HR managers and Kings CEOs.
-
....it fails to account for human nature, and stipulates that some superordinate metaphysical mechanism will make it all right somehow.
And the "superordinate metaphysical mechanism" you're talking about can somehow be replaced by government?? Don't you see the irony of your statement? ::)
....do you think people will start moving away from their jobs and homes because they are unhappy with the fact that there is only one utilities provider in any given region establishing defacto pricing monopolies? Do you think people will give up careers to move somewhere else where another cable provider provides better internet speeds? These issues aren't caused by government....
Your arguments really crack me up. You DO know that utilities and cable operators are heavily regulated by the government right? And that those heavy regulations pose a very high and very artificial barrier to entry to would be competitors? And that they were GRANTED their pricing monopolies (not defacto- it's the law!!!) by government power right? ;D
Wealth and power are too concentrated already.
Yes. This wealth and power has been generated from crony capitalism thugs who are part of the revolving door of government. It's happened BECAUSE of the current corrupt fascist system. Not in spite of it like you're implying.
....what makes you think that the very big corp entities that buy up entire governments would behave better if you were to remove the last couple restrictions that are placed on them?
Again, you seem to think that these regulations somehow hold back or impede these companies from wreaking havoc on the economy and the people. These regulations ARE NOT ENFORCED on the fascists. They're SELECTIVELY ENFORCED on their competitors. That is the best example of a playing field that is so unlevel it's fucking vertical instead of horizontal!!! Honestly, please read this paragraph very carefully since it cuts right to the heart of one of your biggest misconceptions about the current system of government we have in place.
There is no invention or market interruption in sight that would theoretically allow for new players to become so succesful in basically anything that they would be able to shake up the top 10% of the global money machines.
Really? Lookup "The Internet" sometime. Or something insignificant called "Desktop Computers". And unknown losers like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and tens of thousands of much lesser known losers who clearly didn't make any money without helpful regulation and didn't contribute anything of importance to society.
How would you handle that? How would these libertarian market mechanisms ensure that the required market interruptions would be met with innovation instead of being simply smothered with a money pillow?
Where is this money pillow and how can I be smothered with it? ;D
There is no empirical evidence in history whatsoever that would indicate that abandoning the vast majority of regulations would indeed improve anything for anyone except the top 10% money elite of the world.
Nothing except America of course. The greatest inventions of all time have happened when government stayed the fuck OUT of the market and let the market work things out for itself. The greatest expansion of wealth in history (for EVERYONE which established the middle class) happened from the start of the 19th century until its end. And the single greatest 20 year expansion happened from the early 1870s until the early 1890s. A lot of bad things started happening during the first 20 years of the 20th. I'll let you guess what.
The computer and internet evolution was also huge and comes third to those other periods. If they never happened then we'd already be in a deep great depression right now.
Ever since humans started banding together to hunt mammoth the same structures emerged, from pack leaders to dukes and counts and kings to presidents and chancellors and central committee secretaries to CEO/CFOs. Different systems, same effect.
The only way to counteract this ever-emerging pattern of suppression of the many by the few is found in proper social democracies (provided people are engaged enough and educated enough to properly vote for their interest).
And where the fuck does a "proper social democracy" with people who are "engaged enough and educated enough to properly vote for their interest" exist today??? Talk about something that's "unrealistic and unfeasible" as you called libertarianism!! :o ::)
All these changes interwebz-libertarians suggest these days would lead to nothing else but going back to oppresive aristocracies, except now we'd call counts CFOs, dukes HR managers and Kings CEOs.
And what did I ever say which suggested this bullshit you're claiming?? Again you're lumping in fascism with libertarianism. Why do you keep on doing that? You're not convincing anybody. As for armchair libertarians, I've already said before that MANY people who ARE ANYTHING BUT libertarians call themselves that. Give me the names of some libertarian scholars who promote what you claim they're saying and then we can talk.
-
And the "superordinate metaphysical mechanism" you're talking about can somehow be replaced by government?? Don't you see the irony of your statement?
Not at all, but it needs to be regulated and moderated, because just as any other physical, political or economic self-sustaining system it will tend to favor the path of least resistance. In economic terms, over time money will only go to where money already is, this mechanism will perpetuate until the system collapses.
Your arguments really crack me up. You DO know that utilities and cable operators are heavily regulated by the government right? And that those heavy regulations pose a very high and very artificial barrier to entry to would be competitors? And that they were GRANTED their pricing monopolies (not defacto- it's the law!!!) by government power right?
You are operating under the wrong assumption. Government did not wake up one morning saying OH HAI, lets regulate power! If you care to read up on these "cartels" you will find that what happened first was the hostile culling of those markets my the financially strongest operators in an attempt to wipe out all local competition to achieve price dominion. Then followed the regulations in order to achieve at least some form of price stability. Government had to jump in here, otherwise you'd be paying two thirds of your paycheck for power. Why? Because they can!
Yes. This wealth and power has been generated from crony capitalism thugs who are part of the revolving door of government. It's happened BECAUSE of the current corrupt fascist system. Not in spite of it like you're implying.
So what's your solution? How do you hit the reset button and go to "libertarian" approaches? Redistribute the wealth maybe? :P Oh no wait, that was the other side.
Again, you seem to think that these regulations somehow hold back or impede these companies from wreaking havoc on the economy and the people. These regulations ARE NOT ENFORCED on the fascists. They're SELECTIVELY ENFORCED on their competitors. That is the best example of a playing field that is so unlevel it's fucking vertical instead of horizontal!!! Honestly, please read this paragraph very carefully since it cuts right to the heart of one of your biggest misconceptions about the current system of government we have in place.
You got that one upside-down too. If you want to see just how much havoc these multinationals are willing to wreak just compare oil extraction by BP in the US and in South Africa. Same company, same management. Except over in the states there is at least some semblance of responsibility whereas they poison and destroy without a second thought. The only thing keeping them from creating a polluted uninhabitable wasteland like they do in Africa is regulations and government sanctions. (not half-enough if you ask me)
Really? Lookup "The Internet" sometime. Or something insignificant called "Desktop Computers". And unknown losers like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and tens of thousands of much lesser known losers who clearly didn't make any money without helpful regulation and didn't contribute anything of importance to society.
You know it's really funny that you should mention 2 inventions that came out of publicly funded government labs to state your case. The Internet? That's defense technology out of DARPA, the PC? Government funded research. Business didn't want anything to do with it. Too big, too pricey, to unreliable. Bill Gates? Uhm, well yeah, 5 years of inventin' and inovatin' followed by decades of using one big break to buy everyone else up or sue them into oblivion. Thanks for proving my point.
Where is this money pillow and how can I be smothered with it?
Yeah, you and me both ;D
Nothing except America of course. The greatest inventions of all time have happened when government stayed the fuck OUT of the market and let the market work things out for itself. The greatest expansion of wealth in history (for EVERYONE which established the middle class) happened from the start of the 19th century until its end. And the single greatest 20 year expansion happened from the early 1870s until the early 1890s. A lot of bad things started happening during the first 20 years of the 20th. I'll let you guess what.
The computer and internet evolution was also huge and comes third to those other periods. If they never happened then we'd already be in a deep great depression right now.
Ah the 18's early 19's, yeah you are right. The dawn of industrialization combined with slavery, what a wealth machine. Glad government staid out of it, rite? :P The of course the computer and Internet again, but then we have already established that those came straight out of government research and were only picked up by business after governments did the heavy lifting in terms of early development and decided to release the research to the public.
And where the fuck does a "proper social democracy" with people who are "engaged enough and educated enough to properly vote for their interest" exist today??? Talk about something that's "unrealistic and unfeasible" as you called libertarianism!!
Nowhere, haven't claimed there is. Some of the Nordic countries come pretty close though, but I guess they would be "dem hated commies" in your view.
And what did I ever say which suggested this bullshit you're claiming?? Again you're lumping in fascism with libertarianism. Why do you keep on doing that? You're not convincing anybody. As for armchair libertarians, I've already said before that MANY people who ARE ANYTHING BUT libertarians call themselves that. Give me the names of some libertarian scholars who promote what you claim they're saying and then we can talk.
I think your returning to "fascism" as a talking point should give you some food for thought. Maybe the flavor of libertarianism you'd favor, where capital rules obviously, is nothing but some form of reversed fascism, a fascism of the capital so to speak. If you believe this "the Ponderosa Ranch sells bad steaks so people stop buying from Ponderosa all is well" is by any means realistic I'd probably label you as naive.
-
Clearly you've never had a huge bill from a hospital in the US before... a charity may help you out. (and in many cases, they will)
Did you really advocate the "rely on charity" system of state healthcare? Did you... really?
It's the magic unicorn of libertarianism buddy, donchu know? It's there! It's true! It happens! But as any shy mythical, magical or religious creature it only comes out when it feels unwatched! It will only show itself when any and all regulation is abandoned! Also, people will stop murdering each other if only you'd remove laws against murder.
Everyone will start to behave well if only we'd remove "regulations" against behaving bad.
Boy if ever a horse was saddled from the rear...
Well hopefully it happens, but if it doesn't it is better that people should get sick and die than that we organize armed robbers to steal from everybody in order to fund health care. I would rather a hundred sick people die than somebody sticks a gun in a rich persons face to save them.
-
By the way I suspect the reason that US citizens are more charitable is because they need to be, as their government is failing to care for its less fortunate citizens properly.
It is always amusing the way libertarians characterise anyone who disagrees with their extremist philosophy as communist. We are not communist or socialist. It's just our culture hasn't taken as big a swing to the right as yours in the past 40 years. In the 50s and 60s the US government enjoyed the greatest period of growth in recent history while enacting policies that you would no doubt characterise as extreme socialism.
Libertarianism is not right wing. The political system is best thought of as a diamond. It has left-right and up-down. Liberalism is to the left, Conservatism to the right. Authoritarianism is to the top, Libertarianism is to the bottom. At the top and bottom, the distinction between left and right goes away. Anarchy is at the very bottom of the spectrum. It is not really left or right wing. Libertarians are as socially liberal as the most extreme liberals and as financially conservative as the most extreme conservatives. Libertarianism is hated by the left and the right because it is the extreme opposite of what they are in one category, and extremely beyond what most of them are in the other.
Personally though I am a Totalibertarian. I don't see why I cannot be a libertarian and a totalitarian. I think that libertarians should take control of the world, with violence if required, and enforce extreme libertarianism. All theft, including taxation, should be strictly outlawed. Anybody who tries to steal, including tax, should be treated as a criminal and punished. All drugs should be legal, there should be absolutely no regulation on drugs, anybody who tries to use illegitimate force to prevent a person from selling a drug should be treated as a criminal and punished. All information should be free, anybody who tries to use violence to tell another person what they may say or look at in the privacy of their own home should be treated as a criminal and punished.
A big problem with libertarianism is that a lot of libertarians confuse it with pacifism. Libertarians are too honest of people and too good of people, whereas mostly everybody else is a lying stealing fascist sack of shit, willing to lie to idiots to brainwash them (democracy, religion), willing to steal money from people to fund their own desires (liberals/communists), willing to use violence to rob people and oppress people, etc. Libertarians need to come to recognize that it is the ENDS of these people that are wrong, not the means. There is nothing wrong with putting a gun in the face of a thief and telling him he cannot steal, there is nothing wrong with violently overthrowing an oppressive government and its police if they are against liberty, there is nothing wrong with "brainwashing" (educating in the case of libertarianism) the people into libertarian goals. So I consider myself a Totalibertarian (a term someone else coined for my political philosophy), and I think we need a probably violent global movement to seize control of the world and enforce libertarianism with an iron fist.
-
By the way I suspect the reason that US citizens are more charitable is because they need to be, as their government is failing to care for its less fortunate citizens properly.
It is always amusing the way libertarians characterise anyone who disagrees with their extremist philosophy as communist. We are not communist or socialist. It's just our culture hasn't taken as big a swing to the right as yours in the past 40 years. In the 50s and 60s the US government enjoyed the greatest period of growth in recent history while enacting policies that you would no doubt characterise as extreme socialism.
Libertarianism is not right wing. The political system is best thought of as a diamond. It has left-right and up-down. Liberalism is to the left, Conservatism to the right. Authoritarianism is to the top, Libertarianism is to the bottom. At the top and bottom, the distinction between left and right goes away. Anarchy is at the very bottom of the spectrum. It is not really left or right wing. Libertarians are as socially liberal as the most extreme liberals and as financially conservative as the most extreme conservatives. Libertarianism is hated by the left and the right because it is the extreme opposite of what they are in one category, and extremely beyond what most of them are in the other.
Personally though I am a Totalibertarian. I don't see why I cannot be a libertarian and a totalitarian. I think that libertarians should take control of the world, with violence if required, and enforce extreme libertarianism. All theft, including taxation, should be strictly outlawed. Anybody who tries to steal, including tax, should be treated as a criminal and punished. All drugs should be legal, there should be absolutely no regulation on drugs, anybody who tries to use illegitimate force to prevent a person from selling a drug should be treated as a criminal and punished. All information should be free, anybody who tries to use violence to tell another person what they may say or look at in the privacy of their own home should be treated as a criminal and punished.
A big problem with libertarianism is that a lot of libertarians confuse it with pacifism. Libertarians are too honest of people and too good of people, whereas mostly everybody else is a lying stealing fascist sack of shit, willing to lie to idiots to brainwash them (democracy, religion), willing to steal money from people to fund their own desires (liberals/communists), willing to use violence to rob people and oppress people, etc. Libertarians need to come to recognize that it is the ENDS of these people that are wrong, not the means. There is nothing wrong with putting a gun in the face of a thief and telling him he cannot steal, there is nothing wrong with violently overthrowing an oppressive government and its police if they are against liberty, there is nothing wrong with "brainwashing" (educating in the case of libertarianism) the people into libertarian goals. So I consider myself a Totalibertarian (a term someone else coined for my political philosophy), and I think we need a probably violent global movement to seize control of the world and enforce libertarianism with an iron fist.
Liber-Qaeda ...
-
No, Totalibertarians are against terrorism and hope to struggle against the terroristic states to overthrow them from power. We also against the terrorists in society and want to smash them into submission. Once we take over the world libertarianism will be strictly enforced, and even if 80% of the world says they want something different well they can get fucked. Totalibertarianism is a benevolent dictatorship with visions of global domination. We will violently force the world to be free and relentlessly punish those who do not want it to be. People can beg us to allow slavery, they can vote for slavery in overwhelming numbers, but we will tell them they cannot have it. The people can beg us and plead with us to censor information, but we will tell them that information is free regardless of what they wish. The people can protest us telling us we must allow them to steal, but we will never allow this to happen regardless of how much they beg and plead with us. Society can say that their social contract said people cannot use drugs, and we will laugh hysterically at them and say that we have revoked their social contract. Wealth and prosperity will sweep the nations, people will be full in the streets, and as much as they beg us otherwise we will not allow it. When the supporters of the state move to arrest prostitutes we will immediately charge them with kidnapping and send them to rot in prison. When they try to steal drugs from drug dealers we will charge them with armed robbery and send them to rot in prison. When they try to arrest people for viewing pictures, be they of muhammed or naked 15 year olds, we will charge them with kidnapping and send them to prisons. Indeed we will build massive prisons on isolated islands and ship all of the loyalists of the state to them, where they will live a life of modest inconvenience until they are educated as to the wrongness of their deeds (although we may need a purge of some of them, to make a statement against the freedom they have allowed!).
Trust me, in a totalibertarian society there is no freedom of the people. They can want to rob and kill and murder and oppress and we will not allow it, despite the wishes of the majority! We will use giant weapons and a massive force of soldiers to rip the freedom to oppress from the people. In Totalibertarianism, there is no individual choice, an individual can not choose to steal from others or to oppress others. Only the laws of the Worlds Totalibertarian Army matter at all, and it does not matter how many others are against them they will be violently enforced across the world.
-
No, Totalibertarians are against terrorism and hope to struggle against the terroristic states to overthrow them from power. We also against the terrorists in society and want to smash them into submission. Once we take over the world libertarianism will be strictly enforced, and even if 80% of the world says they want something different well they can get fucked. Totalibertarianism is a benevolent dictatorship with visions of global domination. We will violently force the world to be free and relentlessly punish those who do not want it to be. People can beg us to allow slavery, they can vote for slavery in overwhelming numbers, but we will tell them they cannot have it. The people can beg us and plead with us to censor information, but we will tell them that information is free regardless of what they wish. The people can protest us telling us we must allow them to steal, but we will never allow this to happen regardless of how much they beg and plead with us. Society can say that their social contract said people cannot use drugs, and we will laugh hysterically at them and say that we have revoked their social contract. Wealth and prosperity will sweep the nations, people will be full in the streets, and as much as they beg us otherwise we will not allow it. When the supporters of the state move to arrest prostitutes we will immediately charge them with kidnapping and send them to rot in prison. When they try to steal drugs from drug dealers we will charge them with armed robbery and send them to rot in prison. When they try to arrest people for viewing pictures, be they of muhammed or naked 15 year olds, we will charge them with kidnapping and send them to prisons. Indeed we will build massive prisons on isolated islands and ship all of the loyalists of the state to them, where they will live a life of modest inconvenience until they are educated as to the wrongness of their deeds (although we may need a purge of some of them, to make a statement against the freedom they have allowed!).
Trust me, in a totalibertarian society there is no freedom of the people. They can want to rob and kill and murder and oppress and we will not allow it, despite the wishes of the majority! We will use giant weapons and a massive force of soldiers to rip the freedom to oppress from the people. In Totalibertarianism, there is no individual choice, an individual can not choose to steal from others or to oppress others. Only the laws of the Worlds Totalibertarian Army matter at all, and it does not matter how many others are against them they will be violently enforced across the world.
LMAO! Dude...I seriously don't know if you're kidding or not...but if I could give you Karma I would...not because I agree (I don't), but because the way you're saying all this is just so damn funny! Top notch! :-)
"A man came up to me and said I'd like to change your mind, by hitting it with this rock he said, though I am not unkind"
Whistling in the Dark
They Might be Giants
"In war...you kill people in order to change their minds!"
The movie "Complex World"
Also as a side note, as the OP I hope you all didn't think I've abandoned the thread. On the contrary, I've been absolutley enthralled by the back and forth. So many passionate opinions! So many thoughtful arguments! This is why I come back to this forumn and the SR...it's not for the drugs...yeah they're great and all...but it's the people I like! Wish you all lived down the road so we could enjoy these discussions over a pint!
Thanks all!
R.
-
No, Totalibertarians are against terrorism and hope to struggle against the terroristic states to overthrow them from power. We also against the terrorists in society and want to smash them into submission. Once we take over the world libertarianism will be strictly enforced, and even if 80% of the world says they want something different well they can get fucked. Totalibertarianism is a benevolent dictatorship with visions of global domination. We will violently force the world to be free and relentlessly punish those who do not want it to be. People can beg us to allow slavery, they can vote for slavery in overwhelming numbers, but we will tell them they cannot have it. The people can beg us and plead with us to censor information, but we will tell them that information is free regardless of what they wish. The people can protest us telling us we must allow them to steal, but we will never allow this to happen regardless of how much they beg and plead with us. Society can say that their social contract said people cannot use drugs, and we will laugh hysterically at them and say that we have revoked their social contract. Wealth and prosperity will sweep the nations, people will be full in the streets, and as much as they beg us otherwise we will not allow it. When the supporters of the state move to arrest prostitutes we will immediately charge them with kidnapping and send them to rot in prison. When they try to steal drugs from drug dealers we will charge them with armed robbery and send them to rot in prison. When they try to arrest people for viewing pictures, be they of muhammed or naked 15 year olds, we will charge them with kidnapping and send them to prisons. Indeed we will build massive prisons on isolated islands and ship all of the loyalists of the state to them, where they will live a life of modest inconvenience until they are educated as to the wrongness of their deeds (although we may need a purge of some of them, to make a statement against the freedom they have allowed!).
Trust me, in a totalibertarian society there is no freedom of the people. They can want to rob and kill and murder and oppress and we will not allow it, despite the wishes of the majority! We will use giant weapons and a massive force of soldiers to rip the freedom to oppress from the people. In Totalibertarianism, there is no individual choice, an individual can not choose to steal from others or to oppress others. Only the laws of the Worlds Totalibertarian Army matter at all, and it does not matter how many others are against them they will be violently enforced across the world.
HEIL LIBERTY! Quick kids hide, the Liberty SS is on the prowl...
-
No, Totalibertarians are against terrorism and hope to struggle against the terroristic states to overthrow them from power. We also against the terrorists in society and want to smash them into submission. Once we take over the world libertarianism will be strictly enforced, and even if 80% of the world says they want something different well they can get fucked. Totalibertarianism is a benevolent dictatorship with visions of global domination. We will violently force the world to be free and relentlessly punish those who do not want it to be. People can beg us to allow slavery, they can vote for slavery in overwhelming numbers, but we will tell them they cannot have it. The people can beg us and plead with us to censor information, but we will tell them that information is free regardless of what they wish. The people can protest us telling us we must allow them to steal, but we will never allow this to happen regardless of how much they beg and plead with us. Society can say that their social contract said people cannot use drugs, and we will laugh hysterically at them and say that we have revoked their social contract. Wealth and prosperity will sweep the nations, people will be full in the streets, and as much as they beg us otherwise we will not allow it. When the supporters of the state move to arrest prostitutes we will immediately charge them with kidnapping and send them to rot in prison. When they try to steal drugs from drug dealers we will charge them with armed robbery and send them to rot in prison. When they try to arrest people for viewing pictures, be they of muhammed or naked 15 year olds, we will charge them with kidnapping and send them to prisons. Indeed we will build massive prisons on isolated islands and ship all of the loyalists of the state to them, where they will live a life of modest inconvenience until they are educated as to the wrongness of their deeds (although we may need a purge of some of them, to make a statement against the freedom they have allowed!).
Trust me, in a totalibertarian society there is no freedom of the people. They can want to rob and kill and murder and oppress and we will not allow it, despite the wishes of the majority! We will use giant weapons and a massive force of soldiers to rip the freedom to oppress from the people. In Totalibertarianism, there is no individual choice, an individual can not choose to steal from others or to oppress others. Only the laws of the Worlds Totalibertarian Army matter at all, and it does not matter how many others are against them they will be violently enforced across the world.
HEIL LIBERTY! Quick kids hide, the Liberty SS is on the prowl...
Kids do not need to fear Totalibertarianism! Indeed, our policies will be beneficial for them! The only people who are against Totalibertarianism are brainwashed, or they are evil people such as thieves. Indeed, no other political philosophy is as peaceful as ours, or as tolerant as ours. Nobody has a legitimate reason to fear us or to not support us, our desire is to abolish all laws other than the most fundamental laws that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with. We will strictly ban murder, rape, and stealing, as well as other similar crimes. However, we are perfectly tolerant of the drug dealers, of the CP viewers, the drug users, the men who wish to have sex with young people who are at least old enough to consent, of the racists who wish to discriminate in hiring practices, of the minority races who do not wish to be enslaved, of the people who produce and want to keep what they produce, of the people who do not want to pay extortion money to the government, the prostitutes and the johns, the religious people who do not wish to force their religious belief on others as well as the non-religious people who do not wish for beliefs to be forced onto them, of the business owners who wish to run their stores how they see fit, the product inventors who wish for their products to be regulated as they see fit, the people who wish to use only certified products, the gays who wish to marry, the people of the world! The list goes on and on, indeed the peace and tolerance of Totalibertarianism is nearly infinite in scope!
So you do not need to fear us if you are a good person, and no children need to run from us. Rather you should run to us and join us in our global struggle to dominate the world and enforce the principles of Totalibertarianism, which indeed are indistinguishable from the principles of Tolerance and Peace.
-
I made a flag for the Worlds Totalibertarian Liberation Army, feel free to make shirts or similar.
http://postimg.org/image/3x7fh25aj/
-
No, Totalibertarians are against terrorism and hope to struggle against the terroristic states to overthrow them from power. We also against the terrorists in society and want to smash them into submission. Once we take over the world libertarianism will be strictly enforced, and even if 80% of the world says they want something different well they can get fucked. Totalibertarianism is a benevolent dictatorship with visions of global domination. We will violently force the world to be free and relentlessly punish those who do not want it to be. People can beg us to allow slavery, they can vote for slavery in overwhelming numbers, but we will tell them they cannot have it. The people can beg us and plead with us to censor information, but we will tell them that information is free regardless of what they wish. The people can protest us telling us we must allow them to steal, but we will never allow this to happen regardless of how much they beg and plead with us. Society can say that their social contract said people cannot use drugs, and we will laugh hysterically at them and say that we have revoked their social contract. Wealth and prosperity will sweep the nations, people will be full in the streets, and as much as they beg us otherwise we will not allow it. When the supporters of the state move to arrest prostitutes we will immediately charge them with kidnapping and send them to rot in prison. When they try to steal drugs from drug dealers we will charge them with armed robbery and send them to rot in prison. When they try to arrest people for viewing pictures, be they of muhammed or naked 15 year olds, we will charge them with kidnapping and send them to prisons. Indeed we will build massive prisons on isolated islands and ship all of the loyalists of the state to them, where they will live a life of modest inconvenience until they are educated as to the wrongness of their deeds (although we may need a purge of some of them, to make a statement against the freedom they have allowed!).
Trust me, in a totalibertarian society there is no freedom of the people. They can want to rob and kill and murder and oppress and we will not allow it, despite the wishes of the majority! We will use giant weapons and a massive force of soldiers to rip the freedom to oppress from the people. In Totalibertarianism, there is no individual choice, an individual can not choose to steal from others or to oppress others. Only the laws of the Worlds Totalibertarian Army matter at all, and it does not matter how many others are against them they will be violently enforced across the world.
HEIL LIBERTY! Quick kids hide, the Liberty SS is on the prowl...
Kids do not need to fear Totalibertarianism! Indeed, our policies will be beneficial for them! The only people who are against Totalibertarianism are brainwashed, or they are evil people such as thieves. Indeed, no other political philosophy is as peaceful as ours, or as tolerant as ours. Nobody has a legitimate reason to fear us or to not support us, our desire is to abolish all laws other than the most fundamental laws that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with. We will strictly ban murder, rape, and stealing, as well as other similar crimes. However, we are perfectly tolerant of the drug dealers, of the CP viewers, the drug users, the men who wish to have sex with young people who are at least old enough to consent, of the racists who wish to discriminate in hiring practices, of the minority races who do not wish to be enslaved, of the people who produce and want to keep what they produce, of the people who do not want to pay extortion money to the government, the prostitutes and the johns, the religious people who do not wish to force their religious belief on others as well as the non-religious people who do not wish for beliefs to be forced onto them, of the business owners who wish to run their stores how they see fit, the product inventors who wish for their products to be regulated as they see fit, the people who wish to use only certified products, the gays who wish to marry, the people of the world! The list goes on and on, indeed the peace and tolerance of Totalibertarianism is nearly infinite in scope!
So you do not need to fear us if you are a good person, and no children need to run from us. Rather you should run to us and join us in our global struggle to dominate the world and enforce the principles of Totalibertarianism, which indeed are indistinguishable from the principles of Tolerance and Peace.
Conform with our non-conformity or be dominated...
-
No, Totalibertarians are against terrorism and hope to struggle against the terroristic states to overthrow them from power. We also against the terrorists in society and want to smash them into submission. Once we take over the world libertarianism will be strictly enforced, and even if 80% of the world says they want something different well they can get fucked. Totalibertarianism is a benevolent dictatorship with visions of global domination. We will violently force the world to be free and relentlessly punish those who do not want it to be. People can beg us to allow slavery, they can vote for slavery in overwhelming numbers, but we will tell them they cannot have it. The people can beg us and plead with us to censor information, but we will tell them that information is free regardless of what they wish. The people can protest us telling us we must allow them to steal, but we will never allow this to happen regardless of how much they beg and plead with us. Society can say that their social contract said people cannot use drugs, and we will laugh hysterically at them and say that we have revoked their social contract. Wealth and prosperity will sweep the nations, people will be full in the streets, and as much as they beg us otherwise we will not allow it. When the supporters of the state move to arrest prostitutes we will immediately charge them with kidnapping and send them to rot in prison. When they try to steal drugs from drug dealers we will charge them with armed robbery and send them to rot in prison. When they try to arrest people for viewing pictures, be they of muhammed or naked 15 year olds, we will charge them with kidnapping and send them to prisons. Indeed we will build massive prisons on isolated islands and ship all of the loyalists of the state to them, where they will live a life of modest inconvenience until they are educated as to the wrongness of their deeds (although we may need a purge of some of them, to make a statement against the freedom they have allowed!).
Trust me, in a totalibertarian society there is no freedom of the people. They can want to rob and kill and murder and oppress and we will not allow it, despite the wishes of the majority! We will use giant weapons and a massive force of soldiers to rip the freedom to oppress from the people. In Totalibertarianism, there is no individual choice, an individual can not choose to steal from others or to oppress others. Only the laws of the Worlds Totalibertarian Army matter at all, and it does not matter how many others are against them they will be violently enforced across the world.
HEIL LIBERTY! Quick kids hide, the Liberty SS is on the prowl...
Kids do not need to fear Totalibertarianism! Indeed, our policies will be beneficial for them! The only people who are against Totalibertarianism are brainwashed, or they are evil people such as thieves. Indeed, no other political philosophy is as peaceful as ours, or as tolerant as ours. Nobody has a legitimate reason to fear us or to not support us, our desire is to abolish all laws other than the most fundamental laws that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with. We will strictly ban murder, rape, and stealing, as well as other similar crimes. However, we are perfectly tolerant of the drug dealers, of the CP viewers, the drug users, the men who wish to have sex with young people who are at least old enough to consent, of the racists who wish to discriminate in hiring practices, of the minority races who do not wish to be enslaved, of the people who produce and want to keep what they produce, of the people who do not want to pay extortion money to the government, the prostitutes and the johns, the religious people who do not wish to force their religious belief on others as well as the non-religious people who do not wish for beliefs to be forced onto them, of the business owners who wish to run their stores how they see fit, the product inventors who wish for their products to be regulated as they see fit, the people who wish to use only certified products, the gays who wish to marry, the people of the world! The list goes on and on, indeed the peace and tolerance of Totalibertarianism is nearly infinite in scope!
So you do not need to fear us if you are a good person, and no children need to run from us. Rather you should run to us and join us in our global struggle to dominate the world and enforce the principles of Totalibertarianism, which indeed are indistinguishable from the principles of Tolerance and Peace.
Conform with our non-conformity or be dominated...
Do you think that we should allow the thieves to continue robbing? If the majority desires so? Should we allow the slave traders to continue to enslave people for their profits? If the majority so desires? People who do not conform to Totalibertarianism OUGHT to be dominated. Almost nobody even wants the level of freedom offered by totalibertarianism, so it is not like people can say we do not support freedom! In their minds our problem is that we support too much freedom! Under our rule not enough people are enslaved! We offer far more freedom than the masses desire, anyone who does not conform to our policies must be dominated for the good of human kind. We cannot allow for a democracy to dictate the laws, democracy is a failed experiment. The only way for a better society is for the entire world to be dominated by a benevolent force.
Totalibertarianism is Orwellian in a way. We will use the most advanced technologies and techniques in order to detect all dissent, which will be squashed like a bug. This means that robbers and slave traders and rapists and murders and violent criminals will not be safe, they will be immediately detected and imprisoned. We will have very little restriction on our enforcement agencies, and for once in the history of mankind it will be true when they say if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. We will wipe active dissidents (thieves, robbers, rapists, etc) off the face of the earth with an unprecedented ruthlessness.
-
No, Totalibertarians are against terrorism and hope to struggle against the terroristic states to overthrow them from power. We also against the terrorists in society and want to smash them into submission. Once we take over the world libertarianism will be strictly enforced, and even if 80% of the world says they want something different well they can get fucked. Totalibertarianism is a benevolent dictatorship with visions of global domination. We will violently force the world to be free and relentlessly punish those who do not want it to be. People can beg us to allow slavery, they can vote for slavery in overwhelming numbers, but we will tell them they cannot have it. The people can beg us and plead with us to censor information, but we will tell them that information is free regardless of what they wish. The people can protest us telling us we must allow them to steal, but we will never allow this to happen regardless of how much they beg and plead with us. Society can say that their social contract said people cannot use drugs, and we will laugh hysterically at them and say that we have revoked their social contract. Wealth and prosperity will sweep the nations, people will be full in the streets, and as much as they beg us otherwise we will not allow it. When the supporters of the state move to arrest prostitutes we will immediately charge them with kidnapping and send them to rot in prison. When they try to steal drugs from drug dealers we will charge them with armed robbery and send them to rot in prison. When they try to arrest people for viewing pictures, be they of muhammed or naked 15 year olds, we will charge them with kidnapping and send them to prisons. Indeed we will build massive prisons on isolated islands and ship all of the loyalists of the state to them, where they will live a life of modest inconvenience until they are educated as to the wrongness of their deeds (although we may need a purge of some of them, to make a statement against the freedom they have allowed!).
Trust me, in a totalibertarian society there is no freedom of the people. They can want to rob and kill and murder and oppress and we will not allow it, despite the wishes of the majority! We will use giant weapons and a massive force of soldiers to rip the freedom to oppress from the people. In Totalibertarianism, there is no individual choice, an individual can not choose to steal from others or to oppress others. Only the laws of the Worlds Totalibertarian Army matter at all, and it does not matter how many others are against them they will be violently enforced across the world.
HEIL LIBERTY! Quick kids hide, the Liberty SS is on the prowl...
Kids do not need to fear Totalibertarianism! Indeed, our policies will be beneficial for them! The only people who are against Totalibertarianism are brainwashed, or they are evil people such as thieves. Indeed, no other political philosophy is as peaceful as ours, or as tolerant as ours. Nobody has a legitimate reason to fear us or to not support us, our desire is to abolish all laws other than the most fundamental laws that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with. We will strictly ban murder, rape, and stealing, as well as other similar crimes. However, we are perfectly tolerant of the drug dealers, of the CP viewers, the drug users, the men who wish to have sex with young people who are at least old enough to consent, of the racists who wish to discriminate in hiring practices, of the minority races who do not wish to be enslaved, of the people who produce and want to keep what they produce, of the people who do not want to pay extortion money to the government, the prostitutes and the johns, the religious people who do not wish to force their religious belief on others as well as the non-religious people who do not wish for beliefs to be forced onto them, of the business owners who wish to run their stores how they see fit, the product inventors who wish for their products to be regulated as they see fit, the people who wish to use only certified products, the gays who wish to marry, the people of the world! The list goes on and on, indeed the peace and tolerance of Totalibertarianism is nearly infinite in scope!
So you do not need to fear us if you are a good person, and no children need to run from us. Rather you should run to us and join us in our global struggle to dominate the world and enforce the principles of Totalibertarianism, which indeed are indistinguishable from the principles of Tolerance and Peace.
Conform with our non-conformity or be dominated...
Do you think that we should allow the thieves to continue robbing? If the majority desires so? Should we allow the slave traders to continue to enslave people for their profits? If the majority so desires? People who do not conform to Totalibertarianism OUGHT to be dominated. Almost nobody even wants the level of freedom offered by totalibertarianism, so it is not like people can say we do not support freedom! In their minds our problem is that we support too much freedom! Under our rule not enough people are enslaved! We offer far more freedom than the masses desire, anyone who does not conform to our policies must be dominated for the good of human kind. We cannot allow for a democracy to dictate the laws, democracy is a failed experiment. The only way for a better society is for the entire world to be dominated by a benevolent force.
Totalibertarianism is Orwellian in a way. We will use the most advanced technologies and techniques in order to detect all dissent, which will be squashed like a bug. This means that robbers and slave traders and rapists and murders and violent criminals will not be safe, they will be immediately detected and imprisoned. We will have very little restriction on our enforcement agencies, and for once in the history of mankind it will be true when they say if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. We will wipe active dissidents (thieves, robbers, rapists, etc) off the face of the earth with an unprecedented ruthlessness.
Stalin would approve...
-
No, Totalibertarians are against terrorism and hope to struggle against the terroristic states to overthrow them from power. We also against the terrorists in society and want to smash them into submission. Once we take over the world libertarianism will be strictly enforced, and even if 80% of the world says they want something different well they can get fucked. Totalibertarianism is a benevolent dictatorship with visions of global domination. We will violently force the world to be free and relentlessly punish those who do not want it to be. People can beg us to allow slavery, they can vote for slavery in overwhelming numbers, but we will tell them they cannot have it. The people can beg us and plead with us to censor information, but we will tell them that information is free regardless of what they wish. The people can protest us telling us we must allow them to steal, but we will never allow this to happen regardless of how much they beg and plead with us. Society can say that their social contract said people cannot use drugs, and we will laugh hysterically at them and say that we have revoked their social contract. Wealth and prosperity will sweep the nations, people will be full in the streets, and as much as they beg us otherwise we will not allow it. When the supporters of the state move to arrest prostitutes we will immediately charge them with kidnapping and send them to rot in prison. When they try to steal drugs from drug dealers we will charge them with armed robbery and send them to rot in prison. When they try to arrest people for viewing pictures, be they of muhammed or naked 15 year olds, we will charge them with kidnapping and send them to prisons. Indeed we will build massive prisons on isolated islands and ship all of the loyalists of the state to them, where they will live a life of modest inconvenience until they are educated as to the wrongness of their deeds (although we may need a purge of some of them, to make a statement against the freedom they have allowed!).
Trust me, in a totalibertarian society there is no freedom of the people. They can want to rob and kill and murder and oppress and we will not allow it, despite the wishes of the majority! We will use giant weapons and a massive force of soldiers to rip the freedom to oppress from the people. In Totalibertarianism, there is no individual choice, an individual can not choose to steal from others or to oppress others. Only the laws of the Worlds Totalibertarian Army matter at all, and it does not matter how many others are against them they will be violently enforced across the world.
HEIL LIBERTY! Quick kids hide, the Liberty SS is on the prowl...
Kids do not need to fear Totalibertarianism! Indeed, our policies will be beneficial for them! The only people who are against Totalibertarianism are brainwashed, or they are evil people such as thieves. Indeed, no other political philosophy is as peaceful as ours, or as tolerant as ours. Nobody has a legitimate reason to fear us or to not support us, our desire is to abolish all laws other than the most fundamental laws that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with. We will strictly ban murder, rape, and stealing, as well as other similar crimes. However, we are perfectly tolerant of the drug dealers, of the CP viewers, the drug users, the men who wish to have sex with young people who are at least old enough to consent, of the racists who wish to discriminate in hiring practices, of the minority races who do not wish to be enslaved, of the people who produce and want to keep what they produce, of the people who do not want to pay extortion money to the government, the prostitutes and the johns, the religious people who do not wish to force their religious belief on others as well as the non-religious people who do not wish for beliefs to be forced onto them, of the business owners who wish to run their stores how they see fit, the product inventors who wish for their products to be regulated as they see fit, the people who wish to use only certified products, the gays who wish to marry, the people of the world! The list goes on and on, indeed the peace and tolerance of Totalibertarianism is nearly infinite in scope!
So you do not need to fear us if you are a good person, and no children need to run from us. Rather you should run to us and join us in our global struggle to dominate the world and enforce the principles of Totalibertarianism, which indeed are indistinguishable from the principles of Tolerance and Peace.
Conform with our non-conformity or be dominated...
Do you think that we should allow the thieves to continue robbing? If the majority desires so? Should we allow the slave traders to continue to enslave people for their profits? If the majority so desires? People who do not conform to Totalibertarianism OUGHT to be dominated. Almost nobody even wants the level of freedom offered by totalibertarianism, so it is not like people can say we do not support freedom! In their minds our problem is that we support too much freedom! Under our rule not enough people are enslaved! We offer far more freedom than the masses desire, anyone who does not conform to our policies must be dominated for the good of human kind. We cannot allow for a democracy to dictate the laws, democracy is a failed experiment. The only way for a better society is for the entire world to be dominated by a benevolent force.
Totalibertarianism is Orwellian in a way. We will use the most advanced technologies and techniques in order to detect all dissent, which will be squashed like a bug. This means that robbers and slave traders and rapists and murders and violent criminals will not be safe, they will be immediately detected and imprisoned. We will have very little restriction on our enforcement agencies, and for once in the history of mankind it will be true when they say if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. We will wipe active dissidents (thieves, robbers, rapists, etc) off the face of the earth with an unprecedented ruthlessness.
Stalin would approve...
I doubt it, Stalin was a totalitarian not a totalibertarian. Our end goal is completely different, even if our means of obtaining it may be similar. Totalitarianism is actually really great and certainly the best system, it just needs the right people with the right beliefs to be running the show.
-
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a term employed by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.[1]
Sounds great to me! We need a force to hold total authority over society and to control all aspects of public and private life. We need this force to prevent people from stealing, to prevent people for robbing and raping and murdering. Every single aspect of every individuals life should be under strict control, either to prevent them from doing bad things or to prevent people from doing bad things to them. See, Totalibertarians want your life to be under complete control and they want you to have no freedom at all to go against the principles of Totalibertarianism. But it is actually great, because they don't want to prevent you from doing much! Indeed, they want to let you do more and have more choices about your life than any other political organization ever has in the history of humanity! And yes, they want to hold total authority over society, but it is not a bad thing! They need total authority over society to prevent bad people from doing bad things and to prevent bad people from telling good people what they can and cannot do.
Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control. Building on the work of Yale political scientist Juan Linz, Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs has examined the characteristics of authoritarian and totalitarian dictators and organized them in a chart:
Sounds great to me! There should be no social or economic institutions that are not under the complete control of Totalibertarians. If society is not dominated by totalibertarians, we will have situations where certain groups, such as drug users, are sent to prisons as slaves of the state. We will have the majority of people saying that gay people cannot get married. We will have people robbing others with a cloak of legitimacy. None of this is acceptable and it cannot be tolerated in the slightest, and the only way to prevent these horrible things from happening is if Totalibertarians are in complete control of all social and economic institutions. Now being in complete control doesn't mean that they will do bad things, it means that they will prevent bad things from being done! That is the primary difference between classical totalitarianism and Totalibertarianism. Any form of totalitarianism that is not totalibertarianism is the epitome of evil, of intolerance and of war, so conversely Totalibertarianism is the epitome of Good, of Tolerance and of Peace.
Elaborate guiding ideology.
Single mass party, typically led by a dictator.
System of terror, using such instruments as violence and secret police.
Monopoly on weapons.
Monopoly on the means of communication.
Central direction and control of the economy through state planning.
Sounds mostly fine to me! Society should be guided by the elaborate ideology of libertarianism. Once we have made all things any reasonable person would consider acceptable to be legal, then there are no more slaves. There is no more worthy controversy against crimes. We must be so tolerant that only vile criminals would think we stand for anything other than peace and tolerance. Our system of laws must be so lax that there is no doubt that criminals are bad people, indeed under totalibertarianism there will be no accusations that acceptable behaviors are criminalized and therefore any claim of oppression will be unfounded. Indeed, people will not claim that we are oppressive but rather that we are too tolerant! This is the contrast between classical totalitarianism and totalibertarianism, in a classical totalitarian society the claim is that the powers are extremely oppressive, in Totalibertarianism they will claim that our tolerance is too great!
We must have only Totalibertarians in power. We can have a dictator, but it is better to have a council to prevent one of the dictators from straying from Totalibertarianism. There can even be different political parties that have power and their own forces, but they all need to be Totalibertarians ideologically and all must recognize their moral obligation to squash and power that forms and is not Totalibertarian, and to squash any of the factions of Totalibertarianism that stray from the ideology.
Secret police and violence are fine, and indeed our enemies must be treated ruthlessly. Anybody who strays from Totalibertarianism is a criminal and probably a terrorist or slave trader at that, and they need to be dealt with violently and harshly. Again, nobody can complain if they are doing nothing wrong, no ideology on earth is as tolerant as Totalibertarianism. No person on earth will say that we are violent to people who do not deserve violence, rather they will claim that we are not violent to people who they think we should be violent to!
A monopoly on weapons is not acceptable, people need to be free to have weapons, although it is debatable if we should let non totalibertarians have access to nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Certainly the people have a right to guns and general weapons though.
A monopoly on the means of communication is not acceptable, and this is one of the areas where Totalibertarianism differs from classical totalitarianism.
Central direction and control of the economy is a must! The totalibertarian forces must ensure that the economy remains free from taxation, free from oppression, etc. So although we must maintain total control of the economy, we will use this control only to ensure that the economy remains free.
-
We'll free you from oppression with our new, improved and better oppression...
-
We'll free you from oppression with our new, improved and better oppression...
And how is it oppression? Are we oppressing the thieves because they cannot steal? The slave traders because we have freed the slaves? The only people oppressed by Totalibertarians deserve to be oppressed.
To totalibertarians, the only dissidents are thieves, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, robbers and similar. And yes, we will ruthlessly crush and oppress the dissidents.
-
We'll free you from oppression with our new, improved and better oppression...
And how is it oppression? Are we oppressing the thieves because they cannot steal? The slave traders because we have freed the slaves? The only people oppressed by Totalibertarians deserve to be oppressed.
To totalibertarians, the only dissidents are thieves, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, robbers and similar. And yes, we will ruthlessly crush and oppress the dissidents.
It's oppression because your system would deprive the people of free will and choice. You may do everything, do what you want, as long as you do not form a body where representatives of the many go to decide what the many will do communally.
I want to be taxed. I want to pay so institutions without commercial interest can teach my kids, foster research that the profit-mongers don't care to do for lack of instant financial incentive. I want emergency services that are above making a wallet biopsy their main criterion in the decision whether to save me or not.
Your world is the same to me as living under Stalin or Hitler, for it will forbid me to lead the life I want to live because it doesn't fit in its ideology.
-
It's oppression because your system would deprive the people of free will and choice. You may do everything, do what you want, as long as you do not form a body where representatives of the many go to decide what the many will do communally.
But you are mistaken! Under the rule of Totalibertarians you are free to form a body where representatives of the many go to decide what the many will do communally! But it must be voluntary. Meaning you can choose to join such an organization. But you cannot force others to join it. And you cannot have what the many decides upon be binding onto the few who do not choose to join the organization. For example, you can have a community school still, and you can pay taxes to the people running it. But you cannot force somebody who does not want to use the service to pay for it, so you cannot tax them or require them to join your organization. Totalibertarians are extremely tolerant of those who wish to organize in whatever way they see fit, indeed we are accepting of communists and of free market capitalists! However, the default position of all people is free market capitalism, and we will protect those who do not wish to join communist structures. So you can have your commune and those who decide to join it can live under the rules they have agreed upon. But those who do not wish to join cannot be forced to, and their default status is Free Market Capitalism. They can only lose their default status by voluntary agreement.
But you are correct in that Totalibertarians dream of a world where we violently rip freedom and choice away from the many. Their freedom to kill, to rob, and to enslave will be viciously ripped from them. They will have no choice at all in the matter! They will cry out in agony, begging us to relinquish our total control over their lives, but we will never allow it.
I want to be taxed. I want to pay so institutions without commercial interest can teach my kids, foster research that the profit-mongers don't care to do for lack of instant financial incentive. I want emergency services that are above making a wallet biopsy their main criterion in the decision whether to save me or not.
Under Totalibertarianism you are free to be taxed and free to not be taxed! As I have already pointed out, we are extremely tolerant. If you want to be taxed, feel free to join such an organization and be taxed by them! However, of course you cannot force others to be taxed by this organization, for to do so would make you an armed robber and therefore a dissident. Totalibertarians must ruthlessly crush all dissidents to ensure that our regime never falls out of power.
Your world is the same to me as living under Stalin or Hitler, for it will forbid me to lead the life I want to live because it doesn't fit in its ideology.
But you are wrong! You can be taxed by an organization! The organization can have its own rules! You can even agree to be sacrificed in a volcano by this organization, to please the God that you worship (Totalibertarians are extremely tolerant of religion). The thing is though, this organization cannot force its rules onto others. So you cannot tell your neighbor that he must be taxed by this organization. If you do so you are a dissident and must be ruthlessly crushed like a bug. Additionally, you cannot force your neighbor to be thrown into a volcano to please your God, as doing so would make you a dissident and an enemy of the Worlds Totalibertarian Liberation Army.
-
I do admit that over a number of posts it does sound tempting, fascinating even...
I just don't think it is something you could gradually move a society to, the only way to accomplish it would be some sort of radical reset with wealth/resource redistribution to prevent the crony-riches from simply tilting the market into their favor again.
Plus, I am having trouble liking a system that considers physical violence and retribution a proper venue. But I admit, it does sound sexy.
-
The only way to accomplish it is for enough people to join the Worlds Totalibertarian Liberation Army, and for us to amass enough weapons to beat the armies of the world into submission.
Of course it would be more beneficial for us to not engage in traditional warfare. Rather, targeted assassinations and attacks without fronts forming. The worlds political structures can be taken advantage of as well, to gradually make our way toward Totalibertarianism. For example, consistently kill the political leaders who are most against us, and it becomes artificial selection. Is a certain political organization consisting of 50% people who are 100% against freedom and 50% people who are 90% against freedom? Kill the 50% who are most against freedom, and hope that their replacements are more for freedom. After doing this long enough maybe we can cause the balance to lean more and more toward freedom, up to the point that the political organization voluntarily embraces Totalibertarianism. There is actually no point for us to take on armies, armies are there largely to form a front that an attacking force needs to get past in order to target the politicians and other powerful members of a country. But Totalibertarians are already spread through out the world, and we can spread our ideology to others through the internet and try to convert more members to our cause. We have no need to try to push back a front, we have mini-fronts all over the place, every man can be his own front.
Then we can get the armies of nations to submit to us without even actually fighting with them. Once we take over the political structures we effectively take over the armies they control. Then we can use the armies to further our cause, if required, on our path to global domination.
-
How will the WTLA deal with the distribution of agricultural land and the mineral wealth contained within? Also all the wealth, factories machinery and other means of production. All of these are currently mostly in private hands. Since the default position will be free market capitalism, the current owners will surely begin this glorious golden dawn with something of an advantage. So I imagine they will be unwilling to join our voluntary tax based societies.
So me and my redistributive taxation loving comrades will be free to start our more equitable society, as long as we don't attempt to tresspass on any of THEIR productive agricultural land or attempt to take any of THEIR oil. There's plenty of desert going spare.
Once again Libertarianism seems to promise freedom in proportion to wealth.
-
"Let's play monopoly, its a game of skill and some chance, where the goal is to acquire property and money.....oh, by the way, the way I like playing it, I start with all the money and property. Other than that its basically a free market. So presumably the most deserving will end up owning most of the board. Oh also, we don't use the rules in the box, how we play is the person with the most property and money makes up the rules as they go along. And if you pull a 'super tax' card you don't have to pay, why should men with guns extort money from you?"
-
How will the WTLA deal with the distribution of agricultural land and the mineral wealth contained within? Also all the wealth, factories machinery and other means of production. All of these are currently mostly in private hands. Since the default position will be free market capitalism, the current owners will surely begin this glorious golden dawn with something of an advantage. So I imagine they will be unwilling to join our voluntary tax based societies.
Yes I certainly imagine that they will be totally unwilling to join your voluntary tax based society. I know I sure as hell will not. Why should I pay for schools that I don't go to, or pay to use roads that I don't use, or pay to fund the police that I disagree with? I would rather pay to go to school where I want to, and pay to use the roads I want to, and pay the police who I agree with. I am not so dumb that I cannot select what I want to fund myself, I sure as hell don't need armed men with guns to take my money and spend it on what they see fit.
WTLA recognizes that many of the rich people today are only rich at the expense of others. A prime example of this would be all drug enforcement agents. Now of course we would immediately fire all such people, but if they can keep their ill gotten gains is another question. I would personally be in favor of seizing all of their assets, as all the money they have is from kidnapping, slavery, and extortion. As far as owners of companies and such, in many cases they rightfully have those things. You are not born into life promised a means of production or promised a factory or promised a big chunk of land. However, you have the right to not be extorted by others, by your very nature of being a human! So you will not be taxed at all, and can spend your money however you want as well.
It is just not realistic for us to go through out all of human history and look at the events that caused certain people to have money today, and see if they got their money from wrong deeds, so that we can seize it and give it to the people they wronged. We cannot say that oh some white people are only rich today because their great great great great grandparents owned slaves and got rich off of their labor, so let us take their money and distribute it to the great great great great grandchildren of slaves. Too much history in the world, too many events, too many interpretations, etc, we cannot undo the wrongs of history.
To me it sounds like some of you might be be less opposed to the WTLA if we had a final single redistribution of wealth, to try to lessen the impact of the previous wrongs in the world. Maybe good people will have money taken from them as well, but perhaps having a single time fee for the cost of perpetual freedom afterwards is worth it. But the thing is, even this is not really realistic. The world has $231,000,000,000,000 worth of private wealth in it. If we taxed everybody a single time fee of 50% of their money, we would have $115,500,000,000,000. There are like 8,000,000,000 people in the world. That means if we evenly distributed half of the wealth in the world over the entire world, everybody would get $14,437. But then take into account the logistics of doing this, etc, it will end up being much less than that after costs are calculated. Is getting everybody in the world a one time payment of a few thousand dollars really worth all the work it would take? And can we really justify taking 50% of every single persons money and then redistributing it in such a way? On the positive side, some of the people who are only rich because of slavery will lose money that will benefit some people who might only be poor because of slavery. On the other hand, we will be enslaving people who did not get their money in a bad way in the process! So in helping to right the wrongs of the past we are making new wrongs in the present!
So it doesn't seem very realistic to me that we have a final massive wealth redistribution prior to implementing Totalibertarianism. I think it is better to recognize that in the past we allowed bad things to happen, but in the future we do not. People will always benefit from doing bad things in the world, especially when society lets them. But that doesn't mean we cannot say "Okay, from now on no more evil shit is allowed. The system is fair from now on!". Sure, some people who have power got it in bad ways. But we can either allow bad things to keep happening to not give them more of an advantage, or we can just stop these bad things from happening all together and hope that over time things correct themselves.
So me and my redistributive taxation loving comrades will be free to start our more equitable society, as long as we don't attempt to tresspass on any of THEIR productive agricultural land or attempt to take any of THEIR oil. There's plenty of desert going spare. Once again Libertarianism seems to promise freedom in proportion to wealth.
Libertarianism promises equal freedom to every single person. Wealth promises power, but libertarianism promises freedom.
-
"Let's play monopoly, its a game of skill and some chance, where the goal is to acquire property and money.....oh, by the way, the way I like playing it, I start with all the money and property. Other than that its basically a free market. So presumably the most deserving will end up owning most of the board. Oh also, we don't use the rules in the box, how we play is the person with the most property and money makes up the rules as they go along. And if you pull a 'super tax' card you don't have to pay, why should men with guns extort money from you?"
The thing is, we have been playing the same game of monopoly since the start of life. You just joined the game late. Your ideology says that every now and then we take all the money back and all the property back and start the game all over from scratch.
-
Hello All,
I'd be very interested to see if some of my fellow and esteemed SR friends could convince me to take back up the banner of Libertarianism again.
As my subject suggests, I used to be a Libertarian. However, I slowly came to the conclusion that it just won't work. I've now concluded that Libertariansim is a lot like Communism, they both look pretty good on paper, but neither adequately incorporates certain realities of human nature. In fact, they both have the same basic failing, they assume too much uniformity in the human condition, and are too optimistic about that condition.
In Communism, the problem is that it assumes no one really has a desire to have "more" than someone else. It assumes that the most capable will be happy to get the same share as the least capable. Share and share alike. Ridiculous. Brain surgeons want Bentleys, not Yugos.
Libertarianism assumes everyone is ready and willing to compete and work hard, and that everyone has something special to bring to market, if only given the chance. Ridiculous as well. Here's why.
The world is filled with four kind of people in my estimation:
1) Those whom cannot "do"
2) Those whom can "do" a little but are not very motivated to do so.
3) Those whom can "do" a little and are motivated to do so.
4) Those whom can "do" a lot, and are super motivated.
In the perfect Libertarian society, those whom inhabit type 3 & 4 would represent a middle and upper class (modestly well off, and rich respectively). The 1s and 2s would all be poor, and with no governemnt hand-outs would live in squalor unless the 3s & 4s, out of the kindness of their hearts supported them (which is not going to happen, lets face it...we pity the poor...we don't actually like them).
The problem here is that the 1s & 2s...outnumber the 3s and 4s..by quite a large margin in my estimation. Incapable and unmotivated though they may be...they all want to live and feel dignified...and they can all fire a gun.
In the long term, this would lead to violence, and a displacement of the Libertarian system.
Thus I've concluded that the best system is pretty much like the one we have here in the US (and in many other Western contries). There is a safety net, designed to keep the 1s & 2s safe from falling too far into poverty...and keeping the 3s and 4s safe from angry and violent mobs. It's more like a firewall than a safety net.
The only question is...at what level the safety net must be placed...and this will constantly need to be adjusted (based on the economic and social conditions), which our republic is at least dimly able to do over time. It also allows the 3s and 4s to accumulate some wealth, and out of necessity forcibly extracts some of it from them for the safety net (taxes).
It is of course, not an optimal system, but the problem is...that people are not perfect...and thus our system must reflect this reality.
If you think differntly, then please share where has my reasoning failed me? :-)
eternal +1
-
How will the WTLA deal with the distribution of agricultural land and the mineral wealth contained within? Also all the wealth, factories machinery and other means of production. All of these are currently mostly in private hands. Since the default position will be free market capitalism, the current owners will surely begin this glorious golden dawn with something of an advantage. So I imagine they will be unwilling to join our voluntary tax based societies.
Yes I certainly imagine that they will be totally unwilling to join your voluntary tax based society. I know I sure as hell will not. Why should I pay for schools that I don't go to, or pay to use roads that I don't use, or pay to fund the police that I disagree with? I would rather pay to go to school where I want to, and pay to use the roads I want to, and pay the police who I agree with. I am not so dumb that I cannot select what I want to fund myself, I sure as hell don't need armed men with guns to take my money and spend it on what they see fit.
But what about those who can't afford good schools, who have to drive in the slow, cheaper lane while the rich drive past in the express lane, and whos rights the police ignore because they haven't paid their subscription? I particularly like the idea of paying for police I agree with...! Will these only arrest me for crimes I agree I deserve to be arrested for?
(Feel free to bring up drug prohibition here as a straw man. I think everyone agrees that this is wrong but it does not follow that private police forces should therefore replace state funded, at least ostensiably indepoendent ones. And what about the judiciary! Will you only be tried by a court that you pay for and enforces only laws that you agree with?)
You are saying that I am proposing that we go back through history and redistribute the wealth and work out who the rightful owners are. This 'you just want to divide everything up equally' has been a rabble rousing anti socialist argument since the 19th C. Its not true. I'm simply pointing out that the huge inequalities of ownership and opportunity in our present society would make any attempt to institute libertarianism a mockery of true freedom. It would be freedom for the rich to exploit the poor. You are right that it would be ridiculous to try and establish what rightfully belongs to who, but since its you who wants to tear down the current system its for you to come up with a solution to this not me.
As far as dividing everything up equally, I actually am willing to makr a suggestion to help you out oif this moral conundrum. How about, just to make things a bit fairer, we take a small portion of everyone's wealth, a little from the poor, and progressively more as you rise up the scale of wealth. Then we use this money to fund schools for the poor, independent judiciary and police, and some kind if healthcare insurance for everyone. Unemployment insurance to prevent employers using the threat of poverty to drive down wages. That kind of thing? A bit simpler than the historical census you seem to imagine I propose. We could call it 'redistributive taxation'.
Now, the ongoing game of monopoly. At the moment, while property and money is somewhat unevenly distributed, and players pass on their hand, good or bad to their children, at least we have a person who enforces the rules. They might be amenable to bribery, and not entirely even handed, sometimes they make bad decisions. In theory at least we can replace them. Its not ideal but I think its preferable too allowing the rules to be interpreted by whoever has the money and power to enforce them. Actually monopoly is a fairly poor analogy for modern society and I'm beginning to wish I hadn't introduced it.
-
But what about those who can't afford good schools
Don't you find it disturbing that your answer to all of lifes problems essentially boils down to "let's point gunts at rich people and take their money!" ?
People cannot afford good schools, therefore we should steal money from rich people to fund the schools. Or should we point guns at educated people and make them teach for free? Here is the thing. In a libertarian society, there is indeed likely to be charity. Also, there are so many groups out there that want to brainwash people, that education is not going to be hard to come by. There will be not for profit Catholic schools and similar, where they mix decent education in many areas with dogmatic brainwashing in others. Also, in modern times, a person is able to teach themselves via the internet, at least to a very large extent. Centralized institutions of learning are dying a slow and painful death, the primary reason we need them is because people who hire for jobs like to see that people have a degree. In the future I hope we move more toward hiring based on merit instead of degree, with certifications and such, so self taught people are not at a disadvantage. But that is not up to me or you to decide, it is up to the people who hire. I can get online and talk to professors, security experts, programming experts, etc, and have them answer my questions. I talk to computer science professors online all the time, and I don't spend a dime for their advice! I can download things to teach me math, to teach me programming, to teach me history or a foreign language. On the internet there is a massive community that trades in knowledge, with more knowledgeable people teaching less knowledgeable people, all the way down to the total noobs. So if someone cannot afford to go to school, they can still become very educated if they can at least manage to get onto the internet. Also, people can work to make money for school! My parents were not rich when they were growing up, indeed they were pretty poor. And they still put themselves all the way through university, all the way to advanced degrees, all the way to making fuck tons of money. I have several friends with parents who have similar stories, either putting themselves through college and getting advanced degrees, or starting their own businesses and becoming millionaires in some cases. The people I know IRL are largely from families that demonstrate the fact that the economic ladder can be climbed, a lot of them went from broke to rich through hard work.
And then you want to punish people like this! People who worked hard to be able to move from little money to rich, you want to then take money from them and give it to other people so that they don't need to work as hard to do the same thing. So essentially you support slavery, because you want the hard work of some to benefit others, when the others have done nothing to benefit those who worked hard!
who have to drive in the slow, cheaper lane while the rich drive past in the express lane
So instead we should what, point guns at the rich people and take their money so the poor people can afford to drive in the express lane? Maybe the poor people can work their way up to being able to own the damn express lane! It will be much easier when we abolish government regulations and laws! Think of all the business that is prevented by the government. What if some poor person wants to start a Bitcoin exchange? Hah, good luck doing that in USA, you would need so much money to hire lawyers and such to make sure you don't break the law, and even then you would probably go to prison. In a libertarian society, we don't give a fuck if you know your customers! You don't need to keep records, you are not going to run afoul of the law because we simply don't give a shit what you do, so long as you are not directly hurting others against their will. If you want to go out on the corner and sell crack, have at it! Want to be a prostitute? Go right ahead! One of the biggest reasons why many poor people are in perpetual poverty is because of things like the war on drugs, all things that we will abolish in a libertarian society. *EVERYBODY* will win in a libertarian world, the only people who will lose are the people who are currently exploiting everybody else! Maybe the rich have the most to gain in some ways, but trust me the poor have a lot to gain as well. How many drug prisoners do you think are poor people? All of them will be freed and then they can support their families. How many murders do you think are linked to the war on drugs? How much crime do you think is linked to the war on drugs? In a libertarian society, the communities that have been ravished by these things will see immediate improvements. Gang violence will drop over night, the cartels will be bankrupt, etc. Hundreds of thousands of people who are in prison not so much because they are drug users but rather because they are poor drug users, will be free!
and whos rights the police ignore because they haven't paid their subscription?
This is why we need to WTLA. Because we need to make sure that everybody has their rights protected. Anybody who violates the rights of another is acting against libertarianism, and therefore they are dissidents and enemies. Remember that we are totalitarian in our approach, we are not going to tolerate any dissidents what-so-ever. People who do not stick to the 'party' line must be swiftly and harshly dealt with. Sure, we can have other police agencies that people pay for protection. But at the end of the day we need to make sure that all dissidents are crushed like bugs. Maybe the answer is not Anarchy after all, with its decentralized private police agencies. Maybe the answer is a single body movement, a benevolent dictatorship. But there is no reason why only one person should be in control. Anybody who respects rights will be acting in the name of Totalibertarianism when they stop those who violate rights. So when it comes to action we can be and probably indeed must be decentralized, but when it comes to ideology we must be totally centralized. We can have the World Totalitarian Liberation Army and the World Totalibertarian Front, and they can have different leaders and members, but if any of them stray from the ideology of Totalibertarianism then they must be seen as the terrorist organization that they will have become, and crushed. By decentralizing the power we can prevent a single dictator from going against totalibertarianism, as the others will crush him like a bug, but we must ensure that only Totalibertarians are in power.
I particularly like the idea of paying for police I agree with...! Will these only arrest me for crimes I agree I deserve to be arrested for?
Your police agency would likely never arrest you, but the police agency of someone whose rights you violate would. At this point your punishment can be decided upon by both agencies, after you are convicted by an impartial third party organization that they both agree upon. If any of the defense agencies goes against totalibertarianism in their actions, then they are terrorists and need to be crushed like bugs.
(Feel free to bring up drug prohibition here as a straw man. I think everyone agrees that this is wrong but it does not follow that private police forces should therefore replace state funded, at least ostensiably indepoendent ones. And what about the judiciary! Will you only be tried by a court that you pay for and enforces only laws that you agree with?)
If a claim is brought against you by the defense agency of another person, then if you defense agency agrees that it is a crime you will be tried by a third party agency. If convicted by the third party agency, your punishment is up to all involved parties to decide upon. If somebody who does not have a defense agency is victimized, perhaps they can take it up with the World Totalibertarian Liberation Army, and we will handle their case for free.
You are saying that I am proposing that we go back through history and redistribute the wealth and work out who the rightful owners are. This 'you just want to divide everything up equally' has been a rabble rousing anti socialist argument since the 19th C. Its not true. I'm simply pointing out that the huge inequalities of ownership and opportunity in our present society would make any attempt to institute libertarianism a mockery of true freedom. It would be freedom for the rich to exploit the poor. You are right that it would be ridiculous to try and establish what rightfully belongs to who, but since its you who wants to tear down the current system its for you to come up with a solution to this not me.
The rich most certainly cannot exploit the poor in a Totalibertarian society! Doing so would make them dissidents, and they would swiftly be crushed like bugs by the WTLA. Also, the poor mob cannot exploit the rich (what you want to happen), because to do so would make them dissidents, and they would be swiftly crushed like bugs by the WTLA. My solution is this, people own what is theirs. Is it so hard of a concept? Public property will need to be sold off and privatized, as there is no concept of public property in Totalibertarianism. perhaps the WTLA can seize it from the armed bandits who currently run the world and auction it off to the highest bidder. Then we can use the funds from this to help fund the WTLA.
As far as dividing everything up equally, I actually am willing to makr a suggestion to help you out oif this moral conundrum. How about, just to make things a bit fairer, we take a small portion of everyone's wealth, a little from the poor, and progressively more as you rise up the scale of wealth. Then we use this money to fund schools for the poor, independent judiciary and police, and some kind if healthcare insurance for everyone. Unemployment insurance to prevent employers using the threat of poverty to drive down wages. That kind of thing? A bit simpler than the historical census you seem to imagine I propose. We could call it 'redistributive taxation'.
No this is theft and is illegal under Totalibertarianism. Those who engage in theft must be crushed like bugs.
Now, the ongoing game of monopoly. At the moment, while property and money is somewhat unevenly distributed, and players pass on their hand, good or bad to their children, at least we have a person who enforces the rules. They might be amenable to bribery, and not entirely even handed, sometimes they make bad decisions. In theory at least we can replace them. Its not ideal but I think its preferable too allowing the rules to be interpreted by whoever has the money and power to enforce them. Actually monopoly is a fairly poor analogy for modern society and I'm beginning to wish I hadn't introduced it.
No the rules are interpreted and enforced by the World Totalibertarian Liberation Army, and perhaps our friends in the World Totalibertarian Front. Anybody can interpret and enforce the rules, so long as they are totalibertarians and interpret them in such a way.
-
Another thing I have become convinced of is that there should be no notion of intellectual property. Ideas and information are things that cannot be owned, and the WTLA must enforce this as well. Not only will this be good for poor people and business start ups, but it will be good for all of humanity as well. It does not hurt those who create when we abolish the concept of intellectual property, they just need to switch to more modern models of production. For example, some say that if we say that anyone can copy a book, that the people who produce books will go out of business. But there are even models for these people, they can do something like Kickstarter and say they will not write their next book until a certain amount of money is sent to them. The model for these people needs to turn into one of pay to produce rather than pay for production. Because if you have a copy of a book and you own it, and you have a blank book, it is totally unacceptable to say that you are not allowed to make a copy of the book you own in the blank book you own. Totalibertarians are totally for peoples right to use their property as they see fit, and this idea just does not mesh well with intellectual property. And it does not hurt the book writers and others, they just need to switch to more modern models.
By abolishing intellectual monopolies we will cause many good things to happen, and it will hurt the unfair stranglehold that many established corporations have on their fields. This will be good for poorer people and business start ups, and it will not be bad for producers. The only people who will be harmed by this are those who think they can hold a claim to information. In Totalibertarianism, all information is indeed free, and nobody can claim to own an idea.
-
Don't you find it disturbing that your answer to all of lifes problems essentially boils down to "let's point gunts at rich people and take their money!" ?
I say "no, I am not in the least disturbed by that" given rich societies became that way by pointing guns at poor brown, black, Asian, and Arab people, shooting the fuck out of them, and then stealing their land / bananas / oil / fillings from their fucking teeth.
PS, asking rich people to pay their share for the collective good is not stealing their money. You read like you're almost 14 years old.
-
Don't you find it disturbing that your answer to all of lifes problems essentially boils down to "let's point gunts at rich people and take their money!" ?
I say "no, I am not in the least disturbed by that" given rich societies became that way by pointing guns at poor brown, black, Asian, and Arab people, shooting the fuck out of them, and then stealing their land / bananas / oil / fillings from their fucking teeth.
PS, asking rich people to pay their share for the collective good is not stealing their money. You read like you're almost 14 years old.
So you want to go through out all of history and try to settle the score? Seems like a complicated thing to do to me. I think it is better if we just say that we should all be free moving forward, from this point in time.
PS: My parents never owned slaves, and certainly never pointed guns at any poor brown, black, asian, or arab people to get rich. You sound like you might be a little bit racist against white people, I note that every single type of person has been exploited other than the devil whites, who all got filthy rich exploiting the others. Do you think that Africans used to have flight technology and live in a super technologically advanced society, before the white people came and robbed it all from them? I am just curious because I often find that people who talk like you believe in revisionist history.
PS: You are not ASKING anybody to do anything. Asking implies that you can be turned down. So why not just be honest and say POINTING GUNS AT AND DEMANDING. And it is not their fair share. How is it that someone owes money to the good of the collective? That sounds absolutely absurd doesn't it? Do you happen to be a communist?
-
Aah fuck it I'm convinced.... it was the crushing like bugs that swung it for me. Where can I sign up for the WTLA? I don't have much to offer but I am willing to obey orders. :-)
Totally with you on the intellectual property thing by the way. Fifty years ago the ability to make copies of music required a vinyl pressing factory, and record companies were able to charge huge sums for copies of music. Now technology has moved on and the ability to copy music etc no longer has any monetary value. And yet these intellectual property squatters are still trying to excerpt a stranglehold on this ability. Yes there needs to be some way of ensuring inventors and creators have incentive to do so, but over the years protection of intellectual property has got way out of hand.
-
I'm not sure if kmfkewm is serious lol. If you are deemed to be "stealing" or not toeing the party line you will be "crushed like a bug", but apart from that you're completely free!
-
Here's an interesting question for some of our more enthusiastic Libertarians.
If everyone in the world decided tomorrow, that Libertarianism was the way to go and all governments were suddenly Libertarian world-wide...how would we decide who gets what the next day?
I mean let's face it up to this point in history most of the rich people got their wealth through collusion with big governments right (I believe that's one of the criticisms of the current societal arrangements right)? Also others "stole" the land (or their families did a few generations back) from people like Native Americans, or others. It was litterally taken by force. Shouldn't we correct these injustices?
Or would those robbers and theives get away with it?
In other words, who would decide whom has the most legitimate claim to a specific property? Who would for example get the National Parks (can't leave this stuff in the hands of government right)?
:-)
R.
-
how would we decide who gets what the next day?
I don't think you get it. The whole point of being free is being free from central planning, state thuggery, and redistribution of property through force and coercion. So no one would "decide" anything.
Shouldn't we correct these injustices?
How? Do you want to start by giving back the descendants of tens of thousands of black families their properties which were seized in the south less than 100 years ago? And what about the daily injustices of asset forfeitures in the name of the War on Drugs? Or the tens of thousands of lives which are ruined every year by the IRS?
Or would those robbers and theives get away with it?
What in your mind constitutes "robbers and thieves"? And what makes you think another central planner would hold the same view? Or would enforce the law fairly and unselectively?
In other words, who would decide whom has the most legitimate claim to a specific property? Who would for example get the National Parks (can't leave this stuff in the hands of government right)?
I think you've brought up a very good point here which I haven't addressed up till now. I don't think that anyone here believes (me included) that a libertarian way of life could somehow be instituted out of the blue or done through force which is the very opposite of what libertarianism is.
There is only one way and really only one way for libertarianism to take hold: collapse.
Let me say that again so you get me: COLLAPSE.
That means collapse of the dollar to start. Collapse of the monopoly and absolute power of the federal reserve and the government to force people to use the dollar and other state-sponsored currencies. Collapse of the ability of government to collect income tax. Collapse of the ability of government to print unlimited amounts of debt on the backs of the people. Collapse of the ability of government to partner up with corporations because they're just too small to do it anymore. And collapse of government period.
The current state of affairs is driven by a devastating series of events which happened nearly 100 years ago. And they all happened one after another over a short span of time: creation of the federal reserve, creation of the income tax, creation of the first food and drugs act, exacting heavy penalties for "treason" against the government, and of course the prohibition of drugs and alcohol.
A protestant religious movement seized control of policy in America back then. They were obsessed with central planning and making sure that "you are your brother's keeper" no matter the cost. The masses were considered either too stupid, too weak or too poor to think and act for themselves and therefore needed government to take care of them. They thought that laws made men good and oversaw the largest expansion of government ever up to that point. It didn't help that the eugenics movement was still in full swing, racism was very high and many forms of socialism were sweeping across the entire globe at the time.
The government's REAL power is derived from only two of those things: the ability to collect income tax through any means necessary and to issue debt through the private federal reserve central bank backed by the income tax. Nearly unlimited amounts of debt since the money supply is grossly distorted through this process and the government can do pretty much anything to get its money. The income tax is the basis for our modern surveillance state and money laundering laws. The thing is that I did say "nearly" unlimited and not just unlimited since NOTHING is unlimited and a collapse will follow. The only question is when.
I give it another 7 or 8 years. Definitely less than a decade. The economy will collapse along with the dollar. The size of government will reach a certain breaking point and will implode when it loses the ability to collect income tax. Default will follow. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin will be part of the mechanism which makes this possible.
I know you may not want to hear it but everything is governed by cycles and natural law and government WILL become a lot smaller after growing to an unimaginable nightmarish size. You can't stop it. You just have to adapt to it. Make your own decisions, think your own thoughts and help yourself and your own family and friends instead of expecting others to do all this for you. You have some time to think about this stuff. Just don't say that no one warned you when it comes. Detroit is only the beginning.
-
Yes Reason that what we have been debating , do try and keep up :-). I have pointed out that since most of the worlds wealth and land lies in private hands already, to institute an extreme lassiez faire free market at this point would be free in name only, as certain players would begin with huge insurmountable advantages
The response has been that it would be difficult to the point of absurdity to try and restore all wealth and property to its 'rightful' owners after analyzing the whole historical proceses that led to these inequalities.
To which I reply well thats not really for me to sort out is it? I am not the one proposing we abolish all checks and safeguards painstakingly clawed back from capitalism over the previous two centuries, and so I can hardly be expected to propose ways we can fix the system that libertarians wish to break.
I have long pointed out that the distribution of the worlds wealth is a difficult problem for advocates of libertarianism. It doesn't seem right that we begin a system of free and voluntary exchange where some of the actors possess most of the goods to be exchanged.
Libertarians tend to have recourse to 'rising tide lifts all boats,' type argument at this point. And anyway, they say, we are getting away from the main point, which is 'is it fair for men with guns to take our money to give to poor?'
But under libertarianism what is to stop men with guns doing whatever they want, if they are backed by sufficiently large corporations? Oh yes, the stormtroopers of the TWLA, who appear to be unelected and answer only to their own extreme definition of liberty.
Picture the future, where increased automation has done away with the need for much of the work force in agriculture and manufacturing. Under an extreme free market that vast number of no longer needed workers will presumably be allowed to starve, in the midst of plenty. Our technology could allow us to produce all neccessitys of life for much less labour and yet this would only less to mass unemployment. The market is not infallible.
-
But under libertarianism what is to stop men with guns doing whatever they want, if they are backed by sufficiently large corporations?
And this ISN'T the system we already have in place today??? ;D ::)
But to answer your question: how about a small, limited government by the people and for the people which actually enforces and respects private property rights? And a civil court system which allows equal footing for plaintiffs and defendants?
I guess that's too much to ask since you imply that the majority of people who have ever made any money must be evil psychopaths who would kill homeless men with $5 in their pockets if there wasn't a law against it. Or that most other people would do bad things if they weren't governed accordingly. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Picture the future, where increased automation has done away with the need for much of the work force in agriculture and manufacturing. Under an extreme free market that vast number of no longer needed workers will presumably be allowed to starve, in the midst of plenty. Our technology could allow us to produce all neccessitys of life for much less labour and yet this would only less to mass unemployment.
I know. You have a point there. Why not ban all digging machinery for starters so that you can employ 1000 men with shovels instead of having 1 man operate that oppressive piece of machinery instead? ::)
The market is not infallible.
Freedom: it's a terrible thing.
-
or done through force which is the very opposite of what libertarianism is.
Libertarianism is NOT pacifism! I am all for implementing libertarianism through force. Anybody who acts against libertarianism needs to have force used against them until they stop acting in such a way. There is nothing immoral with forcing libertarianism on the world, that is like saying it is immoral to force a person to not kill an innocent or immoral to force a thief to stop stealing. It is immoral to not use force to implement a libertarian world!
-
I know. You have a point there. Why not ban all digging machinery for starters so that you can employ 1000 men with shovels instead of having 1 man operate that oppressive piece of machinery instead? ::)
The communist/socialist desire for jobs is a major contributing factor to the war on drugs. How can we give hundreds of thousands of people with no skills and no intelligence jobs? Hmm, well we can put the most retarded of them in the police force and hire them as prison guards, and we can give the slightly more intelligent of them jobs in the social sciences as addiction therapists and such! Yay, jobs for hundreds of thousands of people, paid for by the taxes we extort from those evil rich people who probably got all of their money by whipping slaves in the cotton fields anyway, and plus we have millions of people in prison where we can make them work for next to nothing! Problem solved! Yay Communism! Oh and we can even say we are helping these poor saps by treating them of their horrible addictions! Hey, everybody also hates these guys looking at CP, why not make more jobs by doing the same thing to them! Plus we can pretend that we are actually helping children! Yay Communism! Yay Socialism! Jobs for all the retards!
I just cannot wait to see the next group of people that they turn into jobs for retards! Will it be blacks? Will it be people who smoke cigarettes? You never know in communism, even you could be made into jobs tomorrow! For the good of the community! It actually is helping people, I know because the television told me so! The people with jobs "treating" and "guarding" these people have assured me that their jobs are crucial for the well being of the community! I love the community! Yay communism!
-
But under libertarianism what is to stop men with guns doing whatever they want, if they are backed by sufficiently large corporations?
And this ISN'T the system we already have in place today??? ;D ::
But to answer your question: how about a small, limited government by the people and for the people which actually enforces and respects private property rights? And a civil court system which allows equal footing for plaintiffs and defendants?
I guess that's too much to ask since you imply that the majority of people who have ever made any money must be evil psychopaths who would kill homeless men with $5 in their pockets if there wasn't a law against it. Or that most other people would do bad things if they weren't governed accordingly. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Picture the future, where increased automation has done away with the need for much of the work force in agriculture and manufacturing. Under an extreme free market that vast number of no longer needed workers will presumably be allowed to starve, in the midst of plenty. Our technology could allow us to produce all neccessitys of life for much less labour and yet this would only less to mass unemployment.
I know. You have a point there. Why not ban all digging machinery for starters so that you can employ 1000 men with shovels instead of having 1 man operate that oppressive piece of machinery instead? ::)
The market is not infallible.
Freedom: it's a terrible thing.
You're wrong. I will correct you.
You seem to be arguing against a fictional character as I said none of those things
But to take your ludricously oversimplified shovel that does the work of a thousand men. Perhaps it it used in growing food or building houses. So now one man can build houses or grow food for a thousand. Wonderful news. However the owner of the shovel will only pay wages to one man to operate it. So although this wondrous invention has created unimaniginabe plenty, it all belongs to the shovel owner. And why in earth should he let people eat his food, or live in his houses for free? So all the wonderful wealth created by this new technology remains in the hands of the owners of the means of production, while the workers who are now surplus to requirements must either be done away with, or some excuse be found to imprison them. THIS is where drug prohibition and the prison industry comes into play. The surplus workers who drift into drug supply and consumption to fill the void left by the automation and third world outsourcing of industry can now be declared criminal and locked up in huge numbers.
So an alternative viewpoint is that the Capitalist desire to reduce labour costs has left an inconvenient excess working class which has fueled drug prohibition as a means of disposing of these surplus workers
-
I know. You have a point there. Why not ban all digging machinery for starters so that you can employ 1000 men with shovels instead of having 1 man operate that oppressive piece of machinery instead? ::)
The communist/socialist desire for jobs is a major contributing factor to the war on drugs. How can we give hundreds oof thousands of people with no skills and no intelligence jobs? Hmm, well we can put the most retarded of them in the police force and hire them as prison guards, and we can give the slightly more intelligent of them jobs in the social sciences as addiction therapists and such! Yay, jobs for hundreds of thousands of people, paid for by the taxes we extort from those evil rich people who probably got all of their money by whipping slaves in the cotton fields anyway, and plus we have millions of people in prison where we can make them work for next to nothing! Problem solved! Yay Communism! Oh and we can even say we are helping these poor saps by treating them of their horrible addictions! Hey, everybody also hates these guys looking at CP, why not make more jobs by doing the same thing to them! Plus we can pretend that we are actually helping children! Yay Communism! Yay Socialism! Jobs for all the retards!
I just cannot wait to see the next group of people that they turn into jobs for retards! Will it be blacks? Will it be people who smoke cigarettes? You never know in communism, even you could be made into jobs tomorrow! For the good of the community! It actually is helping people, I know because the television told me so! The people with jobs "treating" and "guarding" these people have assured me that their jobs are crucial for the well being of the community! I love the community! Yay communism!
Ignoring the bizarre rant about jobs for retards and 'what next? Imprisoning smokers' arguments, let me make it clear :
I am not in favour of jobs for jobs sake. If someone invents new technology that allows us all to sit on our arses playing with the internet while machines produce unimaginable plenty for all I will welcome our new robot overlords. But under a system where the market controls all, new technology will be concentrated in the hands of the few, and not used to benefit all.
The market has no mechanism to deal with this.
-
Picture the future, where increased automation has done away with the need for much of the work force in agriculture and manufacturing. Under an extreme free market that vast number of no longer needed workers will presumably be allowed to starve, in the midst of plenty. Our technology could allow us to produce all neccessitys of life for much less labour and yet this would only less to mass unemployment. The market is not infallible.
I think you've really hit on a soft spot here. I've been noticing in much of the press that there is a growing number of economists that believe we are heading to a very new, and challenging development in human history from an economic point of view...and this is exactly the reason. Go in to a grocery store...people check out their own groceries...go to a gas station people pump their own gas...soon cars will drive themselves...no more taxis or bus drivers...soon automated systems will do a better job at managing then most mid-level managers...
We are all becoming very redundant. How long will it be before your skills are simply no longer needed. What will we do with all the extra people...when machines are better than we are.
-
Yes, and its difficult to see how the market will resolve this. To be honest libertarianism seems to be a lot of soft spots strung together by the sturdy thread of 'why should men with guns take my money and spend it on what they want'
Which I freely confess IS a fairly solid argument:. This is indeed what will happen if you disobey the state, in the end. Our modern societies reserve the use of violence to the state and the state alone.
To understand why this is a good thing you need to study history. Humans have risen to their predominant position on this planet by being the most organised ruthless violent apes ever seen. Our history is a gigantic mound of smashed skulls and enslaved women and children.
Slowly we have brought this violence under some limited control. Every one of is still the great great great great great great...........great descendent of the people who were successful at violently out competing their fellows. But we have brought our impulses to use violence to resolve disputes under control. It is still there, for when other means fail.
The states monopoly on violence is part of this. With a strong central state offering dispute resolution (begun in England by Henry II and his concept of the Kings Peace, the birth of the common law, which judges did not decree but discover from the customs of their predecessors) it became less and less necessary for individualk to resort to violence to settle disputes.
The culture of honour, where men were socially expected to avenge any slight with violence, was usually found in areas where no central authority existed, or was weak or distant. A man had not only better be willing to use violence, but demonstrably so, if he wished his rights to be respected. Once strong central government was established in these areas, the duelling culture would dwindle, although men from these areas may still have a much quicker ear for a perceived insult.
And so we see that the threat of violence lurks behind every human interaction. It is not confined to the collection if taxes.
The model of dispute resolution libertarians often propose, where one partys defence insurance agency negotiates with the other oarty s defence agency, will only work if both defence agency maintain the threat of the use of force,
Negotiation is always preferable, but the men with guns are always going to be there in the background.
Have you ever seen those you tube videos where protestors of one feather or another are filming 'police violence' shrieking with middle class outrage "they are using force against us!" Yes my dread locked patchouli wearing friend. That is what the police are for.
Those who protest against the state monopoly on violence: do you really think a free market in violence would be better? Shall we all have to carry weapons and demonstrate our willingness to use them for our rights to be respected (oh. Yes. That sounds good to you doesn't it. Forgot who I was talking to for a second)
200 years ago all men wore swords constantly. (Obviously only gentlemen. The poor folk did as they were fucking well told, or got a quick lesson in dispute resolution). Was this a freer society?
-
we have millions of people in prison where we can make them work for next to nothing! Problem solved! Yay Communism!
If it's Communist to imprison a racial demographic and force them to labour, then Adolf was a Communist.
-
we have millions of people in prison where we can make them work for next to nothing! Problem solved! Yay Communism!
If it's Communist to imprison a racial demographic and force them to labour, then Adolf was a Communist.
It is communist to imprison people for the sole purpose of creating jobs, especially when the jobs are funded by taxes. The slaves are just a nice by product for them, just like the slaves of the USSR.
-
To understand why this is a good thing you need to study history. Humans have risen to their predominant position on this planet by being the most organised ruthless violent apes ever seen. Our history is a gigantic mound of smashed skulls and enslaved women and children.
Mostly done by states. Two bomb attacks by the US government killed 185,000 people, including women and children. Nazi Germany killed in the holocaust alone 17,000,000 people. What about the genocide in Bosnia, the state killed over 100,000 people. Oh yeah what about the USSR under Stalin they killed over 10,000,000 people. I could go on and on. Enslaved women and children, mass murders, almost all of these events are carried out by the state. So I think maybe you need to study history to see why it IS NOT good for the state to have a monopoly on violence! Your claim is so absurd as to be hilarious!
Slowly we have brought this violence under some limited control. Every one of is still the great great great great great great...........great descendent of the people who were successful at violently out competing their fellows. But we have brought our impulses to use violence to resolve disputes under control. It is still there, for when other means fail.
Sure, people have a desire to use violence to solve disputes. But instead, we should let libertarians resolve disputes, because they respect freedom totally. So, we should have libertarians gain the ability to exert the most violence, because they will use it in the way that is best for humanity and in the way that the least number of innocents will be hurt. Indeed, they will prevent innocents from being hurt by using violence against those who are not innocent! And so you just gave a great example of why Totalibertarians need to come into power, and why we need the Worlds Totalibertarian Liberation Army to become the force with the most ability to use violence in the world.
The states monopoly on violence is part of this. With a strong central state offering dispute resolution (begun in England by Henry II and his concept of the Kings Peace, the birth of the common law, which judges did not decree but discover from the customs of their predecessors) it became less and less necessary for individualk to resort to violence to settle disputes.
The states monopoly on violence has led to over a hundred million deaths just in modern times. You sound like a total fool to advocate that the state must maintain a monopoly on violence for the good of the community. Uhm, no, Totalibertarians must gain a monopoly on violence for the good of the world!
The culture of honour, where men were socially expected to avenge any slight with violence, was usually found in areas where no central authority existed, or was weak or distant. A man had not only better be willing to use violence, but demonstrably so, if he wished his rights to be respected. Once strong central government was established in these areas, the duelling culture would dwindle, although men from these areas may still have a much quicker ear for a perceived insult.
Totalibertarians say people can duel if they both consent to it, and do not put others in harms way. There is nothing wrong with two people agreeing to fight to the death. Even the bloods and the crips can have all out gang warfare, so long as they all consent to it and do it in such a way that there is no risk of others being hurt.
And so we see that the threat of violence lurks behind every human interaction. It is not confined to the collection if taxes.
the model of dispute resolution libertarians often propose, where one partys defence insurance agency negotiates with the other oarty s defence agency, will only work if both defence agency maintain the threat of the use of force
Sure sure, we NEED libertarians to have the ability to use force. Libertarians need to be the most powerful group in the world, so that we can keep everybody else in check to prevent them from violating the rights of others.
Negotiation is always preferable, but the men with guns are always going to be there in the background.
Have you ever seen those you tube videos where protestors of one feather or another are filming 'police violence' shrieking with middle class outrage "they are using force against us!" Yes my dread locked patchouli wearing friend. That is what the police are for.
Sure negotiation is preferable, but if people can not agree to do this, we need libertarians to step in and enforce libertarianism. Police use extreme degrees of violence against innocent people. A cop who beats someone up and puts him in prison for using drugs, should be shot through the head. A cop who arrests someone for using drugs should himself be shot through the head. He is a kidnapper, an armed robber, a terrorist. We need to exterminate people like this, or at least go to war with them until we take them completely out of power. Even after they are out of power we need to try all of them for war crimes, and many will likely be hung or executed by firing squad.
Those who protest against the state monopoly on violence: do you really think a free market in violence would be better? Shall we all have to carry weapons and demonstrate our willingness to use them for our rights to be respected (oh. Yes. That sounds good to you doesn't it. Forgot who I was talking to for a second)
There should not be a free market in violence. There should be a Totalibertarian dictatorship that keeps a perfect monopoly on violence. Other agencies can act in our name, but if they stray from Totalibertarianism then we will use violence against them as well.
200 years ago all men wore swords constantly. (Obviously only gentlemen. The poor folk did as they were fucking well told, or got a quick lesson in dispute resolution). Was this a freer society?
In some ways it was freer. But I do not say we should go back to the past, I say we should go to the future, and the future must be Totalibertarian.
-
.
Mostly done by states. Two bomb attacks by the US government killed 185,000 people, including women and children. Nazi Germany killed in the holocaust alone 17,000,000 people. What about the genocide in Bosnia, the state killed over 100,000 people. Oh yeah what about the USSR under Stalin they killed over 10,000,000 people. I could go on and on. Enslaved women and children, mass murders, almost all of these events are carried out by the state. So I think maybe you need to study history to see why it IS NOT good for the state to have a monopoly on violence! Your claim is so absurd as to be hilarious!
If you precede this paragraph with 'during the 20th century' then yes.
The fact that during this century humans developed unparalleled destructive capacity, and that three centralized states organized themselves into empires geared for war is not something inherent in having a central government that practices redistributive taxation. As you say, that was the past.
In two books, The Better angels of our Nature by Steven Pinker and The World until Yesterday by Jared Diamond both authors point out that in primitive societies with no central authority death by violence for an individual is much more common than in modern central state societies. And yes, this statistic does include the unthinkable millions killed in the 20th century.
Even in the twentieth century an indiviudual was less likely to die by violence than at any time during history. Now clearly this is small consolation for someone incinerated in Dresden or Hiroshima, or starved in Auschwitz or Siberia. But the state monopoly on violence offers huge advantages for the majority who are fortunate enough not to have lived through those uniquely horrific events,
There were obviously compelling reasons why the free hunter gatherers of the fertile crescent gave up some of their autonomy to live in the early settlement s based on agricultural taxation. .
'He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither' makes a good bumper sticker. A political philosophy not so much. Still, you will no doubt have a big fucking gun. That's what libertarianism boils down to. "I don't need the state....I will have a big fucking gun!"
-
Just to add. The horrific events of the twentieth century were not carried out by states. They were carried out by people. People are perfectly capable of self organising into huge genocidal armies and slaughtering each other in huge numbers of their own volition. In fact you could argue that the huge central states grew out of the wars rather than the other way about. Pre 20th century states were much more like commercial empires than modern nation states, with much lower taxation. The end of the Victorian age was in many ways a libertarian free for all, with private companies fighting private wars over the commercially founded colonies of Africa , South America and India. Think of the Hudson bay company, the Dutch east India compoany, and the English east India company. Think 'Heart of Darkness' and the Belgian Congo.
-
I will need to clarify the above post but it is late and I must go to bed. I am not saying the 2nd world war was a spontaneous endeavour of the people of the world, rather that the activities of untrammelled empire capitalism in the previous century led to the huge armed conflicts, which then necessitated the organising of states into centralised leviathans for the effective fighting of these wars. The wars created the states, the states did not create the wars.
-
If we just have the collective nuts to fire our guns when it mattered.
Look at the occupy movements. If about 10,000 would have shown up armed and actually killed some of these CEO's then that would have made a difference. We have been brainwashed into the idea that marching and carrying signs, or even showing up to vote will make a difference. These billionaires and politicians use brute force when they feel threatened, so they need to be confronted with brute force. You think if some fuck laid off a thousand employees then gave themselves a pay raise, then had themselves or family member killed, that they would repeat it again? I think you would have people behaving more responsibly, or ready to die for money that they didn't need anyway.
Remember, our framer of our constitution, Thomas Jefferson said that we need a revolution ever 20 years to preserve our form of democracy, yet we haven't had another.
Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!
-
... To understand why this is a good thing you need to study history. Humans have risen to their predominant position on this planet by being the most organised ruthless violent apes ever seen. Our history is a gigantic mound of smashed skulls and enslaved women and children.
Slowly we have brought this violence under some limited control. Every one of is still the great great great great great great...........great descendent of the people who were successful at violently out competing their fellows. But we have brought our impulses to use violence to resolve disputes under control. It is still there, for when other means fail.
The states monopoly on violence is part of this.
Hi HG,
Nice post!
However, I'm going to differ on this small part. I tend to be a defender of humankind's reputation on these forums lately, so I can't shirk my responsibility here.
I would suggest that our base nature is not violent and destructive, but instead social. I'd recommend a book called Your Inner Ape (can't recall the author), however they were some sort of anthropologist/primatologist. The book examines humans two closest animal relatives, the Chimp and the Bonobo. We share about 99% of our DNA with both of these apes. Which then begs the question, are we closer to one somehow or the other.
The two apes are almost indistinguishable from each other physically, and share many social commonalities. They are both highly social, and have complex (political) communities of interaction within the tribes they inhabit, with strict rules for behavior. There the similarity ends, as they organize socially very differenty.
The chimps are highly combative and violent. They organize raids against neighboring tribes, and brutally suppress inner tribe law-breakers or those challenging the existing power structures. The tribes are run by male apes, with females having a seperate but subbordinate structure.
The Bonobos are surprisingly very different The most ineresting is that they are matriarchical, or put simply...the females run the show. The Bonobos essentially have a sex based social structure, meaning that it is a complex exchange of sexual favors. The males are kept in check by using sex to direct their behavior. The pecking order of the females is also controlled through female bonobos grooming each other and sowing favor. She who has the most favor rules. This not to say that the Bonobos are violence free, not even close...but it is far less frequent.
I believe both of these examples provide us some keen insights about how human beings naturally organize ourselves. Firslty, we do that...organize ourselves and work together.
The apes both have heirarchical power structures that allow majority rule (through the social establishment of authority) and minority rights (both tribes have pockets of disenfranchised, but tolerance is the norm for these...although it's no fun for them). We do this too.
Both have forms of wealth redistribution too, the leaders almost always decide whom gets what...however if the leaders aren't fair...they don't last long as the lower echelon apes eventually get together and kick their asses. You can only govern with the consent of the governed. Just like us.
What to me is key is that neither of these apes ever live alone, outside the tribes. Why? Because they die. The ape tribes evolved to help these creatures survive. When the tribes are strong and socially healthy they do survive.
So this tells me that our nature is to organize into heirarchical social structures where both aggression and sexual-social political savviness play a key role in how well we individually fare. We naturally lean toward social organization that allows an elite class to rule, but are allowed to do so only when the lower classes are treated fairly.
So is our natural political structure mostly Libertarian?
I don't think so, mostly because the lower classes must be treated fairly and get a piece of the pie (even if they don't necessarily deserve it in the eyes of the bakers)
R.
-
If we just have the collective nuts to fire our guns when it mattered.
Look at the occupy movements. If about 10,000 would have shown up armed and actually killed some of these CEO's then that would have made a difference. We have been brainwashed into the idea that marching and carrying signs, or even showing up to vote will make a difference. These billionaires and politicians use brute force when they feel threatened, so they need to be confronted with brute force. You think if some fuck laid off a thousand employees then gave themselves a pay raise, then had themselves or family member killed, that they would repeat it again? I think you would have people behaving more responsibly, or ready to die for money that they didn't need anyway.
Remember, our framer of our constitution, Thomas Jefferson said that we need a revolution ever 20 years to preserve our form of democracy, yet we haven't had another.
Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!
Why don't you move to North Korea if you like communism so much.
-
Bonobos also regularly engage in pedophilia , does that mean that it is natural for humans?
-
Kmfkewn you are just acting like the chimps that Reason describes and flinging your faeces through the bars of your cage now.
"Why don't you go and live in north Korea if you like communism so much?" You can do better than this. I look forward to reading your posts normally as they make me challenge my own way of thinking and seriously consider the libertarian worldview..
Bonobo society uses sex to mediate social relationships rather than a hierarchy of violence. Chimps have a basically harem based system where alpha males claim majority mating rights, however their extremely large testicles testify to 'sneaky fucker' style oppurtunist mating by beta males, leading to in utero sperm competition as a mechanism for selection.
Neither are useful as direct metaphors for human society. 'Natural' is a term that has very little relevance for modern humans. We must look elsewhere to decide how to organise our societies. A major social function in the two other species of chimpanzee is mutual grooming and eating of parasites, to estasblish hierarchy and 'pecking order'. Does that mean it is natural for the human chimpanzee to do likewise?
-
Hi HG,
Nice post!
However, I'm going to differ on this small part. I tend to be a defender of humankind's reputation on these forums lately, so I can't shirk my responsibility here.
I would suggest that our base nature is not violent and destructive, but instead social.
Oh of course, I wholeheartedly agree. Humans social behaviours so far transcend the nearest comparisons, the eusocial Hymenoptera
(bees and wasps, whos social behaviour is an artefact of certain peculiarities in their genetics; namely males having only a single set of chromosomes, leading to the most effective method of reproduction being for sisters to persuade their mother to produce more sisters (sisters being 3/4 related, mother/daughter the traditional 1/2) . The queen is in fact a breeding machine for the workers, rather than they being her slaves, and the sex ratios of hymenoptera support this striking fact)
also termites who have established similarly hypersocial organisations for less clearly understoofd reasons and to a lesser extent some herd/pack animals, that we constitute something completely new and unique in nature (with the obvious caveat: on this planet).
Our two social innovations, speech, and later writing, have enabled a level of social complexity that is unparalled in the history of life, and the recent development of the internet, which might be termed a species wide RAM and storage is taking us to new levels of decentralised social interaction, the consequences of which are hard to overestimate.
Like Mao Tse Tsung, when asked about the outcome of the French Revolution, apocryphally replied "its too early to say"
Well, that's s long post considering how little I actually say in it. Sorry. However,the standard in this thread has slipped pretty low, so, y'know.....enjoy
-
Sure, people have a desire to use violence to solve disputes. But instead, we should let libertarians resolve disputes, because they respect freedom totally. So, we should have libertarians gain the ability to exert the most violence, because they will use it in the way that is best for humanity and in the way that the least number of innocents will be hurt. Indeed, they will prevent innocents from being hurt by using violence against those who are not innocent! And so you just gave a great example of why Totalibertarians need to come into power, and why we need the Worlds Totalibertarian Liberation Army to become the force with the most ability to use violence in the world.
All you're saying is we should have an all powerful state which enforces your personal morals, supposedly "libertarian". Who decides who these all righteous libertarians who are to run the world are? Those who then decide who they think has been stealing(/acquiring money unjustly), or not being libertarian enough..?
I don't see libertarianism to be a philosophy with a reasonable end goal, but rather a useful movement which can push against a tide of unjust state control and coercion.
-
Bonobos also regularly engage in pedophilia , does that mean that it is natural for humans?
Sadly the evidence would strongly suggest that this is so, my expectation however that if the behaviour did not confer survival benefits to the Bonobos, then it's likely as taboo for them as it is for us, and is likely punished.
However, your question does point out an important consideration in my analysis, namely that just because our ape ancestors did something, does not mean that we humans must also do it (or condone it).
My objective was rather to explore the overall social structure of our closest human relatives, to see what might be most natural for us. Again we need not embrace that natural reality, but it would likely be our tendency.
Apes also throw a lot of poop. I don't think we should do that either. :-)
-
Bonobos also regularly engage in pedophilia , does that mean that it is natural for humans?
Sadly the evidence would strongly suggest that this is so, my expectation however that if the behaviour did not confer survival benefits to the Bonobos, then it's likely as taboo for them as it is for us, and is likely punished.
However, your question does point out an important consideration in my analysis, namely that just because our ape ancestors did something, does not mean that we humans must also do it (or condone it).
My objective was rather to explore the overall social structure of our closest human relatives, to see what might be most natural for us. Again we need not embrace that natural reality, but it would likely be our tendency.
Apes also throw a lot of poop. I don't think we should do that either. :-)
It is not taboo for them it is common and part of their social structure. Since you think humans should base our society off of apes, I guess that means you think pedophilia should be the norm.
-
I've been reading back over reasons posts to see where he suggests we should base our societies on apes, but I can't find it. I can find a point where he describes the different ways in which our closest relatives organise their societies, but nowhere where he suggests we should model ourselves on therm.
Incidentally, reason, in answer to a question you put.
: humans are exactly equally related to chimpanzees and bonobos. The ancestral line of chimp/bonobo split off from ours and then split into chimps and bonobos, thus we are considered to be equally related, while they are closer to each other than they are to us. All three of us are more closely related to each other than gorillas (branched off earlier) orang utans (even earlier) and gibbons and siamangs(branched off still earlier). Thus we are rightly considered the third chimpanzee, although we have changed a lot further in the 8million years since we parted.
Bonobos do indeed use sex for more or less every social interaction. Men fuck men women fuck women and both fuck children. But its like when a dog mounts another male dog, it isn't about sex its about dominance an hierarchy. Bonobos use it in a more nonconfrontational way to seal bonds within the group.
None of which suggests that we should adopt bonobo behaviour, anymore than we should strip off our clothes and go live in trees.
And nowhere did Reason suggest such an absurdity.
On the other hand, chimps engage in genocidal warfare against other tribes. In a famous study of the Goodall chimps, there were two roughly evenly matched tribes, one of maybe 12 one of 9, occupying neighbouring territories. Over several years the larger group killed members of the smaller group in ambushes, beating and tearing isolated individuasls to death, until the smaller group was wiped out and its breeding age females and territory absorbed into the larger group. They then came under attack from an even larger tribe and the warfare continued.
Chimps are crap at war when compared with primitive men however. Throughout most of prehistory men lived in small hunter bands, in a state of ferocious war with their nearst neighbours. Strangers could either be traded with cautiously (if parity of numbers in encounter) or killed on sight, just to be on safe side......
I haven't really the time or inclination to go through human history and explain how we developed more and more centralised power structures, with both benefits and disadvantages, culminating in the central state. I worry we would be foolish to cast it down without serious thought of what we will put in its place.
I must admit I would love to see a large island established as an experimental libertarian society. Perhasps if antartica becomes ice free and the coastal regions more temperate?
-
Great information Hungry Ghost, and a +1 for sharing it. After reading the previous criticism I felt obliged to at least read up on this Bonobo behavior mentioned (I'd not heard of this behavior, perhaps it was not menioned in the book I cited, or I've simply forgotten. I'd read it some time ago).
You saved me the research, thanks!
I must say, those Bonobos are a randy lot aren't they!
You also deftly reiterated my point, that perhaps something can be gleened from primate behavior that could inform our approach to social structures.
R.
-
Great information Hungry Ghost, and a +1 for sharing it. After reading the previous criticism I felt obliged to at least read up on this Bonobo behavior mentioned (I'd not heard of this behavior, perhaps it was not menioned in the book I cited, or I've simply forgotten. I'd read it some time ago).
You saved me the research, thanks!
I must say, those Bonobos are a randy lot aren't they!
You also deftly reiterated my point, that perhaps something can be gleened from primate behavior that could inform our approach to social structures.
R.
I agree! Oh you said deftly I thought you said daftly, never mind. I don't understand why you think humans, with our great intellects, should base our social structures on fucking apes, lol. I think when you first became a libertarian it was after reading the fountain head, and now you have just read Tarzan and changed your mind. Seriously, apes fling their shit around and have sex with infants, do you really think we should use them as a basis of how to arrange our social structures? There is no legitimacy at all to the claim "Apes are not organized as libertarians, and therefore humans should not be!" , and using that as your arguement just seems absurd.
-
I don't think you are reading our posts anymore kmfkewn, just scanning for phrases you can grotesquely distort and use to mock what you thought we were saying. We both at several points definitely said that ape societies should not be taken as models for human societies, just that it was interesting to compare the methods the other two chimpanzees use to resolve disputes to our much more elaborate rituals and institutions.
The third Chimpanzee has evolved so far from its cousi
ns and advanced in so many ways that its difficult to compare us to any other animal. We have truly developed ino something unique under the sun.....no I cant help it, I'm going to have to play the Dane:
Hamlet:
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
Rosencrantz:
My lord, there was no such stuff in my thoughts.
When debating, I like to engage in a process of synthesis (makes annoying finger meshing gesture). We listen to each others ideas and try and see if we can make some common ground. I believe this is properly known as "a socialist circle jerk". In your last few posts you are basically putting on a spastic voice and going "Durr so you think we should all just hang around in trees fucking infants and flinging shit? "While I was glad you were able to shoehorn in your paedophilia motif this wasn't what we were saying.
The chimp and bonobo stuff was kind of a sidebranch to the point I was trying to make about the long millennia of human societal development. From our encounters with stone age people when the New World was recontacted, to more recent encounters with the natives of the Papau New Guinea highlands, (uncontacted until planes flew overhead during WWII, discovering that what had seemed a central massif of steep impenetrable jungle covered mountains had a central plateau of heavily populated agricultural land isolated from the rest of he world for tens of thousands of years,) we know that for most of that time our ancestors lived in small tribes of hunters and simple agriculturists, who coexisted with their neighbouring tribes in a permanent state of either war or uneasy truce, maintained only by careful observation of the social rituals they had developed as alternatives to violence.
In the years since Ur,and Surmeria, and the Incas and the Maya, who were among the first to establish central tax collecting governments, and offer codifications of law and courts of judgement as an alternative to violence between disputants as a means to dispute resolution. (When individuals settle disputes over land or property by violence it is easy for it to escalate to include their kin and tribes and allys), our societies have incrementaly developed into larger and more centralised states. I make no moral judgement on this, this is just the way history has tended.
Eventually we end up with our modern system with well its many flaws. In the course of our debate I have reiterated one of my main criticisms of libertarianism: the 'how do we get there from here' problem. Since most of the land and wealth of the world is in private hands, if we begin a completely unregulated free market, what is to prevent the have nots and their children from ending up working for and paying rent to that haves., and that being so, how will this society be more free?
Your immediate response was to suggest that that was for me to sort out, and that it would be absurd to try and restore everything in history to its 'rightful owners' (a process i certainly never advocated. This seems to be a favoured rhetorical technique of libertarians: ignore the actual argument, and instead point out the absurdity of what you IMAGINE was being proposed)
Next come the (I hope facetious) suggestion that the transition might be accomplices by the formation oof the World Total Libertarian Army. Something that many would be revolutionaries have learned to there cost is that forming large bodies of armed men, and showing them how easy it is to alter society, rarely ends well. The New Model Army, and the Peoples Dictatorship of Marxist thought spring to mind.
But of course, the WTLA will be different, the only dissidents it will summarily execute will be those who are trying to interfere with anyone elses freedom. But who will make these judgements? Who decides whose freedom trumps whos? Obviously my freedom not to be robbed beats your freedom to be a bandit. But what about where my freedom to fish in a river conflicts with your freedom to divert it to hydroelectric power?
As I say our current system is a deeply flawed uneasy balance between Leviathan states that since 1945 have been slowly withdrawing their many tentacles, and the increasing power of agglomerating monopoly capitalism Capitalism has wrought wonders and clearly become the de facto system of the world. I have no problem with that, however the States use of redistributive taxation alleviates some of the worse side effects of capitalism.
During the cold war there was to some extent a beauty contest between east sand west. The west wanted to demonstrate the superior lifestyles enjoyed by its citizens and so used some of the huge wealth generated bytheir superior economic system to provide comfortable living for the lowest paid workers,
Now the threat of an alternative has been removed, the western democracys have slowly been removing the rights and privileges afforded their workers.
I have to finish now as busy, but I'd like to finish with a quote from Winston Churchill, a man I admire very much, despite disagreeing with much of his politics:
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)
-
Libertarianism is a white man's ideology. there's no way in fucking hell you could explain that to the average black man and get him on board. in his ears he's hearing "lets completely abandon the people who built this country (africans) and allow the klan to run wild. if you don't want to live in squalor, all you have to do is beat your way to the top of the white man's world with no laws against discrimination."
-
Libertarianism is a white man's ideology. there's no way in fucking hell you could explain that to the average black man and get him on board. in his ears he's hearing "lets completely abandon the people who built this country (africans) and allow the klan to run wild. if you don't want to live in squalor, all you have to do is beat your way to the top of the white man's world with no laws against discrimination."
Libertarianism has come a long way since the time of the founding fathers. You find me a ideology better suited to the freedom and justice of all people. Not to mention, the "white man" is a dying race, this is the 21st century. People of all races are marrying, and having children with multiple backgrounds, which is in no way a bad thing. But to abandon a great ideology such as libertarianism, because of blacks is nothing short of foolish. Many modern day blacks are beginning to realize that libertarianism is the answer, not the problem.
-
The only question that libertarianism is the answer to is "what superficially appealing philosophy doesn't hold up well under any kind of intense scrutiny"
I think libertarianism would be equally disastrous for all poor, landless folk, not just inner city black people. Unless you believe that capitalism, emancipated from the chains of state regulation would generate the legendary tide that lifts all boats. Companies would actually compete with each other to pay workers more, and the virtuous cycle of increased wages would lead to ever increasing wealth and technical development, and we could all afford crime, health, fire and road insurance and utility bills, that the magic of competition had driven to all time lows.
Then I woke up to the sound of gunfire , and put my credit card in the slot to turn the lights on. I rang up a few security companys to see which had the lowest call out fee (not being able to afford a general package) and in the end got back into bed. My 12 hour shift at the assembly line began soon and I wanted to get back to that dream I was having about a country that had a welfare safety net and universal healthcare and free education.
-
Libertarianism is a white man's ideology. there's no way in fucking hell you could explain that to the average black man and get him on board. in his ears he's hearing "lets completely abandon the people who built this country (africans) and allow the klan to run wild. if you don't want to live in squalor, all you have to do is beat your way to the top of the white man's world with no laws against discrimination."
I thought that black people would be cool with freeing all of the drug prisoners etc. Black people are highly negatively affected by things libertarians want to legalize, even more so than white people. Everybody gets something in libertarianism. The rich people get freedom from taxation and the poor people get freedom from prosecution for victimless crimes. Sure, there should be no laws against discrimination. If people don't like discrimination they wont buy products from companies that are known to discriminate, etc. The market can deal with issues like this very well.
Black people tend to be more anarcho-socialist than anarcho-capitalist though. They want to free the drug prisoners still, but want to steal money from the rich. Anarcho capitalism doesn't play favorites for any race or socioeconomic status, it blindly grants freedom to everybody. I am sure there are some black libertarians though, hell there are black republicans. So it isn't so much a race issue but really more of a socioeconomic issue. Poor people largely are not gonna want to be told they cannot steal from the rich. But it doesn't matter, cuz totalibertarians are not going to let them steal from the rich any more than they are going to let the rich build prison empires filled with poor people
-
.... I think when you first became a libertarian it was after reading the fountain head, and now you have just read Tarzan and changed your mind.
LOL...thanks Dude...that got me seriously laughing. :-)
Let me reiterate though...I'm not saying that we should behave just like apes, I'm saying that we inherited a lot of their social inclinations, and that these can inform us about how we organize ourselves. Not saying that we should fling poop, on the contrary I think that we should refrain from that.
-
...Poor people largely are not gonna want to be told they cannot steal from the rich. But it doesn't matter, cuz totalibertarians are not going to let them steal from the rich any more than they are going to let the rich build prison empires filled with poor people
And here is the thrust of the problem.
Poor people are not gonna want to be told they cannot steal from the rich, because they know that most of the rich got what they have because thier families passed down that wealth after having extracted it from the crushed bones of enslaved or in some other way subjugated people from the past.
If we were to turn on full libertarianism tomorrow, very soon wealth that is already very consolidated in very few hands, would become more consolidated. It's quite easy to win the race when you're already 9/10 of the way to the finish line when the gun goes off. Thereafter the very wealthy, in need of protecting themselves and those holdings would amass armies to protect it.
After a while they'd adopt lofty titles like King or Emperor, and they'd just love to throw fairs all the marvelous little peasants now an again. Unless of course they got uppity, and in that case the Kings justice would be swift and cruel to keep those peasants in thier place.
Seriously kmfkewm, I just don't understand how it could work otherwise.
The problem of the existing distribution of wealth would give only the very rich a real shot at prosperity.
I truly believe that at present the best government is quite close to what most western countries have. Capitalism, with a government taxing it to handle things external to the market, such as providing a safety net, estalishment of a legal system to settle disputes and administer justice, and protecting the commons.
R.
-
I mean, I think we can all agree that prohibition is an outrage and besides a huge waste of time and resources that actually makes the problem its meant to solve worse.
But that doesn't mean that all laws and police enforcement of them is trampling on our freedom.
There are always going to be murderers and rapists and people with no compunction about using violence to achieve their aims, as all of these traits were positively selected for during our long evolution.
The problem of how to deal with them is a vexed one. It is very difficult to envision how to restrain violent individuals without using violence ourselves.
That being said I had rather the authority to administer that violence rest in as few hands as possible, ideally a police force that is notionally independent, and funded by taxation.
As I say our current system is deeply flawed, but at least is formed around ideas of democracy, ie if we dislike our leaders we can replace them with another set of equally unpleasant characters.
I would be happy to discuss ideas related to more local self determination and government, so that communities can decide for themselves what system they wish to live under.
-
If we just have the collective nuts to fire our guns when it mattered.
Look at the occupy movements. If about 10,000 would have shown up armed and actually killed some of these CEO's then that would have made a difference. We have been brainwashed into the idea that marching and carrying signs, or even showing up to vote will make a difference. These billionaires and politicians use brute force when they feel threatened, so they need to be confronted with brute force. You think if some fuck laid off a thousand employees then gave themselves a pay raise, then had themselves or family member killed, that they would repeat it again? I think you would have people behaving more responsibly, or ready to die for money that they didn't need anyway.
Remember, our framer of our constitution, Thomas Jefferson said that we need a revolution ever 20 years to preserve our form of democracy, yet we haven't had another.
Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!
Why don't you move to North Korea if you like communism so much.
You apparently don't know the definitions of big words...you just hear them and what people say and think Communism bad, Capitalism good. In reality, what I said had nothing to do with any of that. Your response sounds like something Uncle Jimbo, from South Park would say. I don't think I can get down to your level to debate. I am sorry for you.
-
If we just have the collective nuts to fire our guns when it mattered.
Look at the occupy movements. If about 10,000 would have shown up armed and actually killed some of these CEO's then that would have made a difference. We have been brainwashed into the idea that marching and carrying signs, or even showing up to vote will make a difference. These billionaires and politicians use brute force when they feel threatened, so they need to be confronted with brute force. You think if some fuck laid off a thousand employees then gave themselves a pay raise, then had themselves or family member killed, that they would repeat it again? I think you would have people behaving more responsibly, or ready to die for money that they didn't need anyway.
Remember, our framer of our constitution, Thomas Jefferson said that we need a revolution ever 20 years to preserve our form of democracy, yet we haven't had another.
Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!
Why don't you move to North Korea if you like communism so much.
You apparently don't know the definitions of big words...you just hear them and what people say and think Communism bad, Capitalism good. In reality, what I said had nothing to do with any of that. Your response sounds like something Uncle Jimbo, from South Park would say. I don't think I can get down to your level to debate. I am sorry for you.
You want to kill CEO's because they make lots of money and lay workers off. Sounds like something a communist would say to me. You think the CEO is the slave of his workers. In reality the CEO doesn't owe the workers jack shit other than what they contractually agreed to. The owner of a company can shut the full thing down and fire every damn last person if he wants to, and if workers who lost jobs try to kill him because of it they should be thrown into prison and left to rot. You are the one who doesn't understand big words. What you said is communist as hell. You said that if someone fires people and gives himself a pay raise out of the money, that he should be killed. Sounds mighty close to from each according to his ability to each according to his need. The job provider has the ability to provide jobs, so you think he must provide them, and the workers need jobs so you think they should be given them, since the CEO doesn't need an extra million dollars.
-
No. I don't want any of this. In the 30's, the average CEO was paid 10 times more than an entry level employee at his company.
By 2010 that had ballooned to the average CEO making over 1000 times that of an entry level worker.
Communism is a phased in system, that I don't like.
I am into Libertarianism, but it has been watered down by the pansies on the left who hate violence and think carrying signed effects change.
Was Jefferson a Commie? We need a revolution every 20 years to preserve the freedom we had after the constitution was signed, if you read his writings.
All I am saying is this: A few guys shoot anyone, they go to jail, and I think they should, in most cases. A million guys start shooting, you have the new founding father leading them. Our founding fathers were the original felons. I don't advocate that yet, but we should star armed to the teeth with the same weapon as LE and Paramilitary troops. Training and the militias are important. We will not bring this on. A false flag by the NWO or our government will cause them to trample liberties until it can't be taken anymore and there will be a peaceful protest and some trigger happy punk cop or National Guardsman will kill an innocent, maybe a girl, a baby, and then the hidden will rise up and the police, some will join us because they down want their children growing up in a fascist state, some will not. Many of the Nat Guard and Fema will turn and join us because they will not want to hurt their own people.
I guess it will be a batter between Conscience and who signs your paycheck.
EVERY SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE HAD A DEATH WARRANT SIGNED BY KING GEORGE, THE H.N.I.C. OF OUR GOVERNMENT AT THE TIME.
But no friend, I love you. You are wrong in your interpretation, but i welcome it. I am glad we live in a nation that does allow us to disagree and we don't have to worry about being "disappeared" in the middle of the night and never heard from again just because of what we say...
....That is just if we have a plant they don't like. Much love.
-
I thought that black people would be cool
they are, man: James Brown, Haile Selassie, Samuel L Jackson, Lester Freeman and Omar Little from The Wire. Those are some cool motherfuckers. Admittedly the last two are fictional characters from a TV show. But Miles Davis actually REBIRTHED cool and he was black. I hope I haven't somehow missed the point of what you were trying to say? 8)
-
I agree Chil, it's an unfortunate truth that many people just don't have it goin' on.
I worked the polls for the Libertarian party one year, and this was the beginning of the end for me. I was absolutely blown away by the ignorance (willfull, or not) of the vast majority of the voters. I desperately tried to engage people in thoughtful discussion, but was dismayed that most people didn't know what the Bill of Rights was, nor how many branches of government we have, nor even how many states there were.
I don't know that for sure either. I think it was 51 or 52? But I'm a European.
They didn't even really know why they were voting the way they did...most just came for the free donuts. They all however voted that day.
It was quite enlightening. It gave me a new appreciation of our system (flawed though it is).
What you've noticed are the flaws of democracy. If the majority of people is ignorant, government will be full of people who are either ignorant or conmen. Or both.
I personally also do believe there should be a safety net. But don't forget one thing: if you fully implement libertarianism, there will be more jobs. Prostitution will be fully legal. The freakshows will return. People could even sell themselves as cannon fodder.
I don't think there's a perfect system anyway.
-
Why can't I just vote to go live in the woods with my friends with unlimited weed and psychedelics with a natural well, garden, livestock and adequate hunting territory? Fuck this world I live in.
Ohh and electricity and internet would be nice too....
cant forget the strippers either :o
-
Why can't I just vote to go live in the woods with my friends with unlimited weed and psychedelics with a natural well, garden, livestock and adequate hunting territory? Fuck this world I live in.
Ohh and electricity and internet would be nice too....
cant forget the strippers either :o
I'll go with you...but don't forget munchies....if you're gonna have weed I'm going to need some f-ing munchies...and more strippers. :-)
-
Why can't I just vote to go live in the woods with my friends with unlimited weed and psychedelics with a natural well, garden, livestock and adequate hunting territory? Fuck this world I live in.
Ohh and electricity and internet would be nice too....
cant forget the strippers either :o
I'll go with you...but don't forget munchies....if you're gonna have weed I'm going to need some f-ing munchies...and more strippers. :-)
Fuck always forget either the munchies or the lighter... Stoner problems
~Psychedelic
-
I think a lot of our problems in this thread could be better solved if there were still uninhabited virgin land where you could go and live as you please. I think a lot of this strain of political thought comes from the history of the US The early colonists were much impressed by the freedom promoting laws of the Haudensaunee confederation (more popularly known as the Iroquois, Mik'maq, Abeneki, Choctaw, and I can't remember the others) who were popularly called the "five civilised tribes" who inhabited new england (the Dawnland) before Europeans arrived. The Indians held the Europeans in contempt for always defering to some remote authority such as a governor or king (I can't find the great quote that describes this in 1491 by Charles Mann, a book I recommend you read if you haven't already, as it will change how you think of precolumbian America)
Later, when most of the Indians(I use this term as widely accepted) had been wiped out by disease and the only survivors were the nomadic and understandably hostile horse tribes of the plains, the new Americans grew to think of the continent as largely uninhabited and open to settlement. This ability to 'go west' and start your own affair had an inflationary effect on wages in the east during the pioneer days , as if you weren't being paid well enough it was always possible to head west and start your own farm.
I feel that this history has had a huge effect on american political thought and the ideas of freedom held dear there. And yet this freedom was built on the back of (mostly accidental) genocide and slavery. History is fascinating.
In John Locke s excellent "Two treatises on government" (after completely demolishing the Divine Right of kings, popular then during the Restoration of Charles II) he talks about the nature of property, and how it is acquired by 'mixing labour with the product of nature' so that by working land it becomes ones property. Thus is fine while still unclaimed land remains but becomes more problematic when all land is taken. Since this book was written in mid 1600s it seems remarkably prescient of the concerns that would tax future political thought.
I fondly hope that climate change might make Greenland, and later Antarctica, inhabitable and perhaps colonists there can experiment with new forms of libertarian society!
-
Hungry Ghost what is your fascination with groups of people in close geographic location being forced to behave in the same way? It is a really weird and primitive way to see the world. Why do we need some new land to be opened up for libertarians to all move to? Why can't we just let people be libertarians where they already are? What is the big difference? You guys can keep paying your taxes, and the people who want to experiment with libertarianism can stop, and only pay for the services that we desire. You guys can keep being arrested for drug crimes, and we can stop and be free to use drugs. There is no magic that happens when a critical mass of people is reached in a certain geographic area. We don't need our own island. We just need to start having libertarian rules and non-libertarian rules, and let people pick which one they want to be. If you would love to keep being bothered by the police and thrown into prison and extorted for money to fund the very people who oppress you, feel free! But we don't want to do that, so we shouldn't. There, now libertarians can be happy and statists can be happy, and we don't need Antartica to become habitable to satisfy your geographic proximity fetish.
-
Roads, other infrastructure, legal system and enforcement. It is not possible for the two systems you describe to share territory. If a dispute arises between a tax payer and a libertarian, to who do they appeal to justice?I can't envision any society coping with a large group of people deciding they will no longer be subject to its laws, even where some of those laws are clearly wrong. Plus if 'my ' group were 'choosing to pay taxes' then we too would be libertarians, as we would be choosing to pay for services we require. I can't stress this enough; the system you describe is not libertarians and tax payers coexisting, it is simple libertarianism, and kind of inadvertently makes my point. I hadn't thought of it as a fetish as in I can only derive sexual arousal from it, and not without, but yes, I do believe its difficult for radically different societies to coexist geographically.See example of Indians/Europeans above.
I get it. Drug prohibition is an outrageous restriction of personal freedom. But using this as the well built base of a flimsy straw man woven to include redistributive taxation and states reserving use of force to itself is not going to scare many crows.
I believe that laws that can imprison me for drug use are wrong, and resent contributing to pay for them. I believe laws that can imprison me for violently assaulting people with knives or guns to be reasonable, if not perfect, and don't object to funding them.
Another way to characterise libertarianism is 'everyone pays as much/little 'tax' to who/whatever they want. I can see this working very well for the wealthy. The poor will presumably pay no tax at all, however, if supply of labour exceeds demand (usual throughout history, excepting after wars, plagues, andother culls) then wages for the poor will be driven down to subsistence level, leaving them unable to use the insurance based models of health care and sickness pay and justice usually envisioned by libertarians.
The stage will be set for the rise of a new plutocracy of the wealthy, and I cannot see how the market will regulate this, unless sufficient poor die to make their labour more valuable,
I feel outr current system is basically capitalism regulated by government , and I see no reason to remove the regulation and allow capitalism to follow its relentless logic to its merciless conclusion. Unjust drug laws not withstanding
-
I fondly hope that climate change might make Greenland, and later Antarctica, inhabitable and perhaps colonists there can experiment with new forms of libertarian society!
I've often wondered what would happen if as in some sort of sci-fi movie a whole bunch of people (say 1000) suddently found themselves on another Earthlike planet, but with no way home ever.
What sort of society would naturally arise? One of the big questions, about whom gets what land/property would be kind of moot. You have the whole damn planet, but only a few of you. So in this situation you'd probably value other people more than land. Let's face it youd want to stay pretty close together as a group and cooperate in order to survive.
People would start to sort of have specialty trades, and some sort of means of commerce would naturally arise. Even if everyone brought in the crops together, some people would naturally be enterprising and make a saleable item or offer a service.
How would it evolve?
R.
-
Capitalism and libertarianism as a part of individualism separates humanity from each other they breed competition and hatred It is a recessive force in action. I waiver on a daily basis whether or not to support libertarianism. The problems I have with it are (like I said above competition leading to no one being able to trust anyone else because who knows your dentist might just say you have a root canal to pay for his new car payment) Also say we enact a libertarian government system. One where there are no wars, no laws against drugs,No borders (I think that is a libertarian value even if it is not it is not core to my argument), No currency regulation , a limited police force and government and no safety net. So I am going to lay out to you many possible ways this system could fail and its flaws: So as much as we all love what the bitcoin does for us it makes us anonymous and we can use it to buy drugs on the silkroad but we must acknowledge it has its shortcomings and those same short comings will be inherent in an unregulated government system as well.Think about why we created regulation it was to break apart the monopoly's that were taking advantage of the unregulated system and gather all of the wealth leaving none for anyone else (fuck you Regan economics does not work). The same thing will eventually happen with the bitcoin but that is a totally different topic for another day. I see nothing wrong with no war and no drug laws apart from the fact that some people as stated before do need parents to stop them from smoking Heroin and with out any social programs to educate these people who need help they may fall into the lower category but that is just speculation. So on to the other points, What happens when you eliminate a large portion of the taxes,eliminate welfare and social programs and eliminate regulations so that there are no longer minimum wage, no longer any environmental regulations so that companies can pollute and destroy the environment as well as endanger the lower members health all of this keeping the people at the bottom in there place into the bottom rungs of this libertarian society. Not to mention the lack of firefighters and police officer, roads etc. when all of these things are privatized will the people at the bottom be able to afford to use them?? Can we trust the companies making them?What will happen to the lower groups with no safety net, DO you really think all of those human beings are going to just lay down and die. HELL NO! They are going to get up rob,murder steal, Revolt and do whatever they can do to stay alive and prosper. It will come down to whether the upper classes money, power and weapons can over power the lower classes numbers and will to survive. From that point it is any ones guess what will happen next but capitalism and libertarianism I believe on its current course will lead us to have to redefine the phrase "Class Warfare"
-
A though experiment: imagine a 100% agricultural society, or rather a society in which all are involved in either the production of agricultural products, food, cotton etc, or the tools and machinery needed to process them.
All the agricultural land, and the factories that process the produce are owned by a small class. The production of the machinery of these factories is carried out by a small technically skilled class, the work in the fields and factories can be carried out by unskilled or semiskiled workers, or 'hands' as Dickens memorably calls them in "Hard Times". Children would also become 'hands' but cannot be as productive as adults.
There is always a surplus of labour, because Malthus.
Under a complete libertarian society, or even one with a small rump government protecting property rights and enforcing contracts and preventing violence, how free are the "hands'?
-
I fondly hope that climate change might make Greenland, and later Antarctica, inhabitable and perhaps colonists there can experiment with new forms of libertarian society!
I've often wondered what would happen if as in some sort of sci-fi movie a whole bunch of people (say 1000) suddently found themselves on another Earthlike planet, but with no way home ever.
What sort of society would naturally arise? One of the big questions, about whom gets what land/property would be kind of moot. You have the whole damn planet, but only a few of you. So in this situation you'd probably value other people more than land. Let's face it youd want to stay pretty close together as a group and cooperate in order to survive.
People would start to sort of have specialty trades, and some sort of means of commerce would naturally arise. Even if everyone brought in the crops together, some people would naturally be enterprising and make a saleable item or offer a service.
How would it evolve?
R.
In Terry Pratchett and Stephen Baxters collaborative book 'the Long Earth' someone invents a simple electronic device that enables one to jump to parallel Earths, one Earth at a time. The close earths are very similar and quickly fill with colonists. (Some of whom 'jump' to California and start digging for gold; before realising a rather large deflation has just occurred in the golkd market!) The effects on humanity freed from land pressure are interstingkyb described
The pioneers head to the 'High Megas' (1000,000 jumps or more away) and find a 'gap' where presumably the Earth has been destroyed by a collision,
Its an interesting read, although seems to end inconclusively, maybe I missed something, need to read again. It was base on a short story by Pratchett called "The High Meggas" which I preferred. The short story is SFs perfection for me.
-
Favourite fact from 1491 by Charles Mann: 'Squanto' the friendly English speaking Indian who helped the pilgrims, as I'm sure many US readers will have been taught at school, had been kidnapped by English sailors and sold as a slave in Spain over a decade ago. Having first escaped from Spain to England, from thence working his passage to Maine (1000s of miles of hostile tribes from his Massachusetts home) he eventually persuaded a captain to retutprn him to his home. Only to find the once densely populated coast a graveyard caused by smallpox, with the pilgrims settlement built on the ruins of his village.
He chose the name Tisquantum which in his native tongue meant something like "the rage of the world spirit" or "The wrath of God". Whatever his intentions in introducing himself to the Pilgrims in such a manner, he obviously had ulterior motives (wanting to use the newcomers to facilitate the recovery of the remnants of his tribe to power)
I love imagining this tine in history. I like to think I would have been straight across the Atlantic although clearly my ancestors didn't feel the same way!
-
Favourite fact from 1491 by Charles Mann: 'Squanto' the friendly English speaking Indian who helped the pilgrims, as I'm sure many US readers will have been taught at school, had been kidnapped by English sailors and sold as a slave in Spain over a decade ago. Having first escaped from Spain to England, from thence working his passage to Maine (1000s of miles of hostile tribes from his Massachusetts home) he eventually persuaded a captain to retutprn him to his home. Only to find the once densely populated coast a graveyard caused by smallpox, with the pilgrims settlement built on the ruins of his village.
He chose the name Tisquantum which in his native tongue meant something like "the rage of the world spirit" or "The wrath of God". Whatever his intentions in introducing himself to the Pilgrims in such a manner, he obviously had ulterior motives (wanting to use the newcomers to facilitate the recovery of the remnants of his tribe to power)
I love imagining this tine in history. I like to think I would have been straight across the Atlantic although clearly my ancestors didn't feel the same way!
It is remarkable that the fairy tale version fed to Americans for generations endured so long. A testiment to willful ignorance.
R.
-
Favourite fact from 1491 by Charles Mann: 'Squanto' the friendly English speaking Indian who helped the pilgrims, as I'm sure many US readers will have been taught at school, had been kidnapped by English sailors and sold as a slave in Spain over a decade ago. Having first escaped from Spain to England, from thence working his passage to Maine (1000s of miles of hostile tribes from his Massachusetts home) he eventually persuaded a captain to retutprn him to his home. Only to find the once densely populated coast a graveyard caused by smallpox, with the pilgrims settlement built on the ruins of his village.
He chose the name Tisquantum which in his native tongue meant something like "the rage of the world spirit" or "The wrath of God". Whatever his intentions in introducing himself to the Pilgrims in such a manner, he obviously had ulterior motives (wanting to use the newcomers to facilitate the recovery of the remnants of his tribe to power)
I love imagining this tine in history. I like to think I would have been straight across the Atlantic although clearly my ancestors didn't feel the same way!
It is remarkable that the fairy tale version fed to Americans for generations endured so long. A testiment to willful ignorance.
R.
+1 to both of you I could not agree more
-
Roads, other infrastructure, legal system and enforcement. It is not possible for the two systems you describe to share territory. If a dispute arises between a tax payer and a libertarian, to who do they appeal to justice?
The tax payer can appeal to the police, and if the libertarian defense agency disagrees with what happens (because the person appealed to the police to arrest a person for using drugs, without harming anybody), then it can be dealt with in various ways, up to and including the libertarian defense agency bombing the police station.
As far as roads go, feel free to force the libertarians to pay for the roads that they use.
I can't envision any society coping with a large group of people deciding they will no longer be subject to its laws, even where some of those laws are clearly wrong.
The great thing about libertarianism is that most of the laws they don't want to follow are laws that have absolutely no affect on a single other person. Not many people are going to care if libertarians use drugs, most of them will never even know it is happening! The main difference is that the police cannot arrest the libertarians for using drugs. The crimes libertarians engage in are all victimless crimes, they are only prosecuted because the police hunt them down, as there is not a victim involved to call the police. Of course, there are many snitches who give intelligence to the police, but they act as an extension of the police and are not victims of libertarians.
PS: Silk Road is a large group of people deciding they will no longer be subject to the laws of society. Silk Road is a private defense agency. Look who is winning so far? Are the police and politicians throwing a fit trying to shut SR down? Is SR down? Libertarians are already saying fuck the state, and the private defense agencies that are willing to protect us for a fee are already starting to emerge. In the future the defense agencies will be even more powerful. Hell, look at all the money SR has made, many millions of dollars. If they invested that in running a market for the assassinations of political officials who are for the war on drugs, we would have an entire army of independent soldiers willing to take our fight for freedom to the level of offensive instead of defensive. I don't think SR has any plans to do this, but in the future there will be offensive defense agencies as well. Defensive defense agencies are willing to use security etc, to protect their customers, for a fee, but if the customers are arrested there is nothing they can do to help them. An offensive defense agency would be willing to do the same things as a defensive one perhaps, but once the customer is arrested the police who arrested them would end up with their brains blown out as well. And the offensive defense agencies are going to be just as effective at telling the state to fuck off as the defensive ones have already proven themselves to be. Make no mistake, the libertarian revolution is already here and the private defense agencies have already risen up to the state and have thus far defeated them without even the need for violence. But to fully defeat them it will likely require violent agencies as well, protecting innocent people from a ruthless attacker is great, but at some point the attacker will hurt one of the innocent people, and the market still demands an agency that will bring justice to the attacker in such cases.
Plus if 'my ' group were 'choosing to pay taxes' then we too would be libertarians, as we would be choosing to pay for services we require. I can't stress this enough; the system you describe is not libertarians and tax payers coexisting, it is simple libertarianism, and kind of inadvertently makes my point.
Sure, you can choose to pay taxes and still be a libertarian. But the current system is not libertarianism, because people who do not want to pay taxes are being forced to. So the system we have now is not libertarians and statists existing together, it is statists forcing everybody to toe the party line.
I get it. Drug prohibition is an outrageous restriction of personal freedom. But using this as the well built base of a flimsy straw man woven to include redistributive taxation and states reserving use of force to itself is not going to scare many crows.
It is far from only drug prohibition. Taxation is outrageous restriction of personal freedom as well. So are laws against people viewing CP. So are laws regarding the regulation of products and medicines. Essentially every single thing the government does is a full on assault against personal freedom. And the government does a lot of things, and it tries to do many more things. Government is a cancer, it will grow and grow up to the point it has killed the host.
I believe that laws that can imprison me for drug use are wrong, and resent contributing to pay for them. I believe laws that can imprison me for violently assaulting people with knives or guns to be reasonable, if not perfect, and don't object to funding them.
Wouldn't it be great if you could pay to prevent people from violently attacking others without paying for the drug laws to be enforced? The biggest trick the government has mind fucked you with is the notion that you need to pay for both. Nothing prevents a society where people pay for what they want and don't pay for what they don't want, it is called fucking libertarianism.
Another way to characterise libertarianism is 'everyone pays as much/little 'tax' to who/whatever they want. I can see this working very well for the wealthy. The poor will presumably pay no tax at all, however, if supply of labour exceeds demand (usual throughout history, excepting after wars, plagues, andother culls) then wages for the poor will be driven down to subsistence level, leaving them unable to use the insurance based models of health care and sickness pay and justice usually envisioned by libertarians.
Nothing stops poor people from forming unions or from pooling their money for insurance. First of all, you are wrong. Second of all, even if you were right, it wouldn't fucking matter, the rich are not the slaves of the poor anymore than the poor are the slaves of the rich.
The stage will be set for the rise of a new plutocracy of the wealthy, and I cannot see how the market will regulate this, unless sufficient poor die to make their labour more valuable, I feel outr current system is basically capitalism regulated by government , and I see no reason to remove the regulation and allow capitalism to follow its relentless logic to its merciless conclusion. Unjust drug laws not withstanding
How about the poor people join unions and demand certain wages? Why don't the poor people pool their money to be able to buy group insurance and such? By the way, I wonder if poor people would rather live as poor slaves in prison or be free and poor? Because the current system right now has enslaved the poor more than any libertarian system will. You think there is not a plutocracy right now? Rich people run the world. The difference is that in a libertarian society, even though they still run the world, they cannot enslave others.
-
up to and including the libertarian defense agency bombing the police station
OK.,,,,,
An offensive defense agency would be willing to do the same things as a defensive one perhaps, but once the customer is arrested the police who arrested them would end up with their brains blown out as well
OK......
. If they invested that in running a market for the assassinations of political officials who are for the war on drugs,
OK....
. So the system we have now is not libertarians and statists existing together,
Hungry Ghost what is your fascination with groups of people in close geographic location being forced to behave in the same way? It is a really weird and primitive way to see the world. Why do we need some new land to be opened up for libertarians to all move to?
because by the sound of it the alternative is civil war. I know, I know, it always seems like a good idea beforehand.
-
How about the poor people join unions and demand certain wages?
Nothing stops poor people from forming unions
what about armed thugs with sticks hired by the owners. See history of unions. in UK, although unions were initially suppressed and outlawed, they gained a foothold and the protection of the law much earlier than in US. This is why low paid workers enjoy better conditions here (6 weeks paid holiday, statutory sick pay, state pension oh yes and free health care. )
This was only possible because suffrage was extended to all men and they were able to exert pressure in government. if the conflict had been solely between workers and employers then employers would have sacked/shot all union leaders and replaced recaltricant workers from the numerous starving unemployed.
Why don't the poor people pool their money to be able to buy group insurance and such
they will, to the extent they have anything left from the subsistence wages that #workers>#jobs has caused. Of ourse, freed from the tyranny of government, economic growth may have occurred to such an extent that jobs>workers, in which case competition for workers will cause pay and benefits to rise. I'm not saying this definitely won't happen. Particularly if the civil war which the inception of libertarianism involved has culled enough working men.
laws regarding the regulation of products and medicines.....outrageous restriction of personal freedom
So freedom should include the freedom to sell potentially toxic untested snake oil to desperate dying people, and caveat emptor. The market will weed out ineffective medicines, and the people stupid enough to buy them?
First of all, you are wrong. Second of all, even if you were right, it wouldn't fucking matter
I rarely find this a convincing argument.
By the way, I wonder if poor people would rather live as poor slaves in prison or be free and poor?
are these the only options? :-(
it is called fucking libertarianism
yes, that's what I call it too!
-
Most libertarians aren't anarcho-capitalists. There are a few things that are more efficiently done collectively. National defence. Epidemic control. Enforcing contracts. Prosecuting those who remove the rights of others.
And that's pretty much it.
OP: you are living in the present where the welfare state seems like the only solution to deal with all the needy in our rich society. Newsflash - the welfare state created the needy, and our society is rich in spite of the welfare state, not because of it.
At this point, we've had half a century of knowing that if you want to be a lazy bastard, the government's still going to give you money. Surprise surprise, there are an ever increasing number of lazy bastards.
However, if being a lazy bastard meant you went hungry and homeless, there'd be a lot less lazy bastards.
OP, the system we have now CREATED the dilemma that's made you turn away from libertarianism. Snap out of it.
-
Newsflash - the welfare state created the needy
srsly
-
I can only speak for the welfare state in my country, but the idea of a sizable welfare dependent class is a)largely mythical and b) where real due to whole areas of the country that used to employ huge numbers of workers in mining and heavy industry having been shorn of these sources of employment in a generation or so. This happened as a consequence of, well, many things. Like most historical processes its difficult to identify a single cause. The relaxation of import export tariffs and in general globalisation has meant that much of this industry now takes place in countries where labour costs are lower. So, when we no longer needed them, should these people have been sterilised and starved? Or should we have used some of our countries wealth to support its citizens?
Again, its complicated. As a nation we are still very wealthy, and much of our wealth now is generated by the esoteric activities of The City (London's financial market).
The current government is attempting to portray the large national debt as due to 'welfare scroungers' when in fact the vast majority was acquired when we underwrote the huge debts that these financial institutions had mistakenly thought were good investments. The government printed money and gave it to banks to avert a national crisis. How is this different from making welfare payments to those who society has failed to provide gainful employment?
This 'welfare scrounger' mythos is propaganda designed to promote the removal of safeguards against exploitation that our forefathers fought hard to gain.
These storys of estates where three generations have not worked may be partially true. Do you really believe that this is because they are lazy? Or has our society failed in some way? And is this failure due to too much government, or due to the government failing in its duty of care. If we were to abandon all forms of welfare protection, what would happen? Would the market provide work for these idle hands? I guess that is what we are discussing in this thread.
But NEWSFLASH: like most things, its a bit more complicated than 'the welfare state created the needy'. Were there no needy before the welfare state? Was there much less poverty before the safety net of guaranteed subsistence increased wages to above subsistence levels.? And in the heady early days of the industrial revolution how were workers treated, before capitalism was moderated by a paternal state?
-
"I can only speak for the welfare state in my country, but the idea of a sizable welfare dependent class is a)largely mythical "
Really? Interesting claim.
"and b) where real due to whole areas of the country that used to employ huge numbers of workers in mining and heavy industry having been shorn of these sources of employment in a generation or so. This happened as a consequence of, well, many things. Like most historical processes its difficult to identify a single cause. The relaxation of import export tariffs and in general globalisation has meant that much of this industry now takes place in countries where labour costs are lower. "
Those industries were unsustainable. Protecting industries and maintaining tariff walls makes your country poorer, not richer. While the there are certainly some losers when protectionist policies are abandoned (those who worked for the protected industries), there are many more winners (those who benefit from cheaper, higher quality goods - everyone, that is). And then there's the fact that capital is freed up to be applied in sectors of the economy where there is a competitive advantage, as opposed to the government propping up loss-making dinosaurs at the taxpayer's expense. And as for the government-owned industries - the government shouldn't be in the business of running businesses. They generally do it really badly. Thatcher was dead right to shut them down/sell them off.
"So, when we no longer needed them, should these people have been sterilised and starved? Or should we have used some of our countries wealth to support its citizens?"
You mean take money off one group of people and give it to another? I assert that citizens should take care of their own affairs. That is the natural order of things.
"As a nation we are still very wealthy, and much of our wealth now is generated by the esoteric activities of The City (London's financial market)."
Yes and your whole country is bankrolled by that 'esoteric' activity.
"The current government is attempting to portray the large national debt as due to 'welfare scroungers' when in fact the vast majority was acquired when we underwrote the huge debts that these financial institutions had mistakenly thought were good investments. "
Um no, that's quite wrong. You were running large budget deficits throughout much of the Blair/Brown era. That's where your debt came from. Your bank bailouts were relatively modest, particularly in comparison to those of some other countries (ie. Ireland, Iceland)
"The government printed money and gave it to banks to avert a national crisis. How is this different from making welfare payments to those who society has failed to provide gainful employment?"
I don't agree with printing money, but that's a different issue from wealth redistribution. Why is it society's job to provide employment for people? Seriously, you're using the language of the far left.
" This 'welfare scrounger' mythos is propaganda designed to promote the removal of safeguards against exploitation that our forefathers fought hard to gain."
It's hardly a myth. You seriously don't think there are problems with generational welfare dependency in the UK? Damn. Every developed country has this problem. And what exploitation are you talking about?
"These storys of estates where three generations have not worked may be partially true. Do you really believe that this is because they are lazy? Or has our society failed in some way?
Partially true? How could that be? The ever-growing client class isn't lazy as such - it's just that there is no incentive to work if the government provides everything for you. The state has failed by creating this client class in the first place. And those who had a hand in putting this cradle-to-grave welfare system in place failed, too.
"If we were to abandon all forms of welfare protection, what would happen? "
People would do what they did before the welfare state. They would work, and rely on family and private networks in difficult times.
"Would the market provide work for these idle hands? "
Sure, of course it would. It did before. There was life before the welfare state. I'm not suggesting we abolish the welfare state overnight, as that would cause chaos. People have made long term plans based on the assumption that they will receive government benefits at certain point in their lives. A gradual phase-out would be the best way. Unfortunately, this would appear to be politically impossible (people love them some "free stuff" from the government - manna from heaven or something). That doesn't change the fact that the current, ever-growing welfare state is unsustainable and it eventually will collapse, meaning that a bunch of people will overnight be thrown off their benefits and that will be catastrophic. Far better to have a slow phase-out so that civil society can gradually resume the functions that the state has monopolised over the past 60 years or so. It won't happen, though. Collapse is far more likely.
But NEWSFLASH: like most things, its a bit more complicated than 'the welfare state created the needy'. Were there no needy before the welfare state? Was there much less poverty before the safety net of guaranteed subsistence increased wages to above subsistence levels.?"
Newsflash, no it isn't. The welfare client class is hardly well-off. They'd be better off working, but there is little incentive for them to work. The genuinely needy in wealthy societies are almost always needy due to decisions that they, as adults, need to take responsibility for. I will reiterate the point is that the reason there is less poverty today is because society is wealthier, and that wealth has been created by private enterprise IN SPITE OF government intervention, not because of it.
"And in the heady early days of the industrial revolution how were workers treated, before capitalism was moderated by a paternal state?"
They were heady days, indeed. Workers during the industrial revolution period were treated much better than pre-industrial revolution workers. The industrial revolution saw enormous and rapid rises in living standards across all levels of society. Moderating capitalism has merely made it less effective at generating wealth. Like I said, our society today is wealthier than before IN SPITE OF state intervention, and would be wealthier if there was little intervention. Free markets are enormously powerful wealth generators and are powerful enough to carry an epic bureaucratic burden, but eventually they will sink under the burden. And in a society where so many people have an expectation that the state will provide for them and care little about the cost because "the government pays for it", that burden will be ever increasing.
-
I can only speak for the welfare state in my country, but the idea of a sizable welfare dependent class is a)largely mythical and b) where real due to whole areas of the country that used to employ huge numbers of workers in mining and heavy industry having been shorn of these sources of employment in a generation or so. This happened as a consequence of, well, many things. Like most historical processes its difficult to identify a single cause. The relaxation of import export tariffs and in general globalisation has meant that much of this industry now takes place in countries where labour costs are lower. So, when we no longer needed them, should these people have been sterilised and starved? Or should we have used some of our countries wealth to support its citizens?
Think about what you're saying here. Let's say the government did exactly as you wanted and dramatically raised trade tariffs (which would be completely against the common market over the past 60+ years and the EU over the past 20). Do you think that more companies or less companies would set up shop in Britain? Serious question. More or fewer companies? And your reasons for thinking this.
Again, its complicated. As a nation we are still very wealthy, and much of our wealth now is generated by the esoteric activities of The City (London's financial market).
The current government is attempting to portray the large national debt as due to 'welfare scroungers' when in fact the vast majority was acquired when we underwrote the huge debts that these financial institutions had mistakenly thought were good investments. The government printed money and gave it to banks to avert a national crisis. How is this different from making welfare payments to those who society has failed to provide gainful employment?
I'm impressed! I guess you stumble upon the truth occasionally. You're right. It is no different. It is redistribution personified. Redistribution is redistribution. Period. This philosophy is backed by theft (taxation and inflation). And debt. Lots and lots of debt. The government grows and snuffs out whatever it doesn't like (like investigative reporters, whistleblowers and small businesses). The poor are occasionally thrown a few bones while the bankers feast. Welfare is great because it keeps so many people dependent upon government. Keeps the crooked wheels and palms of the state greased. Warfare is great because it does the same. More government. More theft. More taxes. More debt.
Remember that a government that's big enough to give you everything you want is a government that's also big enough to take away everything you have. The same government that makes it seem like it was behind poverty reduction will turn around and loot the poor and middle class to line the pockets of government's best patrons. The mega rich. This ruse worked perfectly with the coalition. Weak dog Nick Clegg is the poster boy of a statist and someone who supports redistribution all the way. He was against it before he supported it lol
Would the market provide work for these idle hands?
Only if a market wage were permitted to exist and trade/creation/production were not regulated by the government. Jobs would start flowing in again like gangbusters.
But NEWSFLASH: like most things, its a bit more complicated than 'the welfare state created the needy'. Were there no needy before the welfare state? Was there much less poverty before the safety net of guaranteed subsistence increased wages to above subsistence levels.? And in the heady early days of the industrial revolution how were workers treated, before capitalism was moderated by a paternal state?
Minimum wage was invented to try and cushion people against the ravages of inflation (and also taxation to a lesser degree). Again both are forms of theft. At one point 1 pound would actually buy you 1 real pound of 99% sterling silver. How much will it buy you today? ;)
-
Let's say the government did exactly as you wanted and dramatically raised trade tariffs
did not suggest this, but just that a painful process of readjustment took place during this time, and the welfare state helped cushion the blow
"I can only speak for the welfare state in my country, but the idea of a sizable welfare dependent class is a)largely mythical "
Really? Interesting claim.
yeah, I fucked up there, welfare has created problems of dependency, I meant to dispute the 'welfare scroungers' myth
Why is it society's job to provide employment for people? Seriously, you're using the language of the far left.
only among far right libertarian circles popular on this site is the idea that society has some duty of care for its citizens considered as far left. I would characterize it as a fairly middle of the road, Keynesian idea which was followed with some success by most western democracies throughout 50s and 60d. There are flaws in Keynesian ideas, just as there are flaws in the neoliberal consensus that has replaced it.
. That is the natural order of things.
the natural order of things is the strong dominate and exploit the weak. The welfare state defends against this slightly.
Anyway, you make some interesting arguments that I'll return to. I'm not some kind of communist, and much of what you say is true. I have to go to work now though.
-
The fact that you would use a label like "far right libertarianism" clearly demonstrates you don't understand what libertarianism is.
-
metacontxt, are you aware of the extreme poverty and squalid living conditions which were widespread in slums around the UK during the 'heady days' of the industrial revolution? I'm largely ignorant of conditions in the US at this time, so it maybe wasn't so much of an issue there. The market did little to help these people, who were certainly not lazy.
I do agree with a lot of your concerns tbh, welfare dependency is an issue. It's just a kind of balancing act between allowing financial freedom and preventing unacceptable levels of poverty reappearing...
-
"metacontxt, are you aware of the extreme poverty and squalid living conditions which were widespread in slums around the UK during the 'heady days' of the industrial revolution?"
Of course. Their living standards were far better than the poor of pre-Industrial Revolution Britain.
"I'm largely ignorant of conditions in the US at this time, so it maybe wasn't so much of an issue there. "
I'm not sure why this is germane to the discussion, but I'll just add this little rider - living standards in the US improved remarkably quickly when the federal government was of trivial importance to the lives of citizens.
"The market did little to help these people"
In fact, the free market did everything to help those people. The free market was EXACTLY why the 19th century poor were better off than the poor of the 18th century. To suggest otherwise is Dickensian ahistorical nonsense that socialists/greens tend to subscribe to; ie. the Industrial Revolution came along and packed the peasants off to work in "dark, satanic mills" and endure a life of extreme poverty, as opposed to the happy, bucolic existence they enjoyed prior to the dawn of the industrial age.
Throughout history, when free markets flourished, prosperity increased. When constraints were placed on free markets, rates of poverty increased. There are no exceptions to this rule.
"who were certainly not lazy."
Strawman. No one was saying they were. They couldn't be. They would had led utterly miserable lives if they were. And that's exactly how it should be. No one owes you a living.
-
The fact that you would use a label like "far right libertarianism" clearly demonstrates you don't understand what libertarianism is.
Not saying the two are synonymous, you know lots of terms such as left right communist capitalist free market etc. are bandied about without clear definition in these debates.(Which by the way i try to keep civil by not telling other contrributors they don't even know what the subject of the debate is. )But economically there is a overlap between conservative right wing fiscal policys and libertarian economic ideas, specifically in this case pertaining to welfare state.
One of my problems with libertarianism is that it appears to be somewhat amorphous, and there is no clear consensus on what it involves. Advocates seem able to adopt and drop various functions of the state as it suits their current position. Clearly in its purest form it would involve no government at all, however libertarians still pepper their speech with references to laws, contracts and other things which are difficult to imagine operating without some form of government. This makes debating them problematic as there is no one position being defended.
Also you seem to have read a somewhat different history of industrialisation than I have.
-
But economically there is a overlap between conservative right wing fiscal policys and libertarian economic ideas, specifically in this case pertaining to welfare state.
You mean Reaganomics (national debt nearly tripled over two terms)? Or when Dick Cheney said "deficits don't matter" (national debt nearly doubled over Dubya's two terms)? Yeah. Clearly some overlap there with libertarian economic ideas lol :o ::)
One of my problems with libertarianism is that it appears to be somewhat amorphous, and there is no clear consensus on what it involves. Advocates seem able to adopt and drop various functions of the state as it suits their current position. Clearly in its purest form it would involve no government at all, however libertarians still pepper their speech with references to laws, contracts and other things which are difficult to imagine operating without some form of government. This makes debating them problematic as there is no one position being defended.
That's because like meta said you have no idea what libertarianism is. Don't worry. Not many people do. They often confuse it with either fascism or some forms of conservatism or even anarchy as you did here with your "difficult to imagine operating without some form of government" statement. So you are the one who is amorphous in your understanding of libertarianism. It's not the fault of the philosophy that you don't understand it. Your criticisms sound identical to those in the mainstream media when the Occupy movement was going on. The only difference is yours don't have any merit whatsoever. No offense.
Please read "The Revolution: A Manifesto" by Ron Paul. Test your faith by going over the full and clear definition of textbook libertarianism. Disagree with it as much as you please. And criticize it all you want then. At least you'll know what libertarianism is and whatever you come up with will likely be valid and appreciated.
Clearnet: https://mises.org/store/Revolution-The-A-Manifesto-P481.aspx
Also you seem to have read a somewhat different history of industrialisation than I have.
Funny how the industrial revolution "squalor" that's usually brought up when criticizing the market always fails to consider where Britain was right before industrialization: The Dark Ages. No squalor then right?! ::)
-
Yes I have read the books you recommend and several more besides. They are full of interesting ideas. I have also read many other books about many subjects. John Locke, Thomas Paine, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, Decline and Fall of Roman Empire. I love to read. Das Kapital. The Condition of the working class in England. I have read many books where I think well that's one way of looking at things and is true for a certain value of true.
I haven't achieved much with the life I was given but I have read and read and read.
You appear to think that the dark ages immediately preceded the industrial revolution. You are glossing over nearly 1000 years. In fact men and women during the dark ages were much healthier and taller than the starvling specimens of the early industrial period working class. This is well established from skeletons. However, as I say, nearly 1000 years.
Industrialisation in England began with agriculture, with inventions that increased the productivity of the land, while reducing the numbers of workers needed to work it. At the same time the triangular slave trade began bringing slaves to work the plantations, cotton and other produce to the factories that were springing up in the cities, and finished goods which were sold into Europe and the money used to purchase moire slaves. Also the galleon trade was taking precious metals from the Americas, with incredible impacts on the economies of Asia and Europe. As I say, its complicated.
The cities that grew in the North of England were flooded with economic migrants from the country admittedly drawn by higher wages and enclosure of land for wool farming by landowners (a process began in the medieval period as the feudal system gave way to a mercantile system. Medieval period. Remember?)
So, while market innovations hugely increased wealth and prosperity, at the same time there were always more workers than the factories needed, keeping wages low. There was immense poverty in the midst of this newly created wealth. Also slavery was at the core of this wealth production.
The factory hands had very few rights, although I guess you would argue that they entered into voluntary contracts with the mill owners. Previously weavers had been well paid skilled workers but with increased automation and steam power etc. these jobs began to pay less than subsistence wages, forcing children to join the workforce. Again, these children were entering into free contacts with the mill owners.
In many ways the workers were worse off than the slaves. When economic recession hit (the science of economics being in it's infancy) after various bubbles, the factory owners could say to the workers. "I'm afraid I have no work for you at present and so obviously I cannot be expected to support you in your idleness". A slave owner at least had an interest in keeping his property in working order. But workers were always replaceable for much less initial outlay.
I didn't intend this to become a history lesson, although perhaps you might consider boning up.
What I resent most I think is the false dichotomy of total free market, or total state control of economy.
I am fully on board with the free market as the only and best way og determining prices and levels of production. It is not even an ideology, its just what happens when people are left alone to get on with things.
What I don't get is why, having been so taken with the elegance of the market mechanism, libertarians think 'right, that's it. That's the final word on human affairs. The only thing that can assure the greatest human happiness is for us just to leave the market be. It is perfect and infallible in its decisions and must not be meddled or tampered with in any way'
Why would this be the case? Are things usually this simple? And if the market makes a decision we dislike, can we not just interfere and let the ever flexible market adjust to our ham fisted alterations?
It was mentioned that 'the esoteric activity' of the City of London (esoteric meaning 'hidden, only understood by initiates) supportsthe rest of the country. I never disputed this, but I believe it does so rightly. Both by the wealth it generates, and its contribution to our redustributive tax system. It is right that our society cushions its citizens against sudden changes. That's part of why society forms in the first place.
I think the huge gulf between US and UK thought on these matters stems the from the fact that the US formed from a collection of much smaller colonies and independent polities, over which a federal government slowly excerted greater control, finally explicitly claiming dominance at the time of thecivil war (it is my understanding that States were meant to be able to secede pretty much at will in the constitution).
In the UK we have pretty much accepted a hierarchical centralised system and grown with it, from the absolute rule of Plantagenet kings, through the balance of baronial power and Monarchy at Magna Carta, followed by the increased role of Parliament after restoration of Charles II, cemented by the bloodless coup of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. After the intense oppression of the urban poor during early industriasl revolution, the fear inspired by the french revolution caused a relaxation of conditions and introduction of universal suffrage helped secure rights for workers to share in the wealth generated by capitalism and free mnarkets.
Then we have the European Apocalypse, the end of the old world. To fight the state controlled totalitarian opponents the UK became a planned economy on a war footing.. Since then the government has slowly released its hold.
The US benefitted hugely from being the last nation standing, and having the huge economic growth engendered by production of materiel without the disadvantage of cities reduced to rubble.
Aah fuck it. Don't get me wrong, Ron Paul has some interesting ideas. But I just don't get why we aren't allowed to interfere with the free market.
-
A great history review Hungry Ghost! I'm not as fluent in European or English history as I'd like to be, so it was appreciated.
I particularly liked the part at the end where you discussed the change in English politics in response to the French revolution. Nothing like seeing the richest folks in the country next door being decapitated to make one reconsider a safety net for the poor.
I will reiterate my agreement with HG's point also, that Capitalism is not only a good thing, but essential. It is the greatest engine of wealth creation that could exist. It really should be considered an economic law, in the way gravity is. Denying it seems silly, and will not cause one to float.
So what we need is a form of government that prevents the heads being chopped off, but allows capitalism to generate wealth for all.
Which sounds like more or less what we have in most western countries. Maintaining this balance is the job of a government that is of the people, for the people, and by the people (us).
Like Ron Paul, our role is to participate in the government to help ensure that this balance is adjusted based on events.
We have seen the government enemy, and they are us.
Cheers.
R.
-
A great history review Hungry Ghost! I'm not as fluent in European or English history as I'd like to be, so it was appreciated.
I particularly liked the part at the end where yout cussed the change in English politics in response to the French revolution. Nothing like seeing the richest folks in the country next door being decapitated to make one reconsider a safety net for the poor.
I will reiterate my agreement with HG's point also, that Capitalism is not only a good thing, but essential. It is the greatest engine of wealth creation that could exist. It really should be considered an economic law, in the way gravity is. Denying it seems silly, and will not cause one to float.
So what we need is a form of government that prevents the heads being chopped off, but allows capitalism to generate wealth for all.
Which sounds like more or less what we have in most western countries. Maintaining this balance is the job of a government that is of the people, for the people, and by the people (us).
Like Ron Paul, our role is to participate in the government to help ensure that this balance is adjusted based on events.
We have seen the government enemy, and they are us.
Cheers.
R.
The same goes for the russian revolution. Nothing like seeing revolution , even in an unrexpexted quarter, to make the capitalists think 'hmmm maybe we had better improve things for our workers " (I am using this language, not because I am a communist. I am not. The hammer and sickle tattoo on my face was a youthful folly I regret. It is just the language of the time)
Also huge slaughter of working age men in 1st world war improved the supply vs demand of labour, again forcing concessions from employers.
In general, the history libertarians promote: free markets introduced, great wealth generated is broadly true. But the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few . Its kind of a tautology that in capitalism the capitalists accumulatethe capital. I expect that sounds really good in German!
The wealth is not generally shared until some other force intervenes.
I read an article on the Ludwig von Mises site where it was argued that in a free market, the only way a company can flourish is by serving its customers. So that it is the greatest system because the only way the power driven can attain power is by better serving their customers. This is great until you remember that consumers are all often also workers, and so competition to drive down prices of consumer goods also drives down their wages. However:
The model adopted after Great War was to outsource poor to the colonies. Improve conditions for poor in your own country to avert threat of revolution, and keep the workers in the third world colonies. After the 2nd world war a clever tweak was to return self governance to the colonies, while keeping all the good stuff like oil and agricultural land in western companies hands. This is the economic model that persists to this day.
The economist Joseph Stiglitz, one time head of the world bank ,has convincingly argued that forcing free trade on developing countries before they are ready basically allows them to be raped of their resources. Most developing countries primarily produce raw materials which they sell cheaply to western countries who process them into higher value goods. Of course thus is a freely entered into exchange, and the western countries are free to add conditions forbidding the developing countries from , well, developing any competing industries.
The developing countries that have succeeded in most development are those that insist on protectionism for their own industries until they are big and robust enough to play with the big boys (as all western country's did during their development) Only certain developing countries have the right conditions to perform this defiance though.
The large multinational agriculture and mineral companies that naturally agglomerate under free trade (or maybe they don't, maybe historical contingency allowed their growth, nevertheless they are here and not going anywhere) can distort free trade to therir own advantage in the way that large governments can.
The Chicago school of Milton Friedman and his followers has been very influential . (I am aware that they are not libertarians but they believe in small government and extreme free trade) They have wreaked havoc in South America and other developing regions by leaping in at timess of crisis (usually as emmissaries of the IMF) and insisting on privatisation of all industries and opening up of markets to international capital. This has rarely had the expected beneficial effects.
I understand that the IMF is no doubt anathema to libertarianism. The point I am making is that opening up developing countries to free trade too soon results in asset stripping and currency raids by speculators
Take China. It's current growth is widely trumpeted as a success of the free market, in fact China has enough clout on the world stage to protect its developing industries until they can compete with more established ones.
Well....I have once again spent so long writing this I have totally forgot the crushing arguments I intended to conclude with. Let's just assume you are totally crushed. I'm OK with it if you are?
My partner always asks me what I'm doing so long on the computer everymmorning. I tell her/him I'm looking at child porn, its easier than explaining that I'm debating libertarianism (which I partly support) on the forum of an illegal online drugs market founded on agorist principles. Its just easier. And they are only images right? I'm not complicit in child abuse if I happen to view them any more than looking at pictures ofthe holocaust makes me a Nazi. The swastika on my other cheek is what makes me a Nazi.
(You realise kmfkewn has left us.? I'm going to miss him. He had this ability to make outrageous arguments and then defend them annoyingly well, but with flaws, that made him a pleasure to debate. Not like you Baraka.. The Dark ages immediately before industrial revolution. Get to fuck. You have disgraced yourself and your country's education system)
-
TL;DR
May return to it later. Can see a few howlers already (ie. the Chicago school wrecked South America). But then again sometimes it's just not worth the bother.
-
Like I said before if you believe libertarianism will work. You must believe that we all wish to work for the same reasons and we all wish to work under the free market system of governance and that anyone who doesn't wish to adhere to that system should simply vanish away... poof. but sadly for your libertarian dreams this does not happen and these people don't just want to die and vanish away they thrive to survive just as you and I do and when they can not they still do so by all means necessary. Do you really want people breaking in to your house to murder you and steal your food everyday? Do you really want lines of bodies outside of your house demonstrating all of the people you have killed who attempted to rob you? Not all libertarians believe in legalizing drugs what if it is you who is forced to starve would you just vanish away and let yourself die, I think not. Just as is the same with communism when you make one exception you have diverged from the true ideology and are no longer talking about Communism or libertarianism. in reality no one system works completely that is why we have blended and are still blending all of the systems together to see which one works for our inevitably small group of people. Humans are imperfect hence you can't create a perfect system for imperfect beings
-
It's not is it. I'm spending far too much of my time discussing this. It's mostly when I've just woke up and I'm drinking coffee trying to stop kids fighting. I should get my nose out of the computer and interact with my beautiful children. Fucking technology. Lets me exchange snippy remarks about each others grasp of history and economics with anonymous strangers, while ignoring my children.
I think I meant economic thought influenced by the Chicago school, (minimal taxation small state). And to be honest it might of been SE Asia I was thinking of. And I guess libertarians dont agree with the IMF anyway.
Looking back over the thread I think we can all agree that we are all prone to generalisations, straw men, distirtions of each others arguments, and pronouncing confidently on things we don't always have all the facts on.
I guess I was kind of insulted to be told I don't know what libertarianism is, having spent a good deal of time reading the works recommended to me by people on this site. I just haven't found the arguments as convincing as they have. And so I try in my hamfisted way to formulate arguments as to why this might be.
And then I see a TL:DR and realise, what the fuck am I doing. Who cares. Maybe if Rand Paul gets elected I will start to care more.
It's just the whole 'whatever you do Don't touch the market' idea I don't get…no I'm off again. Fuck it I'm out of arguments. Just remember, the dark ages were along time before the industrial revolution
-
Well, it would seem that this thread has run it's course, and as I said once before, I apprecaite everyone participating in it.
I wondered if somone could persuade me to take up the libertarian banner again, but alas I don't this that's happened.
I do still really like the libertarian passion for personal freedom and hatred of the drug war, and support for free markets. All things I too am passionate about.
As you say though Hungry Ghost, without kmfkewn being here saying crazy but also thought provking things, it does seem a bit lonely.
I'll certainly keep an eye on the thread, and if anyone posts anything just too tempting not to refute...well...it'll give me reason to return.
All the best.
R.
-
Nah. I just spat my dummy at the 'I haven't really read it but I can see at a glance that you wrong in so many ways' remark. My army of black and white straw men stand poised at top of slippery slope ready to slide into action at any moment. They are soaked in sweet sweet petrol, and all it will take is one spark for me to bring them flaming into action!
Its not quite hemlock time yet.