Libertarianism?

[crimes]

anyone?

[caveBEAR]

Nope, it's not real.

[Smeee]

Nope, it's not real.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

does not exist.

[Mitch]

does not exist

[jwicklun]

just another white myth like Larry Bird and Colorado.

[CaryGrant]

Libertarianism makes much better philosophy than policy--it sort of makes a binary with communism in that sense. The problem is that there is pretty much no one who ideologically follows the principle of "let everyone do whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone", because for someone there's always a line. Pure libertarianism would involve the abolishment of seatbelt laws, labor laws ("if they don't want to work for fifty cents an hour, they don't have to apply for the job"), laws regarding sexual behavior... the list goes on and on.
Modern libertarians primarily just want less gun control, more cohesive property rights, and lower taxes. So many people claiming to be libertarian stop the buck after like four different categories, especially when it comes to gay marriage and abortion.
You can deify Ron Paul all you want, but "it doesn't exist" is still pretty much the correct answer. Libertarianism isn't anything more than "I want to do whatever I want but I still want to control what other people do."

[caveBEAR]

↑ :viking: BOOOOOOO!

[Tesoro]

True Libertarians don't want government in control of people's lives- leave that for the individual to decide with no force on others.

Yes, there are a lot of faux Libertarians. But real ones are pro-choice, pro gay rights, anti drug laws...ect

I personally have always voted Libertarian. Whether it is better in philosophy than policy can be debated by others. I think it's the best way to let everyone live their lives.

[MyNameIsRoss]

what's the question?

[The Indigo]

Let's give everyone AK47s.

[caveBEAR]

what's the question?

Libertarianism?



Anyone?

[MyNameIsRoss]

Libertarianism?



Anyone?

pretty vague..

[caveBEAR]

pretty vague..

That's why I said it wasn't real;

Nope, it's not real.

:shrug:

[Machu505]

It's a stupid ideology with the most obnoxious adherents in the world.

[MyNameIsRoss]

That's why I said it wasn't real;



:shrug:

not disagreeing, but the OP could've started a more proper discussion :shrug:

[caveBEAR]

not disagreeing, but the OP could've started a more proper discussion :shrug:

Yeah, there's been a lot of vague political discussions being started by people recently. I think Finals season is coming up.

[saysmydoctor]

Ask Greenspan's credibility about it.

[xshady121]

Woah woah woah there was a libertarian thread and praetor and i weren't one of the firsts to respond?

we're severely slacking.

[Mitch]

I think it's a very naive ideology.

[xshady121]

I think it's a very naive ideology.

you're naive.

[Mitch]

you're naive.

[stand here]:zap:

[jmirand1]

It's a stupid ideology with the most obnoxious adherents in the world.

This is actually a really good summary haha.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

This is my understanding of libertarianism... do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others.

[Praetor]

Woah woah woah there was a libertarian thread and praetor and i weren't one of the firsts to respond?

we're severely slacking.
haha yeah, gotta get back in the game for sure.

By the way your money's coming.

[rawesome]

This is purely my opinion.

Libertarianism is an incomplete philosophy because, economically, it adheres to a fallacy that a free market = freedom. In my worldview, any system involving capital, and to a lesser degree property, cannot really be "free" because and individual is always going to be bound to the market to rely on for their well-being and existence, and there is absolutely no way a vast majority of the population will not be turned into a total welcome mat for a very small elite. If you ask me, a pure free market is actually just as controlling as any "big government."

[xshady121]

haha yeah, gotta get back in the game for sure.

By the way your money's coming.

Quick before I move out!

[liarsenic678]

Its basically is anarchy no matter how much Glen Beck tries to polish this turd

[xshady121]

Its basically is anarchy no matter how much Glen Beck tries to polish this turd

That's not true. Do you have any idea what libertarianism is or do you just know that Glenn Beck (incorrectly) identifies himself as one so it MUST be bad?

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

This is purely my opinion.

Libertarianism is an incomplete philosophy because, economically, it adheres to a fallacy that a free market = freedom. In my worldview, any system involving capital, and to a lesser degree property, cannot really be "free" because and individual is always going to be bound to the market to rely on for their well-being and existence, and there is absolutely no way a vast majority of the population will not be turned into a total welcome mat for a very small elite. If you ask me, a pure free market is actually just as controlling as any "big government."

I really like this

[rawesome]

I really like this
Thank you. I didn't articulate it as well as I did the first time I developed the idea, but the point got across, it seems.

[xshady121]

That's not true. Do you have any idea what libertarianism is or do you just know that Glenn Beck (incorrectly) identifies himself as one so it MUST be bad?

I was really hoping that guy responded back to me. I was in the mood to pick a fight last night.

[GeeBee]

I think Shady takes for granted that most libertarians are as even-minded as he is. Most of them are Rand-pounding, gun-toting loons.

[ChaplainTappman]

libertarianism results in a game of chicken between the laborer and the employer. the employer needs the laborer but wants to pay less. the laborer needs the employer but wants more. unfortunately, the employer will always win under this system because people need food which can only be bought with money (which is in itself is just a really big myth). therefore, it will lead to abuses in the system and cause people to lose their true freedom under the reign of tyrannical businesses. like this guy : http://www.josesandoval.com/images/that_guy.gif

[Mitch]

This is my understanding of libertarianism... do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others.

This is my understanding as well, which means I probably shouldn't have called it "naive" since it's probably a lot more complex than that haha

[Machu505]

That's not true. Do you have any idea what libertarianism is or do you just know that Glenn Beck (incorrectly) identifies himself as one so it MUST be bad?

Quoting to point out that you're the lone exception to my statement. Congrats.

[samsara]

No

[J.C.]

The overarching number of Libertarians I've found are just Republicans who jumped ship in recent years once the brand name got tainted. This is especially true of the younger generation of conservatives who got tired of liberals giving them shit about Bush and wanted a way to disassociate themselves from the last administration. Most of them will return home once they find their side winning again.

[rawesome]

The thing I find most fascinating about Libertarians, but mostly Glenn Beck bandwagon Libertarians, is that they essentially want the same thing as far-left Marxists and Communists...which is a stateless society free of oppression. The single difference, when broken down to basic philosophies, is that Libertarians want an economy based on capital and exchange value, where as Marxists want an economy based on product and use value (which, no matter how hard they argue, is far more pragmatic).

So, thinking of it that way, I don't see why anyone would want to be a Libertarian, you're just making yourself a slave to the almighty dollar.

[vodyanoj]

anyone?


...is a joke?

EDIT: I assume you are speaking of right-libertarians, not of libertarian socialism.

[vodyanoj]

The thing I find most fascinating about Libertarians, but mostly Glenn Beck bandwagon Libertarians, is that they essentially want the same thing as far-left Marxists and Communists...which is a stateless society free of oppression. The single difference, when broken down to basic philosophies, is that Libertarians want an economy based on capital and exchange value, where as Marxists want an economy based on product and use value (which, no matter how hard they argue, is far more pragmatic).

So, thinking of it that way, I don't see why anyone would want to be a Libertarian, you're just making yourself a slave to the almighty dollar.


Both libertarians and marxists assume that the market and economical forces are all-encroaching and that all of human existence can be measured by economical means. Bullshit, of course, as many people as different as Hardin and Walzer pointed out repeatedly.

[thursday727]

glenn beck is not a real libertarian.

Here's a true libertarian doug stanhope giving one the best libertarian rants ever
tTOQhPd2Xh4

[<*)))><]

Would being a Libertarianism allow me to get G18's? Because those things are so cool!

[saysmydoctor]

The overarching number of Libertarians I've found are just Republicans who jumped ship in recent years once the brand name got tainted. This is especially true of the younger generation of conservatives who got tired of liberals giving them shit about Bush and wanted a way disassociate themselves from the last administration. Most of them will return home once they find their side winning again.
Burn.

[loveisdead]

Burn.

He's dead on too.

[Machu505]

Since this thread's been bumped, I'll reiterate my opinion:

Economic libertarianism is evil.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I liked Libertarianism before Glenn Beck and other goons had to hijack the label.

[thursday727]

i disagree.
Most Libertarians who jump ship(democrats and republicans) because they are now waking up to the fact that both parties are controlled by the same people. It's a duopoly , an illiusion of competition if you will. Neither party seems to care about the constitution and neither party has a problem with the fact that we have a private central bank, which is one of the things early americans were very against (thomas jefferson and andrew jackson most notably) because they knew it led to widespead corruption and the aggregation of wealth to where the few had everything and the masses had nothing.

And guitar rocker , the movement has been highjacked by the neocons in disguise. So now liberals won't even listen to what we're saying because they automatically associate us with Beck and Palin. They're exploiting the real anger in this country and using it for their own gain.
i voted for Obama , i thought everything was going to change. then i woke up.

do these people look like faux news racist tea party people to you? they're not the same. It's not a fox new protest yet cnn says it is.
the lady at 2:17 says it perfectly
v2YjBL4RoCw

Stop believing in the false Left-Right paradigm

[x togepi x]

i disagree.
Most Libertarians who jump ship(democrats and republicans) because they are now waking up to the fact that both parties are controlled by the same people. It's a duopoly , an illiusion of competition if you will. Neither party seems to care about the constitution and neither party has a problem with the fact that we have a private central bank, which is one of the things early americans were very against (thomas jefferson and andrew jackson most notably) because they knew it led to widespead corruption and the aggregation of wealth to where the few had everything and the masses had nothing.

And guitar rocker , the movement has been highjacked by the neocons in disguise. So now liberals won't even listen to what we're saying because they automatically associate us with Beck and Palin. They're exploiting the real anger in this country and using it for their own gain.
I used to be a liberal , i voted for Obama , i thought everything was going to change. then i woke up.


Those same people would be in control post-libertarianism, only moreso because the limited government would be unable to check major corporations. The problem with republicans and democrats being inefficient in creating their own policies isn't a problem with ideology (though republicans have a fairly idiotic ideology as do centrist democrats), it's that they're often so beholden to corporate interests that they cannot do anything worthwhile.

How would a libertarian deal with corporate power?

[thursday727]

Those same people would be in control post-libertarianism, only moreso because the limited government would be unable to check major corporations. The problem with republicans and democrats being inefficient in creating their own policies isn't a problem with ideology (though republicans have a fairly idiotic ideology as do centrist democrats), it's that they're often so beholden to corporate interests that they cannot do anything worthwhile.

How would a libertarian deal with corporate power?
Allow them to fail , not prop them up. Actually prosecute them when they do wrong. As Ron Paul said "they're would be no Enrons in a libertarian goverment"
but most of all keep them away from goverment and they're lobbyist away from our lawmaking.
Most people who blame free market capitalism for our problems do not realize that we havn't had true free markets for years.
people can throw words around like "fascist" , "communist" , " Socialist" , when in reality it's all Corportism , which is essentially big goverment run by corporations and banks via the politicians they finance for the interests of corporations.

[x togepi x]

Allow them to fail , not prop them up.

Oh, yeah, fuck a lot of the working class out of their jobs. That's totally way better than the system we have now!

Actually prosecute them when they do wrong. As Ron Paul said "they're would be no Enrons in a libertarian goverment"

how exactly is a weak government going to be able to do anything against corporate power? Yeah you could "prosecute them", but a government that lacks the power to enforce the law isn't going to be able to do jack against a multinational corporation.

but most of all keep them away from goverment and they're lobbyist away from our lawmaking.

This is the worst idea possible. You can't "keep them away from government" with limited government power. How would this work?

and you do realize lobbyists are key to most government operations right? They're not all evil boogeymen that buy and sell votes on a whim.

Most people who blame free market capitalism for our problems do not realize that we havn't had true free markets for years.

You're right, and this is a good thing! I'd hate to return to a time when we had free market capitalism. have you ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair? Do you like workplaces where workers have rights and safe working conditions? Do you value human rights?

if so, then you can't advocate free market capitalism. these regulations are key to preventing atrocities. Don't believe me? Go visit a maquilladora plant in Mexico or pay attention to an Asian sweatshop. Those are what happens under free market systems. It's simple wage slavery.

people can throw words around like "fascist" , "communist" , " Socialist" , when in reality it's all Corportism.

Libertarianism is corporatism because it deprives us from the tools we have to check major corporations.

[GuitarR0cker1]

i
And guitar rocker , the movement has been highjacked by the neocons in disguise. So now liberals won't even listen to what we're saying because they automatically associate us with Beck and Palin. They're exploiting the real anger in this country and using it for their own gain.
i voted for Obama , i thought everything was going to change. then i woke up.

I've noticed the change in the teabaggers. Polling information suggests that it's just a standard mainstream conservative movement now. Ron Paul only had a slight plurality of favorable ratings among Texas teabaggers when the state was being polled for it's GOP primary. Anyways I don't like Libertarianism now whether in its old or new form. Honestly it disgusts me in many ways.

I do find it hilarious and disturbing at the same time that the vast majority of Libertarians are so against illegal immigration. I want a return to old days when the CATO institute had studies trying to show how some sort of "amnesty" plan would help this country's economy tremendously.

[thursday727]

I've noticed the change in the teabaggers. Polling information suggests that it's just a standard mainstream conservative movement now. Ron Paul only had a slight plurality of favorable ratings among Texas teabaggers when the state was being polled for it's GOP primary. Anyways I don't like Libertarianism now whether in its old or new form. Honestly it disgusts me in many ways.

I do find it hilarious and disturbing at the same time that the vast majority of Libertarians are so against illegal immigration. I want a return to old days when the CATO institute had studies trying to show how some sort of "amnesty" plan would help this country's economy tremendously.
I'm for anmensty as long as we close the border at the same time.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Libertarianism in its current form is American Fascism. There are so many disturbing parallels between the Nazi Party's early base of support and the teabaggers. I can expand on this if anyone wants.

[x togepi x]

I'm for anmensty as long as we close the border at the same time.


why do you think this is a good idea?

[GuitarR0cker1]

I'm for anmensty as long as we close the border at the same time.
Tru up the punx libertarians would be for no borders though. Ningun humano es ilegal sounds like a very libertarian slogan to me.

[thursday727]

I think Shady takes for granted that most libertarians are as even-minded as he is. Most of them are Rand-pounding, gun-toting loons.
lololol wrong.
first I don't know why being a gun owner and believing in the right to bear arms makes you a loon. I don't like guns so i don't have any but i respect someone elses right to have them to protect themselves.
plus that's a huge generalization. It sounds like you've never even met a libertarian before.

[thursday727]

Tru up the punx libertarians would be for no borders though. Ningun humano es ilegal sounds like a very libertarian slogan to me.
I'm for open borders once we get the economic system under control.

[thursday727]

why do you think this is a good idea?
make them citizens , while not allowing other illegals to come in until we get our economy under control , then we'd be in a position to help mexico get better so they wouldn't have to escape poverty there.

[loveisdead]

Holy togepi. You are the man.

[loveisdead]

make them citizens , while not allowing other illegals to come in until we get our economy under control , then we'd be in a position to help mexico get better so they wouldn't have to escape poverty there.

Who decides when our economy is under control? We gained hundred of thousands of jobs this month...is it under control? It's a slippery slope dude.

[x togepi x]

make them citizens , while not allowing other illegals to come in until we get our economy under control , then we'd be in a position to help mexico get better so they wouldn't have to escape poverty there.

how exactly do we close the borders without massively increasing government power? it seems like a contradiction here.

[loveisdead]

how exactly do we close the borders without massively increasing government power? it seems like a contradiction here.

I can understand the sentiment. If we close borders, who exactly increases government power?

[x togepi x]

I can understand the sentiment. If we close borders, who exactly increases government power?

the federal government would need a lot more police powers in order to effectively close the border. it's not as if we just let illegal immigrants come in easily anyway already.

[Scrandon]

the federal government would need a lot more police powers in order to effectively close the border. it's not as if we just let illegal immigrants come in easily anyway already.

o rly? 20+ million illegals, sounds pretty tough to make it.

[Scrandon]

i disagree.
Most Libertarians who jump ship(democrats and republicans) because they are now waking up to the fact that both parties are controlled by the same people. It's a duopoly , an illiusion of competition if you will. Neither party seems to care about the constitution and neither party has a problem with the fact that we have a private central bank, which is one of the things early americans were very against (thomas jefferson and andrew jackson most notably) because they knew it led to widespead corruption and the aggregation of wealth to where the few had everything and the masses had nothing.


Well, there was Alexander Hamilton who advocated a central bank, and you really shouldn't equate the economy of today with the economy of 1776.

[x togepi x]

o rly? 20+ million illegals, sounds pretty tough to make it.

do you realize how hard it is on those 20+ million, well, i mean, the ones from the south since racist people don't care about illegal canandian/european immigration?

Just because a lot of people can pull something off, doesn't make it easy.

[Praetor]

Well, there was Alexander Hamilton who advocated a central bank, and you really shouldn't equate the economy of today with the economy of 1776.
Both things that I wanted to say. I wonder how the founding fathers' views on economics would change if they were born post-industrialization...

[GeeBee]

lololol wrong.
first I don't know why being a gun owner and believing in the right to bear arms makes you a loon. I don't like guns so i don't have any but i respect someone elses right to have them to protect themselves.
plus that's a huge generalization. It sounds like you've never even met a libertarian before.

I'm all for gun rights. What I find stupid is wearing your gun to an Obama protest like you're a fucking tough guy, forgetting that Obama is the commander in chief of the armed forces, and has control over the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world.

I've got plenty of experience with libertarians. What they don't seem to realize is that their philosophy, like communism, can't be taken to it's logical end. It's too utopian, and assumes humanity can be quantified in economic terms.

[thursday727]

I'm all for gun rights. What I find stupid is wearing your gun to an Obama protest like you're a fucking tough guy, forgetting that Obama is the commander in chief of the armed forces, and has control over the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world.

I've got plenty of experience with libertarians. What they don't seem to realize is that their philosophy, like communism, can't be taken to it's logical end. It's too utopian, and assumes humanity can be quantified in economic terms.
you have a point.
they say it's because Libertarianism is based on two principles. Philosophy and Economics and both are very disputed and subdivided , so unless you get a consensus on both it's not going to happen , and i admit i have my doubts. But i'm still a Libertarian at heart.

[thursday727]

Both things that I wanted to say. I wonder how the founding fathers' views on economics would change if they were born post-industrialization...
Jeffersonians saw Industrialization coming and dreaded it
However, Jeffersonian ideals are not opposed to all manufacturing. The belief was that unlimited expansion of commerce and industry would lead to the growth of a class of wage laborers that relied on others for income and sustenance, as happened during the Industrial Revolution (http://absolutepunk.net/wiki/Industrial_Revolution) and Gilded Age (http://absolutepunk.net/wiki/Gilded_Age). Such a situation, they feared, would leave the American people vulnerable to political subjugation and economic manipulation.

[saysmydoctor]

Jeffersonians saw Industrialization coming and dreaded it
Technology sucks. I hate this internet thing. And this fucking laptop. And this light.

[x togepi x]

Jeffersonians saw Industrialization coming and dreaded it


How is this worse than the socio-political conditions of the time, where black people were 3/5ths human and women had no rights?

industrialization was awesome and necessary.

[GeeBee]

you have a point.
they say it's because Libertarianism is based on two principles. Philosophy and Economics and both are very disputed and subdivided , so unless you get a consensus on both it's not going to happen , and i admit i have my doubts. But i'm still a Libertarian at heart.

I'm all for social libertarianism (a la Bill Maher).

[caveBEAR]

I'm all for social libertarianism (a la Bill Maher).

Geebee! You going to be around? I have a feeling that 'Kid Suspended For Throwing Out Mexican Flag' thread is going to be a real barnburner.

[GeeBee]

Geebee! You going to be around? I have a feeling that 'Kid Suspended For Throwing Out Mexican Flag' thread is going to be a real barnburner.
Oooh. I may have to go check it out...

[caveBEAR]

Oooh. I may have to go check it out...

Indeed. How've you been? I haven't seen you round these parts in a while.

[GeeBee]

Indeed. How've you been? I haven't seen you round these parts in a while.

I've almost been so exasperated by politics lately that I go to type something and then just end up thinking "aw, fuck it". But I did write a review for the new Deftones album. Check it out in the reviews section.

[caveBEAR]

I've almost been so exasperated by politics lately that I go to type something and then just end up thinking "aw, fuck it". But I did write a review for the new Deftones album. Check it out in the reviews section.

Yeah, it's been a bit frustrating here. I don't know why Jason is selling ad-space for the Politics Forum in Trollville, but it's obviously working.

[GeeBee]

Yeah, it's been a bit frustrating here. I don't know why Jason is selling ad-space for the Politics Forum in Trollville, but it's obviously working.
Hahaha, I see there are quite a few newjacks who lean toward the stupid in the politics forum.

[caveBEAR]

Hahaha, I see there are quite a few newjacks who lean toward the stupid in the politics forum.

It's been interesting. Scrandon's always a treat.

I've never listened to the Deftones, but the review has piked my interest. You recommend a listen, obviously? Is there another album I should DL too?

[GeeBee]

It's been interesting. Scrandon's always a treat.

I've never listened to the Deftones, but the review has piked my interest. You recommend a listen, obviously? Is there another album I should DL too?

I'd start with the new one and White Pony.

[caveBEAR]

I'd start with the new one and White Pony.

Grabbing them now. They're one of those bands that I know I should listen to, but I always lose them in the shuffle.

[GeeBee]

Grabbing them now. They're one of those bands that I know I should listen to, but I always lose them in the shuffle.
Given your musical tastes, I'd say they'd fit right in.

[mattmatumbo]

It's a stupid ideology with the most obnoxious adherents in the world.

Hit the nail on the nose with that one.

[mattmatumbo]

Geebee! You going to be around? I have a feeling that 'Kid Suspended For Throwing Out Mexican Flag' thread is going to be a real barnburner.

Loligator.

[bung]

Here's a short little piece (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/7/131550/7297) giving the gist of libertarianism I generally follow.

[Zeran]

Libertarianism in its current form is American Fascism. There are so many disturbing parallels between the Nazi Party's early base of support and the teabaggers. I can expand on this if anyone wants.

please do. i'm interested.

[crimes]

please do. i'm interested.

same here, because i don't see how giving power to the state is similar to murdering anyone who disagrees with giving power to the state. that's all based on your own morals, not on the party itself.

[<*)))><]

Here's a short little piece (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/7/131550/7297) giving the gist of libertarianism I generally follow.
So a Liberal Democrat is a Democrat that really hates corporations?

[bung]

So a Liberal Democrat is a Democrat that really hates corporations?

*libertarian Democrat.

I wouldn't say they hate corporations. Some corporations are great. They just recognize that, like government and other individuals, corporations can also infringe on our freedoms.

[<*)))><]

*libertarian Democrat.

I wouldn't say they hate corporations. Some corporations are great. They just recognize that, like government and other individuals, corporations can also infringe on our freedoms.
Who ever wrote that article seems to have a pretty big grudge with corporations, so much that they infringe on our liberty's. I don't really understand how they can infringe on our freedom because they don't tie us down and force us to buy their product. Or if you don't like the business then don't but and they will go out of business.

[Machu505]

Who ever wrote that article seems to have a pretty big grudge with corporations, so much that they infringe on our liberty's. I don't really understand how they can infringe on our freedom because they don't tie us down and force us to buy their product. Or if you don't like the business then don't but and they will go out of business.
When they pollute our water with their carcinogenic coal slurry, they infringe on our freedoms. When they treat their workers like shit and allow tragedies like the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster to happen, they infringe on our freedoms (and no, the coal miners can't simply quit and find better jobs; it isn't that simple). When banks play around with our money and bring entire economies to their knees, they infringe on our freedoms.

[bung]

Who ever wrote that article seems to have a pretty big grudge with corporations, so much that they infringe on our liberty's. I don't really understand how they can infringe on our freedom because they don't tie us down and force us to buy their product. Or if you don't like the business then don't but and they will go out of business.

I agree that if the population at large doesn't like a corporation's product, they will cease to buy it and said corporation will go out of business. No one's really being forced to buy any product from anyone. The problem with solely relying on this kind of thinking, however, is that it takes time for it to happen. And we don't have this kind of limitless time. The vast majority of people care not for the means by which a product is produced, only the end result. They want a cheap product that will instantly gratify and satisfy their most basic desires.

Left unchecked, corporations will certainly provide this cheap, instantly gratifying product. However, the cost often comes at mass pollution of the environment. Because the money going in their pockets is so vast, they won't have any sort of moral remorse. People not blessed with the gift of foresight, or those blessed but choose not to recognize their ability (most people), won't provide one iota of concern for future generations or their fellow citizens. We're hard-wired to have concern only for our friends and relatives. Everyone else, from a biological perspective, really doesn't matter. The educated populace, then, and every other consumer unrelated to those who support the polluting organization, have no say over whether their rights are being violated by way of being forced to breath polluted air. People have a right to be healthy, the same way they have a right to choose living unhealthily.

Pollution needs to be limited (ideally made obsolete), but left to their own conventions, the majority of corporations will not heed any sort of pollution warning because, again, the money going into their pockets is so vast.

[caveBEAR]

When they pollute our water with their carcinogenic coal slurry, they infringe on our freedoms. When they treat their workers like shit and allow tragedies like the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster to happen, they infringe on our freedoms (and no, the coal miners can't simply quit and find better jobs; it isn't that simple). When banks play around with our money and bring entire economies to their knees, they infringe on our freedoms.

Wait, wait...there's bigger infringements on freedom than the iPhone being $199? Mind. Blown.

[<*)))><]

I agree that if the population at large doesn't like a corporation's product, they will cease to buy it and said corporation will go out of business. No one's really being forced to buy any product from anyone. The problem with solely relying on this kind of thinking, however, is that it takes time for it to happen. And we don't have this kind of limitless time. The vast majority of people care not for the means by which a product is produced, only the end result. They want a cheap product that will instantly gratify and satisfy their most basic desires.

Left unchecked, corporations will certainly provide this cheap, instantly gratifying product. However, the cost often comes at mass pollution of the environment. Because the money going in their pockets is so vast, they won't have any sort of moral remorse. People not blessed with the gift of foresight, or those blessed but choose not to recognize their ability (most people), won't provide one iota of concern for future generations or their fellow citizens. We're hard-wired to have concern only for our friends and relatives. Everyone else, from a biological perspective, really doesn't matter. The educated populace, then, and every other consumer unrelated to those who support the polluting organization, have no say over whether their rights are being violated by way of being forced to breath polluted air. People have a right to be healthy, the same way they have a right to choose living unhealthily.

Pollution needs to be limited (ideally made obsolete), but left to their own conventions, the majority of corporations will not heed any sort of pollution warning because, again, the money going into their pockets is so vast.

When they pollute our water with their carcinogenic coal slurry, they infringe on our freedoms. When they treat their workers like shit and allow tragedies like the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster to happen, they infringe on our freedoms (and no, the coal miners can't simply quit and find better jobs; it isn't that simple). When banks play around with our money and bring entire economies to their knees, they infringe on our freedoms.

I can agree that sometimes corporations take the cheap way out in order to raise profits at the expense of people. But being a corporation they depend on people to buy stock in the company in order to grow and it is a lot harder to get people to buy into something that is labeled "evil", an example of this is cigarette company's, which makes billions but normally have a lot less shares available to the public because a lot less people want to invest. Another example is whirlpool, which made it's washing machines in Mexico and basically made a river near one of it's plants inhabitable, when the news got out it's stock dropped because people didn't want to stand behind the company. But government can infringe on our freedoms just as easy as big business just look at Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Kim Jong Il's North Korea. Everything is evil, ill settle for that.

[bung]

Can someone make me settler for coitus other libertarians? Where;as suasnaaa? I want a blow job for her?

[Love As Arson]

Here's a short little piece (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/7/131550/7297) giving the gist of libertarianism I generally follow.
Had I known the link was to The Daily Kos, I would have immediately skipped it with the understanding that it was going to be idiotic. The democrats he describes are mythological if you follow the track record of the actual party. Also, I think the argument of government vs. the private sector is false, since they are inseparable in the current economic model; even if a libertarian were to become president, the tendencies built into our economic structures would obstruct any fundamental change.

[saysmydoctor]

Had I known the link was to The Daily Kos, I would have immediately skipped it with the understanding that it was going to be idiotic. The democrats he describes are mythological if you follow the track record of the actual party. Also, I think the argument of government vs. the private sector is false, since they are inseparable in the current economic model; even if a libertarian were to become president, the tendencies built into our economic structures would obstruct any fundamental change.
Bam.

[loveisdead]

Can someone make me settler for coitus other libertarians? Where;as suasnaaa? I want a blow job for her?

What the fuck?

[bung]

What the fuck?

Holy shit, I don't even know what I was saying there. Nor do I remember making any posts in this thread besides my first one. Very drunk last night.

[bung]

Had I known the link was to The Daily Kos, I would have immediately skipped it with the understanding that it was going to be idiotic. The democrats he describes are mythological if you follow the track record of the actual party. Also, I think the argument of government vs. the private sector is false, since they are inseparable in the current economic model; even if a libertarian were to become president, the tendencies built into our economic structures would obstruct any fundamental change.

I don't consider myself a part of the party--nor do I follow the blog. It was just the first google result I found that described my views.

I do, however, find it amusing that the Marxist can use the word "mythological" while lacking any apparent sense of irony.

[Love As Arson]

I do, however, find it amusing that the Marxist can use the word "mythological" while lacking any apparent sense of irony.
I get it. But, the argument is stupid, so I'm just going to dismiss it.

[x togepi x]

hahahahahaha

[saysmydoctor]

I don't consider myself a part of the party--nor do I follow the blog. It was just the first google result I found that described my views.

I do, however, find it amusing that the Marxist can use the word "mythological" while lacking any apparent sense of irony.
I don't get it.

[GeeBee]

Utopian idealist calling utopian idealist a utopian idealist is funny.

[loveisdead]

Utopian idealist calling utopian idealist a utopian idealist is funny.

Hahahahaha:lol:

[Sexbasstian]

The ibertarianism is an ideology that seeks a social organization without hierarchy, only predefined roles. It is based on respect and individual freedom.
Sorry, my english is very baaaaaad!

It is not utopia, but it is very difficult if you haven't social intelligence, cause it is the ultimate expression of a civilized society.

[caveBEAR]

The ibertarianism is an ideology that seeks a social organization without hierarchy, only predefined roles. It is based on respect and individual freedom.
Sorry, my english is very baaaaaad!

It is not utopia, but it is very difficult if you haven't social intelligence, cause it is the ultimate expression of a civilized society.

Ultimate expression of a civilized society = Utopia

[x togepi x]

The problem with libertarianism is that it purports to expand the scope of freedom (defined as freedom from government intrusion), but in reality, it merely uses this concept of freedom as a somewhat of a political metaphor to encourage people to continue to shift towards a more neoliberal political system. Neoliberal, in this case, meaning a political system based around neoliberal policies, in that all political, social and economic realms are based around creating the most efficient market principles.

The libertarian's freedom is just slavery within this neoliberal capitalist paradigm. Their concept of freedom gives us choice while robbing us of choice. Even the mere debate that libertarians try to frame, the argument between small/limited libertarian government and big/welfare state, robs us of choice because their debate is between two mythical entities.

It isn't the "ultimate expression of civilized society", it is merely the economization of humanity.

a good article to understand this "Neoliberalism and The End of Liberal Democracy" http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/mellon/Neoliberalism%20and%20the%20End%20o f%20Liberal%20Democracy.pdf

[vodyanoj]

The ibertarianism is an ideology that seeks a social organization without hierarchy, only predefined roles. It is based on respect and individual freedom.
Sorry, my english is very baaaaaad!

It is not utopia, but it is very difficult if you haven't social intelligence, cause it is the ultimate expression of a civilized society.

So is libertarian socialism, aka anarchism. In fact, there are no permanent roles in an anarchic society; it is an adhocracy. The problem with capitalist version of libertarianism is that hierarchies are inherent in the capitalist model of society and production.

[vodyanoj]

The problem with libertarianism is that it purports to expand the scope of freedom (defined as freedom from government intrusion), but in reality, it merely uses this concept of freedom as a somewhat of a political metaphor to encourage people to continue to shift towards a more neoliberal political system. Neoliberal, in this case, meaning a political system based around neoliberal policies, in that all political, social and economic realms are based around creating the most efficient market principles.

The libertarian's freedom is just slavery within this neoliberal capitalist paradigm. Their concept of freedom gives us choice while robbing us of choice. Even the mere debate that libertarians try to frame, the argument between small/limited libertarian government and big/welfare state, robs us of choice because their debate is between two mythical entities.

It isn't the "ultimate expression of civilized society", it is merely the economization of humanity.

a good article to understand this "Neoliberalism and The End of Liberal Democracy" http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/mellon/Neoliberalism%20and%20the%20End%20o f%20Liberal%20Democracy.pdf

Ultimately, that is what I fight against: the belief that the market expands to fill all available niches, takes over all human activities, and that it is a good thing.

[carolyn1013]

This thread was actually entertaining to read. Politics are such a touchy subject. I wish everyone saw it as black and white. Left and Right. But there are all these different sub categories of parties it's all getting pretty confusing. One of these days our government will come to its senses and we'll all be able to agree on things...

[<*)))><]

This thread was actually entertaining to read. Politics are such a touchy subject. I wish everyone saw it as black and white. Left and Right. But there are all these different sub categories of parties it's all getting pretty confusing. One of these days our government will come to its senses and we'll all be able to agree on things...
Wrong.

[carolyn1013]

one day. doesn't mean you or I will be alive to see that day

[open mind]

not a fan of libertarians. in my personal experience they're either anarchists in disguise, or people who's faith in the "free market" borders on insanity.

a unregulated market does not equal a freer market.

[Jersey-Gurl]

Cause it seems that every profile I go on, it's someone liberal.

[loveisdead]

Cause it seems that every profile I go on, it's someone liberal.

I merged your thread with an existing one with the same question. Yes, we do have a decent amount of conservatives and libertarians.

[Tec Mason]

Ultimately, that is what I fight against: the belief that the market expands to fill all available niches, takes over all human activities, and that it is a good thing.

Remember that "the market" is not some organization (like the state) or dragon roaming about the countryside. "the market" is short hand for "all voluntary exchanges of goods and services between people." it cant do anything (although we sometimes say it will, this is semantic and short hand). it cannot take over all human activities, because it is human activity. when humans act, they can either A) treat people non-violently or B) treat people violently. Market exchanges are of the non-violent variety. So if you choose to fight against "the market" you are fighting against the right for people to trade their goods and services to other people for their goods and services. Now if you hate corporations or wall street or some specific organizations than i can understand; but keep in mind that the only alternative to free exchange is controled exchange. those who do the controlling can often do so against the desires of one or all market parties.

[Disconsolate]

not a fan of libertarians. in my personal experience they're either anarchists in disguise, or people who's faith in the "free market" borders on insanity.

a unregulated market does not equal a freer market.
How so?

[Tec Mason]

This thread was actually entertaining to read. Politics are such a touchy subject. I wish everyone saw it as black and white. Left and Right. But there are all these different sub categories of parties it's all getting pretty confusing. One of these days our government will come to its senses and we'll all be able to agree on things...

sadly i disagree with you. the incentives inherent in elected public politicians is that of self-interest at the expense of others. They might not "come to their senses" because there is no need to. They are better off exploiting you.

[open mind]

How so?

are you familiar with antitrust laws and the reasoning behind them?

[Disconsolate]

are you familiar with antitrust laws and the reasoning behind them?
I'm actually very familiar with them and the lack of competition they've fostered.

[Discovery1]

For republicans that don't want to be republicans.

[GeeBee]

I'm actually very familiar with them and the lack of competition they've fostered.

Tell your parents to give their land back to the natives they stole it from. That's the logical conclusion of libertarianism, so get to it.

[bung]

Tell your parents to give their land back to the natives they stole it from. That's the logical conclusion of libertarianism, so get to it.

lol

-the only three letters that your statement is worthy of.

[Tec Mason]

Tell your parents to give their land back to the natives they stole it from. That's the logical conclusion of libertarianism, so get to it.

We have had this argument before, and you are right. Anyone who has stolen anything from anyone should give it back. that is the core of libertarianism. How is that a bad thing?

I will quote here our discussion months ago:

Then vacate the premises, since the descendants of whatever indian tribes were kicked off still technically own the land you're now on.

See how it's not so cut and dry?

It is cut and dry. I should vacate the premises if the owners were kicked off and they want it back. I can easily stay where i live, and hope the owners never return, but if they do it would be unjust for me to stay, and all the actions I took with their property was also unjust. But because they need evidence that they mixed their labor with the land I am on, the burden of proof lays too them if they want it.

EDIT: Does it suck that the natives need proof that I am on their land when I probably am? yes. But we cannot base a universal ethic around who probably was here first. We need evidence.

EDIT2: My first edit sounds douchey. What i mean is that while we know that the Cherokkee tribes lived in the current U.S. south, A person of that tribe would have to show proof or evidence that they are the heirs to the actual plot of land that I am physically using. This is sort of how property "resets" over time. If someone dies or abandons a property (house, land, wallet, bag of doritos) a current user can use the object, mix his labor with it, and hope that the owner never wants it back or willingly abandned it. If the owner ever returns with proof the item is his property, then it is just to return it. Assigning an arbitrary "time to reset" is useless and subjective.

TL;DR: Until a person has proof that they are the heirs or owners to a specific piece of property currently occupied by another person, the current person has the best claim to the property.

[Disconsolate]

Tell your parents to give their land back to the natives they stole it from. That's the logical conclusion of libertarianism, so get to it.
I'm not a libertarian actually. However, refer to Tec's post for my rebuttal to your comment.

[open mind]

We have had this argument before, and you are right. Anyone who has stolen anything from anyone should give it back. that is the core of libertarianism. How is that a bad thing?

I will quote here our discussion months ago:





TL;DR: Until a person has proof that they are the heirs or owners to a specific piece of property currently occupied by another person, the current person has the best claim to the property.

the fact that most tribes didn't believe in the concept of land ownership in the same sense western civilization did makes this one convenient line of bullshit.

[open mind]

I'm actually very familiar with them and the lack of competition they've fostered.

examples?

[Tec Mason]

the fact that most tribes didn't believe in the concept of land ownership in the same sense western civilization did makes this one convenient line of bullshit.

GeeBee's rebuttal to libertarianism is that we should give the Indians back what is there's. Yet when I agree with him, I am told Indians don't believe in property. if they dont believe it was "theirs" there there is nothing for me to give back, so there isnt a problem. You cant have it both ways. My guess is that all people, even Indians, believe in property. They may not claim that the land is owned, (which is fine if they voluntarily refuse to claim a physical resource) but i bet if you tried to steal their bed or food, they would get pissed.

side note: be careful with sweeping generalizations with different races. Its impossible to say that every native american was anti-property. they are people with the ability to reason like all of us.

[open mind]

GeeBee's rebuttal to libertarianism is that we should give the Indians back what is there's. Yet when I agree with him, I am told Indians don't believe in property. if they dont believe it was "theirs" there there is nothing for me to give back, so there isnt a problem. You cant have it both ways. My guess is that all people, even Indians, believe in property. They may not claim that the land is owned, (which is fine if they voluntarily refuse to claim a physical resource) but i bet if you tried to steal their bed or food, they would get pissed.

side note: be careful with sweeping generalizations with different races. Its impossible to say that every native american was anti-property. they are people with the ability to reason like all of us.

let me clarify.
the vast majority of native american tribes believed in communal land ownership, so what you'd require from a native american in order for you to give their land back is impossible for them to give, so it's bullshit.

who's making sweeping generalizations?

[Tec Mason]

I am saying that in order to do what GeeBee wants me to do, give my land back to the natives, then the people who want the land back need to prove using evidence that the land I inhabit is theirs.

[open mind]

I am saying that in order to do what GeeBee wants me to do, give my land back to the natives, then the people who want the land back need to prove using evidence that the land I inhabit is theirs.

what proof would you require?

[Tec Mason]

I dont know man, that is up to a judge and whatever judicial service I subscribe too. A written contract or land deed would be great, but Natives didn't have those (from what I understand). So like I said up top, it sucks for them because the burden of proof lays to them that they are the rightful heirs to what they want to claim. I am no judge, so I have no idea what evidence would be acceptable.

historically, the fucking European colonists shouldn't have kicked them off their land to begin with.

[open mind]

I dont know man, that is up to a judge and whatever judicial service I subscribe too. A written contract or land deed would be great, but Natives didn't have those (from what I understand). So like I said up top, it sucks for them because the burden of proof lays to them that they are the rightful heirs to what they want to claim. I am no judge, so I have no idea what evidence would be acceptable.

you might as well say you'll give a native american their land back if they give you a trillion dollars.

[Tec Mason]

what?

[open mind]

what?

you've set the bar at an impossible height.

[Tec Mason]

Ah okay I think I see what you mean. Yes, the bar is high, meaning if you want to claim something is yours that was lost 400 to 200 years ago, then it is technically difficult/impossible to prove it. Life is not perfect, and it sucks.

I think we both agree that taking from the Indians was wrong and terrible. I also agree with GeeBee that if I steal anything (including Indian land) I should give it back. What is wrong with that?

[open mind]

Ah okay I think I see what you mean. Yes, the bar is high, meaning if you want to claim something is yours that was lost 400 to 200 years ago, then it is technically difficult/impossible to prove it. Life is not perfect, and it sucks.

I think we both agree that taking from the Indians was wrong and terrible. I also agree with GeeBee that if I steal anything (including Indian land) I should give it back. What is wrong with that?

nothing wrong with that.....except for the bit about it being (rather conveniently) impossible for native americans to get their lands back anyways.

[Tec Mason]

Yes it is convenient, which sucks. People like to take the choice with the most benefits at the lowest cost. It is a shame that the Cherokee (and other tribes) were displaced and murdered for the convenience of the Europeans. That is why I would like to live in a world where the coercive and violent path bore such a high cost, that the peaceful solution would be chosen out of self-interest. Utopian, i know, but a guy can dream.

[open mind]

Yes it is convenient, which sucks. People like to take the choice with the most benefits at the lowest cost. It is a shame that the Cherokee (and other tribes) were displaced and murdered for the convenience of the Europeans. That is why I would like to live in a world where the coercive and violent path bore such a high cost, that the peaceful solution would be chosen out of self-interest. Utopian, i know, but a guy can dream.

eh, if you were serious about justice being done you'd consult the history books and check the noted boundaries of a given tribes land and hand the whole area back over to the tribe to use and parcel out to their members as they saw fit....it'll never happen, but i'm also a bit of a dreamer.

[caveBEAR]

eh, if you were serious about justice being done you'd consult the history books and check the noted boundaries of a given tribes land and hand the whole area back over to the tribe to use and parcel out to their members as they saw fit....it'll never happen, but i'm also a bit of a dreamer.

I heard this in my mind in the Stephan Hawking computer voice, like he says in the intro to Into the Universe.

[open mind]

I heard this in my mind in the Stephan Hawking computer voice, like he says in the intro to Into the Universe.

haha.......fucking pothead.;-)

[caveBEAR]

haha.......fucking pothead.;-)

Psh, I've been clean since I started m new job with random testing. Now it's really Beer for the Bear again. You know, or JACKDANIELSfortheBEAR. Whatever.

[open mind]

Psh, I've been clean since I started m new job with random testing. Now it's really Beer for the Bear again. You know, or JACKDANIELSfortheBEAR. Whatever.

must be a damn good job if you're willing to put up with that b.s.

i really think random testing should be illegal in most cases.

[caveBEAR]

must be a damn good job if you're willing to put up with that b.s.

i really think random testing should be illegal in most cases.

Meh, the paychecks make up for it. However, I keep getting these paychecks and thinking 'I could buy so much pot with this...'

It's a hotel, and it seems like they only randomly test the really new workers and the room service/valets (of which I'm neither) so I think I'm gonna wait out the potential 'let's see what you did on July 4th' tests, then maybe dip back into the old green pool.

On topic - I hope they never legalize pot, because then the government would steal my money by taxing it.

:rolleyes:

[Machu505]

I gotta give it to Tec Mason. His arguments are intellectual, rather than "tell that to Eastern Europeans who were shot for not believing in socialism".

[GeeBee]

Yes it is convenient, which sucks. People like to take the choice with the most benefits at the lowest cost. It is a shame that the Cherokee (and other tribes) were displaced and murdered for the convenience of the Europeans. That is why I would like to live in a world where the coercive and violent path bore such a high cost, that the peaceful solution would be chosen out of self-interest. Utopian, i know, but a guy can dream.

I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me how Libertarianism is any LESS of a utopian pipe-dream than Socialism...

[Love As Arson]

I don't know, the drug trade is an example of unrestrained market forces. Of course, contrary to what most libertarians argue, structure and hierarchy persists.

[Disconsolate]

I don't know, the drug trade is an example of unrestrained market forces. Of course, contrary to what most libertarians argue, structure and hierarchy persists.
As in the illegal drug trade?

How is that even close to an example of a state-free market?

[Love As Arson]

I think it can apply to most black market activities.

[open mind]

has anybody in here read the shock doctrine?

[Disconsolate]

I think it can apply to most black market activities.
Black market isn't a free market though. I don't see why that's a fair example for an unrestrained market.

[Disconsolate]

has anybody in here read the shock doctrine?
"Free market" policies that it tackles are probably one of the biggest enemies of market anarchy :(.

[Love As Arson]

Black market isn't a free market though. I don't see why that's a fair example for an unrestrained market.
It consists mostly of non-aligned actors who agree to sell or buy particular products, in order to satisfy a base of customers. There aren't any "rules", only don't infringe on my ability to sell my product.

[Disconsolate]

It consists mostly of non-aligned actors who agree to sell or buy particular products, in order to satisfy a base of customers. There aren't any "rules", only don't infringe on my ability to sell my product.
With an aggressive entity trying to prevent voluntary exchange. Not exactly market anarchy.

[Two Headed Girl]

One of my best friends is super into telling people he's a Libertarian, but is also sooooo naive as to what a true Libertarian society/government/economy would entail. It's sooooooo annoying.

Also, yeah it's fake.

[Zeran]

Psh, I've been clean since I started m new job with random testing. Now it's really Beer for the Bear again. You know, or JACKDANIELSfortheBEAR. Whatever.

where do you work?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

One of my best friends is super into telling people he's a Libertarian, but is also sooooo naive as to what a true Libertarian society/government/economy would entail. It's sooooooo annoying.

Also, yeah it's fake.

I try not to generalize, but when it comes to libertarians I've come across, they seem so smug about it, as if they are above everyone else in this two-party system. I don't support a Libertarian Party, but I tend to adhere to libertarian principles when it comes to what people ingest in their bodies.

[caveBEAR]

where do you work?

A hotel. Not a Best Western deal, it's a bit 'ritzy'.

[Zeran]

job's a job. get money, get paid.

[caveBEAR]

job's a job. get money, get paid.

It's 'four diamond' (I think they made that rating up, I've never heard that before) so they pay well. Tips ain't bad either, but you technically aren't supposed to take them, so you have to feel the people out to judge if they're secret shoppers or not.

[Machu505]

The underground drug trade, at least in the Mexican drug war, doesn't appear to be that fine of an example of a free market. The illegality of the product and risks inherent in acquiring and selling the product drive up prices artificially.

[caveBEAR]

The underground drug trade, at least in the Mexican drug war, doesn't appear to be that fine of an example of a free market. The illegality of the product and risks inherent in acquiring and selling the product drive up prices artificially.

Indeed. M-(

[open mind]

"Free market" policies that it tackles are probably one of the biggest enemies of market anarchy :(.

care to elaborate?

[GeeBee]

http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/types_of_libertarian1.png

[bung]

LOL, when shown he was wrong about the illegal drug trade being an exemplar of a free market, the prideful GeeBee chooses not to recognize his mistake, but instead posts a mildly amusing cartoon.

Atta' boy. Good show.

[bung]

bung continues to labor under the delusion that the people on these boards whose validation he so desperately pines for don't give a shit what he thinks and largely ignore him.

I'd rather be mildly amusing than an outright pariah, so fuck yourself.

LOL.

Buahahaha. You aren't amusing. You're an arrogant pill, whose wife clearly keeps the snatch under wraps at all times. Oh yeah, you were birthed by Mormons, so there's that, too.

And you've racked up twice as many posts in about two years as I have in seven. Who's pining for validation and comfort, again?

[loveisdead]

Buahahaha. You aren't amusing. You're an arrogant pill, whose wife clearly keeps the snatch under wraps at all times. Oh yeah, you were birthed by Mormons, so there's that, too.

And you've racked up twice as many posts in about two years as I have in seven. Who's pining for validation and comfort, again?

Not sure it's in the greatest taste to bring up his wife.

[bung]

Not sure it's in the greatest taste to bring up his wife.

His comment about me warranted it.

[loveisdead]

His comment about me warranted it.

He posted only about you. Unless I'm completely overlooking something, all he called you was a "pariah" to these boards. Don't see how that warrants what you said about his wife.

[bung]

He posted only about you. Unless I'm completely overlooking something, all he called you was a "pariah" to these boards. Don't see how that warrants what you said about his wife.

I merely said his wife withholds sex from him, after he called me a pariah.

Fair play in my book. I'd say his insult was greater. :shrug:

[loveisdead]

I merely said his wife withholds sex from him, after he called me a pariah.

Fair play in my book. I'd say his insult was greater. :shrug:

A pariah to the absolutepunk.net forums seems like less of an insult than a potshot at his wife. Keep family members out of it. If you two don't like each other I really don't care, go ahead and bicker. But at least make it about each other.

[bung]

A pariah to the absolutepunk.net forums seems like less of an insult than a potshot at his wife. Keep family members out of it. If you two don't like each other I really don't care, go ahead and bicker. But at least make it about each other.

Fair enough.

[bung]

Sorry for the insult, bung. Sorry for thinking your politics are bullshit. Get over it, most people do. Sorry for the admittedly inaccurate analogy.

There, we good?

You don't have to go so far as apologizing for thinking my politics are bullshit. It's a legitimate position, and I welcome the criticism. It's one of the reasons I read and contribute to this political forum.

But thanks for the apology. In return, I'm sorry for insulting you and your wife. I'm sure we will probably continue to butt heads, but I'll do my best to keep it civil.

[Machu505]

I'm glad we can all kiss and make up.

[caveBEAR]

:whistle:

[Tec Mason]

The underground drug trade, at least in the Mexican drug war, doesn't appear to be that fine of an example of a free market. The illegality of the product and risks inherent in acquiring and selling the product drive up prices artificially.

THIS

Im so glad I didn't have to say it.

The drug trade is a perfect example of how terrible of a parasite the state can be on society. They make certain good illegal to sell and buy across a large territory, which drives up the price and risk of violence. Too many police officers and users have been needlessly killed or imprisoned imo.

In a free market, people can buy what they want. yes this means people could by drugs that are bad for them. but the price and risk of violence would be so much lower. Study alcohol prohibition if you want to see how much better we could have it. You don't see liquor stores having turf wars anymore, but it was a serious reality durring U.S. prohibition.

[Disconsolate]

care to elaborate?
Because they have nothing to do with "free markets". Sort of like "free banking" laws in the 1800's lol.

[open mind]

Because they have nothing to do with "free markets". Sort of like "free banking" laws in the 1800's lol.

thanks for nothing.

[Zeran]

lol.

[Disconsolate]

thanks for nothing.
There's not much to explain. Republicans pander in the interest of "free markets!" when in reality the legislation they push has nothing to do with actual liberty. As an actual free market guy (as in no state) these bills do great disservice.

I gave an example of "free banking" laws in the 1800's. Banking laws that had nothing to do with freeing up our banking system, rather continuing to confine and limit the ability of banks to operate in a sound manner. This pushed the need for a central bank to get the "free market" under control, when in reality it was nothing close to a free market. We ended up with a central bank. A great example of how "free market" legislation, that has nothing in reality to do with free markets, does great disservice to liberty movements. Now people can come along and say "well we tried free markets and it didn't work". When the truth is we've never had free markets in this country.

edit: Another example, George Bush's entire presidency and current neocons. Do you honestly think the guys leading the republican party have any respect at all for the free market? All they do is make the battle for us genuine free marketers that much harder. Ending in my original quote that I think they are a bigger hassle and enemy of those of us for liberty.

At least liberals are upfront about massive spending and theft :).

[open mind]

There's not much to explain. Republicans pander in the interest of "free markets!" when in reality the legislation they push has nothing to do with actual liberty. As an actual free market guy (as in no state) these bills do great disservice.

I gave an example of "free banking" laws in the 1800's. Banking laws that had nothing to do with freeing up our banking system, rather continuing to confine and limit the ability of banks to operate in a sound manner. This pushed the need for a central bank to get the "free market" under control, when in reality it was nothing close to a free market. We ended up with a central bank. A great example of how "free market" legislation, that has nothing in reality to do with free markets, does great disservice to liberty movements. Now people can come along and say "well we tried free markets and it didn't work". When the truth is we've never had free markets in this country.

edit: Another example, George Bush's entire presidency and current neocons. Do you honestly think the guys leading the republican party have any respect at all for the free market? All they do is make the battle for us genuine free marketers that much harder. Ending in my original quote that I think they are a bigger hassle and enemy of those of us for liberty.

At least liberals are upfront about massive spending and theft :).
so cutting taxes has nothing to do with liberty? i'm glad to know you don't really view taxes as stealing.

which 17th century laws are you talking about? i'm genuinely curious.

i'm sure many neocons would prefer a truly free market.....only problem is that the steps they've previously taken towards enabling one have resulted in total disaster.

[GeeBee]

In other news...apparently "Free Will" isn't quite so free...
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2000994,00.html

[Love As Arson]

With an aggressive entity trying to prevent voluntary exchange. Not exactly market anarchy.
I agree. Perhaps it isn't an exact equivalent. However, the internal dynamics of the black market represent a free market model, which generally reflects the corporate model, with a boss, workers, middle-management, etc. Contrary to spreading the wealth around, these free markets entrench hierarchies.

[kearn1tm]

I'll preface this by saying I agree with all of this, but professor challenged most of these views in a course last semester, and being more knowledgeable, I wasn't necessarily able to argue. I'm going to argue from his viewpoint (using notes and such), simply because I'm really curious as to what your retort would have been.

The problem with libertarianism is that it purports to expand the scope of freedom (defined as freedom from government intrusion), but in reality, it merely uses this concept of freedom as a somewhat of a political metaphor to encourage people to continue to shift towards a more neoliberal political system.

Libertarian freedom is not defined as “freedom from government intrusion.” Rather, libertarians argue that coercive state intervention is the greatest intruder on human freedom. You could have found a definition of libertarian freedom beyond the definitions of Harvey or Zizek … like Nozick, Lester, Rothbard, DD Friedman, etc. Here are some of their attempts to define freedom.
Nozick (Harvard logician): You own yourself. In other words, you have human rights to your own body. You have the right of self-determination. This is why we think slavery, involuntary imprisonment, rape, and many other things are ‘evil’ - because it rejects self-ownership. You also own what you create or are voluntarily given by someone else. I.e. You have rights to your things. Freedom is the absence of interpersonal violation of these basic human rights.
J.C. Lester (professor at London School of Economics): Freedom is the interpersonal absence of proactively imposed costs.
Rothbard (eminent Austrian economist): Freedom is “the absence of physical interference with an individual’s person and property, with his just property rights broadly defined.”Now while most libertarians highly value freedom in itself and thus oppose coercive statism as it significantly violates human freedom, most are also in favor of freedom because of the positive betterment of human well-being (less poverty, less starvation, more free time, more prosperity, better education, better health services, etc.) empirically and logically brought about by greater degrees of freedom.

Neoliberal, in this case, meaning a political system based around neoliberal policies, in that all political, social and economic realms are based around creating the most efficient market principles.
(I cited the Neoliberal idea, to which he responded with this)

Complete strawman. First, virtually nobody calls themselves “neoliberal.” It’s a constructed enemy. Second, macroeconomic “efficiency” is precisely that defined as the most efficient at fulfilling human needs. If one means “market” as something where money is the sole means of exchange (like a goods marketplace) then no libertarian has every called for basing everything “around creating the most efficient market principles.”

The libertarian's freedom is just slavery within this neoliberal capitalist paradigm. Their concept of freedom gives us choice while robbing us of choice. Even the mere debate that libertarians try to frame, the argument between small/limited libertarian government and big/welfare state, robs us of choice because their debate is between two mythical entities.
So there is no real difference between a limited state and a big state, no real difference between a stateless society and statist one? Well, now, that’s a claim you’ll have to argue..


It isn't the "ultimate expression of civilized society", it is merely the economization of humanity.
No libertarian wants to make all human interaction money interaction. Libertarians merely want to maximise voluntary interaction and minimise interpersonally coercive interaction. Libertarians are very much in favor of voluntary non-money interaction, from families to mutual aid societies to co-ops to community parks to numerous other things.

(I apologize if any of that's incoherent. I'm trying to piece together notes I took from months ago on things I wrote and respond in kind, so it may be mere gobbledygook, but I'd love another pair of eyes on this. I'm out of the class, but I love to delve into this and I'd enjoy hearing your responses).

[Disconsolate]

so cutting taxes has nothing to do with liberty? i'm glad to know you don't really view taxes as stealing.

which 17th century laws are you talking about? i'm genuinely curious.

i'm sure many neocons would prefer a truly free market.....only problem is that the steps they've previously taken towards enabling one have resulted in total disaster.
17th century? No it was the 19th, or 1800's.

I was referring to free banking laws.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/201004189617/energy-and-environment/selgin-on-austrian-finance-central-banks-and-free-banking.html

An interview with Dr. George Selgin (economist and economic historian who teaches at my school University of Georgia), in which he talks about free banking laws. You can look them up if you want, but he's a more than credible source:

Daily Bell: Give us some background on US "free banking."
George Selgin: No less tiresome is some mainstream economists' habit of claiming that free banking was tried in the U.S. before the Civil War, where it flopped. But although its true that a number of U.S. states passed so-called "free banking" laws, those laws didn't provide for "free" banking in the literal sense. They established something like general incorporation procedures. But they also subjected banks to some onerous regulations. For example, they all disallowed branch banking while requiring banks to back their notes with particular assets. Economic historians have since shown that these and other regulatory restrictions were the most important cause of failures among U.S. "free" banks.


See how it builds a case against "free market" laws? Because people can easily say, "tried it and it failed give up ttyl". When in fact it was never tried. Besides driving to your house with the original legislation I'm not sure how else I can help you understand my point.

[Disconsolate]

I agree. Perhaps it isn't an exact equivalent. However, the internal dynamics of the black market represent a free market model, which generally reflects the corporate model, with a boss, workers, middle-management, etc. Contrary to spreading the wealth around, these free markets entrench hierarchies.
You act as if wealth is sitting up on a cloud and only those on top can reach it and viciously distribute small drops of it to those below them.

[open mind]

17th century? No it was the 19th, or 1800's.

I was referring to free banking laws.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/201004189617/energy-and-environment/selgin-on-austrian-finance-central-banks-and-free-banking.html

An interview with Dr. George Selgin (economist and economic historian who teaches at my school University of Georgia), in which he talks about free banking laws. You can look them up if you want, but he's a more than credible source:

Daily Bell: Give us some background on US "free banking."
George Selgin: No less tiresome is some mainstream economists' habit of claiming that free banking was tried in the U.S. before the Civil War, where it flopped. But although its true that a number of U.S. states passed so-called "free banking" laws, those laws didn't provide for "free" banking in the literal sense. They established something like general incorporation procedures. But they also subjected banks to some onerous regulations. For example, they all disallowed branch banking while requiring banks to back their notes with particular assets. Economic historians have since shown that these and other regulatory restrictions were the most important cause of failures among U.S. "free" banks.


See how it builds a case against "free market" laws? Because people can easily say, "tried it and it failed give up ttyl". When in fact it was never tried. Besides driving to your house with the original legislation I'm not sure how else I can help you understand my point.

yeah, forgive the brain fart.

that interview is a puff piece and doesn't really tell me much, as i was asking about particular laws and was interested in why you believe they limit freedom. do you know what historians he's talking about and which regulations he's referring to though?

[GeeBee]

You act as if wealth is sitting up on a cloud and only those on top can reach it and viciously distribute small drops of it to those below them.

You certainly wouldn't argue, though, that those who want to attain wealth need only work hard to do so. That's a myth. In addition, history glaringly demonstrates that the rich usually get richer on the backs of the poor.

[Disconsolate]

yeah, forgive the brain fart.

that interview is a puff piece and doesn't really tell me much, as i was asking about particular laws and was interested in why you believe they limit freedom. do you know what historians he's talking about and which regulations he's referring to though?
Let me dig up my notes from last fall's class. Just scared to look under my bed at the moment for fear of being eaten alive :D.

[Disconsolate]

You certainly wouldn't argue, though, that those who want to attain wealth need only work hard to do so. That's a myth. In addition, history glaringly demonstrates that the rich usually get richer on the backs of the poor.
What coercive barriers are preventing these poor to get where they want in life?

[GeeBee]

What coercive barriers are preventing these poor to get where they want in life?

Come on man, get real. Though I'm all about hard work and self-determination...privilege and luck have a hell of a lot to do with it.

[Love As Arson]

You act as if wealth is sitting up on a cloud and only those on top can reach it and viciously distribute small drops of it to those below them.
No, I do not believe wealth is something which can be spread around infinitely in all directions. If that were the case, capitalism wouldn't be sustainable.

[GeeBee]

No, I do not believe wealth is something which can be spread around infinitely in all directions. If that were the case, capitalism wouldn't be sustainable.
Precisely. My "austrian school" friends keep telling me that "wealth isn't finite", but clearly that's not true, since they clamor for it like it's going out of style.

[Disconsolate]

Come on man, get real. Though I'm all about hard work and self-determination...privilege and luck have a hell of a lot to do with it.
Okay, and?

So life isn't fair, I think everyone realizes that. I don't see how relying on benevolent overlords to redistribute things "equitably" would make anything better. We all know that's not what happens, those with power get more powerful at the cost of those we're trying to help.

[Love As Arson]

Okay, and?

So life isn't fair, I think everyone realizes that. I don't see how relying on benevolent overlords to redistribute things "equitably" would make anything better. We all know that's not what happens, those with power get more powerful at the cost of those we're trying to help.
What I find disconcerting is the failure to recognize centers of power, either willfully or ignorantly; they're either seen as "universally good", so justified in that mythology, or there is an invocation of the "best of all possible worlds" theory.

[GeeBee]

Okay, and?

So life isn't fair, I think everyone realizes that. I don't see how relying on benevolent overlords to redistribute things "equitably" would make anything better. We all know that's not what happens, those with power get more powerful at the cost of those we're trying to help.

Redistribution, no. A level playing field, yes. Is it not in your best interest to live among an educated, healthy populous? With education and healthcare relegated to a corporate enterprise by your libertarian peers (school vouchers the most glaring culprit), those things have become a luxury to be had only by the privileged.

Also, I don't like the notion that taxation = redistribution. The greatest good for the greatest amount of people is preferable in my eyes to dog eat dog, "sorry, life's hard" philosophy.

[Disconsolate]

What I find disconcerting is the failure to recognize centers of power, either willfully or ignorantly; they're either seen as "universally good", so justified in that mythology, or there is an invocation of the "best of all possible worlds" theory.
Expand on this more, I'm not familiar with what you're trying to say.

[Disconsolate]

Redistribution, no. A level playing field, yes. Is it not in your best interest to live among an educated, healthy populous? With education and healthcare relegated to a corporate enterprise by your libertarian peers (school vouchers the most glaring culprit), those things have become a luxury to be had only by the privileged.

Also, I don't like the notion that taxation = redistribution. The greatest good for the greatest amount of people is preferable in my eyes to dog eat dog, "sorry, life's hard" philosophy.
Yes, an educated healthy populous sounds great. The leap from that to using the aggression of the state to achieve it makes me scratch my head.

I'm also curious as to why you think healthcare and education would be such luxury items under a anarcho capitalism system. 10 years ago I bought a desktop for $1600, that same item would cost probably $100 max today. It's odd because at one time computers and high speed internet were luxury, yet now practically everyone has it.

[GeeBee]

Yes, an educated healthy populous sounds great. The leap from that to using the aggression of the state to achieve it makes me scratch my head.

The results of a poorly educated and unhealthy citizenry pretty much screams out for some kind of "aggression" to correct its current course. A democratic process, established by elected leaders seems like the most benign way to address those problems, as opposed to leaving everyone to their own devices.

[GeeBee]

I'm also curious as to why you think healthcare and education would be such luxury items under a anarcho capitalism system. 10 years ago I bought a desktop for $1600, that same item would cost probably $100 max today. It's odd because at one time computers and high speed internet were luxury, yet now practically everyone has it.

Exploitation is the logical conclusion of an anarcho-capitalist system. As we've seen with many commodities like fuel, education, healthcare...if I HAVE to have it to LIVE...I'll pay whatever's necessary, right? That's called exploitation.

And don't try to pull the "competition" card. Harvard and Yale compete. Exxon and Shell compete. Bristol-Myers and Glaxxo-Smith compete.

[Disconsolate]

The results of a poorly educated and unhealthy citizenry pretty much screams out for some kind of "aggression" to correct its current course. A democratic process, established by elected leaders seems like the most benign way to address those problems, as opposed to leaving everyone to their own devices.
So we just give one entity the right to use force and hope they don't abuse it? As long as 51% of us agree?

Let's take rape as an example. Sure, some people would love to rape a hot girl they see and get away with it. At the same time though, they don't want to be raped. They must balance living in a society where rape is okay with the fact that it means they can be raped too. I highly doubt this is a society most would want living in. In fact, isn't there an incentive to offer services that provide things we hold dearest? Such as protection, law, medicine? How does giving one organization exclusive rights to do these things make us better off?

I love all the great achievements that make society as a whole better off. That is why I oppose the state. These services are so important that it's asinine to grant monopoly power to their issuance. Price goes up, quality goes down.

[Disconsolate]

Exploitation is the logical conclusion of an anarcho-capitalist system. As we've seen with many commodities like fuel, education, healthcare...if I HAVE to have it to LIVE...I'll pay whatever's necessary, right? That's called exploitation.

And don't try to pull the "competition" card. Harvard and Yale compete. Exxon and Shell compete. Bristol-Myers and Glaxxo-Smith compete.
So how do we remedy the varying elasticities of goods? We establish a giant aggressive state to steal and make things better?

You don't trust freely interacting individuals to make the right choices, yet you trust an entity we grant perpetual monopolistic power..?

[GeeBee]

So we just give one entity the right to use force and hope they don't abuse it? As long as 51% of us agree?

Let's take rape as an example. Sure, some people would love to rape a hot girl they see and get away with it. At the same time though, they don't want to be raped. They must balance living in a society where rape is okay with the fact that it means they can be raped too. I highly doubt this is a society most would want living in. In fact, isn't there an incentive to offer services that provide things we hold dearest? Such as protection, law, medicine? How does giving one organization exclusive rights to do these things make us better off?

I love all the great achievements that make society as a whole better off. That is why I oppose the state. These services are so important that it's asinine to grant monopoly power to their issuance. Price goes up, quality goes down.
You know as well as I do that the "51%" you're slinging is a misnomer. We have a democratic process set up of checks and balances in an effort to ensure that it's not a simple majority rule.
And to answer your question...no. I don't think a group of people, left to their own devices, especially in today's world, has any incentive to do anything but rape, plunder, and steal. See Somalia for a fine example of anarchy in action.
I'm confused...you keep talking about "the state" being bumbling and inept, but yet you're worried about how swiftly and surely it will wield "power" and "exclusiv[ity]". Which is it?
Achievements like the internet you're on, which was created by a government program?
So how do we remedy the varying elasticities of goods? We establish a giant aggressive state to steal and make things better?

You don't trust freely interacting individuals to make the right choices, yet you trust an entity we grant perpetual monopolistic power..?
Again, there's a distinct tendency to use hyperbolic terms to describe taxation and democratic processes from your end.

You're making the mistake I see too many libertarians make in ascribing to the word "government" (or "state" in your terms) some kind of monolithic, unilateral entity that acts of its own volition. There's so much thumping of the constitution from your crowd, but disdain for the very democratic system it set up.
Further, your crowd tends to set up anarchy vs. government as if it's a zero-sum game where it's either all or nothing. All I'm saying is that given that choice, I have to side with government, since, yes, I believe an unwieldy, bureaucratic, crowded, slow-moving system puts necessary checks on the power of individuals, who, as has been amply demonstrated, cannot be trusted to act in anyone's self-interest but their very own.

[GeeBee]

http://www.cbpp.org/files/6-25-10inc.pdf

Income gap between rich and poor has more than tripled in size in the last three decades. Don't tell me the poor just need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.

[thepayoff]

I very much consider myself a libertarian. It seems to me the only truly logical approach to policy in a "free society." That includes the freedom to thrive or fail on one's own merits. I do not believe in the abolishment of government -- that's anarchy -- but I do believe in rational, limited government that serves primarily to protect our individual freedoms.

... Wacky me.

[Grohl]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/e1/Lib-ana.gif

[caveBEAR]

I very much consider myself a libertarian. It seems to me the only truly logical approach to policy in a "free society." That includes the freedom to thrive or fail on one's own merits. I do not believe in the abolishment of government -- that's anarchy -- but I do believe in rational, limited government that serves primarily to protect our individual freedoms.

... Wacky me.

OK, what pieces of the current government would you keep in your limited government?

[open mind]

I love all the great achievements that make society as a whole better off. That is why I oppose the state.

huh?
http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7&p=1

[GeeBee]

I love all the great achievements that make society as a whole better off. That is why I oppose the state. These services are so important that it's asinine to grant monopoly power to their issuance. Price goes up, quality goes down.

You're posting on the internet...a product not of society, but of a socialized defense program.

[Noldor]

all i know is OBAMA IS DOING GOOD YOU PEOPLE JUST DONT WANT TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE.
you gave bust 2 chances but you CONSERVATIVES wont drop your guns and prejudices long enough to LET HIM GIVE US HEALTHCARE WE HAVE A NATIONAL RIGHT TO. \he said he would bring change and he did.

[Simulcast]

all i know is OBAMA IS DOING GOOD YOU PEOPLE JUST DONT WANT TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE.
you gave bust 2 chances but you CONSERVATIVES wont drop your guns and prejudices long enough to LET HIM GIVE US HEALTHCARE WE HAVE A NATIONAL RIGHT TO. \he said he would bring change and he did.


Oh my god. I laughed out loud at work.

[Manicapathy]

all i know is OBAMA IS DOING GOOD YOU PEOPLE JUST DONT WANT TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE.
you gave bust 2 chances but you CONSERVATIVES wont drop your guns and prejudices long enough to LET HIM GIVE US HEALTHCARE WE HAVE A NATIONAL RIGHT TO. \he said he would bring change and he did.

Oh, where do I begin:

1. tAlVKgl_zCQ

2. Name 1 significant change he has brought to this country, and how it has personally affected you.

I like the guy, I think he's doing a fine job as president, bet it seems to me that he really hasn't brought all that much changing, as you claim he has.

[loveisdead]

Oh, where do I begin:

1. tAlVKgl_zCQ

2. Name 1 significant change he has brought to this country, and how it has personally affected you.

I like the guy, I think he's doing a fine job as president, bet it seems to me that he really hasn't brought all that much changing, as you claim he has.
If he hasn't brought, or tried to bring, significant change, then why are republicans so opposed to him?

[Noldor]

you guys just dont get it. you sheeple are so blinded by your racism you wont even accept that A BLACK MAN, YES BLACK MAN is president and things are already better and it would get better faster if GOPers would stop blocking obama in the senate.

[Manicapathy]

If he hasn't brought, or tried to bring, significant change, then why are republicans so opposed to him?

They fear, or at least don't like change. They oppose some of the ideas he proposes (healthcare, increased government size, more socialist ideas) and they don't want to loose their political power or influence.

[Manicapathy]

you guys just dont get it. you sheeple are so blinded by your racism you wont even accept that A BLACK MAN, YES BLACK MAN is president and things are already better and it would get better faster if GOPers would stop blocking obama in the senate.

He's black......no way! This is news to me.

Hey everybody, a black guy got elected president!

[Noldor]

He's black......no way! This is news to me.

Hey everybody, a black guy got elected president!


uh you should really pay attention to the news like i do instead of watching glen beck all day long in your trailer

[loveisdead]

They fear, or at least don't like change. They oppose some of the ideas he proposes (healthcare, increased government size, more socialist ideas) and they don't want to loose their political power or influence.

So he has made change or tried to make changes that were blocked by republicans.

[Manicapathy]

So he has made change or tried to make changes that were blocked by republicans.

There was the health care bill that went through......that's about the only one that I can really think of that wasn't blocked.

[loveisdead]

There was the health care bill that went through......that's about the only one that I can really think of that wasn't blocked.

Well I'm confused. Wasn't your original point that he hasn't brought any change?

[Manicapathy]

Well I'm confused. Wasn't your original point that he hasn't brought any change?

Allow me to clarify then: He's trying to get stuff done, and a great deal of it gets blocked. What isn't blocked doesn't end up bringing much change (as far as i can tell).

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

you guys just dont get it. you sheeple are so blinded by your racism you wont even accept that A BLACK MAN, YES BLACK MAN is president and things are already better and it would get better faster if GOPers would stop blocking obama in the senate.

Sir, if you want to make valid points, it is best to learn proper English, or else no one will take you seriously. Name calling will get you nowhere.

[<*)))><]

I wish I could troll half as good as that guy.

[Love As Arson]

Expand on this more, I'm not familiar with what you're trying to say.
Libertarians argue that government is unjustified power, yet see the market as something universally good. As such, they either refuse to acknowledge it as having power, see its power as justified, despite the fact that we can never evaluate whether or not this is the case; or they say, while it is flawed, it is the best possible system of all systems which may have come into existence.

[repr1ze]

Libertarians argue that government is unjustified power, yet see the market as something universally good. As such, they either refuse to acknowledge it as having power, see its power as justified, despite the fact that we can never evaluate whether or not this is the case; or they say, while it is flawed, it is the best possible system of all systems which may have come into existence.

It is justified because its power is through voluntary exchange, not coercive taxation.

[Love As Arson]

It is justified because its power is through voluntary exchange, not coercive taxation.
If I reject participation in the market, then I starve. Even in a libertarian model, the choices provided are either creating one's own business, which isn't feasible since monopolies are acceptable, or selling one's labor. One can argue that this is not the case, because people would have more money to engage in various business ventures and so forth, but what does that mean if there is no change in the internal dynamics of capitalism or any attempt to get rid of the historical advantages the ruling class has had? We can't take them away because, as libertarians argue, it is their property and they should be free to do as they wish. So, in the practical application, we would have gotten rid of all sorts of government powers, but the dominant strata of society would persist and with a greater ability to exploit because the only recourse available to the consumer is not democratic at all, it is where they shop. As I said, however, with no change to that which was accumulated in the past, the consumer will likely be dealing with fiercely entrenched/limited outlets. One can chalk this up to life not being fair, but then do not pretend that the ideology is at all in the interests of the average person.

[GeeBee]

If I reject participation in the market, then I starve. Even in a libertarian model, the choices provided are either creating one's own business, which isn't feasible since monopolies are acceptable, or selling one's labor. One can argue that this is not the case, because people would have more money to engage in various business ventures and so forth, but what does that mean if there is no change in the internal dynamics of capitalism or any attempt to get rid of the historical advantages the ruling class has had? We can't take them away because, as libertarians argue, it is their property and they should be free to do as they wish. So, in the practical application, we would have gotten rid of all sorts of government powers, but the dominant strata of society would persist and with a greater ability to exploit because the only recourse available to the consumer is not democratic at all, it is where they shop. As I said, however, with no change to that which was accumulated in the past, the consumer will likely be dealing with fiercely entrenched/limited outlets. One can chalk this up to life not being fair, but then do not pretend that the ideology is at all in the interests of the average person.

Paramount.

[Tec Mason]

Libertarians argue that government is unjustified power, yet see the market as something universally good. As such, they either refuse to acknowledge it as having power, see its power as justified, despite the fact that we can never evaluate whether or not this is the case; or they say, while it is flawed, it is the best possible system of all systems which may have come into existence.

At least you understand us! :-d

I see it as power justified. Basically, in a world of heterogeneous, finite resources, There will always be some person or people who have more control over those finite resources than other people. If you believe it is possible for all people to have equal power over finite resources, then our ideologies are incompatible. Luckily for us, humans do not all share the same desire to control the same amount of physical resources. Different people prefer different styles of living and amounts of control (think Amish farmer vs. CEO). The Market (short hand for "the nexus of people trading stuff with each other") Allows resources to be traded between parties so that everyone can attempt to maximize their utility (happiness).

[loveisdead]

I very much look forward to a Dom and tec debate.

[Tec Mason]

If I reject participation in the market, then I starve. Even in a libertarian model, the choices provided are either creating one's own business, which isn't feasible since monopolies are acceptable, or selling one's labor. One can argue that this is not the case, because people would have more money to engage in various business ventures and so forth, but what does that mean if there is no change in the internal dynamics of capitalism or any attempt to get rid of the historical advantages the ruling class has had? We can't take them away because, as libertarians argue, it is their property and they should be free to do as they wish. So, in the practical application, we would have gotten rid of all sorts of government powers, but the dominant strata of society would persist and with a greater ability to exploit because the only recourse available to the consumer is not democratic at all, it is where they shop. As I said, however, with no change to that which was accumulated in the past, the consumer will likely be dealing with fiercely entrenched/limited outlets. One can chalk this up to life not being fair, but then do not pretend that the ideology is at all in the interests of the average person.

Oh boy this is going to take a while :-) . Ill try to keep it short.

TL;DR: In a world of finite resources and heterogeneous desires, free trade allows people to attempt to maximize their happiness without coercing others using their comparative advantage and labor to satisfy their desires. Such a society in its pure form is a rulerless society. Capitalists in our current society are rarely acting without the help of the government, and can rarely be used as an example of "the free market."

A) remember that "the market" isn't a thing, it is just short hand for "people trading stuff with each other. So the opposite of your claim "If I reject participation in the market, I starve" is "If I trade with others, I am better off." I completely and utterly agree with this statement, that people are better off trading with each other than attempting to do everything themselves. This is known as comparative advantage. Some people can do stuff better than others, so instead of making everything yourself, you trade what you are good at producing with what someone else is good at producing so that you both have more stuff that you both want at a lower cost.

B) I do disagree though that you will necessarily starve if you refrain from trading. Yes, you may be reduced to an agricultural life or one of subsistence, but this is not the fault of other people trading with each other voluntarily (the market), this is the fault of living on a planet with finite, heterogeneous resources that do not always match up with our wants and needs in space-time. More clearly, we have certain desires such as being full, being hydrated, having shelter, but these desires are rarely met with an immediate satisfaction by physical resources. In fact, we must set aside time and resources and expend labor in order to satisfy the desires. It is possible that you have the desire to have shelter and there is a cave nearby, lucky you. But usually in order to satisfy this desire, you must build your shelter you want, which costs time, labor, and resources. It isn't necessarily true that you will starve if you refuse to trade with others, many people who are sympathetic to you might give you food out of charity, you could also find food or produce it yourself as many humans did for tens of thousands of years. The only reason people choose to trade what they produce is because they see themselves as better off by doing so.

C) Concerning the "ruling class": I think that we are at a great disagreement on this point. Yes, we both agree their should be no ruling class, but I think that capitalists (in the pure definition of those who own capital) are not "ruling" anybody, whereas you mostly likely see the owners of the factors of production as rulers. Im our current system of Government controlled and sanctioned capitalism, yes their are absolutly injustices in the way capital and factors of production are utilized. CEOs and company boards are often times paying off government buricrats and regulators to give them more power that they wouldn't have in the free market (perfect example is AIG, which would be 6 feet under if market forcecs were allowed to function). Back to real capitalists. A capitalist is someone who has sacrificed consumption in order to save enough purchasing power to acquire some structures of production. We immediately think of some fat cat watching workers slave in a factor for next to nothing, but we have to ask How did the cat get fat? Historically, it is often due to the government granting them unjust control over resources (government Copyright, Patent, and Intellectual Property laws are a huge contributing factor). Now, if the fat cat got fat (Dr. Suess? lol) from voluntary trading of labor for money, then I see nothing wrong with his fatness. First of all, he had to innitially go without consuption in order to produce savings which he could then use to aquire capital. This is a sacrifice that anyone can make in a free society. The owners of factories and production lines are not a ruling class because both parties (the laborer and the capitalist) are benefiting from the trade. There is no imposition happening. Suppose that I enjoy when you sing, so I pay you a snickers bar that I had saved in my room to you to hear your voice. In this scenario, you are laboring for me and I am paying you a wage of one snickers bar. certainly we wouldn't call the snickers bar-giver the "ruler" would we? after all, both parties are benefiting from the trade, and both parties are laboring. The snickers-bar-giver labored in the past to save enough money to get a snickers bar, while the singer labors in the present to get it.

D) We can take away the power of the capitalists. Capitalists (owners of capital and the factors of production) need laborers to achieve their goal. This gives labor its demand. In a free society, you are allowed to refuse to labor for someone. The tricky part for us laborers is that there are so many of us, that if you refuse to work for a certain wage, someone else might. If I refuse to work for 5$ an hour, I am allowed to refuse to work. If You choose to work for 5$ an hour, then you will take my spot (assuming you are worth the same to the employer). This pisses allot of laborers off because their self interest to hold out for more money is undermined by another person's acceptance of less money. There is a point though where laborers will reach their reservation wage (the point which they refuse to work for less money and would rather quit). Capitalists in a free market cannot force you to work under this wage, only you can lower your subjective reservation wage. Also, it should be noted that If you believe that a capitalist is being unfair with the way she runs her factors of production, you are more than welcome to save your own capital and open your own factory which is run according to the Marxist philosophy you ascribe to. In a free market, socialists are more than welcome to try and run their capital the way they choose, so long as it isn't forcing anyone else to accept their way of life. If it clearly the superior way to run society, then it will attract more and more people until it takes over the whole territory. this is compatible with a free market.

E) I think I will have to argue against democracy in another thread, that would take up to much space.

Thanks for getting back to me Arson, you are certainly an intelligent debater who has at least thought out the conclusions to both sides. This post was Edited twice. I took a sentence out, and added a TL;DR.

[Tec Mason]

I mentioned that anyone can save in order to acquire capital, but i forgot to mention the obvious rebuttal that the playing field is not even. many people are born with access to more capital than others, which leaves a "dynasty" of property ownership that can be confused with a ruling dynasty (think Rockefeller family). I understand that allot of hatred for capitalism comes from the favoritism bestowed on people for simply being born to the right parents or in the right circumstances. Often people get mad that children just inherit the wealth their parents had and see this as a continuation of an unjust ruling dynasty.

I disagree. First, we must remember that "wealth" is a subjective thing, we see others and say they are wealthier because they have more money or power, but this does not necessarily mean they are happier or better off. It is easy to point to the rich and say they have it better off, but it is not necessarily true. Often times, the rich have to deal with so many different problems (the costs of maintaining their wealth) that it often isnt worth it to other people. Mo' money, Mo' problems.

[Love As Arson]

Basically, in a world of heterogeneous, finite resources, There will always be some person or people who have more control over those finite resources than other people. If you believe it is possible for all people to have equal power over finite resources, then our ideologies are incompatible. Luckily for us, humans do not all share the same desire to control the same amount of physical resources. Different people prefer different styles of living and amounts of control (think Amish farmer vs. CEO). The Market (short hand for "the nexus of people trading stuff with each other") Allows resources to be traded between parties so that everyone can attempt to maximize their utility (happiness).
I don't think it can be discussed without getting into the specifics regarding resources. Food, for example. It is possible to feed every individual in the world and there are methods, which many who speak about food politics put forward, that make create an equilibrium between human eating habits and the environment in which they live. Where a breakdown occurs is the subjection of this food to a market whereby it becomes a commodity and is exchanged with prices that reflect a false sense of scarcity. This would be a case of unjust power and an example why the process should be oriented towards democratic control, with the interests focused on providing for the everyone. Non-renewable fuels would be an example of finite resources. Obviously an abundance of those fuels reside in certain areas rather than others, but that doesn't negate equal control over resources. Recognizing it is unsustainable in the long-term, a society with no profit motive would have no qualms with exploring other energy options; there would be no cartel to hinder the technological process of alternative transportation/fuels. In short, the nature of the resource doesn't preclude democratic control, rather, the nature of socialism transforms the way in which we approach resources. The last point I would make is that, while it is true that different people prefer different styles of life, it would also be true to say capitalist relations affect even the Amish farmer. For example, he might lose his farm if he cannot manage to sell the things he spent his life cultivating.

[Tec Mason]

a society with no profit motive would have no qualms with exploring other energy options; there would be no cartel to hinder the technological process of alternative transportation/fuels.

We probably differ in what we call "profit." Profit, to me, is the extra benefits you gain after expending a certain cost. If I spend my time and labor in making a ham sandwich, and the sandwich is as good or better than I expected, then I made a profit. If the meat was bad or the bread was stale and it did not reach my expectations, then I would be at a loss ( i would have been better off not making the sandwich and doing something else). Profits in the money sense is no different. A profit is when you input a cost and you revenue is higher than the costs you put in.

I do not believe that it is impossible to remove the profit motive in this sense from human beings. If you do believe that humans are capable of acting without the desire to improve their life by receiving more benefits than the costs they spent, then we probably could never come to an agreement. Even in a democratically controlled society, people will attempt to use the system to benefit themselves.

I would further argue that if the profit motive was suppressed, we would have a much lower standard of living. Profits do not hinder technological improvements and alternative energies, they encourage it. The only alternative energies which are not adopted are those which are believed to bring in lower revenue than the costs put into them. The government distorts these incentives by artificially propping up fossil fuel companies and discouraging innovation in the market place. With the government stealing from you and giving to the oil companies, the oil companies have less of an incentive to change their habits.

[Tec Mason]

I guess the point of all of this debate is I am trying to convince you that what we have now is not "the market in action." The State distorts incentives out of political self interest and props up failing industries that squander resources. In a true profit and loss system, in the absence of this territorial monopolist in arbitration, the world would look much different.

When I say "the market = people volentarily trading their stuff for other people's stuff" and someone rebuts that the free market is terrible, I often wonder if they are truely desiring to stop people from freely trading with each other. My guess is, they see our current bastardization of markets, and see it as Capitalism = bad. this leads them to think that democracy would offer a much better alternative. But Democracy always involves the oppression of the minority for the whims of the majority. It is hard for me to see the appeal of stoping free trade.

Can you explain to me how stopping free trade is a good thing?

Do you agree that Democracy necessarily oppresses the minority?

[open mind]

I guess the point of all of this debate is I am trying to convince you that what we have now is not "the market in action." The State distorts incentives out of political self interest and props up failing industries that squander resources. In a true profit and loss system, in the absence of this territorial monopolist in arbitration, the world would look much different.

When I say "the market = people volentarily trading their stuff for other people's stuff" and someone rebuts that the free market is terrible, I often wonder if they are truely desiring to stop people from freely trading with each other. My guess is, they see our current bastardization of markets, and see it as Capitalism = bad. this leads them to think that democracy would offer a much better alternative. But Democracy always involves the oppression of the minority for the whims of the majority. It is hard for me to see the appeal of stoping free trade.

Can you explain to me how stopping free trade is a good thing?

Do you agree that Democracy necessarily oppresses the minority?

my rationalization is much simpler. people are greedy assholes and without some rules they will happily destroy civilization if there's a buck to be made.

[<*)))><]

my rationalization is much simpler. people are greedy assholes and without some rules they will happily destroy civilization if there's a buck to be made.
If you destroy society then you can't make two bucks.

Edit: I like Tec

[open mind]

If you destroy society then you can't make two bucks.

Edit: I like Tec

yeah but greedy bastards have a way of being to short sighted to realize that.......just look at the number of crippling depressions america went through before we smartened up and realized more regulation was needed.

[<*)))><]

yeah but greedy bastards have a way of being to short sighted to realize that.......just look at the number of crippling depressions america went through before we smartened up and realized more regulation was needed.
I actually think regulation caused the finical crisis because the banks were forced to give out loans to be people who didn't deserve them.

[Disconsolate]

my rationalization is much simpler. people are greedy assholes and without some rules they will happily destroy civilization if there's a buck to be made.
Hi Thomas Hobbes :).

You're implying that without a third party, the state, people would constantly be at each other's throats ultimately decaying into ruin. That is, everybody is a greedy wolf and unless we have a 3rd party wolf (who must be greedy be your own definition) to foster peace, the wolves will constantly be fighting one another. This is quite perplexing because why would anyone ever want cooperation? After all people are selfish greedy assholes only looking out for theirselves.

Your observation of people is flawed. People are indeed selfish, they want more than less, and through this they realize the advantages of cooperation, through division of labor, are greater than they could be under self-sufficiency. Self-interest quickly gives way to cooperation.

Although, true, some may demand chaos and destruction, but as I've shown it is hardly a logical majority. In fact, as shown above, more would demand cooperation and peace, so much that we demand organizations to prevent those who foolishly demand chaos and destruction from fulfilling their desires.

[Disconsolate]

yeah but greedy bastards have a way of being to short sighted to realize that.......just look at the number of crippling depressions america went through before we smartened up and realized more regulation was needed.
I'm so happy that we now live in a world, thanks to regulations, that no longer experience economic recession.

[Scrandon]

I actually think regulation caused the finical crisis because the banks were forced to give out loans to be people who didn't deserve them.

How do you people make this stuff up?

Guess what? Investors make more money when they give out more loans, they have incentives to do so, they were not being forced by anything other than their own greed.

[Disconsolate]

How do you people make this stuff up?

Guess what? Investors make more money when they give out more loans, they have incentives to do so, they were not being forced by anything other than their own greed.
No they make more money when they give out loans that will be repaid. They don't make money simply by giving out more loans.

Why were they giving out loans that were so insanely risky is the question we must be asking. Sure we can chalk it up to some easy, "GREED!!" answer, but that's no fun. Also, if greed were even close to a legitimate reason then we'd perpetually be in economic turmoil.

In fact, the reason they even make those loans to begin with is because the government took away the chance of loss.

Let's say I give you two options:
You can make a safe loan with a 1% return turning $100 into $101. The chance of failure is really low, and more than likely you'll be getting your $100 back plus $1.

OR you can make a risky loan with a 50% return turning $100 into $150. The chance of failure, however, is really high.

How do you decide? Well that's based on your own personal preferences. You may get some sick fun out of being risky making the higher risk loan wiser, or you may not.

What if I came along and told you that no matter which loan you made you'll be getting your money back (even if it failed!). You'd obviously pick the riskier loan. In an environment of government subsidizing losses you get riskier behavior. Compound that with an environment of government flooding the economy with cheap credit and you've got a nice recipe for economic disaster.

edit: But of course these silly regulations have nothing to do with it and it's all because people got greedy.

[<*)))><]

How do you people make this stuff up?

Guess what? Investors make more money when they give out more loans, they have incentives to do so, they were not being forced by anything other than their own greed.
What do you mean you people?

One of the causes to the subprime mortgage is the Transactions Parity Act that created adjustable rate mortgage's. Then there the Community Reinvestment Act that encouraged banks to give loans to people who could not pay them back. So it basically created loans with raising interest that could not be payed back to people who couldn't pay it back anyway. Also does this have anything to do with libertarianism?

[Scrandon]

No they make more money when they give out loans that will be repaid. They don't make money simply by giving out more loans.
When mortgages securities are packaged together and traded in the mortgage market, yes they do make more money simply by having more mortgages to trade. Simple supply and demand. Demand was tremendous to invest in mortgage securities, and banks needed to keep up with the supply.
Why were they giving out loans that were so insanely risky is the question we must be asking. Sure we can chalk it up to some easy, "GREED!!" answer, but that's no fun. Also, if greed were even close to a legitimate reason then we'd perpetually be in economic turmoil.
To an extent, most of the investors were to shortsighted to realize that these loans were insanely risky. Keep in mind, these loans were mostly mortgages, in which case the bank considered that in the worst case scenario, someone would completely default on their loan and the bank would re-possess their house. In a tremendous display of shortsightedness, banks assumed that in these cases, the house they re-possessed would be worth even more than the original loan amount, based on the assumption that housing prices were going to increase forever, essentially.
In fact, the reason they even make those loans to begin with is because the government took away the chance of loss.

Yet they still lost billions, how does that work out?
Let's say I give you two options:
You can make a safe loan with a 1% return turning $100 into $101. The chance of failure is really low, and more than likely you'll be getting your $100 back plus $1.

OR you can make a risky loan with a 50% return turning $100 into $150. The chance of failure, however, is really high.
As demonstrated above, this is not an apt scenario because the bank would always have the option of repossessing a house that ends up being worth more than the original loan amount.
How do you decide? Well that's based on your own personal preferences. You may get some sick fun out of being risky making the higher risk loan wiser, or you may not.

What if I came along and told you that no matter which loan you made you'll be getting your money back (even if it failed!). You'd obviously pick the riskier loan. In an environment of government subsidizing losses you get riskier behavior.
Not if that same government sets in place proper regulations to curb risky, greedy, hubris investing.
Compound that with an environment of government flooding the economy with cheap credit and you've got a nice recipe for economic disaster.

edit: But of course these silly regulations have nothing to do with it and it's all because people got greedy.

Economic history has shown that your edit is the truest thing you have ever said. All you need to do is look through the economic cycles over the last century, compare that with the dominant economic philosophy at the time, and you can clearly see what works better.

Obviously your theory could have caused the recession, but that simply is not what the facts show.
Source (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money)

[Scrandon]

What do you mean you people?
People who tend to ignore the facts and come up with theories that fit their world view.
One of the causes to the subprime mortgage is the Transactions Parity Act that created adjustable rate mortgage's. Then there the Community Reinvestment Act that encouraged banks to give loans to people who could not pay them back. So it basically created loans with raising interest that could not be payed back to people who couldn't pay it back anyway.
1977 and 1982. Two laws from decades ago did not cause our current economic recession.
If anything you are pointing to a trend of deregulation of the banking industry that led to the crisis, and in that case you would be right. However keep in mind that the deregulation has been much more far-reaching that two laws from the Carter years.

In addition, I assure you that both of those laws were lobbied very heavily by the financial industry because banks wanted to be able to do what was set up in the law.

Also does this have anything to do with libertarianism?
Government regulation of the economy is very pertinent to the issue of libertarianism.

[Scrandon]

I love how those two laws are being thrown around by people as the cause of the recession. Then they have the cajones to say that government intervention is bad, when those two laws are clear evidence of de-regulation in the economy.

[Machu505]

Scrandon, you may have redeemed yourself in my mind.

If only I knew more about all this economic bullshit. :-(