Why Libertarianism is Better Than That Other Crap

[Drifterwood]

I thought Nick's tea party had something to do with Alice in Wonderland.

 

[slurper_la]

...I believe that anarcho-capitalism is the greatest ideal... My focus is on reducing the size and scope of the state, not pursuing ideals...

so cute; so uninformed


turn your attention to recent history (although perhaps ancient to a 25 yr old)

consider the failed experiment that was Chile beginning in 1973 with the CIA controlled overthrow of Allende and the installation of Pinochet.

Economist Milton Freidman and his ilk had their philosophies thrashed.

 

[Mensch1351]

lolol


Interesting ethos; Every man is an island expected to live by a code of honor and mutual trust and respect... Well, except corporatists. They can do whatever they damn well please to control the lives of millions, and it's a-ok.


Reminds me of an old adage I heard somewhere along the way... Simple minds can only understand simple solutions.

Or the "golden rule" -- "them that has the gold -- rule!"

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

Are you serious? What are you even doing here? You do realize this is the Politics forum, don't you?

' not american, 'ill get into the rest as soon as i have time.

 

[ECUBiBoy]

so cute; so uninformed


turn your attention to recent history (although perhaps ancient to a 25 yr old)

consider the failed experiment that was Chile beginning in 1973 with the CIA controlled overthrow of Allende and the installation of Pinochet.

Economist Milton Freidman and his ilk had their philosophies thrashed.

Well, there are some nice rules of logic that actually do go back to ancient history. Take for example the logical fallacy of ad hominem attacks. That rule has been around a while.

You mention Milton Friedman's influence on Pinochet's ideology for Chile. Friedman is a hardcore defender of central banking (see monetarism), which Chile of course used. A true libertarian society would be devoid of the money manipulation of central banks. You can't seriously consider Pinochet a libertarian (or a capitalist).

Oh, and, END THE FED!!!!

 

[ECUBiBoy]

And ideology and blind party loyalty trump reality, even when they work against your own self-interest.

Yes, philosophical political discussions are soo useful right now. Who are you getting the "right ideas" out to? Who's listening to you? What good is it doing? You better start worrying about elections, because whether or not you noticed from your lofty academic tower, we're in a crisis here. Wake up. This ship is on the rocks. This is not politics as usual, and what happens from here forward will affect the country and all of us in profound, fundamental ways. Including you. For a long time to come, or as long as the people and the country can survive being bled to death. And unless you're worth many, many millions or billions, you're not going to like it very much. If the corporatists seal their permanent lock on power, which they are on the verge of doing, all your philosophizing won't amount to squat. There won't be a do over.

This country, which used to be something admirable, was founded on ideas. Look at the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine's Common Sense, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, etc. These are ideas, not elections. Elections boil down to choosing between two horrible alternatives, trying to nab the lesser of two evils.

The corporatists can be defeated. You certainly aren't going to vote them away. We have to get people educated about things like fractional reserve banking, real money versus paper, and excessive debt at every level. More than anything, we need people to realize how wicked the Fed is. We've abolished central banks in the past. We need to do it again.

 

[slurper_la]

...The corporatists can be defeated. You certainly aren't going to vote them away. We have to get people educated about things like fractional reserve banking, real money versus paper, and excessive debt at every level. More than anything, we need people to realize how wicked the Fed is. We've abolished central banks in the past. We need to do it again.

In this you make sense and I agree.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Any political solution that allows the wealthy to continue to have two different ways to influence government, while everyone else only has one way, will lead us to the same destructive results we're getting now. For a democracy to function, ALL VOTES MUST BEAR EQUAL WEIGHT. Right now, we don't have that.

In America, we know that everyone can influence government with their vote on election day. This idea of one man = one vote is the cornerstone of democracy. But thanks to the corrupting of the system over time with jibberish concepts like "corporations= people" and "money=free speech", the wealthy now have TWO ways to influence government, while everyone else still just has one. Not only can the wealthy vote for their favored candidate or position the same as everyone else, the wealthy have access to a MUCH more powerful system of government control; they can literally buy control of a candidate or agenda by "investing" in it with "campaign donations". It is this stark inequality in the political power a wealthy man wields in our political system, compared to that of any other voter that is the problem.

It is this perversion of the system that allows a minute fraction of the population to control everyone else, by directly controlling the candidates and agenda the country is permitted to vote on in the first place. So long as it is legal in America for this one tiny fraction of the population to directly decide the "input" of our political process by literally buying it, they will always control the outcome of that political process.

We don't need a change in ideology, we need a change in the execution of the ideology we've already got. We need to go back to the 'one man = one vote' system that got us here. 'One dollar = one vote' doesn't work and will never work.

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

I wouldn't assert class as the primary vehicle with which all social interaction stems from, but individuals as sole units of analysis equally confounds quite a lot of empirical work. Think about the implication of this. If individuals were the only worthwhile unit of analysis, how could we possibly generalize or even find meaningful patterns encompassing a wide range of social behavior?

For that matter, how does the libertarian's primary emphasis of broader non-intervention logically follow from the assertion of the individual? Isn't it self-defeating in a sense that libertarians, committing themselves to a shared political and economic ideology, inadvertently coalesce themselves into a group with which to act out their desired vision? Are there are any other definitions of an inappropriately intervening entity besides federal government? What analogues exist for functioning societies upon which libertarianism is based and heavily promoted? If you could point on out, that'd be an interesting read.

And, for that matter, beyond simple notions of "leave me alone," how does the assumption that, if let to one's own devices, that humanity would act out the good, the virtuous, and the worthwhile? Given how depraved people can get in modern society, I'm probably more blown away at this than the governmental stance.

Be that as it may, the correlation between individuals espousing this ideology and the possession of significant amounts of material and economic capital is staggering.

 

[ECUBiBoy]

I wouldn't assert class as the primary vehicle with which all social interaction stems from, but individuals as sole units of analysis equally confounds quite a lot of empirical work. Think about the implication of this. If individuals were the only worthwhile unit of analysis, how could we possibly generalize or even find meaningful patterns encompassing a wide range of social behavior?

For that matter, how does the libertarian's primary emphasis of broader non-intervention logically follow from the assertion of the individual? Isn't it self-defeating in a sense that libertarians, committing themselves to a shared political and economic ideology, inadvertently coalesce themselves into a group with which to act out their desired vision? Are there are any other definitions of an inappropriately intervening entity besides federal government? What analogues exist for functioning societies upon which libertarianism is based and heavily promoted? If you could point on out, that'd be an interesting read.

And, for that matter, beyond simple notions of "leave me alone," how does the assumption that, if let to one's own devices, that humanity would act out the good, the virtuous, and the worthwhile? Given how depraved people can get in modern society, I'm probably more blown away at this than the governmental stance.

Be that as it may, the correlation between individuals espousing this ideology and the possession of significant amounts of material and economic capital is staggering.

Individualism implies non-interventionism because interventionism always amounts to some kind of individual rights violation. If nothing else, it violates the individual's right to self-autonomy.

Even when individuals do things in groups, it's still about individuals. There's no such thing as "group decision making." All motivations, purposes, values, decisions, judgments, and interpretations are done by individuals. This does not, as the Randians claim, imply a "rational self-interest," but it is the only way to get to the bottom of human behavior.

How do we know people would behave justly in the absence of government? We would handle policing, arbitration, and other judicial functions privately. It may seem like an imperfect system of justice, but justice depends on the committment of all involved anyway. In a just society, nefarious folks would become social pariahs if they violated the rights of others. Overall, I think our current judicial system is wrought with corruption and evil.

Your point about individualists possessing high levels of wealth seems rather moot. If what you said is true, then all people would need to do is espouse individualism to become rich. Of course, that wouldn't happen since that relationship is clearly spurious. I predict that our world will not see a leveling of the economic playing field (the gap between rich and poor individuals) until violent aggression and political thievery are curtailed.

 

[ECUBiBoy]

Any political solution that allows the wealthy to continue to have two different ways to influence government, while everyone else only has one way, will lead us to the same destructive results we're getting now. For a democracy to function, ALL VOTES MUST BEAR EQUAL WEIGHT. Right now, we don't have that.

In America, we know that everyone can influence government with their vote on election day. This idea of one man = one vote is the cornerstone of democracy. But thanks to the corrupting of the system over time with jibberish concepts like "corporations= people" and "money=free speech", the wealthy now have TWO ways to influence government, while everyone else still just has one. Not only can the wealthy vote for their favored candidate or position the same as everyone else, the wealthy have access to a MUCH more powerful system of government control; they can literally buy control of a candidate or agenda by "investing" in it with "campaign donations". It is this stark inequality in the political power a wealthy man wields in our political system, compared to that of any other voter that is the problem.

It is this perversion of the system that allows a minute fraction of the population to control everyone else, by directly controlling the candidates and agenda the country is permitted to vote on in the first place. So long as it is legal in America for this one tiny fraction of the population to directly decide the "input" of our political process by literally buying it, they will always control the outcome of that political process.

We don't need a change in ideology, we need a change in the execution of the ideology we've already got. We need to go back to the 'one man = one vote' system that got us here. 'One dollar = one vote' doesn't work and will never work.

Well, you're on to something when you talk about democracy being the advantage of the richer. This is precisely why it should be abandoned (in favor of anarchism). There is no way to solve its problems. As long as there exists a state that fails to respect private property, there will be a state that bribes the people with its own money. By the way, even if votes do have equal weight, you can still have mob rule. Democracy is flawed to the core. We've only worshipped this form of government for a few hunrded years. It's not entirely unlikely that we'll change our minds about it.

The only way all of this voting business will work is if we all agree never to vote on things that involve wealth redistribution. It makes perfect sense that MANY things should not be left to popular vote (i.e., whether to stone people to death). We need to include voting on aggressive force among those.

I don't trust corporations either. I greatly prefer entrepreneurs that work as their own bosses. We rarely bail out individuals.

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

Well, you're on to something when you talk about democracy being the advantage of the richer. This is precisely why it should be abandoned (in favor of anarchism). There is no way to solve its problems. As long as there exists a state that fails to respect private property, there will be a state that bribes the people with its own money. By the way, even if votes do have equal weight, you can still have mob rule. Democracy is flawed to the core. We've only worshipped this form of government for a few hunrded years. It's not entirely unlikely that we'll change our minds about it.

The only way all of this voting business will work is if we all agree never to vote on things that involve wealth redistribution. It makes perfect sense that MANY things should not be left to popular vote (i.e., whether to stone people to death). We need to include voting on aggressive force among those.

I don't trust corporations either. I greatly prefer entrepreneurs that work as their own bosses. We rarely bail out individuals.

Anarchism hinges on the assumption that if, unbridled, people will behave with virtue and fairness in mind. This is not borne out through any sort of empirical study in my knowledge, and only partially resolved through theory. The irony is that group-process-oriented theories like advancements in exchange theory have given some ground regard giving and benevolence that wouldn't necessarily follow from rational self-interest. In fairness, I glanced at your response, so if you could spell out more articulately how anarchism is a causal factor in a statistically or significantly different sense of fairness, please do illustrate.

I also wanted to point out your remark about private property. You seem to forget that property rights and the idea of domain was QUITE the motivation for legislation in much of the 19th and 20th centuries, especially given mass industrialization and the expansion of roads and rail. Much of the early discrimination was motivated primarily by a belief of alternate economic strategies that would indeed threaten the unbridled flow of commerce. To wit, it was the private property of the incredibly wealthy individuals who led corporations that was usurped over any sorts of right, property included, of less welathy individuals.

 

[HUNGHUGE11X7]

RUBBISH !

I dunno which is MORE retarded. The pedantically robotic video linked or Libertarianism itself. Libertarianism would work just as this video has suggested if we were all robots but since we are not it would NEVER work.
Another thing to the imbeciles who created the video and for everyone ignorant to THIS reality. OBAMA is not a fukin Socialist, I wish he were but he is NOT . Nor is he A Communist, Marxist or whatever these moronic wing-nuts call him . He is a Centrist Democrat. By todays standards REAGAN would be more liberal than OBAMA .
FINLAND is a socialist nation and rarely will you find Healthier or Happier people on the planet. Their Economy is strong b/c they put PEOPLE, their citizens ahead of Corporations . GREED is what is killing America and LACK of GREED is what causes FINLAND to thrive !

~HH~

 

[HUNGHUGE11X7]

what is the tea party movement?

BILL MAHER said it best and something I have said for quite some time.

The tea-baggers are not about TAXES or the DEFICIT but about IGNORANCE !

I went to a local tea bagger get together cause I wanted to see for myself who attended and how they behaved .

I have to say about 25% of them were there for a genuine concern that the Government had gotten too big. I think you could best call them purists.
The other 75% of them were nasty, racist, uneducated and ignorant.
Don't know WHY they were screaming about paying taxes cause you can be damn sure they have not paid taxes amount to anything in some time. in FACT, NO ONE HAS !
Taxes under OBAMA have been the LOWEST they have been in FIVE DECADES !!!!
The teabag party is nothing more than a thinly disguised racist organization. NOT ENTIRELY mind you , but most of them are there b/c they cannot fathom the idea that we could have a Black president !
All these scared white boys are really showing their fear at being in a dick measuring contest with THE BLACK MAN and giving credence to that antiquated myth about the black man have a BIGGER DICK and being more powerful and this strikes at the heart of their fragile egos cause deep inside they think they can't measure UP !!!!



~HH~

 

[ECUBiBoy]

RUBBISH !

I dunno which is MORE retarded. The pedantically robotic video linked or Libertarianism itself. Libertarianism would work just as this video has suggested if we were all robots but since we are not it would NEVER work.
Another thing to the imbeciles who created the video and for everyone ignorant to THIS reality. OBAMA is not a fukin Socialist, I wish he were but he is NOT . Nor is he A Communist, Marxist or whatever these moronic wing-nuts call him . He is a Centrist Democrat. By todays standards REAGAN would be more liberal than OBAMA .
FINLAND is a socialist nation and rarely will you find Healthier or Happier people on the planet. Their Economy is strong b/c they put PEOPLE, their citizens ahead of Corporations . GREED is what is killing America and LACK of GREED is what causes FINLAND to thrive !

~HH~

He's both a socialist and a fascist. I think most of what he's said in the past (which is available if you poke around youtube for a just a few minutes) indicates he favors a redistributionist government.

Nowadays, he appears greatly fascist, as does just about every other politician that makes it to Washington. They simply do whatever is necessary to get re-elected. That amounts to dishing out bailouts to corporations and creating onerous regulations to which only said corporations can comply.

Finland and much of Scandinavia are actually considerably LESS socialist because they do not impose nearly as many labor regulations. They prevent their economies from growing further with high taxation, but they don't make businesses jump through nearly as many hoops as the U.S. does.

 

[ECUBiBoy]

Anarchism hinges on the assumption that if, unbridled, people will behave with virtue and fairness in mind. This is not borne out through any sort of empirical study in my knowledge, and only partially resolved through theory. The irony is that group-process-oriented theories like advancements in exchange theory have given some ground regard giving and benevolence that wouldn't necessarily follow from rational self-interest. In fairness, I glanced at your response, so if you could spell out more articulately how anarchism is a causal factor in a statistically or significantly different sense of fairness, please do illustrate.

I also wanted to point out your remark about private property. You seem to forget that property rights and the idea of domain was QUITE the motivation for legislation in much of the 19th and 20th centuries, especially given mass industrialization and the expansion of roads and rail. Much of the early discrimination was motivated primarily by a belief of alternate economic strategies that would indeed threaten the unbridled flow of commerce. To wit, it was the private property of the incredibly wealthy individuals who led corporations that was usurped over any sorts of right, property included, of less welathy individuals.

Since you keep mentioning empiricism and research, I get the impression you're probably connected to academe in some way or another. As I mentioned in the video, it's high time to let go of the dogmatic statistics/scientism and embrace a more a priori/deductive approach to studying human beings. Frankly, there is not a large enough sample of anarcho-capitalist societies across history to produce a meaningful analysis anyway.

Benevolence cannot be linked to the state if one takes even a cursory glance at just the past century alone. Millions upon millions dead in numerous wars, all of which were rather petty, all of which had more to do with politics and imperial ambitions - this is the legacy of the progressivism of the 20th century. Of course, this is hardly limited to that time frame. The Roman Empire wasn't a whole lot better about brutality. Europe in general is a continent of mass bloodshed.

Property rights were indeed the motivation of the Founding Fathers and left an imprint on American political ethos for a while. This of course ended in the 20th century, if not earlier with the tyrant, Lincoln. The success of America can be linked to a committment to property rights. It's downfall can be linked to Congress' protectionism of the 19th century, the Marxism of the 20th century progressives, and the imperialism and interventionism of both the progressives and neo-cons.

Yes, you are correct to point out the fascism of (some) wealthy folks in the U.S. Keep in mind, however, that their accumulation of wealth was not legitimate, but was stolen through anti-trust laws, bizarre tax structures, printing money, tariffs, and other anti-free market public policies. None of this is permissible in a libertarian/laissez faire society. You also can't even call what they had private property since it was stolen wealth. Possession is only 9/10 of the law.

 

[wallyj84]

This whole anarcho-capitalism tangent is quite stupid. I'm amazed that people fall for such ridiculous ideas.

 

[ECUBiBoy]

Why don't you explain how it is stupid? All of your posts so far have been worthless. Try to contribute something interesting rather than trolling.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Why don't you explain how it is stupid?

It's really self explanatory.

 

[HUNGHUGE11X7]

He's both a socialist and a fascist..

He is NEITHER. Those only watching those driveling dipshit money-hungry bigots BECK AND LIMBARF on FAUX NEWS, would of course believe this, especially since they lack the intelligence to know the difference and the ignorance NOT to educate themselves.

Allow me to show you HOW, it is impossible for him to be both and that he is NEITHER.

Socialism notes the conflicts between rulers and ruled - between the privileged classes and the dispossessed classes - and sides with the dispossessed. There are many strategies for this and there is a corresponding socialist movement for each strategy.

Although I despised the WALL STREET bailout, unlike others I had the common sense to know IF they did not Bail them out then millions of Americans would have found their 401Ks, Pensions & other retirement funds ERADICATED instead of taking a 20-30% blow as they did!
That said I would hardly call WALL STREET "dispossessed" so there your argument falls flat .

Fascism denies the existence of these conflicts and identifies the state with the society and the "race." Naturally, it treats opponents of the rulers as opponents of the society and the "race."

This analogy to OBAMA is just too damn stupid to warrant any explanation !

This DOES describe the Theocratic reign of terror better known as BUSH & CHENEY !

The only thing that OBAMA has done which very much reeks of Fascism and was started under the previous tyranny was the GOD AWFUL UN-AMERICAN, UNCONSTITUTIONAL & UN-PATRIOTIC
PATRIOT ACT !!!


:bj:
~HH~

P.S. By the way,
FINLAND is very much a Socialistic Nation !