Are there social benefits to libertarianism?

[Robert]

Would the Libertarians here elaborate on how your philosophy would benefit your fellow man, if at all? I mean society collectively, not your individual fellow man.

I understand the "primacy and dignity of man," blah blah, but I think you will never recruit many voters to your cause (assuming that's what you want).

Your misapprehension of (or indifference to?) what people really want is as warped as that of the communist. You don't want a powerful state, so you're never going to even try to force Libertarianism on us. And you must know that there are no Libertarian enthusiasts in any significant numbers.

So are you perhaps just a bunch of gadflies? I mean no offense. Some people just enjoy being different. No crime there. But honestly ....

[Kassad]

I'm not a libertarian, but you might want to elaborate on whether you mean American Libertarianism (laissez-faire, free market) or Libertarianism anywhere else in the world (small government, can be either right-wing or left-wing).

[ZeroNowhere]

People learn responsibility and discipline.

[Robert]

Right, I meant American Libertarianism, as informed by Ayn Rand. (If you're a Randroid, please don't jump down my throat on the threats of Libertarianism to freedom. I don't care and I don't have time to parse the differences.)


From the Lib's wesite: "In a nutshell, we are advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom."


That's what I mean. The closest Libertarians can ever come to these vague goals is to join the Reagan wing of the Republican Party, or what's left of it.

Sidenote: I ran across this (to me) hilarious French think tank today: In France, Liberté chérie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9_ch%C3%A9rie_%28association%29) ("Cherished Liberty") is a pro-liberty think tank and activist association formed in 2003. Liberté chérie gained significant publicity when it managed to draw 30,000 Parisians into the streets to demonstrate against government employees who were striking.


French Libertarians, American style; who'd a thunk it?

[IcarusAngel]

Libertaianism is not small government, anymore than colonial slave societies were "small governments," it is big government.

Having the government enforce an economic system and protect the interests of the elite is pretty much totalitarianism. Libertarians do not object to force, just to who's using it. In their society, the rich get to use force and wield their power, in proportion to how much "property" that they own. A poor person couldn't care less if his oppressor is called a "government" or a "property owner."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvuuRUYgzQ0

Here's a "Libertarian" who even admits that capitalism and its champions have come to defend nothing other than corporatism and big government. Even the term "Libertarian," which one stood for objection to all forms of tyranny and the status quo, has come to be a defense of a failed, inequitable economic model (which by the way is completely different from what traditional liberals advocated as well), whose interest it is to protect such hierarchies as intellectual property, patents, tradenames, etc. Unfortunately, the guy fails to realize that there can never be a free, "free-market" society if you will, because it always leads to monopolies.

It is not "freedom" to give corporations more power; it is "freedom" to challenge corporations and to push these instiutions to their limits, to show that they cannot be counted on in an advanced society.

Robert the Great: Read Chomsky's "Government for the Future," which outlines classical liberalism, libertarian socialism, and the two forms of statism of the twentieth century - stalinism and American corporatism - and see that libertarian socialism presents a clear, non-totalitarian form of society for the future.

Or just read online and see how American Libertarianism is flawed.
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html

"I think if you look at the present scene, the future society that I'd like to see is one where you continually do this, and continually extend the range of freedom and justice and lack of external control and greater public participation.

"The 18th century revolutions have not been consummated. Even the texts of classical liberalism were talking about things like wage slavery, people being condemned to work under command instead of working out of their own inner need and not controlling the work process. That's at the core of classical liberalism. That's all been completely forgotten. But that ought to be revived. That's very real. That means an attack on the fundamental structure of state capitalism. I think that's in order. That's not something far off in the future. In fact, we don't even have to fancy ideas about it. A lot of the ideas were articulated in the 18th century, even in what are the classical liberal texts and then later in at least the libertarian parts of the socialist movement and the anarchist movement. I think that is a very live topic which ought to be faced. A vision of a future society from the point of view would be one in which production, decisions over investment, etc., are under control. That means control though communities, through workplaces, through works councils in factories or universities, whatever organization it happens to be, federal structures which integrate things over a broader range. These are all entirely feasible developments, particularly for an advanced industrial society. The cultural background for them exists only in a very limited way but could be made to exist. That's a picture of part of a future society, it's not the only one because there are a lot of other forms of hierarchy and authority which should be eliminated. The kinds of systems that have existed are state capitalist, of the kind we're familiar with, or state bureaucratic like the Soviet system with a managerial bureaucratic military elite that commands and controls the economy from the top in a totalitarian fashion. That's fortunately collapsing. Our system is not subject to any internal challenge, but it ought to be. The picture of a future society that evolves is one that you can proceed to sketch out." Chomsky, 1990.

[JimmyJazz]

So are you perhaps just a bunch of gadflies? I mean no offense. Some people just enjoy being different. No crime there. But honestly ....

You're really dumb. Every thread you post in, you take a jab at anyone outside of the center of the mainstream of the middle. Usually I've just seen you call non-mainstream people out of touch (which is true, if tautological and therefore completely trivial), but now you're accusing libertarians of being insincere and just in it to stir up shit?

Come back when you have something other than an argumentum ad populum to make.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes. There are far better critiques of "right-Libertarianism" than just that they are not "mainstream."

There's actually a very good reason they're not mainstream, and it's not like they're exactly offering a radical change for our society or progressive politics: they want to return to what they consider to be "classical-economics," early American revolutionary politics, and so on.

The problem is they don't match up to even what so-called classical liberals actually advocated, and the founders of the US were racist and had numerous other flaws. Not to mention that there are Libertarians who still uphold racial supremacy and other baseless values.

Another big problem for right-Libertarians is that free-market, deregulated societies have often been worse than social democracies - even in regards to social issues, what they're supposedly "good on." So I see it as nothing more than strengthening tyrannies, not weakening them.

Libertarian-Socialism however serves as good of society as Marxism if not better, with a nice critique of capitalism as well.

[ZeroNowhere]

Libertarian-Socialism however serves as good of society as Marxism if not better, with a nice critique of capitalism as well.
Marxism is libertarian socialism.

[Robert]

You're really dumb

Incorrect, my inarticulate friend.

[Chapter 24]

Incorrect, my inarticulate friend.

His point still stands. How is it that the current system is somehow more in touch with people than (American) libertarians or communists? Why is it that Republicans and Democrats truly know more about "what people want"?

[JimmyJazz]

Incorrect, my inarticulate friend.

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc101/vtm20002000/no.gif

just try to be smarter

[Robert]

How is it that the current system is somehow more in touch with people than (American) libertarians or communists? I'll just infuriate you further with my answer, but I don't know what else to do: neither Libertarians nor Greens are getting any significant support at election time. The support for Social Democrat Barack Obama was enormous, and though some here see him as a corporate boy, I think the stats show his financial support came overwhelmingly from the grass roots. If the Greens can't come close, and the liberal democrats have to struggle against the right to maintain even a slim majority, what does that tell you?

I don't mean that the current system doesn't leave many people wanting, but those with radical alternate views are not making the slightest dent in Republicrat control, and it's roughly the same in Western Europe. Okay, folks are angry in Greece and throwing some rocks. Or were.

Guys, this is OI, right? You want to talk to commies who agree with you, so hang out in theory and philosophy. Do I go over there and complain about how many communists there are? No, because I can't get in. :laugh: But I wouldn't even if I could.

My view is that the existing system is flawed, but elastic enough to satisfy reasonable demands of the majority. The majority can even amend the constitution in the USA if they want to. But they don't want to. I'll go further and say that for able-bodied people like me, it's a perfect system because it allows me to be what I can and want to be, no more, no less (And to be honest, as an Epicurean, that isn't saying much.:laugh:)

I'm supposed to revolt against a system that works for me and everyone I know, and rally with you for some hare-brained scheme hatched in Germany 100 years ago and implemented with disastrous results in the USSR, China, Viet Nam, North Korea, and Cuba? On the off chance that "this time, it'll work!"? Even under tyranny it couldn't work. Try looking at it through that particular end of the telescope for once.

[Blackscare]

LOL @ enforcing libertarianism.

Libertarianism is the absence of the use of power. You don't force libertarianism on people, libertarianism exists when people aren't forced to adhere to any coercive ideology.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Sure, there's a helluva lot of social benefits.

If you're an heiress...

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Libertarianism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHPcTtkLECw&NR=1

[Kassad]

Elections are owned and operated by the bourgeoisie and corporate elite. They are media propaganda and they are corporate shams. If you judge a movement based on how well they do in an election, then you must be completely brain-dead.

You're viewing socialism from a narrow-minded perspective. The revolution in Russia didn't fail. Neither did China or Cuba. They were very successful and after their initial revolutions, Western colonialism and oppression took root, since nothing is more threatening to the corporate oligarchy than socialism which threatens their profits. That's why the Western capitalists consistently threaten socialist nations. They didn't fail because socialism is flawed. They failed because they had nuclear arms pointed at them and due to their lack of industrialization, which was usually caused by capitalism at some point or another, they collapsed. Let's get our facts straight, kay? Kay.

[trivas7]

Would the Libertarians here elaborate on how your philosophy would benefit your fellow man, if at all? I mean society collectively, not your individual fellow man.

In a word, laissez-faire. In one sense the progress of civilization is a progress towards greater privacy. Only capitalism understands that the individual is sovereign. Only capitalism understands that people are at their best when left to act on their own judgment for their own selfish benefit. Free markets require free minds.

[RGacky3]

Only capitalism understands that the individual is sovereign. Only capitalism understands that people are at their best when left to act on their own judgment for their own selfish benefit. Free markets require free minds.

That applies to 5% of less of the population.

[trivas7]

That applies to 5% of less of the population.
What are you implying -- that the 95% rest of the population are zombies?

[Robespierre2.0]

I'm supposed to revolt against a system that works for me and everyone I know, and rally with you for some hare-brained scheme hatched in Germany 100 years ago and implemented with disastrous results in the USSR, China, Viet Nam, North Korea, and Cuba? On the off chance that "this time, it'll work!"? Even under tyranny it couldn't work. Try looking at it through that particular end of the telescope for once.

The results were far from disastrous. These countries provided work, health care, education, and culture to everybody for free. The real disaster is when the leaders of these countries moved away from the examples set by Lenin and Stalin.

Oh, and I don't think anyone here expects you to revolt. Of course the system 'works for you'. You and everyone you know, and even me, are all parasites, living off of superprofits stolen from the third world.

The capitalists have the option of paying their workers subsistence wages, but they don't do that in the first world, because that would piss everyone off and result in them being drawn and quartered. Instead, they keep the inhuman oppression confined to the third world, where all the factories are, well out of sight, because if the workers get riled up there, we can massacre them all with smart bombs and death squads and hire replacements. Because of the exorbitant superprofits derived from this, they can afford to throw us their table scraps, bribing us, and making us unwilling to challenge the status quo.

[Lynx]

What are you implying -- that the 95% rest of the population are zombies?
That 95% are followers, like cattle?

[Bud Struggle]

Elections are owned and operated by the bourgeoisie and corporate elite. They are media propaganda and they are corporate shams. If you judge a movement based on how well they do in an election, then you must be completely brain-dead.

You're viewing socialism from a narrow-minded perspective. The revolution in Russia didn't fail. Neither did China or Cuba. They were very successful and after their initial revolutions, Western colonialism and oppression took root, since nothing is more threatening to the corporate oligarchy than socialism which threatens their profits. That's why the Western capitalists consistently threaten socialist nations. They didn't fail because socialism is flawed. They failed because they had nuclear arms pointed at them and due to their lack of industrialization, which was usually caused by capitalism at some point or another, they collapsed. Let's get our facts straight, kay? Kay.

Classic post! It's all Capitalism's fault. :thumbup:

[RGacky3]

What are you implying -- that the 95% rest of the population are zombies?

No I'm implying 95% of the population spend 8 hours or more 5 days or more of the week as slaves more the sake of survival.

[Kassad]

Classic post! It's all Capitalism's fault. :thumbup:

Wow. Maybe you're smarter than I thought.

[Merces]

Personal self-fullfillment.

[trivas7]

No I'm implying 95% of the population spend 8 hours or more 5 days or more of the week as slaves more the sake of survival.
You confuse sovereignty w/ indolence.

[RGacky3]

You confuse sovereignty w/ indolence.

Please explain. Coulud the same be said about slaves? You gotta start backing up your points.

[Conquer or Die]

In America, libertarians are allies for the legalization of weed, elimination of societal privelege on religious marriage, end of incredibly imbalanced foreign aid simply given to Israel and support for gun rights. These are important, achievable goals. Although most libertarians tend to have racist and fascist impulses, official libertarian thought would technically support strikes and protests. Though many by their own term are primitive capitalists -which means they support corporatism, imperialism, and strike breaking in addition to intellectual masturbation (owning stop lights, for instance).

Libertarianism and communism are ultimately incompatible. More freedom is possible with communism.

American Libertarianism and Social populism both have benefits to the movement.

Imperialism is the number one enemy, period. Even above fascism. I'll ally with anyone against imperialism. I hope revlefters would do the same.

[trivas7]

Although most libertarians tend to have racist and fascist impulses [...]

Please attempt to justify this statement.

[mikelepore]

Although most libertarians tend to have racist and fascist impulses

Please attempt to justify this statement

For one thing, ask a Libertarians what the source of social inequality is, and the answer you will usually get is: Some people are "naturally superior" compared to others. When allowed to compete "without interference", "the cream rises to the top." The people on the bottom "and their ilk" like to "blame" their problems on "their betters." Those judgmental terms are usually in there, alongside the incapacity to see the fact that people get assigned unequal ranks by society's synthetic institutions. Hmm, let's see, where else have we seen "natural superiority" and "natural inferiority" cited as the supposed reasons for explaining as well as justifying social inequality? Oh, yeah, racism and fascism.

For another thing, ask a Libertarian why they think some people seek social equality, and why they describe inequality as an injustice. The answer you'll almost always get back is: They're just "envious" that they're not the people who are benefiting from that inequality. Readers of political philosophy may recognize that "envy" hypothesis, because we also saw it asserted several times in Mein Kampf.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

In America, libertarians are allies for the legalization of weed, elimination of societal privelege on religious marriage, end of incredibly imbalanced foreign aid simply given to Israel and support for gun rights. These are important, achievable goals.

This is absolutely correct and something I forgot about. I was rooting for Dr Paul in the GOP primary because of the strait answer he gave to that weed question.

I will never use the federal government to prosecute someone for marijuana.

[Self-Owner]

For one thing, ask a Libertarians what the source of social inequality is, and the answer you will usually get is: Some people are "naturally superior" compared to others. When allowed to compete "without interference", "the cream rises to the top." The people on the bottom "and their ilk" like to "blame" their problems on "their betters." Those judgmental terms are usually in there, alongside the incapacity to see the fact that people get assigned unequal ranks by society's synthetic institutions. Hmm, let's see, where else have we seen "natural superiority" and "natural inferiority" cited as the supposed reasons for explaining as well as justifying social inequality? Oh, yeah, racism and fascism.

For another thing, ask a Libertarian why they think some people seek social equality, and why they describe inequality as an injustice. The answer you'll almost always get back is: They're just "envious" that they're not the people who are benefiting from that inequality. Readers of political philosophy may recognize that "envy" hypothesis, because we also saw it asserted several times in Mein Kampf.

I hope this isn't the finest in socialist reasoning these days. Can you not see the blatant ad hominem nature of these arguments?

I think socialists are really the ones with fascist leanings. Why? Well, ask a socialist what they'd like to do to the economy. The answer you'll get back is 'plan it, so it runs for social benefit rather than private benefit.' Students of history may recognise this kind of impulse, because it is exactly what we saw in the fascist regimes of Italy and Germany. Not to mention the historical fact that fascism was an outgrowth of socialism (national socialism, anyone?)

Now do you think that is a good argument?

[mikelepore]

the historical fact that fascism was an outgrowth of socialism (national socialism, anyone?)

The fact is, "socialism" and "national socialism" are antonyms. Like light and dark, up and down, hot and cold, yes and no, full and empty, high and low, "socialism" and "national socialism". The reason why there are similar names for two things that are direct opposites? Because people get to adopt any name they choose. You start a new organization, you get to make up any name at all for it.

[mikelepore]

Now do you think that is a good argument?

I don't think it is, but to say that it's a good argument would follow if there were any truth to its premise that the basis of fascism is "social benefit."

[mikelepore]

Can you not see the blatant ad hominem nature of these arguments?

No. My post compared certain other people who do use ad hominem arguments about "we are the naturally superior people; they are inferior to us", and I lumped them into the same category. That itself isn't an ad hominem argument. At worst I may have made an error in taxonomy, if they are not really in the same category.

[Self-Owner]

No. My post compared certain other people who do use ad hominem arguments about "we are the naturally superior people; they are inferior to us", and I lumped them into the same category. That itself isn't an ad hominem argument. At worst I may have made an error in taxonomy, if they are not really in the same category.

I don't think you understand what the nature of an ad hominem argument is. Saying that 'we are the naturally superior people' is not ad hom at all, whilst an argument like

1) libertarians say that inequalities are justified because some people are naturally superior
2) racists and facists say that inequalities are justified because some people are naturally superior

C) therefore libertarians are racists and facists.

really is both ad hominem and ridiculous.

But aside from your fucked up logic in arguments such as the ones you have used above, let me explain my views on inequality, in the (probably vain) hope that you'll comprehend the difference between it and the views you present libertarians as having.

I believe that people are born with differing natural endowments. I don't believe that this means that some people are superior while others are inferior in any absolute terms whatsoever. It may be true that Smith is superior in a specific sense to Jones - Smith may be superior to Jones when it comes to ability to play a musical instrument, or Jones may be superior to Smith in his ability to entertain others. But although these may be true, I do not believe it is warranted to say that Smith is superior as a person to Jones.

The reason why this justifies inequality is because, in my view, people are the morally rightful owners of their own body and the fruits of their own labour. This will lead to inequalities simply because there are differences in natural endowments and because free market economies tend to reward people whose natural endowments are more suited to serving others well. I believe these inequalities are necessary, because to 'remedy' them would be necessarily to infringe on the principle of self-ownership, which is morally rock bottom. I think that most libertarians have views closer to mine than to the ones you attribute to them.

So there, you have it. You may well try and compare my position to a racist or a fascist who wants to use the power of the state to improve the well-being of a certain group of people who he sees as being 'superior,' but then you would simply be being ignorant and/or dishonest.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

The reason why this justifies inequality is because, in my view, people are the morally rightful owners of their own body and the fruits of their own labour.

These two positions cannot be reconciled. Since my body is the fruit of my parents labor and that of my community.
If i own my labor, i do not own myself, my parents and community do.
If i own myself, i do not own my labor, since i am taking my parents labor.

This is entirely ignoring the bedrock upon which my labor is built, the natural world was built by no one, and all my labors build upon the labor of others.


This will lead to inequalities simply because there are differences in natural endowments and because free market economies tend to reward people whose natural endowments are more suited to serving others well.

The market rewards people born into privilege. Now i guess one could call that a natural endowment but it's hardly a meritocracy.


I believe these inequalities are necessary, because to 'remedy' them would be necessarily to infringe on the principle of self-ownership, which is morally rock bottom.

Morally principles that allow murder and suffering aren't very good principles.


You may well try and compare my position to a racist or a fascist who wants to use the power of the state to improve the well-being of a certain group of people who he sees as being 'superior,' but then you would simply be being ignorant and/or dishonest.

It would, your comparable in that your elitist. But that's a rather broad category to be comparable in. Specifically your elite are the rich, with nothing but money as marker of someones worth.

[mikelepore]

When confronted with the fact that some people work the longest possible hours and yet remain in poverty forever, while some other people barely lift a finger and have heaps of wealth, the so-called Libertarians explain this by citing biological superiority.

They have to, since they won't admit that property accumulation under capitalism is based mainly on random luck, which is the only other possible explanation.

Among the types of luck that result in financial success, property inheritance is the most significant, but "who you know", rumors overheard, wild guesses at things, also predominate in some cases.

Everyone can see directly that the most ambitious and productive people are the poorest, and the most idle are the wealthiest -- facts which are observed empirically and not known from theory of any kind. However, to explain why it happens, dumb luck and biological superiority are the only two conceivable answers. Having dismissed the fact that the blind luck of the roulette wheel determines "success", a claim of superiority is all that remains.

By making it a theory about biologically superiority, it's indistinguishable from a master race theory, and that is fascism.

[Lynx]

It should be clear to Libertarians that inequality on the scale witnessed under capitalism is not the result of someone being that much more endowed, or hard-working, or intelligent.

[trivas7]

The fact is, "socialism" and "national socialism" are antonyms. Like light and dark, up and down, hot and cold, yes and no, full and empty, high and low, "socialism" and "national socialism". The reason why there are similar names for two things that are direct opposites? Because people get to adopt any name they choose. You start a new organization, you get to make up any name at all for it.
Nonsense. There is an ideological connection bt Marxist socialism and National Socialism. Hitler read Marx carefully while living in Munich in 1913. They share the belief that history is a preordained succession of conflicts bt groups of people and that improvement in the human condition can come only from the victory of one group over the others. For the Nazis the conflict was Social Darwinism; for the Marxists, it was the class struggle. For the Nazis the destined victors were the Aryans; for the Marxists, they were the proletariat. The ideologies, once implemented, led to atrocities in a few steps; struggle (often a euphemism for violence) is inevitable and beneficial; certain groups of people are morally inferior; improvements in human welfare depend on their subjugation or elimination. Aside from supplying a direct justification for violent conflict, the ideology of intergroup struggle ignites a nasty feature of human social psychology: the tendency to divide people into in-groups and out-groups and to treat the out-groups as less than human. It doesn't matter whether the groups are thought to be defined by their biology or their history. Psychologists have found that they can create instant intergroup hostility by sorting people on just about ay pretext, including the flip of a coin. The ideology of group-against-group struggle explains the similar outcomes of Marxism and Nazism.

[Led Zeppelin]

Your posts get more absurd by the day.

[mikelepore]

trivas7,

A phrase like "the ideology of group-against-group struggle" is ambiguous.

Marxists identify social classes and their struggles for the purpose of taking action to discontinue the division of people into classes and discontinue the tendency to struggle. There's nothing to fault there. You don't blame a physician who fixes a fractured arm for the supposed offense of identifying the existence of the fracture.

"When the proletariat wins victory, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it wins victory only by abolishing itself and its opposite." (Marx, in _The Holy Family_, 1845) "The condition for the emancipation of the working class is the abolition of every class." (Marx, in _The Poverty of Philosophy_, 1847)

Again, this is the direct opposite of the so-called National Socialist plan of selecting supposedly naturally inferior demographic groups and then enslaving or destroying them.

One theory says that social inequality is an artificial condition created by having an administrative system that's not designed to be optimal, easily fixable by changing to a new administrative system that will allow everyone participate equally. The other theory says that it's equality that is the aberration, and it wants to push inequality to the greatest extreme. These views are direct opposites. Similarly spelled names or not, they are opposites.

[trivas7]

trivas7,
A phrase like "the ideology of group-against-group struggle" is ambiguous.

IMO social doctrines don't have opposites. Either you see the connection or you don't. Wherein lies the ambiguity, sir?

[trivas7]

It should be clear to Libertarians that inequality on the scale witnessed under capitalism is not the result of someone being that much more endowed, or hard-working, or intelligent.
What makes you think this is not clear to libertarians? Show me a libertarian arguing that social inequality is the direct result of biological endowment.

[Lynx]

What makes you think this is not clear to libertarians? Show me a libertarian arguing that social inequality is the direct result of biological endowment.
Any Libertarian who advocates capitalism and accepts the level of inequality inherent to that socio-economic system is being unclear. Meanwhile, most everybody recognizes that a worker who is physically and mentally capable of accomplishing more labour than other workers in the same occupation will earn more. That level (or form) of inequality is considered normal.

p.s. North American definition of Libertarian

[MMIKEYJ]

Would the Libertarians here elaborate on how your philosophy would benefit your fellow man, if at all? I mean society collectively, not your individual fellow man.

I understand the "primacy and dignity of man," blah blah, but I think you will never recruit many voters to your cause (assuming that's what you want).

Your misapprehension of (or indifference to?) what people really want is as warped as that of the communist. You don't want a powerful state, so you're never going to even try to force Libertarianism on us. And you must know that there are no Libertarian enthusiasts in any significant numbers.

So are you perhaps just a bunch of gadflies? I mean no offense. Some people just enjoy being different. No crime there. But honestly ....

Well, youd see alot less poverty. A lot less suffering among the people.

The govt is allowed to do alot of illegal things that you or I would get arrested for.. (counterfeiting money for example) And just as when criminals do these things they hurt people, so too when they are undertaken by the govt.

There may not be a majority of libertarians right now... But the greatest libertarians in the world were our country's founding fathers... We have miserably strayed from what America was supposed to be into something quite different.

[MMIKEYJ]

His point still stands. How is it that the current system is somehow more in touch with people than (American) libertarians or communists? Why is it that Republicans and Democrats truly know more about "what people want"?
I dont think they do know more.. The people just have allowed a cattle mentality to descend upon them over the decades... Ever since we began to destroy the Republic in 1913.

Now, TV, XBOX, laziness, easy money, have made Americans apathetic and stupid and clueless about most things.

I hate to say it, but hard times is what it will take to wake people up.

[MMIKEYJ]

In America, libertarians are allies for the legalization of weed, elimination of societal privelege on religious marriage, end of incredibly imbalanced foreign aid simply given to Israel and support for gun rights. These are important, achievable goals. Although most libertarians tend to have racist and fascist impulses, official libertarian thought would technically support strikes and protests. Though many by their own term are primitive capitalists -which means they support corporatism, imperialism, and strike breaking in addition to intellectual masturbation (owning stop lights, for instance).

Libertarianism and communism are ultimately incompatible. More freedom is possible with communism.

American Libertarianism and Social populism both have benefits to the movement.

Imperialism is the number one enemy, period. Even above fascism. I'll ally with anyone against imperialism. I hope revlefters would do the same.
Um.. wow.. I dont know what to say. Libertarianism means you are for liberty.. Communism is the opposite of this.

I dont know how you can say more freedom is possible with communism or any form of statism.

[MMIKEYJ]

When confronted with the fact that some people work the longest possible hours and yet remain in poverty forever, while some other people barely lift a finger and have heaps of wealth, the so-called Libertarians explain this by citing biological superiority.

They have to, since they won't admit that property accumulation under capitalism is based mainly on random luck, which is the only other possible explanation.

Among the types of luck that result in financial success, property inheritance is the most significant, but "who you know", rumors overheard, wild guesses at things, also predominate in some cases.

Everyone can see directly that the most ambitious and productive people are the poorest, and the most idle are the wealthiest -- facts which are observed empirically and not known from theory of any kind. However, to explain why it happens, dumb luck and biological superiority are the only two conceivable answers. Having dismissed the fact that the blind luck of the roulette wheel determines "success", a claim of superiority is all that remains.

By making it a theory about biologically superiority, it's indistinguishable from a master race theory, and that is fascism.
Ive never heard this explanation before. Nor would I or any libertarians I know believe it.

Success is rarely based upon luck. As a businessman and student on the subject, luck has nothing to do with it.

[IcarusAngel]

This latest Libertarian troll is a perfect example of Libertarians. Nothing but brainwashed one-line sloganeering.

American Libertarianism is just corporatism.

[trivas7]

Any Libertarian who advocates capitalism and accepts the level of inequality inherent to that socio-economic system is being unclear. Meanwhile, most everybody recognizes that a worker who is physically and mentally capable of accomplishing more labour than other workers in the same occupation will earn more. That level (or form) of inequality is considered normal.

Non-responsive, Lynx. You speak from prejudice.

[MMIKEYJ]

This latest Libertarian troll is a perfect example of Libertarians. Nothing but brainwashed one-line sloganeering.

American Libertarianism is just corporatism.

Who me? Im not a troll..

American Libertarianism is not corporatism.. Corporatism is fascism.

Theres probably a lot that each of us do not know about the other because of misinformation.

[trivas7]

American Libertarianism is just corporatism.
Somehow this doesn't constitute brainwashed one-line sloganeering.

[MMIKEYJ]

Somehow this doesn't constitute brainwashed one-line sloganeering.
Tolerance benefits everybody I think.. at least when discussion of opposing ideas and beliefs is involved.

[Lynx]

Non-responsive, Lynx. You speak from prejudice.I'm not going to assume anyone is a libertarian until they say "I'm a Libertarian" or "I'm an anarcho-capitalist"

[trivas7]

Ive never heard this explanation before. Nor would I or any libertarians I know believe it.

Success is rarely based upon luck. As a businessman and student on the subject, luck has nothing to do with it.
Here I'm going to concede the socialists' argument if i understand it correctly: rarely does the capitalist who is better capitalized -- however gained -- not have the upper hand in business.

[ZeroNowhere]

I dont think they do know more.. The people just have allowed a cattle mentality to descend upon them over the decades... Ever since we began to destroy the Republic in 1913.

Now, TV, XBOX, laziness, easy money, have made Americans apathetic and stupid and clueless about most things.
I'd say it had a hell of a lot more to do with schools (private or public) than 'TV', 'laziness' (which is a good thing), or the 'XBox' (which I don't really understand. Playing video games makes you apathetic and stupid and clueless?)


Ever since we began to destroy the Republic in 1913.
Wow, only by then? Shit, the republic was evidently a load of crap.


But the greatest libertarians in the world were our country's founding fathers
Correct. Chattel slavery was a great example of liberty.


I dont know how you can say more freedom is possible with communism or any form of statism.
Socialism is most certainly not a form of 'statism' (whatever the fuck that means).


Success is rarely based upon luck. As a businessman and student on the subject, luck has nothing to do with it.
Sure it is. Free will doesn't exist, therefore success of all kinds are necessarily based around luck. Not to mention inheritance, the economic situation of one's parents, crises, etc.

[Rangi]

I'd swallow all this Libertarian claptrap if the country in question (be it USA, UK, Other) were a meritocracy. A meritocracy being a state where everyone is allocated resources dependent on their worth as a productive citizen. All citizens should have the same access to resources and be on a level playing field when in competition with one another. This is not the case in any country that I have visited.

A libertarian explained to me once how he was for the legalisation of drugs and that most libertarians held the same view. He told me that if you want to do drugs then that's just fine but don't expect any help from him or your community when your drug habit gets out of control and begins to do you harm. It was your choice to do the drug and you have to live with the consequences.

I find this type of ideology selfish and insular.

[mikelepore]

The major form of luck is to be born into a wealth family, which puts you into the race already an inch from the finish line.

However, even what capitalists call the "good idea" is mainly luck. One guy gets the idea, from some undefinable intuition, that a new chain of fried chicken restaurants is the next idea that will take off, now is just the right time in our history for this idea to take off, and this is the right city to begin it. Thousands of wild guesses get made. Sometimes an idea happens to bring in a lot of money. Then after the fact people say that the capitalist was a genius. Throwing darts blindfolded would be a better analogy, but people later judge that the person must have been a genius.

The young Bill Gates was lucky enough to have heard two rumors simultaneously, about two events happening thousands of miles apart. One rumor was that a certain programmer had developed a new form of DOS, and wanted to unload it by selling the licence. The other rumor was that IBM wanted a new operating system, and wanted to buy it ready-made instead of developing one. Gates bought the rights with one hand and resold them with the other hand. Ten years later he became the wealthest person in the U.S.

But people whose labor is directly productive, the work of the teacher and the nurse and the farmer and the miner and the truck driver, are the least rewarded.

The truth is what John Stuart Mill observed in his 'Principles of Political Economy', 1865, who noted that he supported capitalism, but also added the need for him to admit the evidence to the contrary -- "... that the produce of labour should be apportioned as we now see it, almost in an inverse ratio to the labour -- the largest portions to those who have never worked at all, the next largest to those whose work is almost nominal, and so in a descending scale, the remuneration dwindling as the work grows harder and more disagreeable, until the most fatiguing and exhausting bodily labour cannot count with certainty on being able to earn even the necessaries of life."

[mikelepore]

When the so-called Libertarians generate slogans about "freedom" we should observe the pattern related to public convenience and even critical safety issues.

I have seen their literature say that they oppose mandatory board of health inspections of restaurants, because such a policy deprives the owner of the inalienable right to operate an unhealthy restaurant. I have seen their literature say that they oppose mandatory safety inspections of airlines, because such a policy deprives the owner of the inalienable right to operate a dangerous mode of transportation. You must never deprive business owners of their rights, you know.

When challenged about the issue of public safety, they can only say that the public has right right to refuse to use the services, we can decide not to eat in restaurants, we can decide not to travel on airlines. This is the best that they can come up with, that, after all the advantages and potential of modern technology, the main right that that we acquire is the right to *go without* the things that our labor produces. Just go to work to produce goods and services, and then take refuge in the fact that you can then choose to go without using them.

Are working conditions unacceptable, harming your family life, infringing on your individuality, leaving your exhausted? You have the right to quit your job. Again, the right to go without things, to refuse to use one thing after another, is the only right you can expect. Are you more than halfway to having the thirty years of employment that you need to collect your old age pension, and now the boss is more than ever treating you like dirt? You have the right to walk out, and refuse to collect that pension in your old age. You always have the right to avoid a bad standard of living by walking out, and thereby get a standard of living that wil be even worse. Out of the frying pan and into the fire, that will always be your right. Wonderful system, this "freedom" that capitalism provides, huh?

*****

"Do not be deluded by the abstract word Freedom. Whose freedom? Not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but freedom of Capital to crush the worker." -- Karl Marx, 'Address on Free Trade', 1848

[MMIKEYJ]

I'd swallow all this Libertarian claptrap if the country in question (be it USA, UK, Other) were a meritocracy. A meritocracy being a state where everyone is allocated resources dependent on their worth as a productive citizen. All citizens should have the same access to resources and be on a level playing field when in competition with one another. This is not the case in any country that I have visited.

A libertarian explained to me once how he was for the legalisation of drugs and that most libertarians held the same view. He told me that if you want to do drugs then that's just fine but don't expect any help from him or your community when your drug habit gets out of control and begins to do you harm. It was your choice to do the drug and you have to live with the consequences.

I find this type of ideology selfish and insular.

If you want to do drugs then that's fine, but don't expect any help from government.

Of course you can have help from your friends, family, your church, etc.
But you dont have the right to go crying to the government and ask them for money.

Personal responsibility.

[MMIKEYJ]

The major form of luck is to be born into a wealth family, which puts you into the race already an inch from the finish line.

However, even what capitalists call the "good idea" is mainly luck. One guy gets the idea, from some undefinable intuition, that a new chain of fried chicken restaurants is the next idea that will take off, now is just the right time in our history for this idea to take off, and this is the right city to begin it. Thousands of wild guesses get made. Sometimes an idea happens to bring in a lot of money. Then after the fact people say that the capitalist was a genius. Throwing darts blindfolded would be a better analogy, but people later judge that the person must have been a genius.

The young Bill Gates was lucky enough to have heard two rumors simultaneously, about two events happening thousands of miles apart. One rumor was that a certain programmer had developed a new form of DOS, and wanted to unload it by selling the licence. The other rumor was that IBM wanted a new operating system, and wanted to buy it ready-made instead of developing one. Gates bought the rights with one hand and resold them with the other hand. Ten years later he became the wealthest person in the U.S.

But people whose labor is directly productive, the work of the teacher and the nurse and the farmer and the miner and the truck driver, are the least rewarded.

The truth is what John Stuart Mill observed in his 'Principles of Political Economy', 1865, who noted that he supported capitalism, but also added the need for him to admit the evidence to the contrary -- "... that the produce of labour should be apportioned as we now see it, almost in an inverse ratio to the labour -- the largest portions to those who have never worked at all, the next largest to those whose work is almost nominal, and so in a descending scale, the remuneration dwindling as the work grows harder and more disagreeable, until the most fatiguing and exhausting bodily labour cannot count with certainty on being able to earn even the necessaries of life."
I share an almost similar concern and that is where banks make more money on their phony loans than the people who build the house. The banker who provides the loan for a mortgage will make more money than the people who supply the bricks or the people who shovel the dirt, etc..

This happens because banks are allowed to create money out of thin air.. Every loan, every mortgage, etc. is simply money created out of thin air and then you are charged interest.

Multiply that by every house, building, car, truck, boat, in America and you start to see the magnitude of the problem.

[ZeroNowhere]

You could just use the 'Edit' button, btw.

[MMIKEYJ]

When the so-called Libertarians generate slogans about "freedom" we should observe the pattern related to public convenience and even critical safety issues.

I have seen their literature say that they oppose mandatory board of health inspections of restaurants, because such a policy deprives the owner of the inalienable right to operate an unhealthy restaurant. I have seen their literature say that they oppose mandatory safety inspections of airlines, because such a policy deprives the owner of the inalienable right to operate a dangerous mode of transportation. You must never deprive business owners of their rights, you know.

When challenged about the issue of public safety, they can only say that the public has right right to refuse to use the services, we can decide not to eat in restaurants, we can decide not to travel on airlines. This is the best that they can come up with, that, after all the advantages and potential of modern technology, the main right that that we acquire is the right to *go without* the things that our labor produces. Just go to work to produce goods and services, and then take refuge in the fact that you can then choose to go without using them.

Are working conditions unacceptable, harming your family life, infringing on your individuality, leaving your exhausted? You have the right to quit your job. Again, the right to go without things, to refuse to use one thing after another, is the only right you can expect. Are you more than halfway to having the thirty years of employment that you need to collect your old age pension, and now the boss is more than ever treating you like dirt? You have the right to walk out, and refuse to collect that pension in your old age. You always have the right to avoid a bad standard of living by walking out, and thereby get a standard of living that wil be even worse. Out of the frying pan and into the fire, that will always be your right. Wonderful system, this "freedom" that capitalism provides, huh?

*****

"Do not be deluded by the abstract word Freedom. Whose freedom? Not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but freedom of Capital to crush the worker." -- Karl Marx, 'Address on Free Trade', 1848

How come the libertarians everybody seems to know on this board sound like idiots?

These sound like kooky positions... "A person has a right to operate an unhealthy restaurant or an unsafe airline?"

Companies like that would go out of business..

Its like arguing that I want to operate a company that sells warm ice or something.

I think your acquaintance was trying to relate the notion of respect for private property rights.. Like here in NJ we have a state law that makes it illegal to have smoking in restaurants.. Now while that may be good and healthy.. what if I wanted to start a restaurant to cater to smokers? Shouldn't I have that right? If its my own property shouldn't I be able to do what I want?

And if the government is going to start dictating what is and isnt healthy for us and what we can and cant put in our bodies, where does it stop?

Do they shut down mcdonalds by passing a law making all fast food illegal?

[revolution inaction]

This happens because banks are allowed to create money out of thin air.. Every loan, every mortgage, etc. is simply money created out of thin air and then you are charged interest.


This isn't true, the money the banks lend comes from deposits and money they've borrowed, they don't create money they increases the rate it circulates at.


How come the libertarians everybody seems to know on this board sound like idiots?

These sound like kooky positions... "A person has a right to operate an unhealthy restaurant or an unsafe airline?"

Companies like that would go out of business..


people would and do die before people found out which restaurant or airline to avoid, like with the melamine in the Chinese baby milk.

[Bilan]

Libertarianism:

IHPcTtkLECw

Haha, you are the king of OI! hahah

[Rangi]

I believe that government should be representative of the people. I also believe that drug use is a health and safety issue and not a crime and punishment issue. What if you were introduced to drugs through a government institution such as a jail or a high school?

This argument detracts from my point. What is the difference between personal responsibility and self interest?

You don't think that it should be a collective responsibility of all communities to minimise the harm of drugs?

[MMIKEYJ]

This isn't true, the money the banks lend comes from deposits and money they've borrowed, they don't create money they increases the rate it circulates at.
Every loan, mortgage, credit card, etc. is simply money created out of thin air throughout the banking system. Thats what causes these economic bubbles as well as recessions/depressions etc.


people would and do die before people found out which restaurant or airline to avoid, like with the melamine in the Chinese baby milk.

Well, it doesnt look like government is able to protect us from these things. Government tells people they keep them safe, but then can't. We have an FDA right? Now they say its okay to ingest mercury... There will be idiots out there who will say "no problem, FDA says its okay for me" and then when they die in 10 years who do you blame?

[MMIKEYJ]

I believe that government should be representative of the people. I also believe that drug use is a health and safety issue and not a crime and punishment issue.
I agree totally with the above.

What if you were introduced to drugs through a government institution such as a jail or a high school?
Most kids probably are introduced to drugs thru high school or their friends in high school. Its just like smoking. I had friends in high school who smoked cigarettes and pot.. But I didnt do either of those.. Its not something I wanted to do. there is enough information out there for people to make their own decisions.

This argument detracts from my point. What is the difference between personal responsibility and self interest?

You don't think that it should be a collective responsibility of all communities to minimise the harm of drugs?
Under our constitution, communities have the right to do as they see fit. What might work in central Iowa, may not work in New York City, so its different remedies for different peoples. But overall, if somebody WANTS to smoke pot or do heroin, theyre going to find a way to do it. Thats why govt can spend (forcibly take from you) money all they want and not solve the problem.

[revolution inaction]

Every loan, mortgage, credit card, etc. is simply money created out of thin air throughout the banking system. Thats what causes these economic bubbles as well as recessions/depressions etc.
Thats completely untrue, the banks do lots of bad stuff but making money out of thin air is not one of them. Bubbles are caused by the fact that stock markets tend to function like a casino.


Well, it doesnt look like government is able to protect us from these things. Government tells people they keep them safe, but then can't. We have an FDA right? Now they say its okay to ingest mercury... There will be idiots out there who will say "no problem, FDA says its okay for me" and then when they die in 10 years who do you blame?

Did I say anything about the government? did i ask the government to protect me? I an anarchist you fool. Also try and remember not every one lives in the US.
It seems to me that non commercial organizations do a better job of judging safety than markets do, they don't always get it right and they can obviously be influenced by bribes etc but if you leave it to the market you get melamine in milk and fake drugs.

[Kassad]

I believe that government should be representative of the people. I also believe that drug use is a health and safety issue and not a crime and punishment issue. What if you were introduced to drugs through a government institution such as a jail or a high school?

This argument detracts from my point. What is the difference between personal responsibility and self interest?

You don't think that it should be a collective responsibility of all communities to minimise the harm of drugs?

Well, seeing that the Reagan/Bush/conservative idea of "minimizing" the harm of drugs is by using the racist and flawed criminal justice system. This system has thrown massive amounts of minorities into prison because they are continually suppressed in the capitalist system that in itself promotes racism and prejudice.

50% of all the people in prison for drugs are non-violent offenders. That means they were just caught with drugs. Not hurting anyone, killing anybody or anything of the like. In fact, the existence of the Drug War and the continued war against these substances has, in fact, created more addictive and harmful drugs than existed before the War began. It's disgusting. The War on Drugs has also created a massive drug ring across the world, in which the restrictions and bans on drugs have made the market much more profitable, thus why youth and underprivileged citizens are continually roped in, since it is a way to make a quick an significant profit.

So you tell me. What's causing the problem here? It's government oppression, as usual.

[trivas7]

This isn't true, the money the banks lend comes from deposits and money they've borrowed, they don't create money they increases the rate it circulates at.

OTC, money is loaned into existence.
(http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-7-money-creation)

[MMIKEYJ]

Thats completely untrue, the banks do lots of bad stuff but making money out of thin air is not one of them. Bubbles are caused by the fact that stock markets tend to function like a casino.
Bubbles are caused by an oversupply of currency. The Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air.. The "high powered" money and then regular banks use this to form their reserves. The banks have the ability to create up to 9x the money (or more sometimes) that you deposit into the system.

Lets say the banking system has a 10% reserve requirement. When you go down to your bank and deposit $1,000 with them, the reserve requirement lets the banks create $9,000 in checkbook money. Because $9,000 + your $1,000 = $10,000 and your $1,000 deposit is 10% which is the "reserve".

The federal reserve represents fascism in money, to put it simply.

But the banks do indeed create money out of thin air. When you sign your name to a mortgage, that money gets instantly created and you have to pay interest on money that doesnt really exist.

And under this system there is ALWAYS somebody losing a home, or a car, or a business, or some type of property. It is designed to benefit the big banks and hurt the people.. You know, the ole "rich get richer while the poor get poorer" thing.




Did I say anything about the government? did i ask the government to protect me? I an anarchist you fool. Also try and remember not every one lives in the US.
It seems to me that non commercial organizations do a better job of judging safety than markets do, they don't always get it right and they can obviously be influenced by bribes etc but if you leave it to the market you get melamine in milk and fake drugs.
I disagree.. We have an FDA that is empowered to protect us from these things (like melamine) and yet they constantly drop the ball.. Same with drugs being approved and other food additives.. Things that are harmful to you but yet have gotten approved, meanwhile other proven medical techniques say in Europe which will not be approved over here in America because they are not considered "safe".

Probably borne with noble intentions, the FDA has grown into a behemoth of corruption and counter-productivity, IMO.

[revolution inaction]

OTC, money is created from thin air by banks.. (http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-7-money-creation)

thats not creating money, its just altering the way it circulates.

[MMIKEYJ]

Well, seeing that the Reagan/Bush/conservative idea of "minimizing" the harm of drugs is by using the racist and flawed criminal justice system. This system has thrown massive amounts of minorities into prison because they are continually suppressed in the capitalist system that in itself promotes racism and prejudice.

50% of all the people in prison for drugs are non-violent offenders. That means they were just caught with drugs. Not hurting anyone, killing anybody or anything of the like. In fact, the existence of the Drug War and the continued war against these substances has, in fact, created more addictive and harmful drugs than existed before the War began. It's disgusting. The War on Drugs has also created a massive drug ring across the world, in which the restrictions and bans on drugs have made the market much more profitable, thus why youth and underprivileged citizens are continually roped in, since it is a way to make a quick an significant profit.

So you tell me. What's causing the problem here? It's government oppression, as usual.
Id have to agree with you. And that is why Libertarians advocate Liberty.
If we have the mental freedom to read whatever books we want, and the spiritual freedom to pray how we want, then its natural that we should have the physical freedom to do what we want with our bodies. So if we want to drink alcohol, smoke pot, shove mcdonalds in our mouths.. shrug.. so be it.

[Rangi]

I believe that it is each individual's choice whether or not to indulge in drugs or not. I believe that you should be able to do what you like as long as it brings harm to no one but yourself.

When I see someone who has a substance abuse problem I feel empathy as I have confronted this in my own life. I think there should be help and support instigated by the government which is run by the people, what this government looks like is a different matter.

Prohibition doesn't work.

The point I was trying to get at was that libertarians have a hang up on self interest backed by force. Sure you can go and do drugs just don't expect us as libertarians to give a fuck when you are doubled over in the gutter with a hypodermic needle hanging out of your arm. You made some bad choices buddy and I only look out for one person - me.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Yeah dude I fucking hate not only the war on drugs but the war for drugs. That's what they're doing pretty soon every fucking person is going to be taking pills. But not me.

It's all bullshit, Americans are the biggest market for drugs there is, and our government has the audacity to bomb people who meet our demand. Not only that, the drugs we fight make up maybe .05% of all deaths last year. Cigarettes kill thousands everyday, and we put sanctions on third world nations who try to stop importation of tobacco.

[danyboy27]

complete prohibition dont work, but shit like heroin and coke are just plain dangerous.

what its doing goes far more than just killing the user, kids, wife, family, everything get tainted by the hard drugs.
Economicly, hard drugs could destroy a whole city or sector.

there is too much thing that have been done to stop the columbians dealer asnd not enough to help the people who are coping with a dependency.

[Conquer or Die]

Please attempt to justify this statement.

Many Austro-libertarians have manifested themselves in the neo-racist movement known as neo-confederacy. You might be of that ****bag variety or not, but many internet libertarians are.

Libertarianism in the extremist American sense means that any person's private property can be their own kingdom from which they can produce any amount of fucked up qualities merely because a theoretical view of human nature may or may not exist. Freedom to sell oneself into slavery. This is the essential fascist impulse behind libertarianism.

Now, Libertarianism is not the same thing as fascism. Just like socialism isn't the same thing as fascism. Just like populism, theocratic government, and neo-conservatism or liberalism aren't the same thing as fascism. However, all of them can take on fascist characteristics and some are more prone to it than others at certain stages in their development.

[Kassad]

I've never met a poor laissez-faire capitalist. The only people who advocate the Rand/Mises/Hayek system of economics are people who would profit from the tax cuts for the wealthy. Of course, this means the destruction of social programs and the fundamental destruction of the education and healthcare systems, but since they will be one of the tiny elite making money, what do they care? There's no way to justify such a cruel, illogical and destructive economic system.

[trivas7]

[...]This is the essential fascist impulse behind libertarianism.

Now, Libertarianism is not the same thing as fascism.
Well, which is it?

[MMIKEYJ]

I've never met a poor laissez-faire capitalist. The only people who advocate the Rand/Mises/Hayek system of economics are people who would profit from the tax cuts for the wealthy. Of course, this means the destruction of social programs and the fundamental destruction of the education and healthcare systems, but since they will be one of the tiny elite making money, what do they care? There's no way to justify such a cruel, illogical and destructive economic system.


Im a pretty poor capitalist right now..

[Dejavu]

In a word, laissez-faire. In one sense the progress of civilization is a progress towards greater privacy. Only capitalism understands that the individual is sovereign. Only capitalism understands that people are at their best when left to act on their own judgment for their own selfish benefit. Free markets require free minds.

Good stuff.

[Dejavu]

Would the Libertarians here elaborate on how your philosophy would benefit your fellow man, if at all? I mean society collectively, not your individual fellow man.

I understand the "primacy and dignity of man," blah blah, but I think you will never recruit many voters to your cause (assuming that's what you want).

Your misapprehension of (or indifference to?) what people really want is as warped as that of the communist. You don't want a powerful state, so you're never going to even try to force Libertarianism on us. And you must know that there are no Libertarian enthusiasts in any significant numbers.

So are you perhaps just a bunch of gadflies? I mean no offense. Some people just enjoy being different. No crime there. But honestly ....

I think you're talking about political libertarianism.

Libertarianism, as I understand it, is inconsistent and incompatible with democracies and republics. Libertarianism taken to its logical conclusions is essentially anarchism.

To answer your first question ( it was a question wasn't it?) Most (non-political) libertarians ( like myself) do not look at people inherently as social collectives. Your usage of the term 'fellow man' is rather nebulous and probably represents some idealistic notion of ' The Fellow Man.'

My fellow man is any one of you. Another member of my species with the capacity for thought , conception, action, and free will ( illusory or not-for you determinists) Unfortunately I cannot really do anything for any one of you unless we initiate some kind of personal relationship ( whether it be simply trading some things or friendship)

A collective is nothing without the individuals that comprise it and thus individuals, and not collectives, are the rational basis for any society. Thus, rational libertarians view society as an aggregate of individual actions and not some conceptual aggregate action itself. We think any fundamental change in society ultimately stems from the action of individuals thus any system that seeks to promote group's welfare over that of any individual is logically inconsistent ( and when put in practice , in some cases, immoral)

Any libertarian seeking 'votes' via a democratic-republican ( i.e. state) process is already rejecting the fundamentals of libertarianism. A consistent libertarian does not support voting.

In fact it reminds of a quote by Benjamin Tucker ( the guy in my avatar) :

"Voting is merely a labor saving device ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable. It is neither more nor less the paper representative of the bayonet, the bully, and the bullet." - B.Tucker

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well, which is it?

The two statements were not contradictory. Your perception might be off.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well, it doesnt look like government is able to protect us from these things. Government tells people they keep them safe, but then can't. We have an FDA right? Now they say its okay to ingest mercury... There will be idiots out there who will say "no problem, FDA says its okay for me" and then when they die in 10 years who do you blame?

I didn't know tuna consumption leads to death within 10 years. Got any proof?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Success is rarely based upon luck. As a businessman and student on the subject, luck has nothing to do with it.

That's ironic. The richest businessman in the world identifies luck as the main reason for his wealth. Should I believe you (Mister/Misses/Miss... Who?) or Bill Gates?

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:5SwGg5oaOfgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/0/c/0/0c020894-1f95-408c-a571-1b5033c75bbc/billg_faq.doc+bill+gates+%2B+luck&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us


Bill Gates: I get a lot of questions about my success, so I'll answer several and then reflect on the importance of mistakes, the flip side of success.
Luck played an immense role. Some of it came after I entered the business world, but my lucky streak started much earlier than that.
I was fortunate to have family and teachers who encouraged me. Children often thrive when they get that kind of attention.
I was incredibly lucky to become boyhood friends with Paul Allen, whose insights proved crucial to the success of the company we founded together. Without Paul, there would have been no Microsoft.
Our timing in setting up the first software company aimed at personal computers was essential to our success. The timing wasn't entirely luck, but without great luck it couldn't have happened.
It helps that Gates attended one of the few high schools which had a computer, and that he had parents who could afford an Ivy League school.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Um.. wow.. I dont know what to say. Libertarianism means you are for liberty.. Communism is the opposite of this.

I dont know how you can say more freedom is possible with communism or any form of statism.

Libertarianism was originally used as a reference to communism and remains around the world an adjective for socialists. You need to expand your field of knowledge if you think communism is more statist than capitalism. It's not.

[Robert]

You guys are both overstating Gates's "luck" and misunderstanding his statements concerning luck, which I attribute to politically astute, if artificial, modesty. I think he only spent one year at Harvard.

From the inevitable but sufficiently reliable wiki:

He scored 1590 out of 1600 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test and subsequently enrolled at Harvard College in the fall of 1973. Prior to the mid-1990s, an SAT score of 1590 corresponded roughly to an IQ of 170, a figure that has been cited frequently by the press. While at Harvard, he met his future business partner, Steve Ballmer, whom he later appointed as CEO of Microsoft.

I don't know how hard he worked getting Microsoft launched, but I have my suspicions. There was a little more than dumb luck at work in the establishment of microsoft. No doubt someone else would eventually have come up with all of Gates's ideas.

Someone equally "lucky."

[trivas7]

Libertarianism was originally used as a reference to communism and remains around the world an adjective for socialists. You need to expand your field of knowledge if you think communism is more statist than capitalism. It's not.
And you need to expand your knowledge of communism if you think that socialism is less statist than capitalism.

[Dejavu]

Libertarianism was originally used as a reference to communism and remains around the world an adjective for socialists. You need to expand your field of knowledge if you think communism is more statist than capitalism. It's not.


Who cares?

Since when did this turn into a debate about the etymology and history of the usage of the term 'libertarian.' Whats important is that we have a common understanding today of what it actually means.

Libertarianism is the opposite of statism ( in sociopolitical context anyway.)

It is the absence of coercive authority.

Can we agree that this is the meaning we both derive from the word?

[Dejavu]

Technically, the original meanings of communism and capitalism ( we can use a different term that Marx did not actually coin) had nothing to do with statism nor did they reference the need of a state in any theory regarding both.

Again communism and 'capitalism' ( we can say, proprietarianism, 'free marketism') both addressed the concept of property and its legitimate ( or illegitiment) meaning. Original theories of communism assumed no state and that property itself was unowned but rather universally 'used' or 'shared' by all. Capitalism holds that only individuals can own property , the only legitiment form of property is private ( or individual ownership). Both exclude the central thesis of a state regarding property i.e. state ownership of it.

Modern capitalism is essentially state ownership or 'oversight' of 'private ownership' of property. Modern communism was also a state run system in practice. Since both were administered by a state, and the core thesis of both rejects a state, neither ever came to practice based on their original meaning.

[Robert]

Libertarianism is the opposite of statism ( in sociopolitical context anyway.)
It is the absence of coercive authority.

Correct.

Only a utopian would equate libertarianism with communism. Which is fine.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Correct.

Only a utopian would equate libertarianism with communism. Which is fine.

You never do contribute anything useful to discussions, do you?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Who cares?

Since when did this turn into a debate about the etymology and history of the usage of the term 'libertarian.' Whats important is that we have a common understanding today of what it actually means.

Libertarianism is the opposite of statism ( in sociopolitical context anyway.)

It is the absence of coercive authority.

Can we agree that this is the meaning we both derive from the word?

I agree that is an acceptable definition, and for that reason you're using it incorrectly.

[GPDP]

Correct.

Only a utopian would equate libertarianism with communism. Which is fine.

Or any non-American, for that matter.

But you know, only the American definition seems to matter around here. lol idealist europeans

[RGacky3]

And you need to expand your knowledge of communism if you think that socialism is less statist than capitalism.

Someone needs to Ban this guy, don't tell us what we believe, seriously.

[Dejavu]

Hey Gackface, why is it that you are restricted again?

[RGacky3]

Hey Gackface, why is it that you are restricted again?

Anti-Abortion

[Robert]

You never do contribute anything useful to discussions, do you?

You know, Mean Gene, I notice that every time the stock market dips, you get all sour on me. I hope you're not STILL long on equities as you were a few months ago, "against your will" I think you claimed. Hypocritically.:lol: