"Libertarians"

[Stephen Colbert]

I live in New York, and it seems like more and more people are becoming libertarian. That being said, is it not inherently moronic to champion social equality and the blindly support a flawed "Free market" economy.

excerpt from a blog by a libertarian:

Dear Republican Party,

In the next presidential election, and in all state and local elections, you need to support candidates who are true Republicans and genuine lovers of liberty. The party will not succeed if it does not run candidates who truly understand and respect the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

America was once a constitutionally limited republic, and it needs to be returned to that. In the past 100 years, and especially in the past 20 years, America has been reduced to a so-called “democracy”, where 51% of the people can rob and over-regulate 49% of the people.

A true constitutional republic could last in perpetuity; whereas democracies historically survive for 200 to 300 years. After that, they devolve into socialism or oligarchies, as the people who do not want to work vote into office people who will let them not work, and can pay them to do so by stealing from those who do work.

We are at a tipping point. America is in her 235th year. The next presidential election can determine if we regain our constitutional republic, or slide into a permanent “progressive” majority helmed by a deluded far-left who do not listen to the people, and are chomping at the bit to bankrupt us into a socialist oligarchy. Those folks see Republicans not as a force to work with in a bipartisan capacity, but as an impediment to robbing from the productive so they can “give” to those who have no desire or ability to produce.

If Washington followed the Constitution, it would barely matter who was president. The checks and balances would work. But ours has been co-opted into a popularity contest wherein people vote for the candidate with the slickest tongue and the shortest slogan….especially slogans like “HOPE” and “CHANGE.” As we’ve seen, these basically mean “Get me in, and you’ll find out my actual core beliefs later, when it’s too late.”

If the President and Congress followed the Constitution, DC would not be permitted to arbitrarily dictate most of what a citizen does in a given state. We need candidates who stand up for the Constitution, including the true meaning the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the original intent of all parts of the Bill of Rights, especially the First, Second and Tenth Amendments.

If the Republican Party establishment supports a spend-o-crat RINO (Republican in Name Only) in the next presidential election, you will guarantee a victory for the Democratic Party.

The Democrat Party used to have some principles, but has lately been taken over by a few dozen extreme leftist “progressives” with radical ideas and ties. They think they know what’s best for everyone, consider the Constitution a detriment, and consider Republicans a speed bump to be routed around behind closed doors.

America has woken up to the waste, “legal” stealing and “legal” bribes that can only lead to the destruction of America. The Democrats are largely responsible, but some Republicans have helped along the way. If you run a RINO for president, you will guarantee AINO (America in Name Only) in the near future, and forever.
The American people have finally woken up. Americans who have never been active in politics have taken to the streets by the millions. This is just the beginning.

The Democrats have been exposed for their gross spending of other people’s money at all levels, but in doing so have also shown that the Democrats aren’t the only ones. Some Republicans have contributed to this as well.

If you run a constitutional candidate like Gary Johnson, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, or Paul (Ron or Rand, take your pick) in the next presidential election, you’ll have a chance.

I’ll vote Republican, and help out. So will millions of libertarians, tea partiers, swing voters, independents and even some of the smarter disgruntled Democrats. All combined, this will be enough to make the difference in the outcome of that election.
But 2012 is likely the very last year where even this will be possible. The leftists are working 24/7 to stack the deck against the possibility of retaining any America in America.

The Republican Party needs to run constitutional candidates, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because it will keep the party from being perceived as “irrelevant naysayers” without any of their own ideas on how to make the country better. Running constitutional candidates will keep you from becoming a footnote in history. And even that footnote will likely be erased with time when a permanent socialist majority takes control of all media and education.

This road to serfdom can possibly be avoided, but it’s up to the Republican Party. You must run Barry Goldwater candidates, not George W. Bush, John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani candidates.

Otherwise you’re going to end up with an America you don’t recognize, while you cling to your “Don’t blame me, I voted Republican” buttons.

Politics has become far too complicated. Lawmakers don’t think they’re doing their jobs if they don’t enact dozens of new laws and endless pork-barrel projects to “bring home the bacon” every day. This leads to honest folks becoming criminals, and the federal government having a stranglehold over every single aspect of our lives. We need candidates who will simplify, not complicate. We need candidates who will leash the beast, not feed the beast.

The Republican Party must run candidates who follow the Constitution and understand natural law… people who believe in their heart of hearts that government does not grant rights, does not restrict rights, but has only one legitimate role: protecting rights.

Our Founders are likely rolling in their graves at what the Democrats are doing now. But the Founders surely wouldn’t be pleased with what some in the Republican Party have done, either.

Why make us pick from the lesser of two evils? Here’s a novel idea: how about running someone who’s NOT evil!

Try it, you’ll like it. And America will be better for it.

Sincerely,
(won't disclose the name)




bolded are things that i feel are hypocritical. what do you guys think, do you think that this growing "libertarian" breed are more stubborn that traditional righties and have economics on the brain, and potentially create a wedge in progress?

sorry if this seems elementary, i just want to know a real leftist opinion on these socially progressive and economically oppressive school of thought

[Skooma Addict]

Doesn't seem like a very intelligent libertarian.

[Weezer]

Doesn't seem like a very intelligent libertarian.

Libertarianism is dead. Ever since Obama was elected, the libertarian movement has been hijacked by those racist Glenn Beckists.

You can't find an intelligent libertarian often anymore.

[RED DAVE]

Libertarianism started to decline as a belief system around the turn of the century, after the dot.com bubble burst. Living in New York myself, I seem to encounter less and less of this bullshit all the time.

RED DAVE

[Stephen Colbert]

Interesting. I'm very young and only a student, so its nice to hear some real world opinions on this. :)

[Nolan]

Old-fashioned Libertarianism is dead. Right-wing populist stupidity demanding "small" government (it doesn't apply to military spending :rolleyes:)has taken its place. These "Libertarians" are convinced that Obama is somehow bent on destroying everything good in life and making the US a clone of North Korea. It's not so much a movement for free markets as opposition to Obama.

Fixed.

[Axle]

After that, they devolve into socialism or oligarchies

Quick! Someone name a former or current socialist state that had a great democracy beforehand!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

bolded are things that i feel are hypocritical. what do you guys think, do you think that this growing "libertarian" breed are more stubborn that traditional righties and have economics on the brain, and potentially create a wedge in progress?

sorry if this seems elementary, i just want to know a real leftist opinion on these socially progressive and economically oppressive school of thought
They are not progressive in any way - socially or otherwise. In fact, they are the second most reactionary and oppressive political group in America today (after the theocratic right... but the two movements are beginning to merge, anyway).

Look at the blog post you quoted, for example. It is all about the (largely imaginary) ideals of the "founding fathers", and the need to return to some equally imaginary golden age from the past. This alone should be enough to show the reactionary character of libertarianism: It is all about returning to the past. It is an ideology that seeks to erase the 20th century from history, and return us to the 19th.

But the blog post goes further, and reveals another deeply reactionary aspect of libertarianism: It is virulently and outspokenly anti-democratic. Libertarians never waste an opportunity to talk about how the people are stupid and don't know what's good for themselves, so we can't trust them to vote for any candidates they like - we must force them to choose only between libertarian candidates. That is the meaning of all that crap about "returning to constitutional principles". Libertarians want to impose their preferred form of government on everyone else, in the name of liberty. They claim that this preferred form of government of theirs should be accepted by all because it provides freedom, but their version of "freedom" includes the strict enforcement of private property laws on everyone, whether they like it or not. A libertarian government would be nothing less than an iron fist in the service of the property owners - the capitalists.

That is why I often say that libertarianism is the new fascism in America. Libertarians want to go back to an (imaginary) golden age from the past, they despise democracy and the popular will, and they want to use the government to enforce the rule of capital and crush the working class. Oh yes, they are fascists.

[Axle]

The funniest thing about Libertarians is how they want to go back to "the way things were" in the 19th century, and how they really, really hate the labor movement...but are unable to connect the fact that the bullshit free market principles they support would only light another big fire under the American labor movement if they were to be put back into practice.

As much as I hate Libertarianism, I'm still to be convinced that much of the increase in support is anything more than just a political fad...get the Repubs back in the White House and majority in Congress and I guess we'll see what's really up.

[IcarusAngel]

While Libertarianism has not succeeded politically or in practice, its rhetoric is nonetheless found all over the United States, to the point where any given political dichotomy is a Libertarian one (like "big government versus small government"). The Libertarian's insinuation that we had freer government in the 1800s or 1900s is ridiculous considering the fact that the middle-class has genuinely had a lot more freedoms and a lot more access to resources AFTER FDR and only AFTER Reagan did the middle class begin losing resources.

Using deceptive rhetoric, they've also peeled away a lot of left-wingers who've perhaps fallen into despair. They often use anti-imperialist rhetoric that mimics the left and have bested the left in their own game when it comes to poverty issues, by saying free-markets ameliorate poverty with deceptive tactics.

This Libertarian is at least open and honest about his politics: he wants free-markets implemented, fuck everybody else, and the Republicans are far more likely to do this than the "socialist" Democrats. This is typical Libertarian thinking and why Libertarians so want to attack only regulatory commissions and so on.

[Matty_UK]

Libertarianism is just one of those ideological curiosities that pop up when a systems failing, and it will never impact anything - as someone already said, it's already been absorbed into the Tea Party neo-fascist movement. This is because there isn't any demographic with a material interest in libertarianism, so libertarians inevitably become either part of some other movement or remain lonely internet warriors.

[Havet]

Ever since Obama was elected, the libertarian movement has been hijacked by those racist Glenn Beckists.

You took the words right out of my mouth


Libertarianism is dead I don't really think so, I think that it will continue to exist, but it will consequently approach either more republican views or more anarcho-capitalist views, and there is a chance that those anarcho-capitalists might even shift towards market socialism.

[Demogorgon]

Ever since Obama was elected, the libertarian movement has been hijacked by those racist Glenn Beckists.

No it has been like that a long time. I know people who were involved back in the seventies who say it was less racist back then, but whether they were just trying to ignore it or not, I don't know. Suffice to say it has had a strong racist element so long as I have been aware of it.

[Demogorgon]

But the blog post goes further, and reveals another deeply reactionary aspect of libertarianism: It is virulently and outspokenly anti-democratic. Libertarians never waste an opportunity to talk about how the people are stupid and don't know what's good for themselves, so we can't trust them to vote for any candidates they like - we must force them to choose only between libertarian candidates. That is the meaning of all that crap about "returning to constitutional principles". Libertarians want to impose their preferred form of government on everyone else, in the name of liberty. Yeah, totally. A lot of it comes back to the Schumpter idea that ordinary people should not be able to participate in politics but should be able to choose between individual elites who would compete in a "political marketplace".

Often I here Libertarians who say their preferred system is a very rigid two party system where both parties have identical economic policies but would differ on social issues with one presumably being more authoritarian than the other.

Says a lot really.

[mikelepore]

You must run Barry Goldwater candidates ........
how about running someone who’s NOT evil!

Strange juxtaposition. Goldwater -- the 1964 candidate who wanted to drop nuclear weapons on Vietnam. NOT evil!

[choff]

The biggest problem I have with people like this is the fact that they just plain don't understand politics. The writer claims America is simultaneously heading towards "socialism" and "serfdom," just as conservatice talk-radio hosts claimed Obama was both a "socialist" and a "fascist."

These people are gaining support for blatantly broadcasting absolute ignorance to any and all political process. It's disgusting.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Libertarianism gives the false impression of being socially left-wing, but it's not because libertarians care about oppressed minorities, it's just that they don't care what anyone does as long as it's not bothering them. It's one of the strangest and most selfish ideologies and I can't see why it's so popular at the moment.


The biggest problem I have with people like this is the fact that they just plain don't understand politics. The writer claims America is simultaneously heading towards "socialism" and "serfdom," just as conservatice talk-radio hosts claimed Obama was both a "socialist" and a "fascist."

I hate how people have started calling any idea they don't like 'socialist'. If they disagree with a policy, it must be socialist. Instead of name-calling I wish they'd actually step forward and discuss the issue with people.

[Robert]

I never heard a Libertarian call Obama a "fascist," and I don't get this either:

It is virulently and outspokenly anti-democratic. Libertarians never waste an opportunity to talk about how the people are stupid and don't know what's good for themselves, so we can't trust them to vote for any candidates they like.

Why is that in bold type? Who says this? It sounds a bit like Lenin, and nothing like Glenn Beck.

I suspect you guys have never even watched the Glenn Beck show. I've never watched one all the way through myself, but your caricature does not correspond to the little I have seen.

[IcarusAngel]

Glenn Beck is only one kind of Libertarian the kind who praises free-markets all the time. Other Libertarians don't like him probably because he doesn't promote pure theoretical market tyranny. However, he is crazy and has to be corrected nightly by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and the other liberals over at MSNBC. He doesn't care about facts and is a lunatic.

As I said, it comes from a perverted type of American corporatist individualism, much of it derived from Randianism. Anarcho-capitalism is basically as far right as you can go with this type of crazy thinking. Of course, they are a small percentage of society, and hopefully society will continue to progress away from Libertarianism and towards freedom.

[Skooma Addict]

I think that most people here haven't really watched Glenn Beck, and that most of his quotes are taken out of context by over emotional progressives. I am not a fan of his show either, but it wouldn't surprise me if his critics just take him out of context and attempt to paint him as a nut job, as they tend to do with all people they don't like.


That is why I often say that libertarianism is the new fascism in America. Libertarians want to go back to an (imaginary) golden age from the past, they despise democracy and the popular will, and they want to use the government to enforce the rule of capital and crush the working class. Oh yes, they are fascists.

Actually most libertarians are pro-democracy. All reasonable people know that libertarians aren't fascists. Fascists have always shown contempt for classical liberalism.


Libertarianism is dead. Ever since Obama was elected, the libertarian movement has been hijacked by those racist Glenn Beckists.

You can't find an intelligent libertarian often anymore.

Nope. The people you mistakenly view as libertarians are disgruntled republicans. This is exactly what Glenn Beck is, a disgruntled republican. Libertarianism has not been hijacked.


Libertarianism is just one of those ideological curiosities that pop up when a systems failing, and it will never impact anything - as someone already said, it's already been absorbed into the Tea Party neo-fascist movement. This is because there isn't any demographic with a material interest in libertarianism, so libertarians inevitably become either part of some other movement or remain lonely internet warriors.

Lol, so now the neo-fascists have hijacked the libertarian movement? No wonder nobody can give a coherent definition of a right libertarian. First you actually have to know a thing about libertarianism.


No it has been like that a long time. I know people who were involved back in the seventies who say it was less racist back then, but whether they were just trying to ignore it or not, I don't know. Suffice to say it has had a strong racist element so long as I have been aware of it.

What are you talking about? First of all I sincerely doubt Glenn Beck and his followers are racists. I think you guys are defining racist as: One who is not a progressive or socialist. This is a common tactic that progressives use ad nauseam.


Libertarianism gives the false impression of being socially left-wing, but it's not because libertarians care about oppressed minorities, it's just that they don't care what anyone does as long as it's not bothering them. It's one of the strangest and most selfish ideologies and I can't see why it's so popular at the moment.

Well, no. Libertarians do care about what others do even if they themselves are not being affected.


I hate how people have started calling any idea they don't like 'socialist'. If they disagree with a policy, it must be socialist. Instead of name-calling I wish they'd actually step forward and discuss the issue with people.

Me too. People also do this with the term "right-libertarian."

[Demogorgon]

Actually most libertarians are pro-democracy. All reasonable people know that libertarians aren't fascists. Fascists have always shown contempt for classical liberalism.

Really? Can you give examples of properly pro-democracy Libertarians. To give you some fair parameters I'll define democracy as widely as possible. Find me a Libertarian who supports Democracy to the extent seen in-say-Germany.*

*Personally of course I do not believe Germany to be sufficiently democratic, but I use it as an example because I want to be as fair as possible and have chosen a pretty typical Western country that is more democratic than the United States for instance but not uncommonly so.


What are you talking about? First of all I sincerely doubt Glenn Beck and his followers are racists. I think you guys are defining racist as: One who is not a progressive or socialist. This is a common tactic that progressives use ad nauseam.

Beck himself has said enough things to make people regard him as a racist and as for his followers... :lol:

And as to why I say Libertarians are so often racists. Well when you go onto Libertarian sites and see them for instance refuse to call Obama by name or even "The President" and simply call him "The Negro", when you see many insist that blacks simply have lesser abilities than whites and that is why they underperform, when you see articles by them praising the leader of Vichy France (and ridiculously the author of that one was black!) and so on, what else can you call them?

Incidentally many ex-Libertarians have told me that the reason they are not Libertarians anymore is not to do with economics at all (most are still fairly pro-market) but rather because they got sick of the undercurrent of racism and similar prejudice they found so strong in the movement.

[Skooma Addict]

Really? Can you give examples of properly pro-democracy Libertarians. To give you some fair parameters I'll define democracy as widely as possible. Find me a Libertarian who supports Democracy to the extent seen in-say-Germany.*I will not find you a libertarian that supports democracy to the extent seen in Germany because I don't know enough about Germany. As for supporters of Democracy, there is pretty much every supporter of Ron Paul, all Minarchists, almost every follower of Hayek, many of the people at Cato, many followers of Neoclassical and Austrian economics, and the vast majority of libertarians that I did not mention.


And as to why I say Libertarians are so often racists. Well when you go onto Libertarian sites and see them for instance refuse to call Obama by name or even "The President" and simply call him "The Negro", when you see many insist that blacks simply have lesser abilities than whites and that is why they underperform, when you see articles by them praising the leader of Vichy France (and ridiculously the author of that one was black!) and so on, what else can you call them?I don't know if your purposely being dishonest or if your just confused.


Incidentally many ex-Libertarians have told me that the reason they are not Libertarians anymore is not to do with economics at all (most are still fairly pro-market) but rather because they got sick of the undercurrent of racism and similar prejudice they found so strong in the movement.I don't know them so I can't say. But here are a few possibilities.

1. They never knew anything about libertarianism or its anti-racist historical roots to begin with.
2. They are ultra liberal in outlook and they see racism where there is none. This is what many modern progressives do either intentionally to stop discussion or unintentionally because they are delusional.
3. They allowed the progressives constant whining get the better of them.

I want to make sure I am understanding this correctly. You have some friends who say that they aren't libertarians due to the "racism" that overtook the movement, and you see a few racist quotes from some users on discussion boards. From there, you conclude that the libertarian movement has been, and always was, racist. Is that correct?

[IcarusAngel]

Hayek himself favored monarchy and tyranny over democracy given the position that the monarchic would allow some Libertarian principles. This has been extended by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and others. Many Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists advocate the position that monarchy is better than democracy, or one person rule. This is because there isn't much difference between having one or two leaders control all the resources and having a few corporations controlling them.

Ron Paul supporters advocate against democracy all the time.

[Skooma Addict]

Hayek himself favored monarchy and tyranny over democracy given the position that the monarchic would allow some Libertarian principles. This has been extended by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and others. Many Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists advocate the position that monarchy is better than democracy, or one person rule. This is because there isn't much difference between having one or two leaders control all the resources and having a few corporations controlling them.

Ron Paul supporters advocate against democracy all the time.

Only if you misunderstand Hayek like Hoppe does would you come to the conclusion that Hayek preferred monarchy over democracy. Hayek gives all of his political views in the Constitution of Liberty. I am sure that many anarcho-capitalists prefer monarchy over democracy, but they aren't monarchists. You also don't understand why they hold these views either. The reason you gave is wrong.

The vast majority of Ron Pauls supporters are pro-democracy.

[Uppercut]

Well, I guess I'll say it.

Glenn Beck is partially correct about Obama. His cabinet is full of financers and lobbyists. He's just another NWO puppet.
But Beck is a complete and total asshole, other than that.

[IcarusAngel]

What is the "NWO" and why should I be concerned about it?

It sounds like something that only exists in the imaginations of people like Beck.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

As for supporters of Democracy, there is pretty much every supporter of Ron Paul, all Minarchists, almost every follower of Hayek, many of the people at Cato, many followers of Neoclassical and Austrian economics, and the vast majority of libertarians that I did not mention.
Oh really?

Do you support the right of the people to vote to nationalize one single private company, with compensation to the owner at market value?

Do you support the right of the people to vote to create a universal health care system?

Do you support the right of the people to vote to create a system of progressive taxation?

Do you support the right of the people to vote to make it illegal for business owners to hire or fire employees based on their race, gender, religion or political views?

These are measures taken by numerous Western, capitalist, liberal democracies.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Actually most libertarians are pro-democracy.

You must surely be trolling?

Thats just an absurd statement, there is no, no, no way in hell you can really think this.

[Skooma Addict]

Oh really?

Do you support the right of the people to vote to nationalize one single private company, with compensation to the owner at market value?

Do you support the right of the people to vote to create a universal health care system?

Do you support the right of the people to vote to create a system of progressive taxation?

Do you support the right of the people to vote to make it illegal for business owners to hire or fire employees based on their race, gender, religion or political views?

These are measures taken by numerous Western, capitalist, liberal democracies. I personally do not. Most however support a democratic government constrained by a rule of law. The governments powers are limited beforehand to prevent it from becoming too powerful. Even you want to put constrains on majority vote. For example, if the majority votes to enslave the minority, that doesn't mean slavery is OK.


You must surely be trolling?

Thats just an absurd statement, there is no, no, no way in hell you can really think this. No really. The majority of libertarians support a democratic state. I am surprised that you thought otherwise.

[Demogorgon]

I will not find you a libertarian that supports democracy to the extent seen in Germany because I don't know enough about Germany. As for supporters of Democracy, there is pretty much every supporter of Ron Paul, all Minarchists, almost every follower of Hayek, many of the people at Cato, many followers of Neoclassical and Austrian economics, and the vast majority of libertarians that I did not mention.
Well Germany is just an example and I chose it because in my opinion it sits somewhere in the middle of Western systems. Its electoral system is fairer than America's for instance but not as fair as-say-Switzerland's. It promotes a more diverse political landscape than America, but not as diverse as-maybe-Finland. Its constitution protects human rights better than America's but not as well as-perhaps-Sweden's and so forth. In other words I was looking for you to show Libertarians supporting democracy to a moderate extent, that is better than as it is in America, but not expecting you to find any going anywhere as far as I do or even simply as far as the best Western systems.

With that explanation in mind, to look at the various examples you gave. What about Ron Paul? He does not support an electoral system as fair as in Germany, indeed he doesn't want any real change at all which means he is also happy to have a lack of diversity in the political system. Indeed he largely supports little change to the American system (which fails to measure up in the Democratic stakes against just about any Western system, apart from maybe Britain's) and actually wants to limit the democracy a bit further in places. You might say I am being unfair, because the American system is a democracy, but in practice it is one of the most blatant examples of power being kept away from the people and institutionally it is a mess. A bit of a dream for those who want to limit democracy.

To look at the Austrians. Well the most democratic of them tend to sound a bit like Schumpter, opposing popular involvement in the political system altogether but supporting different members of a separate political class competing in a "political marketplace"through elections. That would be the limit of popular involvement, selecting between different individuals separate from ordinary people. Then you have the likes of Hoppe.

As for Cato, well again at best they largely just want to retain the American system (which as I say is probably the worst of the western systems) but you sometimes see them looking kindly on the Hong Kong system and so forth.

So really the best you get with Libertarians is usually support for a system where there would be (not particularly fair) elections with limited choice available and without any other popular involvement. That's not even democracy by contemporary Western standards by and large.


I don't know if your purposely being dishonest or if your just confused.

I don't know them so I can't say. But here are a few possibilities.

1. They never knew anything about libertarianism or its anti-racist historical roots to begin with.
2. They are ultra liberal in outlook and they see racism where there is none. This is what many modern progressives do either intentionally to stop discussion or unintentionally because they are delusional.
3. They allowed the progressives constant whining get the better of them.

I want to make sure I am understanding this correctly. You have some friends who say that they aren't libertarians due to the "racism" that overtook the movement, and you see a few racist quotes from some users on discussion boards. From there, you conclude that the libertarian movement has been, and always was, racist. Is that correct?
No, I gave you several examples. Some anecdotal evidence first of all which I gave to make sure there was a non-leftist perspective included. The fact that many of them are explicitly racist in reference to Obama (the example that was in my head when I wrote that was one of New Zealand's leading Libertarian sites as it happens, but you see it a lot from Americans too. Maybe even more so from some Europeans) and finally an article by Thomas Sowell praising Petain.

Now okay, I wrote that when I was pretty tired and should probably have included some more examples and tried to make them broader, so I will try to do that now. I'll only give two right now, but if need be more can be added.

The first is affirmative action. Now I'm not saying opponents are automatically racist, there are alternatives, but anyway when you debate it with a Libertarian you will often find it going somewhere along the lines of-
Libertarian-I oppose affirmative action
Non-Libertarian-Do you not recognise the need to compensate for blacks being at a disadvantage.
Libertarian-I do not recognise such a disadvantage. Blacks were clearly discriminated against by the law in the past, but such legislation has been repealed* and there is now a level playing field. In truth Affirmative Action is placing blacks in the advantaged position.
Non-Libertarian-But across the board blacks are still achieving less in virtually all fields. There are only two possibilities here. The first is that black people are in a disadvantaged position, the second is that black people are less able.
Libertarian-I do not accept affirmative action as a legitimate means of addressing the problem of blacks underachieving.
Non-Libertarian-Perhaps not, but you have already stated that without legal barriers there is a level playing field. You have rejected other factors as disadvantaging blacks. Therefore the only acceptable reason you have for black underachievement is lack of ability
Libertarian-...

A new Libertarian at this point will wish to deny or ignore the logic here and insist that they both believe there is a level playing field and that blacks are as able as whites. But you notice with people that have been Libertarians for longer that they tire of the cognitive dissonance and come to simply blame blacks. There is also the factor of course that many become angry at any group that seem to disprove their theory.

Now an opponent of affirmative action could escape this trap by acknowledging blacks are at a disadvantage but that a different solution should be found. But Libertarians almost never do this. Their ideology requires them to say that without Government holding a group back there is an inherently level playing field. When pointed out that that means that groups failing anyway must be inferior they stick to their guns.

*Unconstitutionally many of them will tell you when it comes to America.

The other example I will give is the obsession many in America have with the confederacy and the wider stuff about "state's rights". Anybody who knows a bit of history knows what that means. As an aside it also means that many American Libertarians are in practice making their opposition to Government opposition to federal Government and support State Government even over individual rights.

[Dean]

No really. The majority of libertarians support a democratic state. I am surprised that you thought otherwise.

You mean an incredibly limited democracy that has little to no power over the economy and a diminished role in national security (which most libertarians I've spoken to think is the only role of government).

On top of that, I doubt that they think the public should have a referendum veto on any war. By and large, they support corporate power wherever it comes up as an issue. There's no democracy in their vision of a just society.

[Skooma Addict]

Well Germany is just an example and I chose it because in my opinion it sits somewhere in the middle of Western systems. Its electoral system is fairer than America's for instance but not as fair as-say-Switzerland's. It promotes a more diverse political landscape than America, but not as diverse as-maybe-Finland. Its constitution protects human rights better than America's but not as well as-perhaps-Sweden's and so forth. In other words I was looking for you to show Libertarians supporting democracy to a moderate extent, that is better than as it is in America, but not expecting you to find any going anywhere as far as I do or even simply as far as the best Western systems.

With that explanation in mind, to look at the various examples you gave. What about Ron Paul? He does not support an electoral system as fair as in Germany, indeed he doesn't want any real change at all which means he is also happy to have a lack of diversity in the political system. Indeed he largely supports little change to the American system (which fails to measure up in the Democratic stakes against just about any Western system, apart from maybe Britain's) and actually wants to limit the democracy a bit further in places. You might say I am being unfair, because the American system is a democracy, but in practice it is one of the most blatant examples of power being kept away from the people and institutionally it is a mess. A bit of a dream for those who want to limit democracy.
Most libertarians want a democratically elected government which is limited by a rule of law. I don't know if Germany or Finland protects human rights better than America, but I have reason to doubt that we agree on what constitutes a legitimate human right. Ron Paul does want a pretty big change. This is one of the reasons why the Republican party hates him.


To look at the Austrians. Well the most democratic of them tend to sound a bit like Schumpter, opposing popular involvement in the political system altogether but supporting different members of a separate political class competing in a "political marketplace"through elections. That would be the limit of popular involvement, selecting between different individuals separate from ordinary people. Then you have the likes of Hoppe.Schumpter is definitely not the most democratic of the Austrians. There is Ropke (who, if I remember correctly, you deny is an Austrian) and Hayek. I am pretty sure that Hutt and Robbins were also supporters of Democracy. By the way, there is also the Libertarian Milton Friedman. He has a huge libertarian following. He and his followers support a democratic state.


No, I gave you several examples. Some anecdotal evidence first of all which I gave to make sure there was a non-leftist perspective included. The fact that many of them are explicitly racist in reference to Obama (the example that was in my head when I wrote that was one of New Zealand's leading Libertarian sites as it happens, but you see it a lot from Americans too. Maybe even more so from some Europeans) and finally an article by Thomas Sowell praising Petain.
Your using an article written by Thomas Sowell to show that libertarians are racists? Odd.


The first is affirmative action. Now I'm not saying opponents are automatically racist, there are alternatives, but anyway when you debate it with a Libertarian you will often find it going somewhere along the lines of-
Libertarian-I oppose affirmative action
Non-Libertarian-Do you not recognise the need to compensate for blacks being at a disadvantage.
Libertarian-I do not recognise such a disadvantage. Blacks were clearly discriminated against by the law in the past, but such legislation has been repealed* and there is now a level playing field. In truth Affirmative Action is placing blacks in the advantaged position.
Non-Libertarian-But across the board blacks are still achieving less in virtually all fields. There are only two possibilities here. The first is that black people are in a disadvantaged position, the second is that black people are less able.
Libertarian-I do not accept affirmative action as a legitimate means of addressing the problem of blacks underachieving.
Non-Libertarian-Perhaps not, but you have already stated that without legal barriers there is a level playing field. You have rejected other factors as disadvantaging blacks. Therefore the only acceptable reason you have for black underachievement is lack of ability
Libertarian-...Ah yes, I was waiting for affirmative action to be brought up. AA is a perfect example of racism. People are given advantages over others based solely on their race. I also do not think that "blacks" are at a disadvantage. It depends on the person. You cannot make such broad generalizations, instead, you have to look at it on a person by person basis. Also, there are other disadvantages that people have which are far far worse than being black, and they don't receive any help.

So I reject the idea that "blacks" as a whole group are at a disadvantage. But even if they were, that alone wouldn't cause me to support AA.


Now an opponent of affirmative action could escape this trap by acknowledging blacks are at a disadvantage but that a different solution should be found. But Libertarians almost never do this. Their ideology requires them to say that without Government holding a group back there is an inherently level playing field. When pointed out that that means that groups failing anyway must be inferior they stick to their guns.As I said, I don't think that "blacks" are at a disadvantage. Some of them are, and some of them aren't. I also have my doubts about where the disadvantages you are referring to stem from. Here are some more people who are at a disadvantage...

Ugly people, shy people, people with any kind of mental illness, poor people, and weak people.

Giving advantages to disadvantaged groups wouldn't be so bad if we could have some benevolent government whose sole function was to help those worse off. But that is not how it works. In order for a government to even give these advantages in the first place, there needs to be a monopolized army and police force.

But if we are going to have a government, then I would support some kind of aid for certain people with disadvantages. However, race would never come into play.

[gorillafuck]

Hayek himself favored monarchy and tyranny over democracy given the position that the monarchic would allow some Libertarian principles. This has been extended by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and others. Many Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists advocate the position that monarchy is better than democracy, or one person rule.
I really hate to sound like I'm defending libertarianism, but no that's not true. Libertarians do not favor monarchy.

[Nolan]

I really hate to sound like I'm defending libertarianism, but no that's not true. Libertarians do not favor monarchy.

There's a small minority that do. Mostly in the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, etc. It's probably for sake of tradition.

I guess as long as the government doesn't regulate the economy, anything goes, monarchy, republic, whatever.

[Havet]

I really hate to sound like I'm defending libertarianism, but no that's not true. Libertarians do not favor monarchy.

Some, while exploring the logical extreme of some of their arguments, arrive at the conclusion that "private monarchy" is ok so long as the property was achieved "legitimately", or something like that.

[Demogorgon]

Most libertarians want a democratically elected government which is limited by a rule of law. I don't know if Germany or Finland protects human rights better than America, but I have reason to doubt that we agree on what constitutes a legitimate human right. Ron Paul does want a pretty big change. This is one of the reasons why the Republican party hates him.Well a characteristic of the German Constitution is that it only protects negative rights. That in my view makes it weaker than-for instance-the Swedish or Spanish constitutions that protect certain positive rights as well (I'm not conceding there is a difference here, just using the terms for convenience). But anyway as Germany only protects negative rights (in the constitution, some positive rights are obviously protected by statute) then it should fall under your definition of human rights. And as I say, it protects them much more thoroughly than the American one does.

And as for Ron Paul, in terms of making the system of Government more democratic, I fail to see how he wants to make any democratic changes to the system of Government. His unpopularity with sections of the Republican party comes from his views on foreign policy.


Schumpter is definitely not the most democratic of the Austrians. There is Ropke (who, if I remember correctly, you deny is an Austrian) and Hayek. I am pretty sure that Hutt and Robbins were also supporters of Democracy. By the way, there is also the Libertarian Milton Friedman. He has a huge libertarian following. He and his followers support a democratic state.You are quite right that I don't think Ropke is an Austrian. But as for Hayek and Friedman. They don't exactly strike me as champions of democracy. Hayek explicitly defended Pinochet by saying it was better to have a liberal dictator than an illiberal democrat and Friedman was also on the dictator cheer leader squad.

Still coming up with Libertarian opposition to democracy is like shooting fish in a barrel really. And indeed it ties into the accusation of racism given how strongly they supported apartheid South Africa (much more than mainstream Conservatives).


Your using an article written by Thomas Sowell to show that libertarians are racists? Odd.Yes, Sowell may be happy to be the token black guy, but that doesn't mean he doesn't parrot the racist party line. His comments on Petain (and his support for Nationalism in the same article) were something else.

As an aside Sowell seems to be one for holding forth on matters he would best to be quiet about. I remember reading an article by him when he thought it would be clever to use an example from Scottish history to prove his point (the introduction of some English farming methods to be precise) and he somehow managed to state the complete opposite of what the facts actually were.


Ah yes, I was waiting for affirmative action to be brought up. AA is a perfect example of racism. People are given advantages over others based solely on their race. I also do not think that "blacks" are at a disadvantage. It depends on the person. You cannot make such broad generalizations, instead, you have to look at it on a person by person basis. Also, there are other disadvantages that people have which are far far worse than being black, and they don't receive any help.

So I reject the idea that "blacks" as a whole group are at a disadvantage. But even if they were, that alone wouldn't cause me to support AA.

As I said, I don't think that "blacks" are at a disadvantage. Some of them are, and some of them aren't. I also have my doubts about where the disadvantages you are referring to stem from. Here are some more people who are at a disadvantage...

Ugly people, shy people, people with any kind of mental illness, poor people, and weak people.

Giving advantages to disadvantaged groups wouldn't be so bad if we could have some benevolent government whose sole function was to help those worse off. But that is not how it works. In order for a government to even give these advantages in the first place, there needs to be a monopolized army and police force.

But if we are going to have a government, then I would support some kind of aid for certain people with disadvantages. However, race would never come into play.
I didn't say opposition to AA was in itself racist, because there are plenty of alternative policies that can be used, and of course it depends on circumstances. It would be pointless to introduce it in Scotland for race for instance. The issue I was bringing up was Libertarian arguments here. Specifically that the fact that blacks significantly underachieve on average is met with tacit implications that blacks tend to be inferior.

I should give credit to a few Libertarians actually because they do acknowledge that blacks are at a disadvantage due to past treatment and call for substantial one off compensation to remedy that. I don't think that would work, but at least they acknowledge it.

Most Libertarians are very blind on that front however. If you really want to watch them go, get them onto the subject of Native Americans. I remember a debate once with a Libertarian who was saying Native Americans should be afforded no help because of yadda yadda yadda and someone interjected that perhaps the tribes should be paid compensation for the treaties they signed with the federal Government being violated and he nearly blew a gasket.

This scratches the surface when it comes to this issue. I have seen many many Libertarians argue that the Europeans were right to mistreat the Native Americans and were perfectly entitled to take their land because Native Americans did not have sufficient understanding of property rights (the same is said of Africans). You can't tell me that that is not racist.

[Hexen]

I thought Libertarianism was simply the opposite spectrum of Authoritarianism but I guess what everyone is talking about here is the right-wing hijacked one that most USians (are mislead to) believe when they are "anti government".

[Skooma Addict]

Well a characteristic of the German Constitution is that it only protects negative rights. That in my view makes it weaker than-for instance-the Swedish or Spanish constitutions that protect certain positive rights as well (I'm not conceding there is a difference here, just using the terms for convenience). But anyway as Germany only protects negative rights (in the constitution, some positive rights are obviously protected by statute) then it should fall under your definition of human rights. And as I say, it protects them much more thoroughly than the American one does.

And as for Ron Paul, in terms of making the system of Government more democratic, I fail to see how he wants to make any democratic changes to the system of Government. His unpopularity with sections of the Republican party comes from his views on foreign policy.

I should make it clear that I don't think the right to any kind of property is a negative right. Private property is a social construct, and it makes no sense then to say that a violation of private property infringes upon a negative right.

Conservatives hate him for a lot of reasons, foreign policy being one of them. But he does want to make big changes. I wouldn't really call them democratic changes, but I wouldn't say they are undemocratic either.


You are quite right that I don't think Ropke is an Austrian. But as for Hayek and Friedman. They don't exactly strike me as champions of democracy. Hayek explicitly defended Pinochet by saying it was better to have a liberal dictator than an illiberal democrat and Friedman was also on the dictator cheer leader squad.

Still coming up with Libertarian opposition to democracy is like shooting fish in a barrel really. And indeed it ties into the accusation of racism given how strongly they supported apartheid South Africa (much more than mainstream Conservatives).

Ok, I will try again to explain to you why Ropke is an Austrian.

After WW1, Ropke became fervently anti-war, and he initially blamed the First world war on capitalist imperialism. Not long after that he was drawn to socialism. Then, Ropke read Mises' Man, State, and Economy. After reading the book, Ropke realized that he could not embrace any form of socialism, but he still wanted to understand the causes of WW1. This led Ropke to study economics, which in turn allowed him to meet Mises personally and teach with him at the Institute of International Studies in Geneva. Ropke, Mises, and Hayek all called for an international meeting in order to share their concern over the steady erosion of liberty.
In his book Crises and Cycles, Ropke uses the capital and monetary theories of Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, and Hayek to show how the depression was a result of credit expansion by the central bank. He further elaborated on this point in his textbook The Economics of a Free Society. In one of his later editions of the book, Ropke criticized Keynes in the same way all Austrians do. He claimed that Keynes took the human out of "human action" and reduced the economic system to a machine. Ropkes methodology was also very similar to that of Hayeks.

As for Friedman and Hayek, they were both supporters of democracy. Read any of their political writings and you will learn this.


Yes, Sowell may be happy to be the token black guy, but that doesn't mean he doesn't parrot the racist party line. His comments on Petain (and his support for Nationalism in the same article) were something else.

As an aside Sowell seems to be one for holding forth on matters he would best to be quiet about. I remember reading an article by him when he thought it would be clever to use an example from Scottish history to prove his point (the introduction of some English farming methods to be precise) and he somehow managed to state the complete opposite of what the facts actually were.

I hear people call Sowell the "token black guy" all the time. I think it is just because he disagrees with the progressives policies. He is not racist against his own race. He just doesn't like the way progressives view black people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJBeuR0xEP8

(Start at 3:00)


I didn't say opposition to AA was in itself racist, because there are plenty of alternative policies that can be used, and of course it depends on circumstances. It would be pointless to introduce it in Scotland for race for instance. The issue I was bringing up was Libertarian arguments here. Specifically that the fact that blacks significantly underachieve on average is met with tacit implications that blacks tend to be inferior.

Your cherry picking individual people you meet on forums and then subscribe their beliefs to libertarians as a whole. I can do the same thing...

Socialists believe that capitalists should be killed.



I should give credit to a few Libertarians actually because they do acknowledge that blacks are at a disadvantage due to past treatment and call for substantial one off compensation to remedy that. I don't think that would work, but at least they acknowledge it.

There you go again making huge generalizations about an entire race.


Most Libertarians are very blind on that front however. If you really want to watch them go, get them onto the subject of Native Americans. I remember a debate once with a Libertarian who was saying Native Americans should be afforded no help because of yadda yadda yadda and someone interjected that perhaps the tribes should be paid compensation for the treaties they signed with the federal Government being violated and he nearly blew a gasket.

There is no consensus on this. I mean, we can't just return all of America to the Natives. I think some Native Americans should be compensated, although not because their ancestors were treated badly.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I personally do not. Most however support a democratic government constrained by a rule of law.
No they don't. The "rule of law" simply means that laws may not contradict each other, may not be ex post facto, may not reward or punish citizens based on the way they were born, and must apply to everyone without exception.

Libertarians want to impose far more constraints on the popular will than those.


The governments powers are limited beforehand to prevent it from becoming too powerful.
Who decides how powerful is "too powerful"? You?


Even you want to put constrains on majority vote. For example, if the majority votes to enslave the minority, that doesn't mean slavery is OK.
Yes, but my point was that libertarians want to put more constraints on majority vote than the ones that currently exist in Western liberal democracies. Socialists want to put less constraints on majority vote than the ones that currently exist in Western liberal democracies. Therefore, compared to the status quo, libertarians are anti-democracy and socialists are pro-democracy.


Ah yes, I was waiting for affirmative action to be brought up. AA is a perfect example of racism...
You completely missed Demogorgon's point. Here, let me break it down into simple statements that even you can understand:

Fact: Black people in the United States, as a group, underachieve.
Fact: The reasons for underachievement may be external disadvantage, or inherent inability.
Fact: Libertarian ideology denies the existence of external disadvantage.

Therefore, logically, libertarian ideology must lead to the conclusion that black people underachieve due to inherent inability. In other words, the logical conclusion of libertarianism is that blacks are inferior.

That is how libertarianism is racist. Of course, a given individual libertarian may not be personally racist, but that is simply a failure on his part to see the logical conclusion of his own ideology.

[Skooma Addict]

No they don't. The "rule of law" simply means that laws may not contradict each other, may not be ex post facto, may not reward or punish citizens based on the way they were born, and must apply to everyone without exception.

Libertarians want to impose far more constraints on the popular will than those.That is not what is meant by "the rule of law," read Hayeks The Road to Serfdom.


Who decides how powerful is "too powerful"? You?Every person decides for themselves.



Yes, but my point was that libertarians want to put more constraints on majority vote than the ones that currently exist in Western liberal democracies. Socialists want to put less constraints on majority vote than the ones that currently exist in Western liberal democracies. Therefore, compared to the status quo, libertarians are anti-democracy and socialists are pro-democracy.I am not sure if Socialists really want less. Also, libertarians want more freedom than what currently exists in western democracies (gay marriage, freedom to put what you want in your body, ect). This is what is important. But still, most libertarians do want a democratic government. This government just has constrained powers.


Fact: Black people in the United States, as a group, underachieve.Ok, but I don't look at them as a single group.


Fact: Libertarian ideology denies the existence of external disadvantage.No it doesn't. There is nothing in Libertarian ideology that denies the existence of external disadvantage. Really, you should learn more on Libertarianism if you really think this.



Therefore, logically, libertarian ideology must lead to the conclusion that black people underachieve due to inherent inability. In other words, the logical conclusion of libertarianism is that blacks are inferior. Well, no.



That is how libertarianism is racist. Of course, a given individual libertarian may not be personally racist, but that is simply a failure on his part to see the logical conclusion of his own ideology.It is you either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding Libertarianism.

[Havet]

WJBeuR0xEP8

(Start at 3:00)


Ah...how i miss Milton's PBS Free to Choose...

Anyway, Olaf, check out my thead on Democratic Education (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic-education-t127005/index.html) and let me know what you think of it.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

No really. The majority of libertarians support a democratic state. I am surprised that you thought otherwise.

Right, and as you just explained, they want the democratic state to have next to no power.

So their support for democracy ends up entailing that only a tiny minority of decisions are made in a democratic manner.

This is clearly far less "supportive" of democracy than the majority of people.

Which is why you are wrong to say libertarians support democracy.

I feel like I'm talking to a baby.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Fact: Black people in the United States, as a group, underachieve.
Fact: The reasons for underachievement may be external disadvantage, or inherent inability.
Fact: Libertarian ideology denies the existence of external disadvantage.

Therefore, logically, libertarian ideology must lead to the conclusion that black people underachieve due to inherent inability. In other words, the logical conclusion of libertarianism is that blacks are inferior.

That is how libertarianism is racist. Of course, a given individual libertarian may not be personally racist, but that is simply a failure on his part to see the logical conclusion of his own ideology.

Just a quick point, the libertarians don't disagree that people can be externally disadvantaged.

(Although they do tend to downplay that a lot, or completely write it off with idiotic statements claiming that "you can't look at a people generally" or "Some blacks are advantaged so you are generalizing." etc etc)

I think its more likely that they are so often racist because they believe in an economic hierarchy, and from there it is only a short stop to a racist one.)

[Demogorgon]

I should make it clear that I don't think the right to any kind of property is a negative right. Private property is a social construct, and it makes no sense then to say that a violation of private property infringes upon a negative right. I wasn't thinking of property there. I suppose many Libertarians do regard it as the only right that matters (though not you thankfully), but it is used to refer to more. What I meant was Germany has far greater protection of human dignity than America, bans the death penalty, affords more rights to children and so on.


Ok, I will try again to explain to you why Ropke is an Austrian.
[...]
I don't want to get into this again, but suffice to say Ordoliberalism does not seem to me to be compatible with Austrian Economics in any way shape or form. Whatever Ropke's personal friendships or early influences might have been, he had clearly different views.

As for Friedman and Hayek, they were both supporters of democracy. Read any of their political writings and you will learn this.

Words are empty when they flatly contradict actual behaviour. Both were cheerleaders for dictators. You know this. Friedman rationalised it by saying by following his policies they would cease to be dictators (flatly contradicting what was actually happening) but Hayek was pretty explicit. If democracy didn't get the right results, it was time for dictatorship.


I hear people call Sowell the "token black guy" all the time. I think it is just because he disagrees with the progressives policies. He is not racist against his own race. He just doesn't like the way progressives view black people.

He spouts the usual rubbish in the video, but I was referring to some of his other stuff, his praise of Petain for instance. Specifically he was saying the problem of France after the First World War was children were not being taught nationalist values and respect for the military in school and praised Petain for pushing for them. His conclusion was children need to be taught nationalism and militarism.

I've posted the article here before. You can look for it if you like.


Your cherry picking individual people you meet on forums and then subscribe their beliefs to libertarians as a whole. I can do the same thing...

Socialists believe that capitalists should be killed.

To be sure nothing breeds idiots quite like the internet, but fortunately I am not simply quoting individuals from forums. I refer to them yes, but also to a great number of different examples. If need be, I can go through a whole long list of different Libertarian groups around the world showing the explicitly racist and anti-democratic politics of so many of them.

Here is a simple question though. Going back twenty five years, how do you explain why Libertarianism was so strongly pro-apartheid on average? Much more so than Conservatism I mean.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Hoppe:

..the anarchistic upshot of the libertarian doctrine appealed to the countercultural left. For did not the illegitimacy of the state...imply that everyone was at liberty to choose his very own nonaggressive lifestyle? Did this not imply that vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality, insofar as they were victimless crimes, were no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles?
Quote:
the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
Quote:
At all points of entry and along its borders, the GOVERNMENT (emphasis mine), as trustee of its citizens, must check all newly arriving persons for an entrance ticket; that is, a valid invitation by a domestic property owner; anyone not in possession of such a ticket must be expelled at his own expense.
Quote:
...all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only English language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values-with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias.

Block:

“Consider the sexual harassment which continually occurs between a secretary and a boss . . . while objectionable to many women, [it] is not a coercive action. It is rather part of a package deal in which the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept the job, and especially when she agrees to keep the job. The office is, after all, private property. The secretary does not have to remain if the ‘coercion’ is objectionable.”

Rothbard:

"The call of 'equality,'" he wrote, "is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human." Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism. "

Rockwell:

"Rockwell explained the thrust of the idea in a 1990 Liberty essay entitled "The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism." To Rockwell, the LP was a "party of the stoned," a halfway house for libertines that had to be "de-loused." To grow, the movement had to embrace older conservative values. "State-enforced segregation," Rockwell wrote, "was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one's own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse."

Hayek:

"Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic
government lacking liberalism. "

Mises:

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error."

Quotes from Mises.org:

“There’s a good reason the poor are poor, they’re less intelligent than the wealthy.”

“As such, it follows that legitimacy is derived from the claim that the government can help the poor. The poor buy into this as a result of moral and intellectual weakness.”

“Nonetheless we do favour individuals with authority, in the form of a natural elite.”

“If the parents wish to use force, then so be it. The child consents by continuing to live off his parents.”

“Libertarianism doesn’t support equal negative rights, a child does not have the same rights as an adult.”

“This doesn’t imply equal negative rights for adults. Some adults, such as primitives, are not capable of rational argumentation and cannot be brought peacefully into the division of labour. Moreover, they have no conception of property rights nor any enforcable claim.”

“These people (tribal or less developed cultures) simply aren’t capable of rational argumentation, and therefore have no rights, whether this is biological or cultural makes no differences.”

“The fact is they often cannot be brought within the division of labour and without any concept of property rights it’s impossible that they own anything. Moreover they have no legitimate claim to any of this territory and as such it’s free to be homesteaded.”

“People incapable of moral choice must either abide by the decisions of those who are or they must be removed from free society.”

“Against people who have no law, the initiation of force is fully justified.”

“It was not wrong for the spanish to overthrow an empire that literally fed on its slaves in religious rituals and replace it with its much milder form of serfdom.”

“Childish rejection of a natural order and authority isn’t the opposite to subservience. It’s a bad trait that needs to be kept down until the youth have matured sufficiently.”

“A private ruler must respect property rights simply because his wealth depends on clearly defined laws explaining what is, and isn’t legitimate property and how people should act in regards to this.”

“Anarcho capitalism and anarchism are synonomous. Anything that can’t be subsumed under anarcho capitalism, is internally inconsistant, and needs to be thrown out.”

“So long as government commands a monopoly over all land, the closed border position is defensible.”

“It is only reasonable to expect the state to fulfill its duties as a land owner.”

“The only system that would have no borders would be a world government.”

“Seeing as towns would be owned by single entrepreneurs…”

“Why wouldn’t people sell their land to a single entrepreneur? The have no interest in owning land, only in being able to lease it from some owner.”

“There’s nothing new about left-libertarians. They are still the same anti-capitalist who hated big business when Lenin promised to keep control of the commanding heights of the economy.”

“Anybody can benefit from the state and anybody can become a part of it.”

“It’s necessary to remove bad elements from a movement. Which is exactly what the libertarian movement should be doing to non Austrians and the likes of Molyneux. Lenin was exactly right in this regard.”

“Opposition to the family and church sounds somewhat Marxist to me, any libertarian society will be founded upon those two institutions so in a sense yes, one does need to be a cultural conservative to be a libertarian.”

“The state by it’s very nature is egalitarian in the widest sense of the word.”

“The only unifying principle of a secular, multicultural society is the democratic state.”

“Feudalism is actually an entirely appropriate model for anarchist society, and my prediction is it’s coming whether the anarchists like it or not.”

“A system of feudal holdings all competing with each other for human and fiscal capital stacks up pretty good against a system whereby the parasitic majority lives off the productive minority.”

Thanks to Polycentric Order for assembling the collection. All the quotes were taken from the Mises.org forum.


http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-i-dislike-hoppeans-and-libertarian.html

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The above post is absolutely brilliant. I wish I could give you 100 reputation points, Gangsterio.

[Skooma Addict]

What are you trying to prove Gangsterio? That most libertarians aren't pro-democracy? If so, showing the existance of people who don't support democacy does not further your case.


..the anarchistic upshot of the libertarian doctrine appealed to the countercultural left. For did not the illegitimacy of the state...imply that everyone was at liberty to choose his very own nonaggressive lifestyle? Did this not imply that vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality, insofar as they were victimless crimes, were no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles?
Quote:
the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
Quote:
At all points of entry and along its borders, the GOVERNMENT (emphasis mine), as trustee of its citizens, must check all newly arriving persons for an entrance ticket; that is, a valid invitation by a domestic property owner; anyone not in possession of such a ticket must be expelled at his own expense.
Quote:
...all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only English language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values-with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias.

Hoppe is correct that libertarianism appealed to the countercultural left. Many of these people become libertarians for their own little cultural reasons instead of a moral or well thought out consequentialist approach. This is why actual libertarians who thought out their position in detail have little respect for those who just think its cool to rebel.

As for immigration, there is no consensus among ancaps on that.


“Consider the sexual harassment which continually occurs between a secretary and a boss . . . while objectionable to many women, [it] is not a coercive action. It is rather part of a package deal in which the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept the job, and especially when she agrees to keep the job. The office is, after all, private property. The secretary does not have to remain if the ‘coercion’ is objectionable.”

As long as there is nothing in the contract which prohibits this, Block is correct (unless it is rape or something of that nature). Now, what the courts would decide in an Ancap society cannot be known a priori.


"The call of 'equality,'" he wrote, "is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human." Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism. "

Lol, I like Rothbard. Funny guy.


"Rockwell explained the thrust of the idea in a 1990 Liberty essay entitled "The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism." To Rockwell, the LP was a "party of the stoned," a halfway house for libertines that had to be "de-loused." To grow, the movement had to embrace older conservative values. "State-enforced segregation," Rockwell wrote, "was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one's own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse."

State enforced segregation and integration are both wrong.


"Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic
government lacking liberalism. "

He also preferred a liberal democratic government to a liberal dictator.


"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error."

Do you know what book this is from? it is from Liberalism, a book where Mises critisizes socialism and fascism. The quote you posted was Mises praising fascism for preventing socialism from becoming the single dominating ideology in Europe. If you actually read the book your quoting, you could read more of Mises' critiques of fascism.


Quotes from Mises.org

I don't care what people say on forums. Although most of those quotes were by only 3 or 4 people. Also, many of them have retracted their statements long ago. By the way, half of those quotes aren't even bad. For example...

“Anybody can benefit from the state and anybody can become a part of it.”

What is the point in quoting this?


Edit: By the way, I am going to comprise a list of some of the things socialists have said in the past. I guarantee you it won't be pretty. I may want to start with Russell where he advocates using biological terrorism to control population growth.

[Demogorgon]

Do you know what book this is from? it is from Liberalism, a book where Mises critisizes socialism and fascism. The quote you posted was Mises praising fascism for preventing socialism from becoming the single domination ideology in Europe. If you actually read the book your quoting, you could read more of Mises' critiques of fascism.

Of course if we want to go for the most reliable indication of all about Mises' views on fascism, we could look at what he actually did. Such as the small manner of him being the Chief Economic Advisor to the Dolfuss Government and the man who designed Dolfuss's economic policy (which was pretty disastrous as an aside).

Then we could talk about the shady groups he got involved with after the war...

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What are you trying to prove Gangsterio? That most libertarians aren't pro-democracy? If so, showing the existance of people who don't support democacy does not further your case.
So you are saying that in order to prove anything about an ideology, it is not enough to look at the opinions of the most respected intellectual founders of that ideology? In order to find out the stance of a given ideology on issue X, we must ask the opinions of all the individuals who hold that ideology, and see what the majority of them say?

Well, in that case, we don't know the libertarian stance on anything, do we? Because, last time I checked, no one has taken a survey of libertarian opinion on anything...

And of course, we don't know the socialist stance on anything, either.

[IcarusAngel]

Mises also advocated classifying people according to their "races" and he advocated traditional, paleoconservative households. He also said a war against America should be waged if it were to curb the flow of low-waged immigrants coming into the country (this isn't fascist, however, it's just weird).

[Skooma Addict]

Of course if we want to go for the most reliable indication of all about Mises' views on fascism, we could look at what he actually did. Such as the small manner of him being the Chief Economic Advisor to the Dolfuss Government and the man who designed Dolfuss's economic policy (which was pretty disastrous as an aside).


Well since there is nothing about being a CEA that implies that your a fascist, I don't know what your talking about. Also, what policies of Mises did Dolffuss follow, and why did they lead to disaster?


Then we could talk about the shady groups he got involved with after the war...



What groups? So do you think that Mises praised Liberalism and viciously attacked fascism in many of his books as some big joke?


So you are saying that in order to prove anything about an ideology, it is not enough to look at the opinions of the most respected intellectual founders of that ideology? In order to find out the stance of a given ideology on issue X, we must ask the opinions of all the individuals who hold that ideology, and see what the majority of them say?

Hoppe, Block, and Rockwell are not the founders of any ideology that I am aware of. They are certainly not the most well respected of libertarians, and X in this case is libertarianism.


Well, in that case, we don't know the libertarian stance on anything, do we? Because, last time I checked, no one has taken a survey of libertarian opinion on anything...

Well it isn't very hard for people who actually know anything about libertarianism to figure out. There are many different subsets withing libertarianism. By the way, my collection of quotes from socialists and communists is going very well at the moment. Here is a sneak peak.

"But bad times, you may say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true unless the increase of population can be enormously diminished. At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars. ... War ... has hitherto been disappointing in this respect ... but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. ... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."--Russell

[Skooma Addict]

Mises also advocated classifying people according to their "races" and he advocated traditional, paleoconservative households. He also said a war against America should be waged if it were to curb the flow of low-waged immigrants coming into the country (this isn't fascist, however, it's just weird).

Sources? Also, what do you mean he classifies people according to their race? Did he do it in any way that was different than the way people do today and have done for centuries? I don't see what is wrong with merely advocating a traditional household. But I especially want to see the source for the last thing you mentioned.

The great thing is that you all completely missed the worst thing about Mises. Mises had 1 belief specifically which was absolutely abhorrent and disgraceful.

[IcarusAngel]

"It may be assumed that races do differ in intelligence and will
power, and that, this being so, they are very unequal in their ability to
form society, and further that the better races distinguish themselves pre-cisely by their special aptitude for strengthening social cooperation." (Mises)

"It may be admitted that the races differ in talent and character and that
there is no hope of ever seeing those differences resolved. Still, free-trade theory shows that even the more capable races derive an advantage from associating with the less capable and that social cooperation brings them the advantage of higher productivity in the total labor process". (Mises)


We should not be misled "into skipping lightly over the race problem itself. Surely there is hardly any other problem whose clarification could contribute more to deepening our historical understanding. It may be that the way to ultimate knowledge in the field of historical ebb and flow leads through anthropology and race theory." "There exists true science in this field. . . ." "It may be that we shall never solve" the scientific problems associated with race studies, "but that should not make us deny the significance of the race factor in history"

Environment alone, however, cannot account for all group differences.
If that were true, as the Marxists claim, it would be possible to adjust
environment in a successful effort to equalize all human differences. It
is in the context that Mises reminds that "there is a degree of correlation
between bodily structure and mental traits. An individual inherits from
his parents and indirectly from his parents' ancestors not only the specific
biological characteristics of his body but also a constitution of mental powers that circumscribes the potentialities of his mental achievements and his personality" (Mises, 1957, p. 327). The anempt to change this is at odds with the doctrine of equality under the law (p. 328).

[IcarusAngel]

Sources? Also, what do you mean he classifies people according to their race? Did he do it in any way that was different than the way people do today and have done for centuries? I don't see what is wrong with merely advocating a traditional household. But I especially want to see the source for the last thing you mentioned.

The great thing is that you all completely missed the worst thing about Mises. Mises had 1 belief specifically which was absolutely abhorrent and disgraceful.


Mises racism and fascism is the worst part about Mises. He only ignored this problem to the extent that it interfered with free-market theory, but he did believe races exist and that they are often vastly different. He believed that the situation of certain people's is probably because of their race, which is racist.

Show where mises ever renounced his fascism and racism. There's a world of difference between praising fascism as the height of European civilization and then criticizing it in regards to some highly abstract theory that will never be implemented and renouncing racism or being misinterpreted.

[Skooma Addict]

"It may be assumed that races do differ in intelligence and will
power, and that, this being so, they are very unequal in their ability to
form society, and further that the better races distinguish themselves pre-cisely by their special aptitude for strengthening social cooperation." (Mises)

"It may be admitted that the races differ in talent and character and that
there is no hope of ever seeing those differences resolved. Still, free-trade theory shows that even the more capable races derive an advantage from associating with the less capable and that social cooperation brings them the advantage of higher productivity in the total labor process". (Mises)

What books? One paragraph starts with "it may be assumed" and the other starts with "it may be admitted." It may be that Mises is just making assumptions to show the benefits of free trade under many conditions. But still, neither of these quotes strike me as something I would hold against Mises.



We should not be misled "into skipping lightly over the race problem itself. Surely there is hardly any other problem whose clarification could contribute more to deepening our historical understanding. It may be that the way to ultimate knowledge in the field of historical ebb and flow leads through anthropology and race theory." "There exists true science in this field. . . ." "It may be that we shall never solve" the scientific problems associated with race studies, "but that should not make us deny the significance of the race factor in history"

This just isn't that bad. He is looking at race within the context of science in order to better his understanding.


Environment alone, however, cannot account for all group differences.
If that were true, as the Marxists claim, it would be possible to adjust
environment in a successful effort to equalize all human differences. It
is in the context that Mises reminds that "there is a degree of correlation
between bodily structure and mental traits. An individual inherits from
his parents and indirectly from his parents' ancestors not only the specific
biological characteristics of his body but also a constitution of mental powers that circumscribes the potentialities of his mental achievements and his personality" (Mises, 1957, p. 327). The anempt to change this is at odds with the doctrine of equality under the law (p. 328).

Ok?

[Skooma Addict]

Mises racism and fascism is the worst part about Mises. He only ignored this problem to the extent that it interfered with free-market theory, but he did believe races exist and that they are often vastly different.There is nothing immoral about merely believing that race exists and that there are differences between the races. That is definitely not what people have in mind when they think of racism.



Show where mises ever renounced his fascism and racism. There's a world of difference between praising fascism as the height of European civilization and then criticizing it in regards to some highly abstract theory that will never be implemented and renouncing racism or being misinterpreted.He was never a fascist, and I wouldn't call him a racist either. Read Socialism, Human Action, or Liberalism to find Mises' views on fascism.

Since you don't know anything about him, I will tell you what was wrong with Mises. In a later edition of Human Action, Mises stated that conscription was justifiable.

[IcarusAngel]

racism a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.


Mises racism and beliefs that race were a large factor in the development of history are ridiculous. His belief that "physical features" determine intelligence is even more ridiculous.

Mises was indeed a racist and human nature and characteristics is another field he commented on where he had no training, much like his statements on logic.

[Skooma Addict]

racism a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

I only have a problem with believing that one race is "superior" to another. However, whether race exists and if there are differences between races is for science to decide. Not over-emotional guilt ridden protesters.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I only have a problem with believing that one race is "superior" to another.
If race exists, and if there are differences between races with respect to any trait that is either clearly positive or clearly negative, then one race (specifically, the one that has the most of a positive trait, or the least of a negative trait) is superior to the others.

Belief in racial differences logically entails belief that one race is superior to the others, unless all racial differences are with respect to traits that are neither positive nor negative (e.g. skin colour, hair colour, and other purely aesthetic differences).

Intelligence, however, is a clearly positive trait. If there are racial differences in intelligence, that means some races are superior to others.

[IcarusAngel]

The whole classifications of races are stupid and simplistic - most biologists and even psychologists have long since abandoned racial theory, ESPECICALLY the kind Mises was talking about, which you only see at Stormfront etc.

Yes, Mises was intelligent and made some interesting contributions to the social sciences. However, it's interesting that people who hold racial beliefs were generally not of the 'intellectual elite,' if you will, or Nietszche's supermen.

Noam Chomsky and Bertrand Russell were far smarter than Mises and made immortal contributions to humanity, to matheamtics, logic, language, and so on. BOTH of them did. I'm just using them as an example, I could be talking about Einstein and Born (both of whom signed the Einstein manifesto). So is there a superclass of men, and then a lower class to which Mises belongs, and then a lower class still where other people belong? This is the fallacy of that type of "racialist" thinking.

Furthermore, as Noam Chomsky says in the Chomsky Reader (which should be on every leftist's bookshelf), race has no useful purpose in analyzing society:

"Consider finally the question of race and intellectual endowments. Notice again that in a decent society there would be no social consequences to any discovery that might be made about this question. Individuals are what they are; it is only on racist assumptions that they are to be regarded as an instance of their race category, so that social consequences ensue from the discovery that the mean for a certain racial category with respect to some capacity is such and such. Eliminating racist assumptions, the facts have no social consequences whatever they may be, and are therefore not worth knowing, from this point of view at least. If there is any purpose to investigation of the relation between race and some capacity, it must derive from the scientific significance of the question. It is difficult to be precise about questions of scientific merit. Roughly, an inquiry has scientific merit if its results might bear on some general principles of science. One doesn't conduct inquiries into the density of blades of grass on various lawns or innumerable other trivial and pointless questions. But inquiry into such questions as race and IQ appears to be of virtually no scientific interest. Conceivably, there might be some interest in correlations between partially heritable traits, but if someone were interested in this question, he would surely not select such characteristics as race and IQ, each an obscure amalgam of complex properties. Rather, he would ask whether there is a correlation between measurable and significant traits, say, eye color and length of the big toe. It is difficult to see how the study of race and IQ, for example, can be justified on any scientific grounds."

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Olaf, considering how i've provided a pretty extensive list of quotations from some of the primary figures in liberal thought, and you've provided nothing at all I don't see how you can mantain liberals are not reactionary.

Aside from "I just wish it was the case."

[Skooma Addict]

If race exists, and if there are differences between races with respect to any trait that is either clearly positive or clearly negative, then one race (specifically, the one that has the most of a positive trait, or the least of a negative trait) is superior to the others.

Belief in racial differences logically entails belief that one race is superior to the others, unless all racial differences are with respect to traits that are neither positive nor negative (e.g. skin colour, hair colour, and other purely aesthetic differences).

Intelligence, however, is a clearly positive trait. If there are racial differences in intelligence, that means some races are superior to others.

It would mean that the average intelligence of a member of race X is higher than race Y. I do not think this belief alone is necessarily bad because it is value free. However, if you think that a person is inferior due to their race alone, then I have a problem. If you think one race is "better" than another, that is where the problem starts. There is nothing wrong with merely believing race exists, an that there are differences between the races.


The whole classifications of races are stupid and simplistic - most biologists and even psychologists have long since abandoned racial theory, ESPECICALLY the kind Mises was talking about, which you only see at Stormfront etc.

Well I highly doubt the people at Stormfront have the same racial theories as Mises. But I really don't care what Mises thought regarding race as long as he wasn't what I consider to be a racist. I am not interested in the subject at all.



Noam Chomsky and Bertrand Russell were far smarter than Mises and made immortal contributions to humanity, to matheamtics, logic, language, and so on. BOTH of them did. I'm just using them as an example, I could be talking about Einstein and Born (both of whom signed the Einstein manifesto). So is there a superclass of men, and then a lower class to which Mises belongs, and then a lower class still where other people belong? This is the fallacy of that type of "racialist" thinking.

Well I don't think Chomsky or Russell did more for humanity. I am sure they did more for logic and language, while Mises did more for economics. I don't understand the question your asking me.


Olaf, considering how i've provided a pretty extensive list of quotations from some of the primary figures in liberal thought, and you've provided nothing at all I don't see how you can mantain liberals are not reactionary.

Rothbard, Block, Hoppe, Rockwell and Mises for that matter are not the primary figures in liberal thought. It may be true that they are reactionary in the eyes of many socialists. But that is not an insult that bothers me, so I feel no need to prove otherwise.

[IcarusAngel]

I was asking that couldn't we also divide "whites" up into groups with Chomsky and Russell (or Einstein and Born) in a higher group with Mises in a lower group, and what the point of such "scientific classifications" would be? There is no point to it.

As for your insinuation that Mises did more for humanity that's ridiculous. Science and math have done far more than economics has esp. the economics of Mises, which, when implemented in Latin America, led to the deaths of over 20 million people during Operation Condor (Friedman et al.).

[Skooma Addict]

I was asking that couldn't we also divide "whites" up into groups with Chomsky and Russell (or Einstein and Born) in a higher group with Mises in a lower group, and what the point of such "scientific classifications" would be? There is no point to it.

Well I guess you could classify people like Einstein as geniuses. I am sure there would be a point under certain conditions in classifying people into different races if race exists and there are clear differences between races.


As for your insinuation that Mises did more for humanity that's ridiculous. Science and math have done far more than economics has esp. the economics of Mises, which, when implemented in Latin America, led to the deaths of over 20 million people during Operation Condor (Friedman et al.).

Well I wasn't saying that economics has done more for humanity than science or math. I was saying that Mises did more than Chomsky and Russell. You obviously think otherwise. The economic policies followed in Latin America were Monetarist/Chicagoist, not Austrian. I am not sure what Operation Condor has to do with anything.

[anticap]

I wish leftists wouldn't facilitate the relatively recent hijacking by advocates of laissez-faire capitalism of a term that was coined (in the political sense) by a communist-anarchist as a self-descriptor and that was synonymous with anarchism (properly understood, as inherently anti-capitalist) for most of its history and continues to be so in much of the world outside the English-speaking West. I think "propertarian" is more fitting, and is widespread enough to be usable without much need for explanation. Or, in the case of U$-American propertarians, "constitutionalist" is often more precisely accurate (but not always). The notion among propertarians that "libertarian-socialist" is oxymoronic is really quite comical, since it is in fact redundant. On the other hand, any attempt to graft capitalism onto libertarianism will result in a self-imploding oxymoron, something like "pro-capitalist anti-capitalism." Further reading by (I believe) Iain McKay: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/150-years-of-libertarian

Anyway, the kind of "democracy" advocated by propertarians tends to be the nonsense of "republicanism," which amounts to little more than a devious and cynical ploy. Further reading by Paul Cockshott: http://reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/antirep.htm

[Demogorgon]

Well since there is nothing about being a CEA that implies that your a fascist, I don't know what your talking about. Also, what policies of Mises did Dolffuss follow, and why did they lead to disaster?

Mises position gave him a central role in the Austrian Government. He firstly would not have taken it had he not sympathised and he certainly would not have been given it.

As for his policies, he drew up policies to combat the depression based on his views. Suffice to say Austria did not come out well.


What groups? Some of the "Europe, a nation" groups.


So do you think that Mises praised Liberalism and viciously attacked fascism in many of his books as some big joke?

At the risk of stating the obvious, Mises wasn't American, he was from continental Europe and the things he said have to be interpreted in light of the way Europeans often talk about politics. In many parts of Europe the word Liberal implies explicitly right wing politics and in some cases is the word fascists use to describe themselves. It may seem counter-intuitive given the manner in which Mussolini presented himself as explicitly anti-liberal but that is just what happened. Fascism is a word with a lot of baggage and people don't like being associated with it. Therefore in Europe "Liberal" is sometimes used instead.

If you think about it, it does work. Liberalism pushed for a lot of progress in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but the progress made then is anachronistic applies to later ages. For instance a triumph of early Liberals was to make Government responsible to legislatures elected by all male property holders. That was progressive in its time, but today to call for elections where only male property owners can vote is extraordinarily reactionary. A modern liberal understanding the spirit of the movement would be able to place that in context, but a reactionary wanting to go back to earlier times may take it as an excuse to call themselves liberal.

[Demogorgon]

Well I wasn't saying that economics has done more for humanity than science or math. I was saying that Mises did more than Chomsky and Russell.
Chomsky for instance fundamentally changed the way language is studied and changed the teaching of language as well. Essentially modern teaching methods for learning new languages are derived from him.

Mises came up with some economic policies that are of fringe interest...

[Paul Cockshott]

Anyway, the kind of "democracy" advocated by propertarians tends to be the nonsense of "republicanism," which amounts to little more than a devious and cynical ploy. Further reading by Paul Cockshott: http://reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/antirep.htm

Thanks for mentioning that, it was an old letter written some 15 years ago, but it is saying much the same as I do in my critique of McNair. In the UK there is a certain romanticisation of republicanism due to the state officially being a monarchy. In places like France , Germany or the US republicanism is openly the position of the right.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Rothbard, Block, Hoppe, Rockwell and Mises for that matter are not the primary figures in liberal thought. It may be true that they are reactionary in the eyes of many socialists. But that is not an insult that bothers me, so I feel no need to prove otherwise.

By "liberal" I mean libertarian. I'm from England, sorry for not being clear.

So, it would seem like libertarians tend to be more reactionary than most.

And you were arguing that they weren't...so, uh, glad we've established that they were. Even if you now say it doesn't matter to you.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

[QUOTE=Olaf;1651798]Well I guess you could classify people like Einstein as geniuses. I am sure there would be a point under certain conditions in classifying people into different races if race exists and there are clear differences between races./QUOTE]

Why don't you just admit you are too dumb to understand any of this? :lol:

[Skooma Addict]

Why don't you just admit you are too dumb to understand any of this? :lol:

What I said made perfect sense.

[gorillafuck]

As for immigration, there is no consensus among ancaps on that.
I would think ancaps would support open borders? Or else they'd be supporting a coercive state?

[RGacky3]

As for immigration, there is no consensus among ancaps on that.


This (amung everything else) shows how anarchist anacaps really are .... they arnt.



Quote:
"Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic
government lacking liberalism. "
He also preferred a liberal democratic government to a liberal dictator.

So what, it shows he has no even remote notion of what freedom is.

[Skooma Addict]

I would think ancaps would support open borders? Or else they'd be supporting a coercive state?

They don't support a state. However, if there is going to be a state, some people think that the state should enforce immigration laws.


This (amung everything else) shows how anarchist anacaps really are .... they arnt.

I think they are more consistent than anarcho-socialists or anarcho-syndicalists. But yes, they are anarchists.

[Mindtoaster]

http://i.imgur.com/owaMT.png

[Robert]

Nice looking comrade in your avatar, dude. Who is it?

[RGacky3]

They don't support a state. However, if there is going to be a state, some people think that the state should enforce immigration laws.


Are you kidding me? So your against the state ... but as long as there is one, your gonna support all the things that make it tyrranicle.

So they want the state to enforce immigration laws, but no protectionism, open markets internationally, no matter what it does to other countries, so freedom for corporations to go whereever they want, but I'll be damned if people will get that freedom.


I think they are more consistent than anarcho-socialists or anarcho-syndicalists. But yes, they are anarchists.

If there is a question about immigration laws .... no they arn't,

Also if a free market dictator is MORE acceptable to a socialist democracy, NO YOU ARE NOT.

Its absolutely clear, you guys are in the buisiness of defending big buisiness and profits tooth and nail.

The fact that there is a question about limiting immigration, but not one about limiting corporate imperialism shows your true colors.

[IcarusAngel]

Free-markets are already dictatorships.

But how a social demcoracy is a dictatorship, where advanced ones have never slipped into tyranny, is beyond me.

Miseans are anti-reality, anti-science, anti-logic. That's why their biggest base is on the internet.

[Skooma Addict]

Anti-reality? That's a new one.

[Left-Reasoning]

Free-markets are already dictatorships.

Comrade, the "free market" of the capitalists is a dictatorship, yes. The free market of "will you trade your soda for my chips" is not.


But how a social demcoracy is a dictatorship, where advanced ones have never slipped into tyranny, is beyond me.

"If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing the State." - Benjamin Tucker

[IcarusAngel]

Agorism, which is a branch of anarcho-capitalism according to its founder, I don't think would pass Benjamin Tucker's "no landed monopoly" test, nor would it pass the test that profit is plunder under capitalist conditions.

I, for one, would prefer to live under a social democracy than a brutal market dictatorship where the only actors are private actors, there is no democracy. You claim there would be people who prevent consolidation of capital, I don't see how, but you might as well just keep society the way it is and have government perform such a role instead of trying to "revolutionize" society only to replace it with another free-market society.

[Skooma Addict]

There is no such thing as a market dictatorship.

[IcarusAngel]

When private actors control land and resources it is a dictatorship. Your ideology as well would lead to a dictatorship, becauase you want to force people to accept your property rights and corporatism with no public input. When corporations start to give law, that is also a dictatorship, or at least a private tyranny, which is worse than government tyranny.

In fact you advocate pure tyranny, no public interface whatsoever. Agorists are not that bad, but they suffer the same fate since they draw heavily upon right-wing theory, not social theory or leftist theory.

[Nolan]

When private actors control land and resources it is a dictatorship. Your ideology as well would lead to a dictatorship, becauase you want to force people to accept your property rights and corporatism with no public input. When corporations start to give law, that is also a dictatorship, or at least a private tyranny, which is worse than government tyranny.

In fact you advocate pure tyranny, no public interface whatsoever. Agorists are not that bad, but they suffer the same fate since they draw heavily upon right-wing theory, not social theory or leftist theory.

Comrade, I know you're well intentioned and all, but corporatism requires a government with authoritarian powers influenced by a strong ruling class. Obviously Ancap wouldnt lead to corporatism. Chaos and perpetual war, but not corporatism.

[Skooma Addict]

When private actors control land and resources it is a dictatorship. Your ideology as well would lead to a dictatorship, becauase you want to force people to accept your property rights and corporatism with no public input. When corporations start to give law, that is also a dictatorship, or at least a private tyranny, which is worse than government tyranny.

When private actors control land and resources it is a dictatorship? That doesn't make sense. I don't want to force everyone to accept my version of property rights. Its just that my idea of property will lead to better economic outcomes than yours, and so private property will naturally come to dominate in a free environment.

[Skooma Addict]

Obviously Ancap wouldnt lead to corporatism. Chaos and perpetual war, but not corporatism.

How do you know it would lead to chaos and perpetual war?

[IcarusAngel]

It does make sense and it is a foundation of both political and anarchist theory.


Comrade, I know you're well intentioned and all, but corporatism requires a government with authoritarian powers influenced by a strong ruling class. Obviously Ancap wouldnt lead to corporatism. Chaos and perpetual war, but not corporatism.

Fascism is when corporations become the government. Anarcho-capitalism is when corporations are removed of all regulations, so resources would become very consolidated and ancaps have no concern that the "property" the corporations hold comes from the work of all of us, or at least from the work of many people who are not benefitting from the corporation's control of land.

Anarcho-capitalism originally referred to just the ability of corporations to govern themselves, and of the government handing over all power to corporations, hence "free-market." So it isn't anarchistic in the first place, it's just a different form of government, but a brutal one.

See:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF1.html

[IcarusAngel]

Its just that my idea of property will lead to better economic outcomes than yours, and so private property will naturally come to dominate in a free environment.


Lol. This is ridiculous. Countries that have implemented pure free-markets have been kept perpetually in poverty. Countries that have used the government to provide corporations and the public with resources, such as the beginnings of America and the 20th century, have been success stories.

You have absolutely no data to back youself up on this which is why you rarely post data.

As for dictatorships being privatized, even modern social science theory admits this. See online dictationary of the social sciences. Even some Libertarians have admitted it, such as Karl Hess.

Your ignorance of political philosophy is so bad you might as well just remove yourself from any political discussion and join a forum discussing the care of hampsters or something.

[Skooma Addict]

Lol. This is ridiculous. Countries that have implemented pure free-markets have been kept perpetually in poverty. Countries that have used the government to provide corporations and the public with resources, such as the beginnings of America and the 20th century, have been success stories.I don't see how you could possibly use the beginnings of America as support for your claim. But as I said, private property is just better than your idea of communal property. For one there is no incentive to work hard under your system, and people who aren't ideologically motivated would rather invest in a community which supports private property.


You have absolutely no data to back youself up on this which is why you rarely post data.

As for dictatorships being privatized, even modern social science theory admits this. See online dictationary of the social sciences. Even some Libertarians have admitted it, such as Karl Hess.

Your ignorance of political philosophy is so bad you might as well just remove yourself from any political discussion and join a forum discussing the care of hampsters or something.Well I still don't think the term "market dictatorship" makes any sense. I have a pretty decent understanding of political philosophy though.

[Nolan]

How do you know it would lead to chaos and perpetual war?

In a system where ambition is encouraged and firms have no regulation and field their own armies, lets just say I have a hunch. ;)

No thank you to the next golden age of the mob.

[Nolan]

For one there is no incentive to work hard under your system, and people who aren't ideologically motivated would rather invest in a community which supports private property.

You really have no idea what Socialism is, do you? How long have you been here?

[Nolan]

Fascism is when corporations become the government.

No, you're throwing the word fascism around a bit too much. Fascism means a very specific thing. I don't think there are many Ancaps at Scumfront. :lol:

[Skooma Addict]

In a system where ambition is encouraged and firms have no regulation and field their own armies, lets just say I have a hunch. ;)

No thank you to the next golden age of the mob.

Is it bad that ambition is encouraged? Also, most regulation today helps many larger firms at the expense of smaller ones. The removal of regulation is a good thing. Firms fielding their own armies would be extremely expensive and inconvenient. It would be far more economical to hire professional police.


You really have no idea what Socialism is, do you? How long have you been here?

There is no possible way that you can conclude that I don't know what socialism is from what you quoted. The incentive problem is a very good argument to use against socialists of all branches.

[Nolan]

Is it bad that ambition is encouraged?

It depends on what kinds.


Also, most regulation today helps many larger firms at the expense of smaller ones.

No argument here. That's one reason why American-style capitalism is a horrible circus.



The removal of regulation is a good thing.

Even in a capitalist context, it depends. Tell that to Argentina. Or the Soviet Union. Tell that to Anita, the former Romanian doctor who now cleans my friend's toilet in Spain. Nothing wrong with cleaning, but she is a loser by capitalist measures.



Firms fielding their own armies would be extremely expensive and inconvenient. It would be far more economical to hire professional police.

Ah yes, I forgot you'll have to resurrect the Pinkertons to keep those unruly workers in line. How dare they violate your all-holy property rights by trying to unionize.


There is no possible way that you can conclude that I don't know what socialism is from what you quoted. The incentive problem is a very good argument to use against socialists of all branches.

I assume this comes from the classlessness of Marxism. The problem with you reactionaries is that you don't understand what class means in Marxism. To you, class is determined by one's income. But in Marxism and Anarchism, class is determined by one's relationship to the means of production. In Socialism, the workers would receive the value they produce. If one group works harder, longer, and contributes more, they theoretically could be "richer" than their lazy peers. But the kind of wealth capitalists leech by exploitation could never be attained. So it would in fact have very little wealth disparity and it would have general equality.

Seriously, you have a lot of reading to do.

[Skooma Addict]

Ah yes, I forgot you'll have to resurrect the Pinkertons to keep those unruly workers in line. How dare they violate your all-holy property rights by trying to unionize.

Merely unionizing is not a violation of property rights.



I assume this comes from the classlessness of Marxism. The problem with you reactionaries is that you don't understand what class means in Marxism. To you, class is determined by one's income. But in Marxism and Anarchism, class is determined by one's relationship to the means of production. In Socialism, the workers would receive the value they produce. If one group works harder, longer, and contributes more, they theoretically could be "richer" than their lazy peers. But the kind of wealth capitalists leech by exploitation could never be attained. So it would in fact have very little wealth disparity and it would have general equality.

Seriously, you have a lot of reading to do.

Where are you getting the idea that I didn't know this?

[Nolan]

Where are you getting the idea that I didn't know this?

From your use of the incentive "problem" as an argument. It makes absolutely no sense. It assumes we want to pay everyone equal wages. Take that away, and it doesn't hold any water.

[Nolan]

Merely unionizing is not a violation of property rights.

Ok, so they can call themselves a union. It's ok as long as they don't actually do anything. Got it. ;)

[Skooma Addict]

From your use of the incentive "problem" as an argument. It makes absolutely no sense. It assumes we want to pay everyone equal wages. Take that away, and it doesn't hold any water.Are you determining wages by labor time or by number of products produced?


Ok, so they can call themselves a union. It's ok as long as they don't actually do anything. Got it. ;)
They can organize if they want. Its just that they can't prevent non-union workers from entering the industry or taking their jobs.

[IcarusAngel]

No, you're throwing the word fascism around a bit too much. Fascism means a very specific thing. I don't think there are many Ancaps at Scumfront. :lol:

Fascism has meant many different things to different people. I've seen it described as socialism, capitalism, and everything in between. I have met many anarcho-capitalists who told me on messenger that they believe that whites are superior to all other races, including Asians. At Anti-State.com one of the most prominent posters is a racist, and on youtube many ancaps are racist. Many ancap intellectuals such as Walter Block have made numerous racist statements.

Giovanni Gentile described fascism as corporatism. Keep in mind that National Socialism being described as fascism is actually a misnomer, and the original fascist movements were not anti-semetic. Lenin said "fascism is capitalism in decline." An economics textbook states that fascism is "basically an economic movement," while (Libertarian) economist says that all modern states are corporatist (fascist) states and ancap wants to keep modern society's most prominent institution: the corporation.

What boils down to is that in fascism, workers have the right to choose to work for a variety of property owners, who derive economic and political power from that ownership.

In anarcho-capitalism, workers have the right to choose to work for a variety of property owners, who derive economic and political power from that ownership.

If there's a big difference I'm not seeing it, although I'd actually trust a fascist society to be more stable than an anarcho-capitalist one.

Fascism leaves the government in places, who is a big enough actor to joust with the corporations over issues such as where to take society and the environment, whereas anarcho-capitalism does not. Anarcho-capitalism is basically anti-human.

We socialists will sound like even bigger nutcases if we start adopting rhetoric similar to anarcho-fascism (or whatever the hell you want to call it).

[RGacky3]

Quote:
Originally Posted by IcarusAngel http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1655710#post1655710)
Fascism is when corporations become the government.
No, you're throwing the word fascism around a bit too much. Fascism means a very specific thing. I don't think there are many Ancaps at Scumfront.

I agree fascism is thrown about too much, conservatives are not fascists, free market guys are not fascists, HOWEVER, fascism (what mussolini and franco believed in) WAS a big corporate and State alliance, that was the main economic policy of the fascists, thats what they did, big buisiness joined up with big government for national interests.


They can organize if they want. Its just that they can't prevent non-union workers from entering the industry or taking their jobs.

Ok good deal, landowners can own their land as long as they don't prevent other people from using it :), sound good? YOu guys have such a double standard.


Are you determining wages by labor time or by number of products produced?

One of the biggest rallying cries of ANarchists, especially anarcho-syndicalists, is "ABOLISH THE WAGE SYSTEM." Thats what we want to do. We want to abolish the "work for wage" economy, and instead have a "do what need sto be done, and do it democratically" economy.


Is it bad that ambition is encouraged? Also, most regulation today helps many larger firms at the expense of smaller ones. The removal of regulation is a good thing. Firms fielding their own armies would be extremely expensive and inconvenient. It would be far more economical to hire professional police

How is that not a state?


Merely unionizing is not a violation of property rights.

Yeah, because profit and power hungry corporations with their own freaking armies would NEVER use their unchecked power for anything except protecting their "legitimate" property rights.

Are you seeing how insane your system is?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I don't want to force everyone to accept my version of property rights.


So you won't do anything if I steal from you then?

Oh no, wait...


Once again, you blunderingly forget that you're belief system has already been thoughgly refuted in earlier threads (And in this case, you admitted as such!)

[Skooma Addict]

Ok good deal, landowners can own their land as long as they don't prevent other people from using it :), sound good? YOu guys have such a double standard.


There is no double standard.


One of the biggest rallying cries of ANarchists, especially anarcho-syndicalists, is "ABOLISH THE WAGE SYSTEM." Thats what we want to do. We want to abolish the "work for wage" economy, and instead have a "do what need sto be done, and do it democratically" economy.

I know, and it is a terrible idea. But I was under the impression that Comandante wanted to pay workers different wages.


How is that not a state?

Businesses are not states.



Yeah, because profit and power hungry corporations with their own freaking armies would NEVER use their unchecked power for anything except protecting their "legitimate" property rights.

Are you seeing how insane your system is?

I don't think corporations would have their own armies. As I said before, there is a disincentive to fight. Fight and you will lose money.


So you won't do anything if I steal from you then?

Oh no, wait...


Once again, you blunderingly forget that you're belief system has already been thoughgly refuted in earlier threads (And in this case, you admitted as such!)

If you lived in a community that supports private property, then you would be punished for the crime. However, you can form your own community or join one with like minded individuals.

[Nolan]

But I was under the impression that Comandante wanted to pay workers different wages.

No wages.

[IcarusAngel]

Olaf is just spewing flat-out nonsense. Of course a government is required in order for businesses to exist. In a capitalist system, the government tells people who can and who cannot own property, just like in a feudalist system.

As for the business itself, it definitely fits Max Weber's definition of a state (See Community, Anarchy, and Liberty on this by taylor). It even fits the definition of a state according to some Libertarians:
http://www.tpaine.org/river1.htm

Bottomline, 99% of capitalists admit capitalism requires a state, they just claim it's the freest state possible.

I'd like to see a state (if one must exist) along the lines of guild socialism. The only thing the state does is help to manage the guilds, providing regulations and measurements and things like that. The state could even get out of the property business altogether, and only ensure that people don't hurt one another. Maybe it would provide an army, but it'd definitely be smaller than the laissez-faire nightmare of the Miseans.

If the guilds and the state get into a dispute, their could be a final arbiter made up of representatives of the state and each of the guilds could settle it, the final form of democracy.

Civilization essentially took a wrong turn at feudalism, becoming less democratic than even the greeks. That negative trend needs to be reversed.

[Skooma Addict]

No wages.


Oh, well it wasn't central to my point anyways. You said that the incentive problem does not apply. I want to know how more productive workers will "earn" more than less productive workers.


Olaf is just spewing flat-out nonsense. Of course a government is required in order for businesses to exist. In a capitalist system, the government tells people who can and who cannot own property, just like in a feudalist system.

Well no, businesses can exist without a government because the free market can exist without a government.


As for the business itself, it definitely fits Max Weber's definition of a state (See Community, Anarchy, and Liberty on this by taylor). It even fits the definition of a state according to some Libertarians:

Sorry, but my local grocery store is not a state. Businesses are not States. This should be obvious.


I'd like to see a state (if one must exist) along the lines of guild socialism. The only thing the state does is help to manage the guilds, providing regulations and measurements and things like that. The state could even get out of the property business altogether, and only ensure that people don't hurt one another. Maybe it would provide an army, but it'd definitely be smaller than the laissez-faire nightmare of the Miseans.

How will this state be funded? Also, what would prevent it from expanding beyond the point you intended it to be?

[Klaatu]

This is what the blogger FEARS:

"...slide into a permanent “progressive” majority helmed by a deluded far-left who do not listen
to the people, and are chomping at the bit to bankrupt us into a socialist oligarchy."

And this is what ACTUALLY IS happening: (and is MY worst fear)

"...slide into a permanent “conservative” majority helmed by a deluded far-right who do not listen
to the people, and are chomping at the bit to bankrupt us into a capitalist oligarchy."

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

If you lived in a community that supports private property, then you would be punished for the crime. However, you can form your own community or join one with like minded individuals.

But wait a second...

So "coercion" is justified as long as the community favours it?

...Okay, unfurl the red banner everyone, Olaf has just admitted he'd be fine with a democratic socialist state!

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I wouldn't refer to all libertarians as fascist. Many yes, but I believe there are some that just don't see the flaws of capitalism and therefore place the blame for all of society's problems on the state. Thankfully though there aren't many of these people.

Most are indeed fascists, which is funny because they've started calling Obama and the U.S. fascist, yet all of them most likely voted for Bush and McCain and are just reactionary idiots. I lump them in with the rest of the anti-democratic, anti-intellectual extreme right.

[IcarusAngel]

Basically all modern forms of rightism are fascism in one way or another. This is where rightism has "converged." That's my interpretation and there is plenty of political theory to back that up. To be honest, even feudalism looks decent compared to their ideas.

Take "free-enterprise." I'm arguing with other Libertarians on another forum about who invented what with computers (I'm winning the debate), and I also said:


It's actually the other way around; the free-market has never invented anything because it doesn't exist. the Government itself exists as the ultimate arbitrator of how property can be used, so all corporations and businesses that exist under the auspices of the government could be said to be government run."

That's capitalism for you.

[Green Dragon]

I'd like to see a state (if one must exist) along the lines of guild socialism. The only thing the state does is help to manage the guilds, providing regulations and measurements and things like that. The state could even get out of the property business altogether, and only ensure that people don't hurt one another. Maybe it would provide an army, but it'd definitely be smaller than the laissez-faire nightmare of the Miseans.

If the guilds and the state get into a dispute, their could be a final arbiter made up of representatives of the state and each of the guilds could settle it, the final form of democracy.


The Misean "nightmare" recognises that it is not enough to simply say the state will be the "final arbiter" of disputes, or they will help "manage" the guilds. There has to be an explanation HOW such things will done.
Democracy is a fine thing, but one its requirements is that there be a broad level of common agreement, of conformity, where more or less everyone more or less agrees.

[Green Dragon]

I, for one, would prefer to live under a social democracy than a brutal market dictatorship


What was it that Hitler said? I would "rather live in a Bolshevik Germany that a Galliced reich" The reference being that France, not the UK, was considered the most capitalist sympathetic country back in the day.

The sentiments that both expresed are scarcely unique, nor have they dimmed with time.

[IcarusAngel]

The Misean "nightmare" recognises that it is not enough to simply say the state will be the "final arbiter" of disputes, or they will help "manage" the guilds. There has to be an explanation HOW such things will done.

And where did Ludwig "King of the pseudosciences" Mises outline what the exact role of the government is in a capitalist society and what evidence did he use to support his arguments?


Democracy is a fine thing, but one its requirements is that there be a broad level of common agreement, of conformity, where more or less everyone more or less agrees.

Yes, but free societies would have many separate, functioning communities, not just one state operating under the tyrannical ideology of, say, a pseudointellectual like Ludwig von Mises.

[Green Dragon]

Yes, but free societies would have many separate, functioning communities, not just one state operating under the tyrannical ideology of, say, a pseudointellectual like Ludwig von Mises.

So what if one has multiple communities who more or less agree on what to do?

[Skooma Addict]

Most are indeed fascists, which is funny because they've started calling Obama and the U.S. fascist, yet all of them most likely voted for Bush and McCain and are just reactionary idiots. I lump them in with the rest of the anti-democratic, anti-intellectual extreme right.

The people who voted for Bush and McCain are not libertarians. You obviously don't know enough about libertarianism to comment on it. That much is clear.



And where did Ludwig "King of the pseudosciences" Mises outline what the exact role of the government is in a capitalist society and what evidence did he use to support his arguments?

So you don't even know what Mises believed, and yet you still feel justified in critiquing his beliefs? Odd....

[Nolan]

The people who voted for Bush and McCain are not libertarians. You obviously don't know enough about libertarianism to comment on it. That much is clear.

Many call themselves Libertarians. Of those, most are teabagger ignoramuses. That's what matters.





So you don't even know what Mises believed, and yet you still feel justified in critiquing his beliefs? Odd....

lolwut

[IcarusAngel]

So you don't even know what Mises believed, and yet you still feel justified in critiquing his beliefs? Odd....

I was asking Green Dragon his view of what the Misean state would look like, and what evidence Mises gave to defend his views.

Is your name Green Dragon?

[Skooma Addict]

I was asking Green Dragon his view of what the Misean state would look like, and what evidence Mises gave to defend his views.

Is your name Green Dragon?

Mises' state would be minimal. The government would function to enforce property rights and ensure social cohesion.

Mises believed that a government was required to ensure social cooperation, and so he thought a government was necessary. To defend his views, he theoretically and empirically explained how the market is the best method for achieving general prosperity for the masses.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If you lived in a community that supports private property, then you would be punished for the crime. However, you can form your own community or join one with like minded individuals.
Where? On what land?

[Skooma Addict]

Where? On what land?

I don't know how you will acquire the land. Maybe there is an already existing community that develops laws which would develop in a way that you would approve of. Or maybe there is land which is unused and unclaimed. I don't know this a priori. Now, if it turns out that private property comes to dominate, and you are for whatever reason unable to join or form a socialist community, it is not something I would lose sleep over. I just can't know the specifics in advance.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I don't know how you will acquire the land. Maybe there is an already existing community that develops laws which would develop in a way that you would approve of. Or maybe there is land which is unused and unclaimed. I don't know this a priori. Now, if it turns out that private property comes to dominate, and you are for whatever reason unable to join or form a socialist community, it is not something I would lose sleep over. I just can't know the specifics in advance.
So in other words, we can form our own community with its own laws... but before we can do so, we must play by the rules of existing communities in order to acquire money (or whatever the existing communities demand of us before they will let us have some of their land). So we are at the mercy of the existing communities.

That is not freedom.

[Skooma Addict]

So in other words, we can form our own community with its own laws... but before we can do so, we must play by the rules of existing communities in order to acquire money (or whatever the existing communities demand of us before they will let us have some of their land). So we are at the mercy of the existing communities.

That is not freedom.

No. I highly doubt that every single community would all adopt a single legal code. It may turn out that some communities will naturally form a standard which would be almost indistinguishable from socialism. Now, you would have to make sure that you interact with the rest of society for obvious reasons.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No. I highly doubt that every single community would all adopt a single legal code. It may turn out that some communities will naturally form a standard which would be almost indistinguishable from socialism. Now, you would have to make sure that you interact with the rest of society for obvious reasons.
Even if there are 1000 different legal codes in the world, the point is that I cannot live under legal code no.1001 unless I first spend some time playing by the rules of one of the existing communities. This is no different from the present day status quo, in which there are about 200 different legal codes in the world (one for each country), and you have the ability to form your own society if you satisfy certain conditions that some of these communities put before you - for example, some of them will sell you a private island if you have enough money.

Basically, my point is this: If you are born under a certain legal code that you can only escape by fulfilling a number of conditions determined by other people, then how is this different from having a state impose its legal code on you?

[Skooma Addict]

Basically, my point is this: If you are born under a certain legal code that you can only escape by fulfilling a number of conditions determined by other people, then how is this different from having a state impose its legal code on you?So lets say you are a socialst who was born and raised in a community which supports private property. You can either move to a community which is more in line with your vaues, or if one does not exist, you can try to form one (which I imagine would be very difficult). So in a way, yes, you need to fulfill conditions which are determined by other people. So a community-like a state-would in fact impose legal codes on you. For example, when you are punished for killing someone, a legal code is being imposed on you.

One of the main differences between this and a state is that there are no territorial monopolies.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So lets say you are a socialst who was born and raised in a community which supports private property. You can either move to a community which is more in line with your vaues, or if one does not exist, you can try to form one (which I imagine would be very difficult). So in a way, yes, you need to fulfill conditions which are determined by other people. So a community-like a state-would in fact impose legal codes on you. For example, when you are punished for killing someone, a legal code is being imposed on you.
Yes. To make sure I am not misunderstood, I need to point out that my argument is not meant to imply that your proposed arrangement is bad because it is bad to impose legal codes on people. I do not believe it is bad to impose legal codes on people.

Rather, my argument is that such imposition of legal codes is an inevitable fact of life in any human society. So if your objection to the state is that it imposes legal codes on people without their consent, then you are objecting to society in general.

Since there is no neutral space outside law-bound society for human beings to be born and grow up in, it follows that all human beings will always have a certain legal code imposed on them (the one they are born under). Escaping the legal code of your birth will never be an easy task.


One of the main differences between this and a state is that there are no territorial monopolies.
I doubt that. Some territorial monopolies are natural and inevitable. People need to live in reasonably close proximity to their workplaces, for instance. If there is no workplace owned by the socialist community in your general area, then you cannot join that community unless you move - which is much the same thing as moving from one country to another.

Also, you need to live reasonably close to stores operating under your legal code, and so on. I can't see any way to break territorial monopolies into units smaller than city-states.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

No. I highly doubt that every single community would all adopt a single legal code. It may turn out that some communities will naturally form a standard which would be almost indistinguishable from socialism. Now, you would have to make sure that you interact with the rest of society for obvious reasons.

Cool,

So why do you oppose the state again?

You don't oppose it on the grounds that its enforced onto people, or else you'd oppose "Minarchist" societies doing just that to communists.

You don't oppose it on the ground that its inefficient, or else you'd oppose communist communities.


It seems to me that your entire "argument" against it boils down to: "There isn't a society I like out of all the ones out there so everyone should go out of their way to make a special little capitalist society somewhere.."

How pathetic! Mr. self owner is asking for what amounts to a handout from everyone else! Your need for what would essentially be a public subsidy for "Minarchism" is quite disturbing given the vitrol you direct at those receiving a public subsidy so they uh, don't freeze to death in the streets.

[Skooma Addict]

Yes. To make sure I am not misunderstood, I need to point out that my argument is not meant to imply that your proposed arrangement is bad because it is bad to impose legal codes on people. I do not believe it is bad to impose legal codes on people.

Rather, my argument is that such imposition of legal codes is an inevitable fact of life in any human society. So if your objection to the state is that it imposes legal codes on people without their consent, then you are objecting to society in general.

Since there is no neutral space outside law-bound society for human beings to be born and grow up in, it follows that all human beings will always have a certain legal code imposed on them (the one they are born under). Escaping the legal code of your birth will never be an easy task.Well we are in full agreement here then. I would happily impose legal codes on people even if they don't consent. Anyone who says that this is wrong must allow murders go unpunished for killing people.



I doubt that. Some territorial monopolies are natural and inevitable. People need to live in reasonably close proximity to their workplaces, for instance. If there is no workplace owned by the socialist community in your general area, then you cannot join that community unless you move - which is much the same thing as moving from one country to another.

Also, you need to live reasonably close to stores operating under your legal code, and so on. I can't see any way to break territorial monopolies into units smaller than city-states.If you live in America, the U.S. government has a monopoly over certain vital services such as police and arbitration in the are where you live. However, if no such government existed, I could choose between police provider X, Y, or Z. I guess you could say that I have a territorial monopoly over my own land, but that really doesn't count as a state in my opinion.

Then of course one of the most distinctive features of a state is missing; the ability to tax.


Cool,

So why do you oppose the state again?

You don't oppose it on the grounds that its enforced onto people, or else you'd oppose "Minarchist" societies doing just that to communists.

You don't oppose it on the ground that its inefficient, or else you'd oppose communist communities.


It seems to me that your entire "argument" against it boils down to: "There isn't a society I like out of all the ones out there so everyone should go out of their way to make a special little capitalist society somewhere.."

How pathetic! Mr. self owner is asking for what amounts to a handout from everyone else! Your need for what would essentially be a public subsidy for "Minarchism" is quite disturbing given the vitrol you direct at those receiving a public subsidy so they uh, don't freeze to death in the streets.I do think the state is inefficient and also very unfair most of the time. I like to take a consequentialist approach. I think that the society which I outlined would result in higher living standards for the masses, and also just a better society. For example, it becomes much harder to punish people for victimless crimes than it is under a state, or to prohibit certain goods.

I don't think the existence of communist communities would end up doing any damage to a functioning free market, so I really have no reason to oppose them. I don't envision people starving and freezing in the streets.

[IcarusAngel]

First Libertarians say that they oppose any attempt to restrict property laws, creating an "absolutist property" that can never be violated, so courts would always rule in their favor. Next Libertarians turn around and say the world would be divided up into a series of communities. You're not making any sense.

Since most of the resources are capital controlled most communities would have to turn a profit just to be able to get other resources, as not all resources come from the same area. So an initial shift would have to take place away from capitalism to socialism before socialism could really be wide-spread.

Also, if you had anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalist communities working next to each other, you basically have two competing forms of communities creating an unsocialist like scenario. One community is also based on anarcho-capitalism which is not anarchist and which teaches you can hold onto "property" if no one else is claiming it their "property," which would give the pseudo-anarchist community the right to "invade." There would have to be a peace treaty between the two anarchist communities.

Basically Olaf is creating systems in his head that would cause more problems than solutions.

[Skooma Addict]

First Libertarians say that they oppose any attempt to restrict property laws, creating an "absolutist property" that can never be violated, so courts would always rule in their favor. Next Libertarians turn around and say the world would be divided up into a series of communities. You're not making any sense.


What do you mean when you say that libertarians oppose any attempt to restrict property laws? Do you mean that we oppose any attempt to allow people to violate another persons right to private property? I do not think that private property should be enforced to such an extent. If a kid climbs on my tree, falls off, and then breaks his neck, his parents should be allowed to violate my property rights to retrieve their child. I am also quite certain that I would be held liable if I forcibly prevented the parents from entering my property, since 99.9% of the population views that is horrendously unacceptable.


Since most of the resources are capital controlled most communities would have to turn a profit just to be able to get other resources, as not all resources come from the same area. So an initial shift would have to take place away from capitalism to socialism before socialism could really be wide-spread.

Well it depends on how each community would develop. I certainly don't think socialist communities would be that common in America.



Also, if you had anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalist communities working next to each other, you basically have two competing forms of communities creating an unsocialist like scenario. One community is also based on anarcho-capitalism which is not anarchist and which teaches you can hold onto "property" if no one else is claiming it their "property," which would give the pseudo-anarchist community the right to "invade." There would have to be a peace treaty between the two anarchist communities.

Why would they go to war? My guess would be that people would start leaving the anarcho-syndicalist community to the anarcho-capitalist community out of their own free will.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well we are in full agreement here then. I would happily impose legal codes on people even if they don't consent. Anyone who says that this is wrong must allow murders go unpunished for killing people.
Agreed. But in that case you must admit that certain legal codes are objectively better than others. So, then, why do you oppose having a state to enforce those objectively better codes?

And, of course, how do you determine which codes are objectively better? We propose to determine that through a democratic vote.


If you live in America, the U.S. government has a monopoly over certain vital services such as police and arbitration in the are where you live. However, if no such government existed, I could choose between police provider X, Y, or Z. I guess you could say that I have a territorial monopoly over my own land, but that really doesn't count as a state in my opinion.
But suppose that you really want to hire the services of police provider W, which only has operations in Europe. Then you'd have to move to Europe. This is (part of) my point: The number of choices in your local area is likely to be small, even if the number of choices worldwide is very large. Economies of scale are likely to create local monopolies, especially in villages and small towns. So, how is a local monopoly by police provider X any different from a state (albeit a geographically small state)?

The normal libertarian response to the issue of monopolies can be summed up as "Who cares? Monopolies are not bad." But if the monopoly in question is one over the legitimate use of force, then your ideology says it is bad. So if you tolerate it, you are adopting a self-contradictory position.

(again, to be clear, the argument I am trying to make here is not that the state is bad - I don't think it is - but that "the state", under the libertarian definition of the term, is an inevitable aspect of human society)


Then of course one of the most distinctive features of a state is missing; the ability to tax.
Not really. If there is only one provider of police services in your area, then you have three choices:

1. Pay their fees - whatever they are.
2. Move to another area.
3. Remain unprotected against force or fraud.

With state taxes, you have two choices:

1. Pay the taxes - whatever they are.
2. Move to another area.

So the only difference between the state and your private police agency is that the state does not offer you option #3. But that would be an incredibly stupid choice anyway (because, among other things, the private police itself could initiate force on you with impunity if you choose that option - and the private police must be by definition strong enough to overpower any single individual, so you're fucked).


I do think the state is inefficient and also very unfair most of the time. I like to take a consequentialist approach. I think that the society which I outlined would result in higher living standards for the masses, and also just a better society. For example, it becomes much harder to punish people for victimless crimes than it is under a state, or to prohibit certain goods.
No, it just takes a little bit more imagination. A community could decide to prohibit the possession of certain goods on its land, or a private security agency could say that certain "victimless crimes" are grounds for immediate termination of your contract - and then adopt the practice of initiating force on you one minute after your contract is terminated. Of course, this would make it very difficult for that security agency to attract new customers, but remember that many people will be BORN into contracts with it. After all, states can survive just fine on the basis of birth citizens alone (without attracting any new people to tax), so I don't see why private security agencies couldn't do the same.

Or, for that matter, a bunch of people could just get together and re-establish the state (maybe under a different name). Surely you admit that there is a strong incentive for people to want to be in control of states. As long as that incentive remains, states will continue to be created.

[Skooma Addict]

Agreed. But in that case you must admit that certain legal codes are objectively better than others. So, then, why do you oppose having a state to enforce those objectively better codes?

And, of course, how do you determine which codes are objectively better? We propose to determine that through a democratic vote.


Well I don't know about something being "objectively better" than something else. In my opinion, the legal codes which are fair and ensure social cohesion are the best. But someone could disagree and favor legal codes which are harmful to society.

I do not think a state is necessary to enforce legal codes, nor do I think that a state would enforce a proper legal code in the long run. There are just too many incentives for a monopolist on police and arbitration to divert away from its founding principals.


But suppose that you really want to hire the services of police provider W, which only has operations in Europe. Then you'd have to move to Europe. This is (part of) my point: The number of choices in your local area is likely to be small, even if the number of choices worldwide is very large. Economies of scale are likely to create local monopolies, especially in villages and small towns. So, how is a local monopoly by police provider X any different from a state (albeit a geographically small state)?

The normal libertarian response to the issue of monopolies can be summed up as "Who cares? Monopolies are not bad." But if the monopoly in question is one over the legitimate use of force, then your ideology says it is bad. So if you tolerate it, you are adopting a self-contradictory position.

(again, to be clear, the argument I am trying to make here is not that the state is bad - I don't think it is - but that "the state", under the libertarian definition of the term, is an inevitable aspect of human society)

I don't think that all police providers would serve only their community. There could be very large businesses. As with grocery stores, there are some smaller firms and some very big ones. I suspect the same would be true in regards to police. In tiny villages I would have to guess that they would just form their own town watch or something.

I don't see any reason to assume that there would be local monopolies except in tiny villages. Still, there are no barriers to entry, so I don't think monopolies would be a problem.


Not really. If there is only one provider of police services in your area, then you have three choices:

1. Pay their fees - whatever they are.
2. Move to another area.
3. Remain unprotected against force or fraud.

With state taxes, you have two choices:

1. Pay the taxes - whatever they are.
2. Move to another area.

So the only difference between the state and your private police agency is that the state does not offer you option #3. But that would be an incredibly stupid choice anyway (because, among other things, the private police itself could initiate force on you with impunity if you choose that option - and the private police must be by definition strong enough to overpower any single individual, so you're fucked).

Another option is to start your own PDA. The bigger the community, the more likely this is to occur. In tiny villages, one provider will suffice. But again, I don't think there would be one provider in areas with any substantial population whatsoever.


No, it just takes a little bit more imagination. A community could decide to prohibit the possession of certain goods on its land, or a private security agency could say that certain "victimless crimes" are grounds for immediate termination of your contract - and then adopt the practice of initiating force on you one minute after your contract is terminated. Of course, this would make it very difficult for that security agency to attract new customers, but remember that many people will be BORN into contracts with it. After all, states can survive just fine on the basis of birth citizens alone (without attracting any new people to tax), so I don't see why private security agencies couldn't do the same.

Or, for that matter, a bunch of people could just get together and re-establish the state (maybe under a different name). Surely you admit that there is a strong incentive for people to want to be in control of states. As long as that incentive remains, states will continue to be created.

Well, yes, there could be agreements made before a contract is signed. I mean, I doubt a court is going to want you taking heroin right before you drive. But I don't see how a person could be prevented from buying some drug and taking it in their house. Maybe in some super traditional communities people will be willing to pay the very high cost of completely prohibiting products, but generally, there is just no incentive to do so.

I don't see how people are born into contracts with private security firms. Some people may benefit from creating a state, but again, the costs outweigh the benefits. War is expensive and it will result in a loss of customers and higher premiums. But yea, it isn't impossible that a state will arise.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Not really. If there is only one provider of police services in your area, then you have three choices:

1. Pay their fees - whatever they are.
2. Move to another area.
3. Remain unprotected against force or fraud.

With state taxes, you have two choices:

1. Pay the taxes - whatever they are.
2. Move to another area.

So the only difference between the state and your private police agency is that the state does not offer you option #3. But that would be an incredibly stupid choice anyway (because, among other things, the private police itself could initiate force on you with impunity if you choose that option - and the private police must be by definition strong enough to overpower any single individual, so you're fucked).

Just to add to this, what is to stop communities making it a *requirement* to purchase X or Y protection to be able to legally live in the community?

It makes sense to me, having the same company covering one area would probably be the most efficient solution.

But then how is that any different from a state? In fact, why shouldn't these communities be able to make up a law on something like this? That seems reasonable enough to me? And then we come to the crux of the libertarian ideology; that we should replace democracy with a belief system thought up by a few individuals, and that this should be imposed regardless.

[Skooma Addict]

Just to add to this, what is to stop communities making it a *requirement* to purchase X or Y protection to be able to legally live in the community?

Who in the community would abide by such a rule? Would anyone else besides company X or Y even want such a law?


It makes sense to me, having the same company covering one area would probably be the most efficient solution.


Monopolies generally are not efficient.



But then how is that any different from a state? In fact, why shouldn't these communities be able to make up a law on something like this? That seems reasonable enough to me? And then we come to the crux of the libertarian ideology; that we should replace democracy with a belief system thought up by a few individuals, and that this should be imposed regardless.

It doesn't seem reasonable to me. If the company wants to use violence to enforce such a law, premiums of customers must rise. They will then have to prevent any other competitors from arising, and also ensure that people don't leave the area (which would be easier in a stateless society). All of that is expensive and risky. This is all assuming that they are in such a powerful position to begin with.

[RGacky3]

Monopolies generally are not efficient.

well non profit democratic ones are.


Not really. If there is only one provider of police services in your area, then you have three choices:

1. Pay their fees - whatever they are.
2. Move to another area.
3. Remain unprotected against force or fraud.

With state taxes, you have two choices:

1. Pay the taxes - whatever they are.
2. Move to another area.

So the only difference between the state and your private police agency is that the state does not offer you option #3. But that would be an incredibly stupid choice anyway (because, among other things, the private police itself could initiate force on you with impunity if you choose that option - and the private police must be by definition strong enough to overpower any single individual, so you're fucked).

Actually the state police will enforce the law whether or not you pay your taxes, its not for profit.

[Klaatu]

Am I wrong, but are some people on this thread advocating "privately-run" police departments?

If so how then will you feel when you are ticketed for driving 1 km/hr over the speed limit, or failing to mow your lawn
every five days, or failing to wash your car? The point is, under a "private police" system, (which operates on a pure
profit motive) there will be incentive to nitpick citizens to death with enforcement of frivolous laws, in order to meet
profit quotas. Not to mention being taken behind closed doors and beaten to a pulp, if accused of a crime... (arrests
and conviction of "criminals," in a system motivated by profit, will soar to new heights nev'r before seen...)

[Demogorgon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It doesn't seem reasonable to me. If the company wants to use violence to enforce such a law, premiums of customers must rise. They will then have to prevent any other competitors from arising, and also ensure that people don't leave the area (which would be easier in a stateless society). All of that is expensive and risky.
Right, because we all know that private corporations never do anything expensive or risky in the hope of getting a high return on their investment.:rolleyes:

And it's not like forcing people to do stuff you want them to do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) could be in any way profitable, either. :rolleyes:

[Klaatu]

Demogorgon, thanks for posting the video clip.

I had occurred to me that if one's car were stolen, and the victim of the crime could
not afford to pay, the police would not be required to act at all. Of course, this could
apply to any crime, including rape and murder. Can't pay? Then you're shit out of luck...

So much for private police forces... :sneaky:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Demogorgon, that video is fucking awesome. I will henceforth post it every time anarcho-capitalism comes up in discussion.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Who in the community would abide by such a rule? Would anyone else besides company X or Y even want such a law?



Monopolies generally are not efficient.



It doesn't seem reasonable to me. If the company wants to use violence to enforce such a law, premiums of customers must rise. They will then have to prevent any other competitors from arising, and also ensure that people don't leave the area (which would be easier in a stateless society). All of that is expensive and risky. This is all assuming that they are in such a powerful position to begin with.

Are you suggesting that communities won't make requirements for coming in?

Really? Don't you think its in the *self intrest* of communities to regulate who gets to stay there? Would you welcome some former rapist next door to you?

This monopoly would be subject to market disapline, if it wasn't doing well at its job (which presumably it would be better at than the alternative of having multiple suppliers in a small area) people could get rid of it.

(Here giving you the huge generosity of assuming people will just be able to turn around and tell a PMC to leave..)


And as for your last post: you are so slow its painful to me at times.

Haven't you heard of slavery?

[Agnapostate]

There's now a discussion (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/14105.aspx) of this thread on mises.org. The comments aren't quite as entertaining as the threads about us on Stormfront were, but stilll...there's not much that can be said for these propertarians that fraudulently claim to be libertarians and anarchists except that they're economically ignorant sheep that spawn talking points regurgitated by similarly dimwitted economic rightists all over the Internet...because they're all reliant on the same basic moral foundations, and they conceive of poverty as being bred only of individual moral failures, a lack of discipline and self-reliance, which is reinforced by the myth of America as the "land of opportunity" and ignorance of the severe constrictions on social mobility that actually exist.

My own experience with these so-called "libertarian" forums is actually rather amusing; I've discussed it somewhat in the anarchist social group. I registered and posted for some time on the RonPaulForums, issuing several challenges to the "libertarians" there and advocating legitimate libertarianism and anarchism, which is necessarily anti-capitalist. The remaining thread is here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213234) and concerns the economic calculation problem; the others were apparently all deleted, presumably because the sight of a single person coming onto the forum and devastating all the regulars embarrassed them. Who knows? I was then threatened by a moderator named Liberty Eagle (who claims to be a libertarian but is little more than a socially authoritarian Christian fascist, as far as I can tell) for "advocating communism." She then unilaterally banned me from the "libertarian" forum for this, not even entering a reason. I created a sock and went back to the forum to ask why I was banned; I was then re-banned by the admin, who told me to "respect their private property." That absence of free speech illustrates what would happen in the propertarian fantasy of the entire world being "private property"; a network of police states in which legitimate liberty is nonexistent is set up to honor the "liberty" of the private property owners.

mises.org is another amusing example; there's actually a rule there that prohibits insults against their proponents, insisting that members "avoid making rude or insulting comments about the Ludwig von Mises Institute, its staff, scholars, representatives, or other supporters of Austrian Economics," stating in an example of the sort of personal attacks that are prohibited, "for example, do not post material that berates Ludwig von Mises." Who would be surprised to see this degenerating into a damn cult of personality? I was registered there before I went to the RonPaulForums, and a thread I posted challenging the premise that the president is a "socialist" was deleted on the basis that it was "duplicated material" because I had posted it elsewhere. I personally was flattered that they considered it of sufficiently high quality to Google search phrases from the piece to see if it was plagiarized. I then asked why this was, and made a disparaging comment about Austrian economist Walter Block, suggesting that he knew nothing about dynamic monopsony (which he doesn't). I was then banned (unilaterally, again, per their anti-democratic nature) by an economically ignorant mod named Jon Irenicus, who spouts the most idiotic stupidity about politics and economics on the site.

So I created another account and spent some more time there, testing out my skills against some of their members. I discovered the reason that they were so testy about the monopsony issue was that none of them knew what it was (which matched their knowledge of economics in general), after they all vanished when I posted a host of studies about the monopsony model of the labor market. Unsurprisingly, I was banned again earlier this week, with some of them now laughably claiming that I've run away despite one of their mods likely having unilaterally banned me again.

After these experiences, I'm actually becoming increasingly convinced as to the futility of engagement with these fools. They know absolutely nothing about economics, are phony libertarians and anarchists, and have the audacity to be arrogant elitists when they're the ones with these defects. :blink:

[Nolan]

That was an entertaining read. I lold then stopped reading when I got to the post where one of them basically said Nazism/Fascism is a branch of Socialism.

The fucks are barely different than teabaggers, only slightly more intellectual. It's cute how they constantly try (and fail) to be condescending toward leftists. Not surprising considering the ultra-egoist philosophy most adhere to.

As for ancap. Instead of Anarcho-Capitalism, we should rename it something that clearly distinguishes it from real Anarchism. Perhaps anarcho-Capitalism, (note I don't capitalize the a in anarcho, as opposed to Anarcho-Syndicalism) or Stateless Capitalism.

[Agnapostate]

As with "anarcho"-capitalism, "stateless capitalism" is an oxymoron, though. It's somewhat akin to speaking of testicle-less men.

[Skooma Addict]

There's now a discussion (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/14105.aspx) of this thread on mises.org. The comments aren't quite as entertaining as the threads about us on Stormfront were, but stilll...there's not much that can be said for these propertarians that fraudulently claim to be libertarians and anarchists except that they're economically ignorant sheep that spawn talking points regurgitated by similarly dimwitted economic rightists all over the Internet...because they're all reliant on the same basic moral foundations, and they conceive of poverty as being bred only of individual moral failures, a lack of discipline and self-reliance, which is reinforced by the myth of America as the "land of opportunity" and ignorance of the severe constrictions on social mobility that actually exist.

My own experience with these so-called "libertarian" forums is actually rather amusing; I've discussed it somewhat in the anarchist social group. I registered and posted for some time on the RonPaulForums, issuing several challenges to the "libertarians" there and advocating legitimate libertarianism and anarchism, which is necessarily anti-capitalist. The remaining thread is here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213234) and concerns the economic calculation problem; the others were apparently all deleted, presumably because the sight of a single person coming onto the forum and devastating all the regulars embarrassed them. Who knows? I was then threatened by a moderator named Liberty Eagle (who claims to be a libertarian but is little more than a socially authoritarian Christian fascist, as far as I can tell) for "advocating communism." She then unilaterally banned me from the "libertarian" forum for this, not even entering a reason. I created a sock and went back to the forum to ask why I was banned; I was then re-banned by the admin, who told me to "respect their private property." That absence of free speech illustrates what would happen in the propertarian fantasy of the entire world being "private property"; a network of police states in which legitimate liberty is nonexistent is set up to honor the "liberty" of the private property owners.

mises.org is another amusing example; there's actually a rule there that prohibits insults against their proponents, insisting that members "avoid making rude or insulting comments about the Ludwig von Mises Institute, its staff, scholars, representatives, or other supporters of Austrian Economics," stating in an example of the sort of personal attacks that are prohibited, "for example, do not post material that berates Ludwig von Mises." Who would be surprised to see this degenerating into a damn cult of personality? I was registered there before I went to the RonPaulForums, and a thread I posted challenging the premise that the president is a "socialist" was deleted on the basis that it was "duplicated material" because I had posted it elsewhere. I personally was flattered that they considered it of sufficiently high quality to Google search phrases from the piece to see if it was plagiarized. I then asked why this was, and made a disparaging comment about Austrian economist Walter Block, suggesting that he knew nothing about dynamic monopsony (which he doesn't). I was then banned (unilaterally, again, per their anti-democratic nature) by an economically ignorant mod named Jon Irenicus, who spouts the most idiotic stupidity about politics and economics on the site.

So I created another account and spent some more time there, testing out my skills against some of their members. I discovered the reason that they were so testy about the monopsony issue was that none of them knew what it was (which matched their knowledge of economics in general), after they all vanished when I posted a host of studies about the monopsony model of the labor market. Unsurprisingly, I was banned again earlier this week, with some of them now laughably claiming that I've run away despite one of their mods likely having unilaterally banned me again.

After these experiences, I'm actually becoming increasingly convinced as to the futility of engagement with these fools. They know absolutely nothing about economics, are phony libertarians and anarchists, and have the audacity to be arrogant elitists when they're the ones with these defects. :blink:

Too many errors and strawmen to even bother wasting my time addressing this.


As with "anarcho"-capitalism, "stateless capitalism" is an oxymoron, though. It's somewhat akin to speaking of testicle-less men.

Never heard that one before. I have reason to suspect that you cant substantiate this claim. What was your user name on Mises.org?

[Red Commissar]

Generally, I've living where I am, "libertarians" tend to fall into these categories.

-Pro free-market, small government. Classical liberalism.
-Objectivists and anarcho-capitalists
-Legalize weed
-More recently, angry Republicans who are right-wing populists in reality.

[Demogorgon]

There's now a discussion (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/14105.aspx) of this thread on mises.org. The comments aren't quite as entertaining as the threads about us on Stormfront were, but stilll...
Amusing quote from there concerning the embarassing quotes taken from their forum:
What's worst is I cannot even fathom what they hope to prove by quote-mining these... are they really so myopic? Well we should thank them for publicising our arguments to their clueless ilk.Yes, because the first response to lunatic cries for the return to feudalism tends to be to conclude that they are correct :lol:

[IcarusAngel]

After these experiences, I'm actually becoming increasingly convinced as to the futility of engagement with these fools. They know absolutely nothing about economics, are phony libertarians and anarchists, and have the audacity to be arrogant elitists when they're the ones with these defects. :blink:

Well, one of their "moderators" is a 19 year old at a community college.

He knows all about economics. :laugh:

I remember when he went to political-crossfire to "lecture" them on economics, claiming he was promoting truth. He got beat up and left.

It's also funny they criticize the opposing ideologies section (notice how they don't address their stupid beliefs, or give evidence for why they support them), while at Mises forums they BAN you if you "disagree with property."

How can you debate Misean pseudo-science and property rights if they won't even let you disagree with them? That's like trying to debate a racial theorist at stormfront without being able to deny that "races" exist. (Mises himself believed in racial theories.)

Also, notice how they keep talking about the "Pythagorean theorem." That's like they only theorem they know from mathematics, which, according to Misean principles, is true by definition. (Theorems are proven in mathematics.) Search the articles on Mises forums and it comes up. The logic goes like this: Mathematics is all a priori, just like Misean economics, therefore Mises was correct.

[Agnapostate]

Too many errors and strawmen to even bother wasting my time addressing this.

Ah, naturally. ;)


Never heard that one before.

You wouldn't if you spent all your time in an echo chamber.


I have reason to suspect that you cant substantiate this claim.

Actually existing capitalism is and always has been dependent upon the state. "Laissez-faire" capitalism is a utopian little textbook theory with no real-world application.


What was your user name on Mises.org?

Uh...Agnapostate? And then Leviathan.

[Skooma Addict]

Uh...Agnapostate? And then Leviathan.

Oh, Leviathan. I remember you. I had a debate with you regarding utilitarianism. I made it very much apparent that you were defending a faulty moral doctrine. So I hope you have come to abandon utilitarianism.

As for your ban, I looked through some stuff and I think that you were temporarily banned for an inappropriate comment you made.

[IcarusAngel]

LOl. You said you didn't even post on Mises forums you liar.

You also claim to have proven this or that without ever linking to the evidence. My belief is you've never proven anything in your life. Your ignorance of political theory has been exposed by me, and then you claimed you "don't care" about the issues like a two year old.

[Skooma Addict]

LOl. You said you didn't even post on Mises forums you liar.

You also claim to have proven this or that without ever linking to the evidence. My belief is you've never proven anything in your life. Your ignorance of political theory has been exposed by me, and then you claimed you "don't care" about the issues like a two year old.

I don't remember saying that. But if (big if) I did, it was only so I wouldn't be dismissed offhand. I post there, but not that often...

As for the utilitarianism discussion, I think Leviathan knows what I am talking about, so I don't need to go back and look for the discussion. If he doesn't recall, then I will link him to the thread.

[Nolan]

Well, one of their "moderators" is a 19 year old at a community college.

He knows all about economics. :laugh:

Can we not be ageist please? This is a petty ad hominem honestly. I know you can do better than that.

[Agnapostate]

Oh, Leviathan. I remember you. I had a debate with you regarding utilitarianism. I made it very much apparent that you were defending a faulty moral doctrine. So I hope you have come to abandon utilitarianism.

Actually, I recall that you advanced pointless theoretical abstractions with no practical value, in the spirit of Robert Nozick. Theories are only as valuable as their practical implementations, not that the Mises forum would realize anything of the sort. You were also perpetually unable to differentiate between acts and rules, since the conflict of an ethical theory with our moral intuitions when it comes to a given act has no bearing on its applicability as a general rule.


As for your ban, I looked through some stuff and I think that you were temporarily banned for an inappropriate comment you made.

Is that right? Well, by all means, go back and tell them that I was ban-dodging. That will ensure that I'm permabanned. :thumbup1:

[Skooma Addict]

Actually, I recall that you advanced pointless theoretical abstractions with no practical value, in the spirit of Robert Nozick. Theories are only as valuable as their practical implementations, not that the Mises forum would realize anything of the sort. You were also perpetually unable to differentiate between acts and rules, since the conflict of an ethical theory with our moral intuitions when it comes to a given act has no bearing on its applicability as a general rule. I advanced standard arguments against utilitarianism. They aren't supposed to be practical, and they certainly aren't pointless. Arguments against ethical doctrines do not need to be practical. Nozicks Utility monster is only 1 example. However, I did offer other criticisms which were more practical. McCloseys informant for example really isn't that impractical.

[Agnapostate]

I advanced standard arguments against utilitarianism. They aren't supposed to be practical, and they certainly aren't pointless. Arguments against ethical doctrines do not need to be practical. Nozicks Utility monster is only 1 example. However, I did offer other criticisms which were more practical. McCloseys informant for example really isn't that impractical.

Oaf, please. There is no value in impractical theoretical abstractions if they function as impediments to ethical precepts that might actually have some real-world worth. And your other purposeless nonsense illustrates the inability to differentiate between acts and rules; even if utilitarianism failed as an ethical theory when it came to a specific act, that has no bearing on its general suitability. The next thing you'll be bringing up is that it's ever so wrong to kill an Indian oneself instead of having 20 killed through apathy.

[IcarusAngel]

Narcissism and Mises Forums:



A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)


Somewhat. I mean the only people who know what revleft is, is us. Really I think this is an attempt to raise revleft forum activity. They insult us, we go over there and put them in their place, they get a vital boost necessary to continue their charade.

This is also evident by the claim that they are the world's most knowledgeable economists - even though Austrian economics has contributed to economics in decades, and their idol, Mises, is a fading star in the field.


2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

"The call of 'equality,'" he wrote, "is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human." Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism. "

Also, their obsession with capitalists as the risk taskers in society and the inventers does not coincide with reality.


3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)


This is what I would call wasteful effort. These people are either totally dumb or hold fast to statist views. They can't even perceive the government as an institution is flawed, so you're starting off with extreme resistance. It's a great way to waste your time and energy, shouting back and forth. It's what the Truthers do. It's pretty ineffective and polarizing.



Am I doing something wrong here, or are most statists just utterly unwilling to use logic? Is there a more productive way I could be furthering the cause of liberty? Does debating people have any significant influence on their beliefs, or are people completely unwilling to recognize when they're wrong?

(Notice how he doesn't give any evidence that only he understands logic, and "statists" do not understand it.

This is the guy who claimed that theorems do not require proving since they are true in an ultimate reality.)


These forums, and the other one at the beginning of this thread make me lose all faith in humanity. Every single day I think to myself, "Wow, people are stupid" but I always feel there has to be a limit somewhere. Just tumbling further down the black hole of ignorance....


http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/7445.aspx?PageIndex=1


4. requires excessive admiration

Notice a constant refusual to even question the assumptions of Mises or private property, and tyring to force leftists/liberals and other "statists" to accept their supposed "expertise" on economics.


5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

Ironically this is true as well. Constantly baraging mainstream economics and Universities for not accepting Mises or Ayn Rand into their departments. Blaming the Universities themselves, rather than the failure of Misean economics to do anything useful for society.

The refusual to debate anything but Misean economics also fits here. Notice how on their forum they always link to other areas of the Mises website, and rarely discuss topics from outside sources and from people who aren't Miseans. And even when they do, they link to Mises articles there as well.


6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends



7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her

This is proven by the very fact that they "raid" these forums and others, apparently are unable to convince anybody of their Misean beliefs, and then go back and whine that they are misunderstood and that everybody else in the world (communists, liberals, professors, intellectuals, etc.) is too stupid to understand Mises.



9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes


Scour? Just click indiscriminately.


lol good point that forum is craziness.[SIC]


RevLeft.com is downright despicable, and so are the rotten "social anarchist"/"social democrat" creatures who live there. Their anti-individualist, anti-market, anti-freedom philosophy makes me want to vomit.


Keep in mind I just stuck to two threads, but their whole forum is like that.

[IcarusAngel]

You do not need your five senses to do math. You only need to be able to think. You don't need proof of the Pythagorean Theorem outside of the Pythagorean Theorem


Who wan'ts to tell me what's wrong with that statement...

[Skooma Addict]

Oaf, please. There is no value in impractical theoretical abstractions if they function as impediments to ethical precepts that might actually have some real-world worth. And your other purposeless nonsense illustrates the inability to differentiate between acts and rules; even if utilitarianism failed as an ethical theory when it came to a specific act, that has no bearing on its general suitability. The next thing you'll be bringing up is that it's ever so wrong to kill an Indian oneself instead of having 20 killed through apathy.

You objecting to my examples merely because they are "impractical" completely misses the point. Utilitarians hold that in principal, one should act to maximize overall happiness. I provided examples where this is clearly incorrect to any reasonable person. Nozicks experience machine may be very abstract (not that it matters), but my other examples were not. If the benefit received by 5 people raping a woman is greater than the suffering the woman endures, that does not make the rape morally justifiable. Rule utilitarianism fares no better.

[Agnapostate]

Oaf, you have already been definitively refuted. Why pretend otherwise?


You objecting to my examples merely because they are "impractical" completely misses the point.

I can understand why a Misesian, who cares nothing for practicality, would insist upon that. But principles are only as valuable as their real-world applicability. No one cares for purposeless theoretical abstractions with no practical influence.


Utilitarians hold that in principal, one should act to maximize overall happiness.

That is wrong. Because of the nature of happiness as undergoing "diminishing returns" when concentrated around a small number, its nature is superior when dispersed. Have you ever read Bentham or Mill's texts, or have you instead chosen to paraphrase Wikipedia?


I provided examples where this is clearly incorrect to any reasonable person. Nozicks experience machine may be very abstract (not that it matters), but my other examples were not. If the benefit received by 5 people raping a woman is greater than the suffering the woman endures, that does not make the rape morally justifiable.

And if my aunt had testicles, I'd call her my uncle. Considering the greater intensity of the sensory experience that a rape victim would undergo as opposed to multiple rapists, and considering the fact that numerically precise calculations of sensory experiences are not possible, your piss-poor attempt at an analogy falls flat on its face. Considering, moreover, that even if somehow, inconceivably, greater happiness was experienced by the aggressors than the suffering experienced by the victim, this would still not be a basis for eliminating anti-rape laws, since it would constitute an exception to a rule, and the constrictions of bounded rationality necessitate that we must establish norms that generally work even if they occasionally fail.


Rule utilitarianism fares no better.

That would be an assertion, not an argument. Of course, considering that act and rule utilitarianism are not actually opposed when properly understood (instead both elements of two-level utilitarianism), your poor attempts at criticism fail even more badly.

[Zanthorus]

Who wan'ts to tell me what's wrong with that statement...

Well as far as I'm aware most philosophers do think that mathematics is all true by definition and hence a priori. Although apparently many mathematicians disagree with this.

Anyway I haven't looked too much into praxeology but I think that even though some of the claims are true they don't tell us anything truely meaningful or useful about the world. "Humans act" is implicit in every theory of economics. We wouldn't study economics if they didn't. And so far no Austrian has given me a really convincing reason why acknowledging that "humans act" would lead me to prefer Austrian economics to Marxism or Keynesianism. I'm inclined to think it's got something to do with the cultish nature of AE.

[Skooma Addict]

I can understand why a Misesian, who cares nothing for practicality, would insist upon that. But principles are only as valuable as their real-world applicability. No one cares for purposeless theoretical abstractions with no practical influence.

I am not a Misesian. I just presented standard arguments against utilitarianism, and since you can't address them, you ignore them.



That is wrong. Because of the nature of happiness as undergoing "diminishing returns" when concentrated around a small number, its nature is superior when dispersed. Have you ever read Bentham or Mill's texts, or have you instead chosen to paraphrase Wikipedia?

I have read Bentham for one of my Philosophy classes. Very bad experience. What you said here did not disprove what I said. In fact, it had nothing to do with what I said.


And if my aunt had testicles, I'd call her my uncle. Considering the greater intensity of the sensory experience that a rape victim would undergo as opposed to multiple rapists, and considering the fact that numerically precise calculations of sensory experiences are not possible, your piss-poor attempt at an analogy falls flat on its face. Considering, moreover, that even if somehow, inconceivably, greater happiness was experienced by the aggressors than the suffering experienced by the victim, this would still not be a basis for eliminating anti-rape laws, since it would constitute an exception to a rule, and the constrictions of bounded rationality necessitate that we must establish norms that generally work even if they occasionally fail.


For starters, it is not inconceivable that the rapists would experience greater happiness than the suffering experienced by the victim. Its not in the least bit inconceivable. Also, is your justification for anti-rape laws that generally, the suffering endured by the person being raped is greater than the happiness, and so making a rule "do not rape" would increase overall happiness?


That would be an assertion, not an argument. Of course, considering that act and rule utilitarianism are not actually opposed when properly understood (instead both elements of two-level utilitarianism), your poor attempts at criticism fail even more badly.

Ah, two-level utilitarianism. Still fails due to the fact attempting to make a definite connection between happiness and morality fails (also doesn't really address my prior arguments). Old brand consequentialism is far superior.

By the way, you don't think that utilitarianism is true even for people who aren't utilitarians, correct? For example, if I perform an act which is clearly out of line with utilitarianism, this is only wrong for you. it is right for me. Neither of us is right, and neither is wrong. You accept this, correct?

[IcarusAngel]

Well as far as I'm aware most philosophers do think that mathematics is all true by definition and hence a priori. Although apparently many mathematicians disagree with this.

Anyway I haven't looked too much into praxeology but I think that even though some of the claims are true they don't tell us anything truely meaningful or useful about the world. "Humans act" is implicit in every theory of economics. We wouldn't study economics if they didn't. And so far no Austrian has given me a really convincing reason why acknowledging that "humans act" would lead me to prefer Austrian economics to Marxism or Keynesianism. I'm inclined to think it's got something to do with the cultish nature of AE.

The axioms are true by definition. And was actually referring to the "you don't need proof of the pythagorean theorem outside of the pythagorean theorem."

Obviously you need quite a bit of information; the pythagorean theorem depends upon a triangle, which depends upon axioms other than A = A, such as the definition of a line. The reason I don't think even some axioms are true by definition or a priori is because the shape of the triangle is something we see in the real world. I can see a triangle, and I can see a number. The triangle that I see is formed as a perfect shape in my mind. Thus I learn about mathematics through the real world.

What am I missing here?

It's a question that comes up less and less often, but if you have the philosophical basis for the statements such as these (that aren't dated from the 1800s) I'd be interested in them:



You don't need proof of the Pythagorean Theorem outside of the Pythagorean Theorem. The Pythagorean Theorem is true by definition. In fact, if you reduce the Pythagorean Theorem, like all mathematical laws, to their most basic form, it's really just a truism.




It is possible to know that the Pythagorean Theorem is true, because, reduced to its most basic form, it, like all mathematical laws, are really just truisms. It's really just saying, in a more complicated way: A = A

I have never heard this claimed before either, that all mathematical laws are a = a.


Not all axioms are necessarily truisms, of course, but mathematical axioms, reduced to their most basic form, are simply A=A or Not A=Not A.

However, if you rewind and reduce mathematics back to its most basic assumptions, they are the fundamental laws of logic. We cannot possibly think in any other way. Logic is ultimately inescapable.


I would like to see the philosophy backing this up.

[Havet]

I have never heard this claimed before either, that all mathematical laws are a = a.

I would like to see the philosophy backing this up.

As I understand it, A = A is the mathematical way of describing the law of identity, which states that an object is the same as itself.

It basically means that facts are facts, that things are what they are - and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it (because it is impossible to just wish something into existence).

Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too

Deep down, every mathematical law is based upon this premise, because otherwise nothing would be solid, nothing would be static, everything would always be spontaneously changing its fundamental structure. The result of the sum of 1 orange with another orange would never be 2 oranges, because by the time we did the calculations the oranges would be something else.

[Zanthorus]

The axioms are true by definition. And was actually referring to the "you don't need proof of the pythagorean theorem outside of the pythagorean theorem."

Obviously you need quite a bit of information; the pythagorean theorem depends upon a triangle, which depends upon axioms other than A = A, such as the definition of a line. The reason I don't think even some axioms are true by definition or a priori is because the shape of the triangle is something we see in the real world. I can see a triangle, and I can see a number. The triangle that I see is formed as a perfect shape in my mind. Thus I learn about mathematics through the real world.

What am I missing here?

You're talking about how we learn mathematics. Saying that mathematics is a priori is saying something about the form that that knowledge takes. Yes you do need to learn through experience what various mathematical concepts mean, but onced you've done that you don't need to go out and test empirically wether the pythagorean theorem is true.

For the philosophy backing up that all maths is logic check out logicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicism).

A good resource is Alfred Ayer's "Language Truth and Logic (http://www.scribd.com/doc/14488019/AJ-Ayer-Language-Truth-and-Logic)". Skip to around chapter 4. I would post relevant quotes but I don't have the time (or more importantly patience :p ) right now.

[IcarusAngel]

As I understand it, A = A is the mathematical way of describing the law of identity, which states that an object is the same as itself.

Which is from logic, not mathematics. A = A is not standard in all mathematics.

For example, when dealing with a Matrix a and b, AB is != BA. If Mathematics was a = a, you could prove that the pythagorean theorem (using his example) is the same thing as A = A by means of a proof.

Prove that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is the same thing as
A = A.

Obviously this is impossible, because there are more than one variable involved.



It basically means that facts are facts, that things are what they are - and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it (because it is impossible to just wish something into existence).

Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too

Deep down, every mathematical law is based upon this premise, because otherwise nothing would be solid, nothing would be static, everything would always be spontaneously changing its fundamental structure.

Some mathematical laws are based upon proof by construction and other proofs that require the existence of the natural world. Even our knowledge of a triangle comes from the natural world as well as from our logic.

[IcarusAngel]

For the philosophy backing up that all maths is logic check out logicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicism).

What Bertrand Russell and Whitehead were doing was different than saying that all mathematics is A = A. They were trying to use set theory to prove that any mathematical system is consistent, and free of logical contradictions and paradoxes. This was attempted by Frege but was proven to be impossible due to Russell's paradox.

I, for one, believe in more modern mathematics. Calculus has shown to be learned from observations in the real world, as has geometry. Keep in mind that Euclidian geometry is mostly being replaced by the way.

I have NEVER heard it claimed by a mathematician or even a logician that mathematics is A = A, frankly, if Russell's system was proven to be incomplete, it would doubly prove that all mathematics is NOT reducible to A = A.


Frankly, it seems that Miseans are stuck in an early 19th century form of logic. If their logic is invalid, of the Misean axioms come crashing down with them. I personally think their logic is invalid.


Yes you do need to learn through experience what various mathematical concepts mean, but onced you've done that you don't need to go out and test empirically wether the pythagorean theorem is true.

Consider the fact that Einstein's special and general relativity replaced Euclidian space time due to observations and theoretical physics.

Also, once you learn something about the natural world, and it's a fact, like evolution, then you wouldn't need to be constantly doing experiments either. By that logic it seems that the natural world would be more "a priori" than mathematics because mathematics is a human constructed system and the natural world is not.

Also as that article on Wiki shows, not all mathematical theorems are reducible to logic, so hayenmill's statement (once again) is incorrect. Everything is not A = A. Whether mathematicians can create enclosed systems for certain areas of mathematics remains to be seen, and as the article notes, this would be less powerful anyway than saying that all mathematics is reducible to logic (which is not true).