I never tire of comparing Libertarianism to fascism

[Demogorgon]

I mean, how could one do anything else, when they make it so easy? Mind you it is a little like shooting fish in a barrel.

Here we have Thomas Sowell, whose sole claim to fame is that in between rhapsodising about markets he spews out rather a lot of questionable comments about black people while being black himself. On this occasion he is spewing out some gunk on patriotism

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/does_patriotism_matter.html

Let's have a little look, shall we?


Perhaps nowhere was patriotism so downplayed or deplored than among intellectuals in the Western democracies in the two decades after the horrors of the First World War, fought under various nations' banners of patriotism.

In France, after the First World War, the teachers' unions launched a systematic purge of textbooks, in order to promote internationalism and pacifism.

Books that depicted the courage and self-sacrifice of soldiers who had defended France against the German invaders were called "bellicose" books to be banished from the schools.Here Sowell decries the horror of the French ceasing to promote militarism and war after the horror of the First World War. Rather than seek more glorious combat for their country they tried to indoctrinate their children with the Evil nonsense that foreigners did not simply deserve to die.


The once epic story of the French soldiers' heroic defense against the German invaders at Verdun, despite the massive casualties suffered by the French, was now transformed into a story of horrible suffering by all soldiers at Verdun-- French and German alike.The evil pacifists who despised patriotism dared to describe one of the bloodiest and most horrific battles in human history as what it was. How dare they not tell children that it was a glorious thing that they themselves should one day hope to take part in?!

But wait! A saviour was at hand


In France, Marshal Philippe Petain, the victor at Verdun, warned in 1934 that teachers were trying to "raise our sons in ignorance of or in contempt of the fatherland."

But they were voices drowned out by the pacifist and internationalist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s.

Did it matter? Does patriotism matter?
This wouldn't be the same Petain who six years later sold out his country to Nazi Germany and led to puppet Vichy Government for four years sending thousands upon thousands of Jews to their deaths, would it?

Of course that was perfectly acceptable. Nazi Germany was a country that knew the value of patriotism. Petain saved his country by handing it over to benevolent masters who would get rid of all that effeminate pacifism and turn him into a warrior race.

Alas, it did not work. After the war, the pansy French instead of thanking him sentenced him to death for mass murder and treason, only commuting his sentence on grounds of old age. Patriotism simply isn't valued enough.

At the outset of the invasion, both German and French generals assessed French military forces as more likely to gain victory, and virtually no one expected France to collapse like a house of cards -- except Adolf Hitler, who had studied French society instead of French military forces.

Did patriotism matter? It mattered more than superior French tanks and planes.Quite right. The fact that the Wehrmacht defeated the technically superior French army through completely new military techniques of knocking out the command centers rather than engaging the army itself and also by catching the French by surprise by rushing through Belgium rather directly into France had nothing at all to do with it. It was all because the French did not appreciate patriotism enough. Something that Adolph Hitler, a man who did understand the value of patriotism, was able to exploit.

Most Americans today are unaware of how much our schools have followed in the footsteps of the French schools of the 1920s and 1930s, or how much our intellectuals have become citizens of the world instead of American patriots.Hats off to Sowell for exposing the secret agenda in American schools. Instead of teaching American kids the truth that all foreigners are evil and that a true America's dearest wish should be nothing more than to fight and kill them they are spreading lies about them somehow being human too.

Thank you Thomas Sowell. A true patriot :lol:

[RedAnarchist]

And don't forget all the Stormfronters fantasising about Ron Paul.

[Demogorgon]

And don't forget all the Stormfronters fantasising about Ron Paul.
Well that's hardly surprising. Ron Paul has been appealing to the White Supremist "community" since at least 1978.

[Dean]

Thanks for this. But you don't need to look for the racist / nationalist trash to find the links to fascism in libertarianism.

[Demogorgon]

Thanks for this. But you don't need to look for the racist / nationalist trash to find the links to fascism in libertarianism.

Quite right, but when something like this jumps onto your lap, are you going to pass it by?:laugh:

[Farrellesque]

Wow, what a terrible post.

So you pick one person who is pro-laissez faire, take a few of his quotes on patriotism and use it for a condemnation of an entire ideology. If you had known anything about libertarianism, you would know it has more in common with anarchism than fascism.

Libertarianism is very far from fascism. It's an antonym of authoritarianism ffs! Libertarianism wishes to maximize individual liberty and minimize state influence.

This was a terrible effort, even for revleft.

[RedAnarchist]

So you pick one person who is pro-laissez faire, take a few of his quotes on patriotism and use it for a condemnation of an entire ideology. If you had known anything about libertarianism, you would know it has more in common with anarchism than fascism.

The only thing that "libertarianism" has in common with anarchism is its name, and thats only because some Americas decided to steal it for their ideology.

[Jazzratt]

If you had known anything about libertarianism, you would know it has more in common with anarchism than fascism.

In rhetoric perhaps, but not in practice.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Libertarianism is very far from fascism. It's an antonym of authoritarianism ffs!
Yes, of course. Libertarianism stands for Liberty, just like the Democratic Republic of the Congo stands for Democracy.


Libertarianism wishes to maximize individual liberty and minimize state influence.
No it doesn't. Libertarians are always careful to make an exception for the military and police - the only state institutions they like. And as chance would have it, the military and police are also the only state institutions you need for war and mass murder.

Libertarians think that when the state spends money on education or health care for its citizens, that is evil theft and use of force. But when the state spends money on weapons to cut people to pieces or blow the heads off innocent civilians, that's perfectly fine.

Do you see the connection to fascism now?

[Demogorgon]

Wow, what a terrible post.

So you pick one person who is pro-laissez faire, take a few of his quotes on patriotism and use it for a condemnation of an entire ideology. If you had known anything about libertarianism, you would know it has more in common with anarchism than fascism.

Libertarianism is very far from fascism. It's an antonym of authoritarianism ffs! Libertarianism wishes to maximize individual liberty and minimize state influence.

This was a terrible effort, even for revleft.
Well seeing as you are apparently an expert on terrible posts, can you tell me what you would class a post as that takes one example amongst the hundreds I have posted as being my only example?

"If I had known anything about Libertarianism"; well as it happens, I know rather a lot about Libertarianism, which is why I am always happy to compare it with fascism. From Ludwig Von Mises working for Dolfus's Government to modern Libertarians wanting to abolish Civil Rights laws there is a pretty strong case.

Simply calling the ideology "Libertarianism" does not automatically make it about the promotion of Liberty. You have to have a pretty Orwelian conception of liberty to make that claim.

Libertarianism talks big about individual rights, but they do not respect them at all in practice, viewing them as subservient to corporate rights. Though corporations are plainly not individuals, yet they want to treat them as if they are and in doing so trample over the rights of real individuals.

Even funnier are the American Libertarians who are fanatical about State's Rights (hmm, who else is into that?); to the extent, indeed, that they claim that the Federal Government banning segregation agains tthe will of certain States was wrong. Apparently the rights of (State) Governments do in fact trump the rights of individuals in the Libertarian world when such matters are at stake.

[Farrellesque]

Yes, of course. Libertarianism stands for Liberty, just like the Democratic Republic of the Congo stands for Democracy.

Well, that's just like your opinion, man.

I think strong property rights are a keystone to liberty, you don't. Agree to disagree and so forth.


[/quote] No it doesn't. Libertarians are always careful to make an exception for the military and police - the only state institutions they like. And as chance would have it, the military and police are also the only state institutions you need for war and mass murder.[/quote]

Do you know what minimize means? It does not mean eradicate or abolish, that would bring their belief over into anarcho-capitalism.

The reason why most libertarians still support state institutions of police, military and courts of law ,is because those institutions are necessary to avoid a society from delving into anarchy. Also, you are using the most extreme libertarian model and judging the entire libertarian movement from it. Many libertarians (such as myself) still believe the state has a role to play in creating a thriving society. We simply feel that the best course is for all individuals in society to maximize their own utility and that the best way to accomplish this is through strong property rights, low taxes and a free market.


Libertarians think that when the state spends money on education or health care for its citizens, that is evil theft and use of force. But when the state spends money on weapons to cut people to pieces or blow the heads off innocent civilians, that's perfectly fine.

Communists think that the state should kill all non-communists by shooting them in the back of the head.

See how I flipped it around there?

I'm a libertarian who thinks the state should spend money on education and health care for it's citizens, but disagree with how the spending is carried out. I think it needs to be more efficient and privatization is a significant aspect of this. America spends more on it's public schools than any other nation, yet their schools are still very lacklustre.


Do you see the connection to fascism now?

Even less now that I've read your post.

How old are you?

[Farrellesque]

Libertarianism talks big about individual rights, but they do not respect them at all in practice, viewing them as subservient to corporate rights. Though corporations are plainly not individuals, yet they want to treat them as if they are and in doing so trample over the rights of real individuals.

What the hell are you talking about?

How are the rights of individuals trampled by corporations?

I assume you understand the difference between a government which everyone residing in that state has to obey, and a corporation that you can choose to not do business with?

If I'm feeling peckish I can grab a burger from McDonalds. If for some reason I hate McD I can go to Burger King instead. And if I don't want to poison my gorgeous, ripped body with a greasy hamburger, I can saunter over to a small Pakistani shop right next to where I live and pick up something healthier. Nobody holds a gun to my head and forces me to eat in any of those places.


Even funnier are the American Libertarians who are fanatical about State's Rights (hmm, who else is into that?); to the extent, indeed, that they claim that the Federal Government banning segregation agains tthe will of certain States was wrong. Apparently the rights of (State) Governments do in fact trump the rights of individuals in the Libertarian world when such matters are at stake.

Once again you're using a small sub-section of a larger group to demonify that larger group. A small fraction felt that way, yes. What's your point? I can do the same with any group you could care to mention. It proves nothing.

[Unicorn]

Once again you're using a small sub-section of a larger group to demonify that larger group. A small fraction felt that way, yes. What's your point? I can do the same with any group you could care to mention. It proves nothing.
The most prominent figure in the modern American libertarian movement is Ron Paul. He supports the segregationist states' rights position.

[Farrellesque]

The most prominent figure in the modern American libertarian movement is Ron Paul. He supports the segregationist states' rights position.


And the man in your AV is one of the most prominent figures in the communist movement He supported the Red Terror in which hundreds of thousands of people were tortured and killed. Where does that leave us?

[Demogorgon]

What the hell are you talking about?

How are the rights of individuals trampled by corporations?

I assume you understand the difference between a government which everyone residing in that state has to obey, and a corporation that you can choose to not do business with?

Here is a little life lesson for you. When you get out into the big bad world, you will find that for all the trouble the Government can cause you it is nothing compared to what private companies will do. Indeed the principle problem with the Government is that fact that it sides with the firms in question. Take banking for instance. In the modern world ou need a bank account and you need access to credit. The fact is though that the bank will absolutely fuck you over at every turn. You cannot simply "choose not to do business with them" and go somewhere else because first of all they all fuck you over and secondly it is often impossible to change account or credit card when you have outstanding debt (which in practice most of us do).

Even if we were to ignore all other private companies and simply look at banks, I could still say with a hundred percent accuracy that banks have caused me far more misery than the Government ever has. And of course banks are not the only private entities that will cause you trouble. It is all very well to talk in the abstract about how Government is oppressive but any trouble you get from a private company is your own choice, but the world doesn't work like that. Indeed you can probably exercise more control over what Government can do to you than witht he private sector. At least if things really such you can go to a different country with a more laid back Government. None are exactly brilliant, but there are differences. Wherever you go though, you will face the same shit from the private sector.


Once again you're using a small sub-section of a larger group to demonify that larger group. A small fraction felt that way, yes. What's your point? I can do the same with any group you could care to mention. It proves nothing.It is a pretty standard position. It is even in the Libertarian Parties platform to undo what they see as the damage of the Civil Rights movement.

[turquino]

Whatever libertarianism is or isn't, i think it's probably the case that it wouldn't be nearly as popular if there wasn't widespread mistrust of the government by whites. Rather than recognizing how the state has historically privileged and encouraged white expansionism, many whites today feel that they're victims of political correctness and bureaucracy that has put some limited restraints on their violent settlerism. Like any good reactionary, they fantasize about returning to a halcyon age when the white male's rule was naked and celebrated.

[Farrellesque]

Whatever libertarianism is or isn't, i think it's probably the case that it wouldn't be nearly as popular if there wasn't widespread mistrust of the government by whites. Rather than recognizing how the state has historically privileged and encouraged white expansionism, many whites today feel that they're victims of political correctness and bureaucracy that has put some limited restraints on their violent settlerism. Like any good reactionary, they fantasize about returning to a halcyon age when the white male's rule was naked and celebrated.


I didn't realize Revleft allowed racism.

Anyways, I'm going to bed now, will come back to thread tomo.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, that's just like your opinion, man.

I think strong property rights are a keystone to liberty, you don't. Agree to disagree and so forth.
Of course. You should be free to disagree all you like; the moment you try enforcing your views in government, however, we are in conflict.


The reason why most libertarians still support state institutions of police, military and courts of law, is because those institutions are necessary to avoid a society from delving into anarchy.
Right. The point was that libertarians complain that the state is violent, yet they propose to get rid of all the non-violent state institutions (the ones that don't involve people with guns) and keep the violent ones. Rather odd if you ask me.


Also, you are using the most extreme libertarian model and judging the entire libertarian movement from it. Many libertarians (such as myself) still believe the state has a role to play in creating a thriving society. We simply feel that the best course is for all individuals in society to maximize their own utility and that the best way to accomplish this is through strong property rights, low taxes and a free market.
In my (admittedly European) political vocabulary, that political position is called liberalism, not libertarianism. Libertarianism is extreme liberalism. A liberal is someone who wants to go in the direction of laissez-faire, but not all the way; a libertarian is someone who does want to go all the way. A liberal wants to reduce social spending to a greater or lesser degree; a libertarian wants to eliminate social spending entirely.


Communists think that the state should kill all non-communists by shooting them in the back of the head.

See how I flipped it around there?
No, not really. I don't think that the state should kill all non-communists, thus your statement was a lie.

But if you do believe that military spending is justifiable while social spending isn't, then my statement may have been exaggerated, but it was basically true.


I'm a libertarian who thinks the state should spend money on education and health care for it's citizens, but disagree with how the spending is carried out. I think it needs to be more efficient and privatization is a significant aspect of this. America spends more on it's public schools than any other nation, yet their schools are still very lacklustre.
Well in that case, like I said, I call you a liberal, not a libertarian. But labels are, of course, irrelevant - it's the substance of your views that matters.

And speaking of your views:
1. Define "efficiency" in spending. What makes spending "efficient", and in what way is this efficiency desirable?
2. In what way is privatization efficient or desirable?


If I'm feeling peckish I can grab a burger from McDonalds. If for some reason I hate McD I can go to Burger King instead. And if I don't want to poison my gorgeous, ripped body with a greasy hamburger, I can saunter over to a small Pakistani shop right next to where I live and pick up something healthier. Nobody holds a gun to my head and forces me to eat in any of those places.
No, but you have to eat somewhere, and unless you can afford to buy a farm (which most people can't), you cannot grow your own food.

Someone who controls your food supply has just as much power over you as someone who is holding a gun to your head.

Yes, yes, your food supply isn't all controlled by one corporation - if it were, you'd be their slave - but it is controlled by a bunch of corporations and firms that you have no power over. Sure, if you don't like one you can go buy your food from another - just like if you don't like one government you can move to another country. That doesn't change much.

[Led Zeppelin]

I didn't realize Revleft allowed racism.


What? It's racist to tell the truth about white racism which is a reality?

[pusher robot]

In my (admittedly European) political vocabulary, that political position is called liberalism, not libertarianism. Libertarianism is extreme liberalism. A liberal is someone who wants to go in the direction of laissez-faire, but not all the way; a libertarian is someone who does want to go all the way. A liberal wants to reduce social spending to a greater or lesser degree; a libertarian wants to eliminate social spending entirely.


Okay, well clearly part of the problem here is that in the United States the term "liberal" has been wholly co-opted by the social-democrat progressives, so "Liberals" of the type you describe have had to find an alternative term and it just so happens that "libertarianism" turned out to be what they've settled on. Surprisingly enough, these people chafe at being called fascists.



And speaking of your views:
1. Define "efficiency" in spending. What makes spending "efficient", and in what way is this efficiency desirable?


"Efficiency" in economic contexts means getting the most value for the least costs. This is desirable for what ought to be obvious reasons.


2. In what way is privatization efficient or desirable?

Privatization can, in many circumstances, automatically drive firms to do everything they can to provide the most value for the least cost.


No, but you have to eat somewhere, and unless you can afford to buy a farm (which most people can't), you cannot grow your own food.

It is always going to be the case that most people will rely on "someone else" to grow their food for them. Given that, you have three basic choices:
1. Hope that someone else grows your food even if they don't feel like it.
2. Force someone else to grow your food whether they want to or not.
3. Make it worth someone else's while to grow your food.

The "market" solution is the third and it seems to most people to be the most reasonable. If you chafe under the knowledge that nobody is going to go out and farm the land for your benefit out of the goodness of their own heart, you are in a tiny minority.


Someone who controls your food supply has just as much power over you as someone who is holding a gun to your head.
Yes, yes, your food supply isn't all controlled by one corporation - if it were, you'd be their slave - but it is controlled by a bunch of corporations and firms that you have no power over. Sure, if you don't like one you can go buy your food from another - just like if you don't like one government you can move to another country. That doesn't change much. Of course it changes things! It's NOT like moving to another country (!) to go to Burger King instead of McDonald's, no matter how badly you want to pretend it is. Yes, you need what the food producers have (food), but the food producers need what you have (money) just as much. Either party can decline to participate if the terms are disagreeable, and so you both have the same amount of control over each other.

[IcarusAngel]

Again, pusher_robot lies (after chastising others for *supposedly* lying).

There isn't a single "classical-liberal" author who advocated the same kind of philosophy and tyranny modern Libertarians do. Adam Smith's wealth of nations really can be seen as an attack on the proprietors at his time, for example. He questioned property, as much as he favored it, and often in more harsh terms.

Modern Libertarians are merely a perversion of classical-liberal theory and practice, but really, sometimes some of their political philosophy is so vague even conservatives can claim an influence.

Rousseau called for a reduction of government, but of course, they leave out the part where he (and many other of the Enlightenment figures) openly opposed private property (tyranny); although, I admit, some did favor it.

Marx was also influenced by Smith, albeit in different ways. So really, there isn't "classical-liberal" movement, that's a propaganda term, and there isn't a single classical-liberal who advocated the private tyrannies of capitalism. Modern capitalism began with von Mises et al. making shit up.

Finally, we know that there were classical-liberals who made the transition THEMSELVES from liberalism, to Socialism (such as JS Mill, Th Green, although he was modern liberal, not socialist), so if anything, liberalism and socialism are the true decedents.

As for Libertarians being fascist, of course, some of their policies and their members are quite close, like Hans Hermann Hoppe for instance (who wants to engage in purges of homosexuals, communists, and so on). But, as a whole they generally aren't as anti-Civil Liberty as fascists are -- Civil Liberties will be destroyed by marketeering, loss of power of the workers, and transitioning all power into the hands of businness, giving them the right to spy on you (or else you can starve to death).

Many Libertarians openly supported fascist dictatorships as well, as being more pro-capitalist (Friedman, von Mises, etc.).

Modern Libertarianism is pretty much discredited as a pro-tyranny (I prefer tyranny rather than "fascism," as you can then note the areas where there are distinctions), and if you go to any philosophical forum, people are nowadays making similiar points to the OP (noting that putting power in the hands of business is indeed tyrannical, for example).

They've lost the internet ideological battle that they were once so good it (like the Russians were good at pamphlateering).

On edit: Accidentally typed von humboldt when i meant von mises, von Humboldt was a real classical-liberal who also questioned the worker-owner relationship, just as JSM (Mill) did.

[IcarusAngel]

Whatever libertarianism is or isn't, i think it's probably the case that it wouldn't be nearly as popular if there wasn't widespread mistrust of the government by whites. Rather than recognizing how the state has historically privileged and encouraged white expansionism, many whites today feel that they're victims of political correctness and bureaucracy that has put some limited restraints on their violent settlerism. Like any good reactionary, they fantasize about returning to a halcyon age when the white male's rule was naked and celebrated.


I didn't realize Revleft allowed racism.

Anyways, I'm going to bed now, will come back to thread tomo.

Actually, it's a fair point.

He's actually very right. We may remember from history class that Southerners were also calling for the Federal Government to get off their backs and let them suppress their workers, in much the same way capitalists are calling for the government only to protect their "sacred" property.

Just as there are workers (we'll call them "republicans" and "libertarians" [Libertarians are rarely true capitalists, as capitalists know how the system actually works]) who openly support their corporate slavery, there were black slaves in the 1800s who openly supported the continuation of chattel slavery.

This is where the term "house negro" comes from. Malcom X made this distinction. It was something to the effect of, 'When the "house negro" is told his master's house is on fire, he says "Oh my God!, Oh my God!, the house is on fire!." When the radical negro is told his master's house is on fire, he says "good."'

This concept is still alive today in America, as black, conservative Republicans are the first to admit white Republicans expect them to check their bags, carry their luggage, provide them directions, and so on.

The point is, his analogy is valid, and anyway, Libertarianism can be defeated on the net. I used to debate with them for a long time on Usenet, and it's pretty easy to challenge their assumptions and watch them become vicious little statists (i.e., on property rights), and liars as well.

They're also not as popular as they make themselves out to be. The von Mises domains, Lew Rockwell, etc., are all owned by the same guy, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, and run by a few hacks in economics' departments around the country,

[Bud Struggle]

And don't forget all the Stormfronters fantasising about Ron Paul.


REALLY? I don't go there--to Stormfront that is--how disapointing for RP that he has such a following. I'm not a fan, but I don't think he's a bad guy, has some wrong politics--but I've hung out with worse. ;)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Okay, well clearly part of the problem here is that in the United States the term "liberal" has been wholly co-opted by the social-democrat progressives, so "Liberals" of the type you describe have had to find an alternative term and it just so happens that "libertarianism" turned out to be what they've settled on. Surprisingly enough, these people chafe at being called fascists.
Um, no. It's simply not true that anyone who wants to push society in the general direction of laissez-faire to some extent (but not all the way) or who wants to "reduce social spending to a greater or lesser degree" (the usual European definition of a liberal), calls himself a "libertarian" in the United States. Most people who call themselves libertarians - on any side of the Atlantic - take far more radical positions than that.

Basically, if you believe that one single state-owned industry should be privatized, and otherwise support the status quo, that is enough to make you a "liberal" in the European sense. It is not nearly enough to make you a libertarian in any sense.

I believe that there is no American political label that would be a direct equivalent of the European (and global) meaning of "liberal". Some of the more extreme ones would call themselves libertarians in the US; but most would probably call themselves conservatives; and some of the more moderate or left-leaning ones may even call themselves liberals.


"Efficiency" in economic contexts means getting the most value for the least costs. This is desirable for what ought to be obvious reasons.
No, that is not necessarily desirable a priori. It depends on who gets that value and who pays the costs.


Privatization can, in many circumstances, automatically drive firms to do everything they can to provide the most value for the least cost.
Again, who gets the value and who pays the cost?


It is always going to be the case that most people will rely on "someone else" to grow their food for them. Given that, you have three basic choices:
1. Hope that someone else grows your food even if they don't feel like it.
2. Force someone else to grow your food whether they want to or not.
3. Make it worth someone else's while to grow your food.
Wrong. There are many more choices than that once you realize that the world contains more than two people (you and the food grower). You can add a third party, or a fourth, and all of a sudden the choices multiply - for example, the third party could make it worth someone else's while to grow your food.

It's amazing how often economists try to justify market solutions by creating fictional scenarios based on the assumption that there are only two people in the whole world.


Yes, you need what the food producers have (food), but the food producers need what you have (money) just as much.
No, not "just as much". That's the whole point. It is MUCH easier for them to go without your money than for you to go without food.


Either party can decline to participate if the terms are disagreeable, and so you both have the same amount of control over each other.
Bullshit. It very rarely happens that both parties have just as much to lose if the transaction does not go through. Usually, the marginal cost of not performing the transaction is immensely greater for one party than for the other.

[Robert]

I could still say with a hundred percent accuracy that banks have caused me far more misery than the Government ever has.

Caused you more misery??? Is the test for what constitutes a beneficial institution how it affects you or me personally?

Also, it sounds like you're complaining about some credit situation you couldn't get adjusted to your satisfaction. If you've been truly wronged, file suit. If current law doesn't provide redress for your claim, it suggests that the majority so far simply doesn't agree with your view of justice.

Why not lobby for changes in these unjust laws instead of defaming the whole banking system?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Caused you more misery??? Is the test for what constitutes a beneficial institution how it affects you or me personally?
Well, if we take a vote on whether an institution is beneficial or not, and everyone votes based on how that institution affects them personally, then the result of the vote will be an excellent measure of whether the institution is beneficial or not overall.


Why not lobby for changes in these unjust laws instead of defaming the whole banking system?
Ummm, we are lobbying for changes, and not just in a handful of laws. This is, after all, a forum for people who believe that drastic change is necessary in society and the economy.

[Demogorgon]

Why not lobby for changes in these unjust laws instead of defaming the whole banking system?

Fixing scratches on the deck won't save a sinking ship.

The banking system is so fundamentally broken that the only satisfactory thing will ultimately be to entirely do away with it and come up with something entirely different.

Banking is a funny thing in these sorts of discussions, because it does not play to the rules that Libertarians claim the economy works to, yet they must find some way of twisting the facts to claim that it does and end up defending the indefensible.

I mean consider the contracts you sign with banks. Unless you are rich enough to get the bank to dance to your tune, any contract you sign will have a clause saying that the bank can unilaterally alter the terms at any time. In short you have to keep to the terms of the contract, but the bank don't. Yet Libertarians still have to say that this is entirely fair and even go so far as to say that the few restrictions Governments do put on what changes can be made are unjust.

Not to mention their defence of usury. Libertarians, particularly Austrians, claim that time-preference theory justifies interest. If the bank gives you credit now, it is reasonable for them to receive more in the future because you have gained the chance to spend now rather than later whereas they have deferred any reward until later too.

However that does not reflect what banks actually do. When they lend you money they aren't really sacrificing anything. The fractional reserve system means that when they lend you money they are actually giving you money that they have just brought into existence. Only a small portion of it will reflect anything given from their own capital or any risk on their part (the bit they have to maintain so that they can honour expected withdrawals) yet they get rewars for all of it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Ayn Rand, Terry Goodkind, and a whole army of Objectivist libertarians (I think I just offended someone) smack of fascist tendencies. Apparently Objectivists can't write good literature, either. :laugh:

"The bird let out a slow chicken cackle. It sounded like a chicken, but in her heart she knew it wasn't. In that instant, she completely understood the concept of a chicken that was not a chicken. This looked like a chicken, like most of the Mud People's chickens. But this was no chicken. This was evil manifest."

- Terry Goodking, "I don't write fantasy"

Yes, that is supposed to be read with a serious face. To which, when someone else commented on the writing, an Objectivist (libertarian! ouch, offended) chimed in: "The story is secondary, the philosophy (philosophy!) primary. You read to learn. It is a book for Objectivists, somewhat akin to a bible."

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Why not lobby for changes in these unjust laws instead of defaming the whole banking system?

That has to be one of the funniest responses I've read in this forum.

[Bud Struggle]

But this was no chicken. This was evil manifest."

Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Been there--ate that, up all night with diarrhea. Indeed evil was manifest.
:(

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"The bird let out a slow chicken cackle. It sounded like a chicken, but in her heart she knew it wasn't. In that instant, she completely understood the concept of a chicken that was not a chicken. This looked like a chicken, like most of the Mud People's chickens. But this was no chicken. This was evil manifest."
- Terry Goodking, "I don't write fantasy"
:blink: What the hell is that story even about? The final solution to the chicken question?

[Robert]

Unless you are rich enough to get the bank to dance to your tune, any contract you sign will have a clause saying that the bank can unilaterally alter the terms at any time. In short you have to keep to the terms of the contract, but the bank don't.This is an illustration of the aphorism "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." It is not "any contract you sign." You are probably referring to “variable rate” credit cards --the APR changes from time to time. They aren't all variable rate cards. The rate is usually tied to another interest rate, such as the prime rate or the Treasury bill rate. If the other rate changes, the rate on your card may change, too. But all of that has to be disclosed to you in the application process. If it isn't, then obviously it violates a number of state and federal consumer fraud laws. And you can get redress, you don't have to bring down the entire banking system!


Not to mention their defence of usury. Libertarians, particularly Austrians, claim that time-preference theory justifies interest."Usury" may be synonymous to "interest" to you, but it isn't to me or most people. Moreover, there are clear limits in just about every state in the USA, and I am sure in the UK as well, to what interest rates can be charged on loans and credit cards. Go over that and it's usury by definition, and prohibited.

[Demogorgon]

This is an illustration of the aphorism "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." It is not "any contract you sign." You are probably referring to “variable rate” credit cards --the APR changes from time to time. They aren't all variable rate cards. The rate is usually tied to another interest rate, such as the prime rate or the Treasury bill rate. If the other rate changes, the rate on your card may change, too. But all of that has to be disclosed to you in the application process. If it isn't, then obviously it violates a number of state and federal consumer fraud laws. And you can get redress, you don't have to bring down the entire banking system!Evidently you might want to take your own advice. Variation of interest rates was not what I was talking about. I was talking about the fact that bank contracts always allow the banks to change the terms unilaterally. They can change the rules that you must abide by to avoid charges and can change those charges at will.

Given that all banks make you accept such conditions, there ain't much chance of "going to a different bank". Are you honestly telling me that you have never had an encounter with a bank?


"Usury" may be synonymous to "interest" to you, but it isn't to me or most people. Moreover, there are clear limits in just about every state in the USA, and I am sure in the UK as well, to what interest rates can be charged on loans and credit cards. Go over that and it's usury by definition, and prohibited.
Well usury is interest. At any rate interest is a particularly horrific feature of capitalism, particularly when it comes to banking. The fact that banks can lend out money that previously did not exist and then receive considerably more than they lent out in return is an utter outrage.

[Chapter 24]

Wow, what a terrible post.

So you pick one person who is pro-laissez faire, take a few of his quotes on patriotism and use it for a condemnation of an entire ideology. If you had known anything about libertarianism, you would know it has more in common with anarchism than fascism.

Libertarianism is very far from fascism. It's an antonym of authoritarianism ffs! Libertarianism wishes to maximize individual liberty and minimize state influence.

This was a terrible effort, even for revleft.

Wow, um, I'm sorry. Whoa.

Laissez faire? Little government intervention? Minimizing the state isn't like crushing it.

Laissez faire is what we're seeing in the third world right now.

[trivas7]

They're also not as popular as they make themselves out to be. The von Mises domains, Lew Rockwell, etc., are all owned by the same guy, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, and run by a few hacks in economics' departments around the country,
Nice post. How influential do you think Objectivists/Cato Institute are BTW?

[Robert]

Variation of interest rates was not what I was talking about. I was talking about the fact that bank contracts always allow the banks to change the terms unilaterally.What terms?? I was trying to help you by suggesting interest rates. If it's not that, fine, but what in the name of Christ are you talking about? Be specific. There are only so many terms it could possibly be: the amount of principal owed, the maturity date, the installment amounts, judicial interest (set by law, not the contract), contractual interest (you say it's not this) the forfeiture penalties, the manner of repossessing the collateral. Which is it?


They can change the rules that you must abide by to avoid charges and can change those charges at will.If your laws allow this, and I am sorry but I frankly doubt it, then you need to emigrate.


Are you honestly telling me that you have never had an encounter with a bank?Yes! Nothing like what you are describing! Obviously all banks are run by fallible and yes, sometimes crooked human beings, but they are so tightly regulated by (here at least) government controllers like (here) the Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that they cannot systematically do what you are describing. If anything, the law of bankruptcy here gives the debtors powers to change the terms that the banks do not have. Then you have all the deceptive trade practices laws that prevent what you are describing. I am positive that you have analogous protection where you live.




Well usury is interestNo. I'm sorry, it isn't. Usury is the crime of charging higher interest on a loan than the law permits. The Russian Mafia may charge it, but the Royal Bank of Scotland does not.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No. I'm sorry, it isn't. Usury is the crime of charging higher interest on a loan than the law permits. The Russian Mafia may charge it, but the Royal Bank of Scotland does not.
Oh, I'm sorry, are we making arguments by definition now? Murder is the crime of killing people in ways or circumstances that the state does not permit, therefore the state itself cannot commit murder - that sort of argument?

[Green Dragon]

At any rate interest is a particularly horrific feature of capitalism,

This is sort of amusing, considering the title of the thread.
Because both Mussolini and Hitler said the same thing. Initially, the National Socialist charter pledged to abolish interest. But what eventually happned in both germany and Italy was that interest rates were fixed and set by the state (at an extremely low rate).

[Robert]

Oh, I'm sorry, are we making arguments by definition now?

No. We are trying to define basic terms so that we can have a reasonable exchange of policy views.

But if you really insist on calling a dog a cat for whatever reason, you go right ahead.

Dragon, the futility of this argument is that since all "property is theft" for a communist, it hardly makes any difference how much interest a bank charges. The banks must close.

[superiority]

Completely ignoring any and all discussion since the beginning of the thread, I have this to add:
One of the commenters at Crooked Timber (http://crookedtimber.org/) had this to say about libertarians, in response to a post (http://crookedtimber.org/2008/06/15/libertarians-and-global-warming/) expressing puzzlement at the fact that so many of them are anthropogenic global warming deniers:

[A]s usual John and like too many left-wing commentators, you give libertarians too much credit.

Libertarianism is a psychotic, anti-social ideology based on greed. Because it is psychotic, it can only appeal to people through bribing them, and because it is anti-social the bribe it offers is based on selfishness. In exchange for the destruction of society libertarianism offers unfettered economic growth and wealth for all. Global warming puts a big brake on simplistic versions of this bribe, because it says we can’t have unfettered use of the resource which underpins it.

Faced with a contradiction between reality and its anti-social vision, libertarianism either has to walk away from reality or from its vision. Since the vision is fundamentally psychotic it has no problems walking away from reality – and so we get global warming denialism.

Sure there might be a few libertarians who want to take a more constructive view of the problem, but for them this is going to mean pie-in-the-sky schemes such as you mention, or vague hopes of carbon sequestration. This is why you will never see libertarians engaging with the debate about how to have economic growth without unlimited resources (as you recently did), but screaming instead about how we are all hair-shirted environmentalists. The existence of a few people in the libertarian “movement” (lol/gag) who make shallow first guesses at solutions to these problems doesn’t make the ideology worth debating or engaging with. I am continually surprised that reasonable leftists do. The only time they need to be engaged is to attack their denialist shilling. The rest of the time they should be left alone in their asylum, and they should never ever ever be allowed to think they have a serious opinion to offer on serious topics.

That about sums it up.

[Andres Marcos]

"The reason why most libertarians still support state institutions of police, military and courts of law ,is because those institutions are necessary to avoid a society from delving into anarchy." see even the capitalists are smart enough to despise libertarianism they WANT the state strong, why? because THEY control it and can use it to suppress enemies of capitalism or wage imperialist wars, you like the anarchists share something in common in that you see the state as something ABOVE classes while Communists and the more statist capitalists both realize it is the class in power who does, which is why the capitalists never have and never will embrace libertarianism, even in your little experiments with it in France and America proved so disastrous the bourgeosie abandoned it all together.


Communists think that the state should kill all non-communists by shooting them in the back of the head.

wrong, please do read a book, not all workers in socialist nations even belonged to a Communist Party, the Communist goal is to abolish all class distinctions the state is used to resist the bourgeosie who seek to take power once again, the state like all states is used to maintain the class in power, please look in the history of the bourgeosie to see if they were so ''democratic'' as to allow open monarchists to even assemble in France or in America during their first revolutions.



And the man in your AV is one of the most prominent figures in the communist movement He supported the Red Terror in which hundreds of thousands of people were tortured and killed. Where does that leave us?You sir are a liar, I wonder where you got that source from eh? wikipedia? with a footnote that is by Robert Conquest, the British intel agent? yeah, go ahead you might as well cite nazi newspaper clippings as a source as Conquest literally does in at least 2 of his books.

[Demogorgon]

What terms?? I was trying to help you by suggesting interest rates. If it's not that, fine, but what in the name of Christ are you talking about? Be specific. There are only so many terms it could possibly be: the amount of principal owed, the maturity date, the installment amounts, judicial interest (set by law, not the contract), contractual interest (you say it's not this) the forfeiture penalties, the manner of repossessing the collateral. Which is it?
Here is a typical clause:

"4.2 We can change the amounts we charge you, make new or different charges and change the way you have to pay charges, to reflect changes to the costs of providing the service or facilities available on your current account, including any changes caused by inflation or for any other valid reason. 30 days before the changes take effect, we will either publish a notice in one national newspaper and/or write to you and/or publish a notice in our branches and on our website about the changes and when they take effect and update “Your Guide to Fees and Charges” leaflet and our website."

Note that that actually comes from an Irish rather than British account so it is less harsh than what we have to deal with.

Anyway banking is not the only example. Virtually all contracts with more powerful parties have a clause allowing them to unilaterally change the terms and conditions.


No. I'm sorry, it isn't. Usury is the crime of charging higher interest on a loan than the law permits. The Russian Mafia may charge it, but the Royal Bank of Scotland does not.
The traditional meaning is any interest. These days some people simply use it to refer to excessive interest. Of course when you come down to it, all interest is excessive. The banks charge you for the privilege of borrowing money that they never had in the first place.

[Robert]

4.2 We can change the amounts we charge you ....Okay, thanks. I have to admit it looks terrible at first blush. The only remaining question I have, then, is whether that clause applies to new extensions of credit only, or to existing debit balances previously bargained for. If it's the latter, then you need to see a ... what do you call them there? Solicitor? ... and raise hell in court. That is wrong and just cannot be legal. No, it has never happened to me in any context, banking or otherwise. I suspect, however, that what they are talking about is changes in interest rates or late fees on new extensions of credit, which you are not obligated to incur. To me, that's no different from a merchant charging 50 cents for an apple today, and changing the price to 60 cents next week.

I also have a problem with them posting changes to terms in a newspaper. I would also complain to the courts if I was not directly notified. Who has time to read legal notices buried in the back of a newspaper.

I understand your moral point on interest. Obviously if we're going to move to a gift economy anyway, then I suppose banks, money and interest will disappear. Then I'll lose all my beautiful money.

I know you guys will take good care of me, though, so I'm not worried. Much.

[Demogorgon]

Okay, thanks. I have to admit it looks terrible at first blush. The only remaining question I have, then, is whether that clause applies to new extensions of credit only, or to existing debit balances previously bargained for. If it's the latter, then you need to see a ... what do you call them there? Solicitor? ... and raise hell in court. That is wrong and just cannot be legal. No, it has never happened to me in any context, banking or otherwise. I suspect, however, that what they are talking about is changes in interest rates or late fees on new extensions of credit, which you are not obligated to incur. To me, that's no different from a merchant charging 50 cents for an apple today, and changing the price to 60 cents next week.

No it applies to ongoing services. For instance a few years ago the banks decided that the charge for any unauthorised overdraft (even when caused by their actions which is very frequent, banks here have a poliy of holding over all payments to your account other than direct cash deposits so that they can force these charges) would rise from five pounds to twenty five pounds. Whether that is legal is currently working its way through the courts, but the issue at stake isn't even whether they can vary the contract but whether they can charge that much. Not that I am not following the case with keen interest. I stand to regain hundreds of pounds if it goes the right way, but the banks will simply find a new trick if that particular one is found illegal.

Would a reform of the banking system to stop banks doing this be welcome? Yes it would. Would it be enough? No it wouldn't. The banking system is a cause of misery to a lot of people in general. Banks can really hold you hostage. Of course we shouldn't get tied down into discussing them too much, it just so happens that I am particularly pissed off with them right now so my examples tend to keep coming back to them.

Anyway I am not an anarchist and am not terribly interested in arguing for a gift economy. I argue for something quite different, but the whole financial system needs to go, that is for sure.

[534634634265]

Robert The Great reminds me of the rich uncle duck. whats his Name? he swims in his vault of gold, it was a hilarious bit of propaganda for children about the successes of capitalism.

[pusher robot]

Here is a typical clause:

"4.2 We can change the amounts we charge you, make new or different charges and change the way you have to pay charges, to reflect changes to the costs of providing the service or facilities available on your current account, including any changes caused by inflation or for any other valid reason. 30 days before the changes take effect, we will either publish a notice in one national newspaper and/or write to you and/or publish a notice in our branches and on our website about the changes and when they take effect and update “Your Guide to Fees and Charges” leaflet and our website."


Damn, dude, why would anyone agree to that? Don't you guys have credit unions?

[Yes]

Libertarianism is an ideology that basically says all corporations will be more benevolent if the government stops giving them regulations :laugh:

[Demogorgon]

Damn, dude, why would anyone agree to that? Don't you guys have credit unions?

We do, though they aren't exactly brilliant either, but there is a lot more you need banks for than that. The reason we agree to it is simply because we need banking facilities and they all do it. American banks apparently don't do it because they aren't allowed to do it, but then again that is Government intervention which is not popular in Libertarian circles.

Of course it goes both ways, American banks are allowed to pull of certain tricks that British and Irish banks aren't allowed to do, but again stopping American banks from doing such would require intervention.

BTW, don't imagine that rubbish like that is something we can avoid. I have tried pretty much everything to get around these outrageous terms. I probably know half the law I would need to do a law degree thanks to all the research I have done to try and find some way out of this. All I can hope is that the courts find the bank charges illegal, but even then they are unlikely to change other ways in which the banks can unilaterally alter arrangements.

[pusher robot]

We do, though they aren't exactly brilliant either, but there is a lot more you need banks for than that. The reason we agree to it is simply because we need banking facilities and they all do it. American banks apparently don't do it because they aren't allowed to do it, but then again that is Government intervention which is not popular in Libertarian circles.

I can't really fathom what services you need that you can't get from a credit union, but undestandably banking systems are different where I am and that's that. But - I would argue that the reason American banks don't universally gouge their customers in the same way has little to do with regulation (most of which is only to prevent outright fraud and banking system insolvency) and much more to do with the need to attract customers. There are countless institutions capable of providing financial services, and people naturally seek those that have the terms most favorable to them. Thus, there is constant competitive pressure to attract those people by offering better services and/or lower prices.

[Bud Struggle]

Here is a typical clause:

"4.2 We can change the amounts we charge you, make new or different charges and change the way you have to pay charges, to reflect changes to the costs of providing the service or facilities available on your current account, including any changes caused by inflation or for any other valid reason. 30 days before the changes take effect, we will either publish a notice in one national newspaper and/or write to you and/or publish a notice in our branches and on our website about the changes and when they take effect and update “Your Guide to Fees and Charges” leaflet and our website."

That comes as a bit of a shock to me, too. Our rates are fixed here in the USA. You folks must have other more certain means of borrowing money than your banks.

That's pretty absurd. I agree, that's pretty criminal.

[Robert]

http://duckman.pettho.com/characters/scrooge.jpg

Scrooge McDuck! Damn, I love him! Please tell me there's a way I can change my user name to "Scrooge McDuck." I'm serious.

[Robert]

Back to the merits, there's more that bothers me about this:
the banks decided that the charge for any unauthorised overdraft (even when caused by their actions which is very frequent, banks here have a policy of holding over all payments to your account other than direct cash deposits so that they can force these charges) would rise from five pounds to twenty five pounds. Whether that is legal is currently working its way through the courts, but the issue at stake isn't even whether they can vary the contract but whether they can charge that much.If it is proved that they purposefully manipulated the system to provoke overdrafts (proof would be tough without a cooeprating bank employee of internal memo or somesuch), they should go to prison.

But if they tell you in advance that the fees for new overdrafts will increase henceforth from 5 to 25 pounds, and since you are free to leave that bank, then I don't really have a problem with it from a contract perspective. I do take your point that if they all do it, you have no options other than suing or discontinuing writing checks.

What do U.S. banks charge for overdrafts anyway? Hmmm: looks like the average in the states is $17 to $35 per incident. http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/CFAOverdraftStudyJune2005.pdf

$35 per incident !!?!?!?

They're fuckin' with the wrong duck!



Scrooge

[Invader Zim]

Libertarianism isn't fascism, and pointing out a few questionable links from a few individuals expressiving nationalistic doesn't make them one and the same. Hell the example Demo has provided isn't even one of the best, when you consider that half the famous libertarian economists were actively involved, in varying capacities, with fascist regimes at one time or another. The best example being Von Mises being in bed with Dollfuss, or Friedman and Pinochet and the Chicago Boys.

[534634634265]

http://duckman.pettho.com/characters/scrooge.jpg

Scrooge McDuck! Damn, I love him! Please tell me there's a way I can change my user name to "Scrooge McDuck." I'm serious.

he suits you! i second a petition to the mods to change this guys name.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

:blink: What the hell is that story even about? The final solution to the chicken question?

As a serious response: shit.

I guess you could also substitute philosophy, but I (and a grocery list of scholars) find Objectivism less relevant than - say - the Azhar Book.

Kinky sex. Evil chickens. Stereotypical good versus evil, with no middle. Some rape for those who do not agree with Goodkind's views.

[Tungsten]

No it doesn't. Libertarians are always careful to make an exception for the military and police - the only state institutions they like. And as chance would have it, the military and police are also the only state institutions you need for war and mass murder.
Therefore, any state with a police and a military are therefore planning mass murder, right?


Libertarians think that when the state spends money on education or health care for its citizens,
The state spends whose money? A revealing statement indeed.


that is evil theft and use of force. But when the state spends money on weapons to cut people to pieces or blow the heads off innocent civilians, that's perfectly fine.
And presumably, the same weapons will not work on people who aren't innocent, or will fail to function when used for a benevolent cause, right?


Do you see the connection to fascism now?

:blink: This might be more believable if libertarians advocated authoritarian economic/social policies and general warmongering. In case you didn't notice, the general consensus among libertarians on the war in Iraq was that it was immoral. Why do you suppose that was?

-----


Libertarianism talks big about individual rights, but they do not respect them at all in practice, viewing them as subservient to corporate rights.
Please quote these so-called libertarians who believe this, along with where they have "failed to respect them in practice" (practice where?)


Though corporations are plainly not individuals, yet they want to treat them as if they are and in doing so trample over the rights of real individuals.
No, this is a straw man. It's a crock argument anyway, as you've little respect for individual rights or liberty yourselves. History has proven that on many occasions.


Here is a little life lesson for you.
Oh right- a 22 year old kid appearing like some grandfather figure, giving the rest of us "life lessons".


When you get out into the big bad world, you will find that for all the trouble the Government can cause you it is nothing compared to what private companies will do.
Listen to your comrades :

"the military and police are also the only state institutions you need for war and mass murder"

Private companies don't have the power to tax, kill, declare war on or imprison you. Governments do. I'd say that makes them a whole lot more dangerous.

Or are you frightened that Ronald McDonald is going to kneecap you for not buying his hamburgers?


Even if we were to ignore all other private companies and simply look at banks, I could still say with a hundred percent accuracy that banks have caused me far more misery than the Government ever has. And of course banks are not the only private entities that will cause you trouble. It is all very well to talk in the abstract about how Government is oppressive but any trouble you get from a private company is your own choice, but the world doesn't work like that. Indeed you can probably exercise more control over what Government can do to you than witht he private sector. At least if things really such you can go to a different country with a more laid back Government.
Or you could go and live in North Korea, where the evils of private enterprise are completely absent. Don't forget to send us a postcard.


Not to mention their defence of usury. Libertarians, particularly Austrians, claim that time-preference theory justifies interest. If the bank gives you credit now, it is reasonable for them to receive more in the future because you have gained the chance to spend now rather than later whereas they have deferred any reward until later too.
Well it's a case of take it or leave it. If you don't want to pay interest on a loan, don't have one or find a bank that doesn't charge.


The fact that banks can lend out money that previously did not exist and then receive considerably more than they lent out in return is an utter outrage.
How dare they offer a service and make money without your permission...

---------


There isn't a single "classical-liberal" author who advocated the same kind of philosophy and tyranny modern Libertarians do.
By what terms are we defining this tyranny?


Modern Libertarianism is pretty much discredited as a pro-tyranny (I prefer tyranny rather than "fascism," as you can then note the areas where there are distinctions), and if you go to any philosophical forum, people are nowadays making similiar points to the OP (noting that putting power in the hands of business is indeed tyrannical, for example).
Discredited by who?

---------


Caused you more misery??? Is the test for what constitutes a beneficial institution how it affects you or me personally?

Also, it sounds like you're complaining about some credit situation you couldn't get adjusted to your satisfaction. If you've been truly wronged, file suit. If current law doesn't provide redress for your claim, it suggests that the majority so far simply doesn't agree with your view of justice.

Why not lobby for changes in these unjust laws instead of defaming the whole banking system?

It's not without irony that it's people like this who exhibit the "me me me" mentality more than anyone else. They complain about exploitation, yet see others as their indentured servants when the need arises.

---------


Libertarianism is a psychotic, anti-social ideology based on greed.
I thought it was based on liberty or individual rights.


Because it is psychotic,
I'm no psychiatrist, but I was under the impression that only people could be psychotic. An ideology is an abstract entity doesn't actually posess a psyche, so how can it suffer from a mental disorder?


it can only appeal to people through bribing them, and because it is anti-social the bribe it offers is based on selfishness.

What does the author of this propose as an alternative? He seems to condemn bribery as much as selfishness, so I'm going to have to assume they're equally as evil in his mind. So bribery (aka. trade- voluntarily offering a value for a service or some other value) is out of the question- so what does that leave? Violence? Slavery? And what the hell is wrong with being selfish? Has this person sold his house to the homeless and given all his food to the starving? I doubt it, somehow.


In exchange for the destruction of society libertarianism offers unfettered economic growth and wealth for all.
How terrible. I seem to recall communism offering something similar in its more enlightened days.


Global warming puts a big brake on simplistic versions of this bribe, because it says we can’t have unfettered use of the resource which underpins it.

Faced with a contradiction between reality and its anti-social vision, libertarianism either has to walk away from reality or from its vision. Since the vision is fundamentally psychotic it has no problems walking away from reality – and so we get global warming denialism.

Now here's the real meat of the argument- the political necessity of global warming. It's it amazing how the environmentalist movement began to achieve serious political power at about the same time international communism met its long-overdue demise. Green became the new red. No coincidence either was the transformation of global warming from an insignificant nuissance (12 inche rise in sea levels, 1 degree increase over 100 years) into the Doomesday Scenario™ we keep hearing from Al Gore and a whole host of other people who own private jets. The answers to global warming are always the same:

Rationing of resources! State control! Destruction of autonomy! Productive nations dragged down to the dirt!

In other words, every authoritarian socialist's fantasy come true. The cynicism can be easily forgiven.

-----------


Hell the example Demo has provided isn't even one of the best, when you consider that half the famous libertarian economists were actively involved, in varying capacities, with fascist regimes at one time or another. The best example being Von Mises being in bed with Dollfuss, or Friedman and Pinochet and the Chicago Boys.

I seem to recall reading that Friedman met pinochet for about 40 minutes...and that was the only time they spent together. When questioned about this, his response to this was something along the lines of "I gave him [Pinochet] the advice I gave to russia and china- liberalise your economy."

[Dean]

I seem to recall reading that Friedman met pinochet for about 40 minutes...and that was the only time they spent together. When questioned about this, his response to this was something along the lines of "I gave him [Pinochet] the advice I gave to russia and china- liberalise your economy."

Yes, and as a result of the Pinochet regime he remarked that he "no longer supported Laizze-Faire economics as much" as he once did.

[Tungsten]

Yes, and as a result of the Pinochet regime he remarked that he "no longer supported Laizze-Faire economics as much" as he once did.
Where/when did he say that?

[Dean]

Where/when did he say that?

When he was raping a 12 year old boy.

[Bud Struggle]

Here is a typical clause:

"4.2 We can change the amounts we charge you, make new or different charges and change the way you have to pay charges, to reflect changes to the costs of providing the service or facilities available on your current account, including any changes caused by inflation or for any other valid reason. 30 days before the changes take effect, we will either publish a notice in one national newspaper and/or write to you and/or publish a notice in our branches and on our website about the changes and when they take effect and update “Your Guide to Fees and Charges” leaflet and our website."

I don't know is this is exactly where you bank but Fortune Magazine says the Royal bank of Scotland is the 11th most profitable company in the world--right up there with all the oil companies.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0806/gallery.G500_biggest_profits.fortune/11.html

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Private companies don't have the power to tax, kill, declare war on or imprison you. Governments do. I'd say that makes them a whole lot more dangerous.

Therefore, any state with a police and a military are therefore planning mass murder, right?
Listen to your own arguments. Yeah, sure, the state has the power to do all sorts of stuff to you. But the point is that most of the time it doesn't do much of anything to you. Have you ever been imprisoned, or forced into a war, or killed by the state? I haven't. In fact, I don't interact with agents of the state on a daily basis. However, I do interact with numerous agents of private corporations on a daily basis. Therefore, I care a lot more about corporations doing things that go against my interests than about the state doing things that go against my interests.


The state spends whose money? A revealing statement indeed.
We hold the concept of ownership to be illegitimate. Get that through your thick skull.


This might be more believable if libertarians advocated authoritarian economic/social policies and general warmongering. In case you didn't notice, the general consensus among libertarians on the war in Iraq was that it was immoral. Why do you suppose that was?
General consensus? You might want to have a chat with your fellow libertarians over at the Ayn Rand Institute, who think the US government is showing "moral cowardice" by not killing more random Iraqi civilians.

[Demogorgon]

Leave it to our resident fascist to defend his sacred cows.

:blink: This might be more believable if libertarians advocated authoritarian economic/social policies and general warmongering. In case you didn't notice, the general consensus among libertarians on the war in Iraq was that it was immoral. Why do you suppose that was?
Prove that was the general consensus. The fact was that there was no consensus amongst them. I can think of certain prominent Libertarian groups who continue to fanatically support it.

Incidentally, the first post I made in this thread, the original post in fact, was one mocking a well known Libertarian for writing an article praising nationalism and praising Petain, a notorious fascist whose name is in fact used as a curse word in France, for attempting to make France more militaristic.

No, this is a straw man. It's a crock argument anyway, as you've little respect for individual rights or liberty yourselves. History has proven that on many occasions.
Given that I am merely a "22 year old kid", I am struggling to imagine what historical instances of me failing to respect individual rights or liberty you could be referring to.


Oh right- a 22 year old kid appearing like some grandfather figure, giving the rest of us "life lessons".
From your style of arguing, level of knowledge and general attitude, I am guessing that I am at least five years older than you. So let's not try throwing that argument around, shall we?


Private companies don't have the power to tax, kill, declare war on or imprison you. Governments do. I'd say that makes them a whole lot more dangerous.They usually lack these powers because the evil tyrannical government stops them doing it. When the Government either can't or wont stop them, corporations will do as they please. There are plenty of dead Trade Unionists in South America to testify to that for instance.

Also, the notion that a private company won't tax you is absurd. Have you never had to pay electricity bills, phone bills? gas bills or whatever else? You may say that they are not taxes, but that is precisely what they are. Indeed you have less choice over paying them than you do taxes. You can always move to a country without taxes, you will have a hard job moving somewhere where you can avoid charges from utility companies. Of course you could always argue that you don't need Utilities. Okay, live like that then. You'll find it harder than moving to a tax free country. Taxes from private companies are in fact less voluntary than those the Government makes you pay.


Or you could go and live in North Korea, where the evils of private enterprise are completely absent. Don't forget to send us a postcard.
Well I would, but seeing as you will be living in Somalia, which is free from the evils of Government Intervention, I am not entirely sure that there is a reliable enough postal service there for you to be able to get the card.


Well it's a case of take it or leave it. If you don't want to pay interest on a loan, don't have one or find a bank that doesn't charge.
Given that you are presumably seventeen or under, I can understand your ignorance here. Wait until you need to acquire credit, however.


How dare they offer a service and make money without your permission...

Christ, where to start with this one? Firstly, I take it you are not aware of how banks are able to lend? The lending system in modern banking is based on lending out far more money than they actually have, enabling them to create more money. This, in practice is only possible with Government backing, particularly through the Country In Question's central bank. And of course should any bank over lend, one of two things happens. The Government bails them out with a great deal of taxpayers money a la Northern Rock and we all suffer for the bank's irresponsibility or the Government doesn't bother bailing them out and there is a huge knock on effect of the bank collapsing and many people losing their savings and money generally losing value and we all suffer for the bank's irresponsibility.

Further, banks entirely rely upon the integrity of the currency they are lending in order to be able to do this with any degree of confidence, and with Fiat Currency that requires the Government guaranteeing the currency every step of the way. Of course we could always go back to the gold standard, but that is an appalling system, and at any rate, it probably isn't possible to do that now anyway.

A bit of an irony this is, isn't it. Someone forever decrying anything that requires Government intervention defending a system built entirely upon the Government guaranteeing it at huge expense to the tax-payer.

Don't worry, I already knew your position was about benefitting the elite rather than minimising intervention, so no need to try and talk your way out of it.


It's not without irony that it's people like this who exhibit the "me me me" mentality more than anyone else. They complain about exploitation, yet see others as their indentured servants when the need arises.And where, pray, is anyone calling for an indentured servent?


I thought it was based on liberty or individual rights.
Don't worry, you'll grow out of it. We all do.


Rationing of resources! State control! Destruction of autonomy! Productive nations dragged down to the dirt!

In other words, every authoritarian socialist's fantasy come true. The cynicism can be easily forgiven.Here is a funny thing. The extreme right likes to ignore the reality of climate change because it doesn't suit them. Fair enough, we all knew that anyway. But look at what Tungsten is saying a little closer. The policies that climate change would necessitate conflict with the policies that his ideology necessitates. Therefore, either climate change or his ideology must be correct. He doesn't even have to think about it. His ideology must be right. When theory and reality conflict, it must be reality that is wrong. This is traditionally the very hallmark of authoritarian thinking.


I seem to recall reading that Friedman met pinochet for about 40 minutes...and that was the only time they spent together. When questioned about this, his response to this was something along the lines of "I gave him [Pinochet] the advice I gave to russia and china- liberalise your economy."
Now this is a little desperate. Friedman and Pinochet spent little time in personal contact? Well that is hardy surprising. The two men did not exactly have compatible personalities. However we were not talking about whether they were pals, but rather about their politics. Pinochet followed Friedman's policy prescription to the absolute letter.

Two things became clear from this. It required extreme social and political authoritarianism to push through and it was a complete and utter failure.

Here is a funny thing though. Pinochet used to claim in his defence that he was no more authoritarian than he needed to be to get his policies through and that if he could have been less dictatorial, he would have been. Much as I hate to give credit to anything that scum said, he may have been truthful there. In the eighties, when the free-market policies had finally proven so disastrous that Pinochet decided to just give up, he was able to save the economy from complete meltdown by using Keynesian economics as well as nationalising large numbers of enterprises so that the state could guide Chile through the economic crises he had created. The funny thing is that not only did this mitigate the economic crises, but Pinochet also removed a lot of the political restrictions he had imposed at this time saying they were no longer needed. Apparently the need for extreme authoritarianism had less to do with the fact that the military controlled the Government and more to do with the fact that the Government was operating a Libertarian economic policy.

Draw your conclusions there.

[Demogorgon]

I don't know is this is exactly where you bank but Fortune Magazine says the Royal bank of Scotland is the 11th most profitable company in the world--right up there with all the oil companies.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0806/gallery.G500_biggest_profits.fortune/11.html

I use the Bank of Scotland, which is a different bank, despite a similar name. It is also always included on lists of the world's largest and most profitable banks.

This country (Britain as a whole) has churned out a hell of a lot of successful banks, and I cannot help thinking that that has a lot to do with the fact that successive Governments have let them away with bloody murder.

[Tungsten]

We hold the concept of ownership to be illegitimate. Get that through your thick skull.

Then you don't believe that every man is the owner of his own labour or himself...?


General consensus? You might want to have a chat with your fellow libertarians over at the Ayn Rand Institute,

The Ayn Rand insitute is run by objectivists who follow a somewhat different philisophy. The also consider libertarianism a swear-word. If you don't believe me, email them and find out yourself.

--------


Leave it to our resident fascist to defend his sacred cows.
According the title of this thread, we're all fascists, so I don't know why I'm suddenly so unique.


Prove that was the general consensus. The fact was that there was no consensus amongst them. I can think of certain prominent Libertarian groups who continue to fanatically support it.
Oh, you mean the Ayn Rand insitute? :rolleyes:


Incidentally, the first post I made in this thread, the original post in fact, was one mocking a well known Libertarian for writing an article praising nationalism and praising Petain, a notorious fascist whose name is in fact used as a curse word in France, for attempting to make France more militaristic.
So if one well-known libertarian praises nationalism, the rest of us must all praise nationalism too?


Given that I am merely a "22 year old kid", I am struggling to imagine what historical instances of me failing to respect individual rights or liberty you could be referring to.
There are plenty of them on this forum. As for practical examples of communists violating individual rights, where do you want me to begin?


From your style of arguing, level of knowledge and general attitude, I am guessing that I am at least five years older than you.
You're guessing wrong.


They usually lack these powers because the evil tyrannical government stops them doing it.
I don't see what's evil and tyrannical about stopping them doing any of those things. That's what they're there for.

When the Government either can't or wont stop them, corporations will do as they please.
So can trade unions.


There are plenty of dead Trade Unionists in South America to testify to that for instance.
What goes around, comes around:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_2512000/2512469.stm


Also, the notion that a private company won't tax you is absurd. Have you never had to pay electricity bills, phone bills? gas bills or whatever else? You may say that they are not taxes, but that is precisely what they are.

Only if you completely ignore both the dictionary and the legal definition of what a tax is. Utility payments are called "bills"; you don't have to have any of them, or use any of their services, as most of them are private companies. They do not posess the power to tax. Taxation, however, is compulsory, which you must pay whether you're getting something for it or not.


Well I would, but seeing as you will be living in Somalia, which is free from the evils of Government Intervention,
I'm not an anarchist, as I've said on numerous occasions.


Given that you are presumably seventeen or under, I can understand your ignorance here. Wait until you need to acquire credit, however.
I had a loan once and found it a false economy. I'll admit my ignorance- Having one loan hardly makes me an expert on the subject. I actually live within my means despite being on wages well below the national average, which isn't difficult. Nice try at avoiding the issue, though.


Christ, where to start with this one? Firstly, I take it you are not aware of how banks are able to lend? The lending system in modern banking is based on lending out far more money than they actually have, enabling them to create more money. This, in practice is only possible with Government backing, particularly through the Country In Question's central bank. And of course should any bank over lend, one of two things happens. The Government bails them out with a great deal of taxpayers money a la Northern Rock and we all suffer for the bank's irresponsibility or the Government doesn't bother bailing them out and there is a huge knock on effect of the bank collapsing and many people losing their savings and money generally losing value and we all suffer for the bank's irresponsibility.
You're complaining about government handouts and irreponsible people being given money? Be careful, you're beginning to sound like a libertarian fascist.


A bit of an irony this is, isn't it. Someone forever decrying anything that requires Government intervention defending a system built entirely upon the Government guaranteeing it at huge expense to the tax-payer.
Where do you see me defending the current system (especially economically)? It'll collapse within thirty years anyway.


And where, pray, is anyone calling for an indentured servent?
The whole "each according to his needs" idea requires servitude according to need. You don't what do something? Tough- other people need it.

On top of that, you seem to be asking for free utilities. Presumably, the people who run them will be working for nothing.


Don't worry, you'll grow out of it. We all do.
I wasn't aware advocating a thinly veiled form of slavery was something you grew into.


Here is a funny thing. The extreme right likes to ignore the reality of climate change because it doesn't suit them.
The reality of climate change was spelled out by scientists long ago- there's nothing to worry about. Only recently have politicians got their hands on it. Although recently many scientists are in the pockets of different groups, they're far more attuned to reality than politicians.


Fair enough, we all knew that anyway. But look at what Tungsten is saying a little closer. The policies that climate change would necessitate conflict with the policies that his ideology necessitates.Therefore, either climate change or his ideology must be correct.
Which is why exaggeration is necessary. We don't agree with libertarianism, therefore climate change must be catastrophic.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Fire and brimstone for the 21st century.


He doesn't even have to think about it. His ideology must be right. When theory and reality conflict, it must be reality that is wrong.
Couldn't have summed up your own position better.


This is traditionally the very hallmark of authoritarian thinking.
Except isn't not me offering the authoritarian policies to "save the earth".

It's you.


Now this is a little desperate. Friedman and Pinochet spent little time in personal contact? Well that is hardy surprising. The two men did not exactly have compatible personalities. However we were not talking about whether they were pals, but rather about their politics. Pinochet followed Friedman's policy prescription to the absolute letter.

Two things became clear from this. It required extreme social and political authoritarianism to push through and it was a complete and utter failure.

Here is a funny thing though. Pinochet used to claim in his defence that he was no more authoritarian than he needed to be to get his policies through and that if he could have been less dictatorial, he would have been. Much as I hate to give credit to anything that scum said, he may have been truthful there. In the eighties, when the free-market policies had finally proven so disastrous that Pinochet decided to just give up, he was able to save the economy from complete meltdown by using Keynesian economics as well as nationalising large numbers of enterprises so that the state could guide Chile through the economic crises he had created. The funny thing is that not only did this mitigate the economic crises, but Pinochet also removed a lot of the political restrictions he had imposed at this time saying they were no longer needed. Apparently the need for extreme authoritarianism had less to do with the fact that the military controlled the Government and more to do with the fact that the Government was operating a Libertarian economic policy.

Draw your conclusions there.
Where did you get all this information from, I wonder?

(Points to signature)

It might be time to post a review.

[Demogorgon]

Then you don't believe that every man is the owner of his own labour or himself...?No you don't own yourself, you are yourself. Nobody owns anyone. That is the justification for slavery.


Oh, you mean the Ayn Rand insitute? :rolleyes:
No, in fact, I had forgotten about them when I wrote the previous post.


So if one well-known libertarian praises nationalism, the rest of us must all praise nationalism too?
Did I say that? I was simply giving an example. Nationalism is a prevalent theme amongst Libertarians. Given its ideological routes, this is hardly surprising


There are plenty of them on this forum. As for practical examples of communists violating individual rights, where do you want me to begin?
Let me ask you again, where have I violated anyone's rights?


You're guessing wrong.
Well giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it is time you at your age then? If you are an adult then surely you have gotten over the fact that you were a loner at school by now?


What goes around, comes around:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_2512000/2512469.stm

Let's see, two members of a trade Union committed a murder in Wales in the eighties, so that justifies the murder of Trade Unionists in Colombia twenty years later? I see.


Only if you completely ignore both the dictionary and the legal definition of what a tax is. Utility payments are called "bills"; you don't have to have any of them, or use any of their services, as most of them are private companies. They do not posess the power to tax. Taxation, however, is compulsory, which you must pay whether you're getting something for it or not.Nope. You have a choice over whether to pay taxes, there are several countries that don't have any. There are far fewer places where you can avoid utility bills. Try again


I'm not an anarchist, as I've said on numerous occasions.
And? My views have nothing to do with what happens in North Korea, what is your point?


I had a loan once and found it a false economy. I'll admit my ignorance- Having one loan hardly makes me an expert on the subject. I actually live within my means despite being on wages well below the national average, which isn't difficult. Nice try at avoiding the issue, though.
Really? Do you live as a hermit too? Living within your means is one thing. Living without mortgages, credit facilities etc is quite another.


You're complaining about government handouts and irreponsible people being given money? Be careful, you're beginning to sound like a libertarian fascist.

Where do you see me defending the current system (especially economically)? It'll collapse within thirty years anyway.
It might or it might not. But that is not the point. You are defending banks, yet they function only due to the Government backing them. No doubt you harbor lunatic fantasies of returning to the gold standard (something that never collapsed). Grow up.


On top of that, you seem to be asking for free utilities. Presumably, the people who run them will be working for nothing.
Where did I ask for free utilities? I said that utility charges meant that private companies can effectively tax you. That is a statement of fact, not an opinion on policy.


The reality of climate change was spelled out by scientists long ago- there's nothing to worry about. Only recently have politicians got their hands on it. Although recently many scientists are in the pockets of different groups, they're far more attuned to reality than politicians.
Watch out Tungsten, the black helicopters are coming for you



Where did you get all this information from, I wonder?

Most of it is just a matter of historical record. Try reading economic articles, rather than coming up with conspiracy theories and you might be able to learn what goes on in the world too.

On the other hand, why don't you tell us what you think happened in Chile?

[pusher robot]

Where did I ask for free utilities? I said that utility charges meant that private companies can effectively tax you. That is a statement of fact, not an opinion on policy.

That is not a statement of fact. A price is not a tax no matter how ubiquitous it is. A tax is, by definition, a levy backed up by state force. No utility has the power to throw you in jail or seize your assets because you do not wish to purchase their products, regardless of the fact that you do in fact want to purchase their products.

As to why you're attempting to obliterate the syntactic difference between "price" and "tax," well, I can only speculate:
Greater precision would have been dangerous. What was required in a Party member was an outlook similar to that of the ancient Hebrew who knew, without knowing much else, that all nations other than his own worshipped ‘false gods’. He did not need to know that these gods were called Baal, Osiris, Moloch, Ashtaroth, and the like: probably the less he knew about them the better for his orthodoxy. He knew Jehovah and the commandments of Jehovah: he knew, therefore, that all gods with other names or other attributes were false gods....In Newspeak it was seldom possible to follow a heretical thought further than the perception that it was heretical: beyond that point the necessary words were nonexistent.

[Demogorgon]

That is not a statement of fact. A price is not a tax no matter how ubiquitous it is. A tax is, by definition, a levy backed up by state force. No utility has the power to throw you in jail or seize your assets because you do not wish to purchase their products, regardless of the fact that you do in fact want to purchase their products.

Of course they can do all sorts should you fail to pay your bills. Even if they don't resort to using the State to get the money, they can use private debt collectors and so on.

Indeed firms will often go to greater lengths to extract payment than the Government will go to to get unpaid taxes.

The distinction between a bill that must be paid and a tax that must be paid is an artificial one. Both work in the same way, trying to create a distinction is an exercise in twisting definitions.

For instance, in Britain, if you possess a television, you must pay a television license fee to the Government each year to pay for the BBC. Libertarians denounce this needless to say. On the other hand, if you possess a Satellite dish or non-freeview Digital Television or whatever else you must pay a fee to the company providing that service to pay for their television programmes. The only difference between this and the TV license is that it is usually more expensive. Yet Libertarians say it is perfectly acceptable. What is it that makes one an unacceptable tax and the other a perfectly acceptable price?

[pusher robot]

Of course they can do all sorts should you fail to pay your bills. Even if they don't resort to using the State to get the money, they can use private debt collectors and so on.

That's nonresponsive to what I wrote. A "bill" is a demand for payment for goods or services you already purchased but haven't paid for. If you agree to purchase electricity, and the electricity is delivered, you must pay or you have stolen the electricity. BUT - and this is the important distinction - nobody forces you to purchase electricity. That is why it is not a tax. You could, if you wanted to, go without electricity, or buy it from someone else, or make your own, or whatever. A tax is a levy for goods or services you are required to purchase. Why do you insist on ignoring this distinction?


The distinction between a bill that must be paid and a tax that must be paid is an artificial one. Both work in the same way, trying to create a distinction is an exercise in twisting definitions.

The difference is one of choice. You have a choice not to incur a bill. You can't choose not to incur a tax.


For instance, in Britain, if you possess a television, you must pay a television license fee to the Government each year to pay for the BBC. Libertarians denounce this needless to say.
Because you don't have the choice to NOT pay for BBC and NOT watch it.
On the other hand, if you possess a Satellite dish or non-freeview Digital Television or whatever else you must pay a fee to the company providing that service to pay for their television programmes. The only difference between this and the TV license is that it is usually more expensive. Yet Libertarians say it is perfectly acceptable.
No, there is a difference: I have the choice to NOT pay for DTV or satellite and NOT be provided with it. Libertarians demand to be free to choose. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_to_Choose)
What is it that makes one an unacceptable tax and the other a perfectly acceptable price?Because one you must pay for whether you want it or not, the other you pay for only if you choose to. This isn't hard to understand.

[Demogorgon]

That's nonresponsive to what I wrote. A "bill" is a demand for payment for goods or services you already purchased but haven't paid for. If you agree to purchase electricity, and the electricity is delivered, you must pay or you have stolen the electricity. BUT - and this is the important distinction - nobody forces you to purchase electricity. That is why it is not a tax. You could, if you wanted to, go without electricity, or buy it from someone else, or make your own, or whatever. A tax is a levy for goods or services you are required to purchase. Why do you insist on ignoring this distinction?Because as I have already said, taxes are avoidable. You can more easily move to a country without taxes than you can manage without power. You have more choices in paying taxes than you do in paying bills. There are places without taxes, but nowhere without bills.


Because you don't have the choice to NOT pay for BBC and NOT watch it.
No, there is a difference: I have the choice to NOT pay for DTV or satellite and NOT be provided with it. Libertarians demand to be free to choose. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_to_Choose) Because one you must pay for whether you want it or not, the other you pay for only if you choose to. This isn't hard to understand.
[/quote]There is no law in this country, nor has there ever been, that you must possess a television. You are every bit as free to not own a television and not pay the license fee as you are to not own a Satellite and not pay the fees for that.

[Baconator]

Straw men.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Its so easy to pick on vulgar libertarianism that I could hand out debating tips to socialists and communists.

[pusher robot]

Because as I have already said, taxes are avoidable. You can more easily move to a country without taxes than you can manage without power. You have more choices in paying taxes than you do in paying bills. There are places without taxes, but nowhere without bills.

Irrelevant. I suppose since it's easier to move to another country than to get free beer, the price of beer is actually a tax? Ubiquity of pricing is irrelevant to my argument; I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Also, don't think I missed your sly assumption that "not having electricity bills" means "not having electricity." For example, what's to stop you from putting up a wind turbine or some PV arrays and making your own electricity? Regardless, even if there was no convenient alternative, that doesn't change the fact that you still have the option of doing something cheap and inconvenient. The choice exists.


There is no law in this country, nor has there ever been, that you must possess a television. You are every bit as free to not own a television and not pay the license fee as you are to not own a Satellite and not pay the fees for that.

The fee is not for the television. If I want a television, I should only have to pay for the television. The reason the BBC fee is a tax is because I have to pay it whether or not I want to watch the BBC. It's as though the law required you to purchase jelly any time you purchased peanut butter, regardless of whether or not you wanted jelly. It's a tax because you're required to pay for something you might not want - the BBC service, not the television. I don't know how I can make this any simpler.

[turquino]

Straw men.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Its so easy to pick on vulgar libertarianism that I could hand out debating tips to socialists and communists.
I was reading through the forums of 'Mises.org', which seems to be some sort of libertarian website, and i was pleasantly surprised that they held some more enlightened positions than what i've typically encountered from other self professed libertarians ("shoot the illegals"). They seemed genuinely concerned about the same state oppression and authoritarianism that the left opposes, although some of their concerns were exaggerated and naive. I'll need to reappraise some of my criticisms.

[Dean]

Because you don't have the choice to NOT pay for BBC and NOT watch it.
No, there is a difference: I have the choice to NOT pay for DTV or satellite and NOT be provided with it. Libertarians demand to be free to choose. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_to_Choose) Because one you must pay for whether you want it or not, the other you pay for only if you choose to. This isn't hard to understand.

Only given that you have the money to back up that choice. If you have no money to compel social forces, you are not "free" to choose anything.

[Baconator]

I was reading through the forums of 'Mises.org', which seems to be some sort of libertarian website, and i was pleasantly surprised that they held some more enlightened positions than what i've typically encountered from other self professed libertarians ("shoot the illegals"). They seemed genuinely concerned about the same state oppression and authoritarianism that the left opposes, although some of their concerns were exaggerated and naive. I'll need to reappraise some of my criticisms.

When you mix patriotism/nationalism or some unyielding loyalty to a country or flag with libertarianism then it is contradictory. I cannot see how any libertarian could support this concept of 'illegal aliens.' The 'illegal' status of 'aliens' is pronounced by legislated law by the state. Any state legislated laws are fundamentally anti-libertarian since they require state coercion for their implementation.

[Demogorgon]

hat doesn't change the fact that you still have the option of doing something cheap and inconvenient. The choice exists.
And you have the option of moving to another country to avoid taxes. The choice exists


The fee is not for the television. If I want a television, I should only have to pay for the television. The reason the BBC fee is a tax is because I have to pay it whether or not I want to watch the BBC. It's as though the law required you to purchase jelly any time you purchased peanut butter, regardless of whether or not you wanted jelly. It's a tax because you're required to pay for something you might not want - the BBC service, not the television. I don't know how I can make this any simpler.And I might want a Satellite dish without wishing to watch Murdoch's Sky Channels. But it doesn't change the fact that should I buy a satellite disk, I will have to pay his company a fee.

Besides, this notion that people might want a television without wanting the BBC services is a bit of a cop out anyway. What it really means is that some people might want to watch BBC Channels without paying. You cannot have a TV here and not watch the BBC. If the fees for the BBC were made optional, everyone would still watch it, but those of us honest enough to continue to pay the fees would be hit with higher prices to make up for the free loaders.

Much like the people who pay Murdoch for his Satellite services have to pay a premium because plenty of people dodge the charges.

[pusher robot]

And you have the option of moving to another country to avoid taxes. The choice exists

We're still stuck on this I see? Fine. Allow me to concede, now and for all time, that a "tax" is a levy for something you are required to pay whether you want to or not, within an arbitrary geopolitical boundary. Happy now? It still doesn't make prices into taxes!


And I might want a Satellite dish without wishing to watch Murdoch's Sky Channels. But it doesn't change the fact that should I buy a satellite disk, I will have to pay his company a fee.

Really? You can't just own a dish for some other purpose? You are required by law to purchase Sky programming just because you own a dish? Then that is a tax. But most goods and services - even utilities - are not like that.


You cannot have a TV here and not watch the BBC.

If that's the case, then you have much bigger political problems than I'd thought, my friend.


If the fees for the BBC were made optional, everyone would still watch it, but those of us honest enough to continue to pay the fees would be hit with higher prices to make up for the free loaders.


I don't understand. Somehow, ABC, NBC, and CBS seem to be able to continue operations without forcing people to pay license fees to them. Perhaps the BBC needs to reexamine its distribution methods.

[Killfacer]

ABC, NBC and CBS get income from advertising?

[Demogorgon]

We're still stuck on this I see? Fine. Allow me to concede, now and for all time, that a "tax" is a levy for something you are required to pay whether you want to or not, within an arbitrary geopolitical boundary. Happy now? It still doesn't make prices into taxes!

And you often have to pay utility bills based on location too. Frequently there is only one supplier to your area.


Really? You can't just own a dish for some other purpose? You are required by law to purchase Sky programming just because you own a dish? Then that is a tax. But most goods and services - even utilities - are not like that.
You are not required by law, you are required by monopoly. Though I am glad you are getting close to acknowledging that a private company can tax you.


If that's the case, then you have much bigger political problems than I'd thought, my friend.

Hardly, the large number of BBC channels combined with the fact that they are of far higher quality than the commercial channels means that virtually everyone who has a television watches them. On another note, it was the left who pushed for commercial competition to be allowed on the airwaves back in the sixties, while the right opposed it. The same was true in France in the eighties.


I don't understand. Somehow, ABC, NBC, and CBS seem to be able to continue operations without forcing people to pay license fees to them. Perhaps the BBC needs to reexamine its distribution methods.
They do so by wasting about a third of their air-time on advertisements. The fact that Britain has far higher Television quality than America means that people are-as a rule-willing to pay for it.

If the license fee were unpopular, it would not last. Both Labour and the Conservatives are so Beholden to Murdoch now that they would seize on the chance to please him by allowing the BBC to collapse. The fact that it would be political suicide is what stops them.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

We're still stuck on this I see? Fine. Allow me to concede, now and for all time, that a "tax" is a levy for something you are required to pay whether you want to or not, within an arbitrary geopolitical boundary. Happy now? It still doesn't make prices into taxes!
No, but it makes rents into taxes.

After all, a "rent" is a levy that you are required to pay whether you want to or not, within an arbitrary geographical boundary. The only way to avoid paying rent is to go outside the boundaries of the territory where rent is charged. The only way to avoid paying tax is to go outside the boundaries of the territory where tax is charged.

The only practical difference between rents and taxes is that the rent-charging territories are usually smaller in area than the tax-charging territories. And it is no coincidence that the taxation powers of states are effectively the same as the rent-charging powers of landowners, because, let's not forget, the modern state evolved our of medieval land ownership. Kings were, at first, landowners.

[Robert]

No, but it makes rents into taxes.This is so funny I think it may be satire:

What happens if you do not have a television licence

If you have a television set, DVD recorder or video recorder which is not licensed, TV Licensing may find out:


because any trader who sells or rents televisions or video recorders must give TV Licensing the customers’ names and addresses, and these will be checked against the record of who already has a television licence; or
by sending a routine enquiry letter. The letters are sent to addresses where there is no record of a television licence being held; or
because a television licence is not renewed; or
because a detector van or other detecting equipment picks up a television signal to an address which is not on TV Licensing’s records as having a television licence. Detector vans can tell whether someone is using a black and white or colour television set.

You may be visited by a TV Licensing enquiry officer if TV Licensing suspect you do not have a television licence or if you have not responded to an enquiry letter or licence reminder.
All enquiry officers carry identification cards which they should show. The enquiry officer must state the purpose of the visit.
You do not have to let the enquiry officer into your home. If you do allow an enquiry officer to come in, they will carry out a brief inspection of the main living areas. If they are satisfied there is no TV set, they can authorise a 'stop on contact' for four years. This means that no one will contact you about your TV Licence for four years.
If the enquiry officer is satisfied that you do not have a television licence and that you should have one, a statement will be taken under caution. The enquiry officer should not suggest that if you buy a licence within a certain period, no action will be taken.
If you do not let the enquiry officer in, they may apply to a magistrates' court (sheriff court in Scotland) for a search warrant. They can do this only if there is good reason to suspect an offence has been committed. Refusal to allow entry to an enquiry officer is not, in itself, enough to justify anyone applying for a search warrant.
You can be prosecuted for having or using a television set or video recorder and not having a licence for it. You can be prosecuted even if you are not the owner or hirer of the set, for example, in a case where the set belonged to a husband but was switched on and watched by the wife, the wife was prosecuted. However, if you are prosecuted, producing a valid licence in court can be used in mitigation. A copy of the licence should therefore be sent to the court.
If TV Licensing decide to prosecute, the case will be heard in the magistrates court (District court in Scotland). If you are found guilty the maximum fine which can be imposed is £1,000. The court cannot confiscate the television set or order you to pay the television licence fee arrears.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/communications/television_licences.htm#what_happens_if_you_do_not _have_a_television_licence

I guess it's something like people in the states "siphoning" electricity from a neighbor's house, but honestly, a "detector van"? The TV must contain a transmitter as well as a receiver circuit for the van to detect it from the street. Can you imagine a more unpopular job than being a TV signal van detector operator?

"Good afternoon, madam, here to sweep your rooms. Selling vaccums? No, not a bit of it, madam, you've been copping 'Sex Crimes and the Vatican' on the telly, you naughty girl. Don't have a set, you say? Let's see what we have under the bed. Aha, no telly, eh? Here's your ticket and notice to appear in -- no madam, we cannot just 'work this out.' On the other hand ... well ... I suppose something can be arranged."

[Demogorgon]

I guess it's something like people in the states "siphoning" electricity from a neighbor's house, but honestly, a "detector van"? The TV must contain a transmitter as well as a receiver circuit for the van to detect it from the street. Can you imagine a more unpopular job than being a TV signal van detector operator?

I'm amazed people still believe this rubbish. The "detector van" stuff is basically something that was made up by public relations to make people feel the Government was on top of things. All that are in their vans are people will look in your house if you let them in to see if you have a TV.

They figure out who isn't paying simply by looking through the ist to see who hasn't responded to the request for payment.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm amazed people still believe this rubbish. The "detector van" stuff is basically something that was made up by public relations to make people feel the Government was on top of things. All that are in their vans are people will look in your house if you let them in to see if you have a TV.

They figure out who isn't paying simply by looking through the ist to see who hasn't responded to the request for payment.

Are you kidding????

Even in America we've heard of the vans driving through British neighborhoods finding people that didn't pay for TV.

And it's a fake? :crying:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_02/tvdetectMS1407_468x328.jpg

[Trystan]

Libertarians are the Scientologists of politics. . . . no, worse. They are a bunch of tiresome, misanthropic children who talk about "human nature" as if we had a complete understanding of it, and, denounce taxes whilst supporting government legislation that attacks the poor and their right to organize. Indeed, they always have a degree of hypocrisy: "we must take away the freedom to organize labor so that we can be more free". The "Objectivists" (laughable name of you are at all acquainted with the religious and crappy books cult of Ayn Rand) are the worst of the lot. Basement dwelling idiots that do not deserve the time of day.

[Robert]

The "detector van" stuff is basically something that was made up by public relationsDemo, in the first place I said it was funny and I suspected it was satire, and in the second place you say it was made up by "public relations," which I guess means of the government. I'm supposed to know when your government is making up a preposterous story to scare TV signal thieves? Is the part about the fine and the search warrant a hoax too?

Now Tom posts a picture of the van and I'm still supposed to know it's all fake? Tom, are you in on this scam being perpetrated on the British people? Or is the joke on me? Is that a phony photo? I can't imagine you had the time to create it on photo shop.

[Bud Struggle]

Now Tom posts a picture of the van and I'm still supposed to know it's all fake? Tom, are you in on this scam being perpetrated on the British people? Or is the joke on me? Is that a phony photo? I can't imagine you had the time to create it on photo shop.


Robert, it's reported in the Daily Mail--and you know they never lie. :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-468466/The-new-TV-detector-reach-home.html

[Robert]

All radio frequency receivers, including TV's, do have oscillators that emit a signal to "beat" or heterodyne against an incoming signal from the air. If the Germans could find covert wireless transmitters in France 60 years ago, the Brits can far more easily do it now if they want to.

The fact that they don't use the van evidence in court doesn't mean anything. Prosecutors in the USA can't use fingerprint evidence in criminal trials either, but the police use fingerprinting as an investigative tool on a daily basis.

So, Demo, what's the deal on these vans? Fact or fiction?

[Demogorgon]

Are you kidding????

Even in America we've heard of the vans driving through British neighborhoods finding people that didn't pay for TV.

And it's a fake? :crying:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_02/tvdetectMS1407_468x328.jpg

Jesus, that thing is from the seventies. I never knew the story was going even back then. They can't detect your television, trust me.

And Robert, the fine and warrant is true, but then again the bailiffs will do that too if you don't pay for your sky dish...

[Demogorgon]

So, Demo, what's the deal on these vans? Fact or fiction?
Fiction, as far as I know. Maybe they do have them, but I've never seen one in my life, so if they exist at all, they certainly aren't used here. I have been reliably told that all the detecter stuff is rubbish and that it is just for show. But who knows, maybe in some places they do use detecters after all?

[Robert]

I've never seen one in my life

It's hard to imagine that monstrosity from the 70's sneaking up on anybody! But Demo, if you're in your 30's or younger, the trucks they have now are far more discreet. They describe them in Tom's link.

They may be monitoring you right now. Say, do you hear a hum? Hmm?

[Demogorgon]

It's hard to imagine that monstrosity from the 70's sneaking up on anybody! But Demo, if you're in your 30's or younger, the trucks they have now are far more discreet. They describe them in Tom's link.

They may be monitoring you right now. Say, do you hear a hum? Hmm?

Well obviously I haven't seen the seventies ones. But I have never seen anything like that. I have seen the inspectors from time to time, and they certainly don't have any of that crap.

Why they would bother anyway, I don't know. The whole license thing is automated anyway and people who don't pay are automatically sent out notices. They only use the inspectors to deal with people who consistently refuse to pay.

[Robert]

people who consistently refuse to pay.

Demo, when they catch you and send you off to prison, I want you to know I'll write you each and every day.

[Robert]

Hey, if you cross the words "Commie" and "Catcher," don't you get "Commer"?

Look at the name on the front of that TV detector van.

[xAtlasx]

Geez, you'd think they'd spend a little more money on their great 'spy equipment' than just throwing a transformer on the back of a van...

[Bud Struggle]

Hey, if you cross the words "Commie" and "Catcher," don't you get "Commer"?

Look at the name on the front of that TV detector van.

I was thinking of Commie and Hummer together--Commer! :lol:

FYI: I personally think the whole idea of trucks driving around trying to see what the heck private people are doing inside their private domain as a particularly insidious piece of 1984ism.

[IcarusAngel]

Libertarians are the Scientologists of politics. . . . no, worse. They are a bunch of tiresome, misanthropic children who talk about "human nature" as if we had a complete understanding of it, and, denounce taxes whilst supporting government legislation that attacks the poor and their right to organize. Indeed, they always have a degree of hypocrisy: "we must take away the freedom to organize labor so that we can be more free". The "Objectivists" (laughable name of you are at all acquainted with the religious and crappy books cult of Ayn Rand) are the worst of the lot. Basement dwelling idiots that do not deserve the time of day.

And this guy sums up the thread in just a few sentences. :)

[Tungsten]

No you don't own yourself, you are yourself. Nobody owns anyone. That is the justification for slavery. If I own myself, I'm a slave? This is joke, I hope.

Did I say that? I was simply giving an example. Nationalism is a prevalent theme amongst Libertarians.I see no libertarians appealing to it here.

Let me ask you again, where have I violated anyone's rights?Not you personally, followers of your ideology.


Nope. You have a choice over whether to pay taxes, there are several countries that don't have any. There are far fewer places where you can avoid utility bills.
The way to avoid utility bills is to not use the utilities in the first place.
There is no way to avoid taxation besides leaving the country.


It might or it might not. But that is not the point. You are defending banks, yet they function only due to the Government backing them. No doubt you harbor lunatic fantasies of returning to the gold standard (something that never collapsed). Grow up.

You seem to know very little about economics in general. I very much doubt you'd be able to list the disadvantages or returning to a gold standard without looking them up, much less the advantages.

Where did I ask for free utilities?
When you objected to paying for them- while presumably still wanting to use them.

I said that utility charges meant that private companies can effectively tax you.
Just like paying for food is a food tax.

Watch out Tungsten, the black helicopters are coming for you
They're being piloted by the ghost of Milton Friedman, so I've got nothing to worry about.

Most of it is just a matter of historical record. Try reading economic articles, rather than coming up with conspiracy theories and you might be able to learn what goes on in the world too.

On the other hand, why don't you tell us what you think happened in Chile?
I've not read up on it much, but I doubt Naomi Klein comics are the best sources of conspiracy-free theories or factual accuracy.

-------------


I cannot see how any libertarian could support this concept of 'illegal aliens.' The 'illegal' status of 'aliens' is pronounced by legislated law by the state. Any state legislated laws are fundamentally anti-libertarian since they require state coercion for their implementation.
You're right there. Which is why the charges of nationalism and fascism don't hold water.

------------


Libertarians are the Scientologists of politics. . . . no, worse. They are a bunch of tiresome, misanthropic children who talk about "human nature" as if we had a complete understanding of it, and, denounce taxes whilst supporting government legislation that attacks the poor and their right to organize.I don't support attacking the poor or infringing anyone's right to organise. If there are ones that do, I've not met them.

Indeed, they always have a degree of hypocrisy: "we must take away the freedom to organize labor so that we can be more free".
It would indeed be hypocrisy, but few, if any of us do want to take away this freedom. Your entire argument so far has been a straw man.

The "Objectivists" (laughable name of you are at all acquainted with the religious and crappy books cult of Ayn Rand) are the worst of the lot. Basement dwelling idiots that do not deserve the time of day.
If the rest of your post in anything to go by, it's a safe bet you're just as ignorant of Ayn Rand as you are of us and therefore too thick/ignorant to criticise her properly anyway. Thanks for dropping in, though.

--------------


And this guy sums up the thread in just a few sentences.
And your endorsement of him just about sums you up.

[Demogorgon]

If I own myself, I'm a slave? This is joke, I hope.
If you own yourself, you cans ell yourself and then be sold on in turn. That was always the justification for Chattel slavery. Fortunately we live in more enlightened times.


Not you personally, followers of your ideology.
So why did you say I had? Not falling into the trap of collectivism, are we?:laugh:

Besides, a Libertarians don't exactly have the cleanest history there either. Pinochet? Even if we go for milder examples like Roger Douglas, he personally detached himself from the socially liberal Labour Party to join the socially Authoritarian ACT Liberal party. Apparently simply having a party that allowed him free reign on his appalling economic policies was not enough, he needed to be able to expouse social authoritarianism as well


The way to avoid utility bills is to not use the utilities in the first place.
There is no way to avoid taxation besides leaving the country.
It is a damn site easier to leave the country than not use any utilities


You seem to know very little about economics in general. I very much doubt you'd be able to list the disadvantages or returning to a gold standard without looking them up, much less the advantages.I studied economics for six years, up to and including University level. I daresay I know more about the subject than you. I am particularly sure of that act, given you adhere to the cult of Austrian pseudo-science.

And I might add, contrary to what that cult may tell you, returning to the Gold Standard would be nothing short of disastrous. Do you fancy deflation, depressions and bank runs? Or perhaps you will stop the bank runs by banning fiduciary money as some Austrians suggest? (Oh the State Intervention!) If that is the case, how the hell will you keep the economy growing? How will you compensate for the fact that gold has risen in value far faster than the economy grows? How will you cope with the fact that the value of gold is now heavily dependent on the electronics sector? Will you be happy to watch the economy collapse should electronics technology change?


When you objected to paying for them- while presumably still wanting to use them.No, I didn't. I said it was a tax. I object to the fact I have to pay it to capitalists profiting on other's labour, but I completely accept that I will have to be taxed, one way or another, to provide utilities.


I've not read up on it much, but I doubt Naomi Klein comics are the best sources of conspiracy-free theories or factual accuracy.
I am told Naomi Klein is a good writer, but I have never read anything by her beyond the odd article on the web.

Like I say, try actually looking into what happened when Libertarianism was applied. State Terror and Economic disaster. And the funny thing is, in the eighties when Pinochet sent the Chicago boys packing in an effort to save his own skin, not only did the new Keynesian policies save Chile, but civil liberties were drastically increased now that state terror was no longer needed to enforce Libertarian policies.

Funny that.


I don't support attacking the poor or infringing anyone's right to organise. If there are ones that do, I've not met them.I can (being generous) count on one hand the number of Libertarian groups not backing anti-Union legislation.

[Tungsten]

If you own yourself, you cans ell yourself and then be sold on in turn.
Only slaves don't own themselves. Your criticism of self-ownership is quite revealing.

That was always the justification for Chattel slavery.
What, slaves owned themsleves? I thought their masters owned them.


So why did you say I had?
I didn't. I was referring to followers of your ideology.


Besides, a Libertarians don't exactly have the cleanest history there either. Pinochet? Even if we go for milder examples like Roger Douglas, he personally detached himself from the socially liberal Labour Party to join the socially Authoritarian ACT Liberal party. Apparently simply having a party that allowed him free reign on his appalling economic policies was not enough, he needed to be able to expouse social authoritarianism as well
Social authoritatians we call conservatives. If you're going to start expanding the defintion of libertarianism as widely as you've expanded the definition of "tax" then consider this debate over.


It is a damn site easier to leave the country than not use any utilities I studied economics for six years, up to and including University level. I daresay I know more about the subject than you. I am particularly sure of that act, given you adhere to the cult of Austrian pseudo-science.
If you were telling the truth (unlikely, considering that can't even tell the difference between a tax and a utility bill), you'd know that the "Austrian pseudo science" and it's variants, right or wrong, are generally the order of the day. Mentioning of the word "Marx" in an economics class has pretty much the same effect as the word "Rand" in a philosophy class- peals of laughter.

I'll bet you a million Zimbabwe dollars on it.

Given that I'm not exactly an Austrian, it's a moot point. Still, it's a damn sight more rational that the idea that we can print our way into prosperity.

And I might add, contrary to what that cult may tell you, returning to the Gold Standard would be nothing short of disastrous. Do you fancy deflation, depressions and bank runs?
Tell me how this will happen, exactly.

Or perhaps you will stop the bank runs by banning fiduciary money as some Austrians suggest? (Oh the State Intervention!) If that is the case, how the hell will you keep the economy growing?
I don't advocate that.

How will you compensate for the fact that gold has risen in value far faster than the economy grows? How will you cope with the fact that the value of gold is now heavily dependent on the electronics sector? Will you be happy to watch the economy collapse should electronics technology change?
The use of oil in place of gold and dollars, despite massive dependency on oil, however, has not resulted in economic collapse.

No, I didn't. I said it was a tax.
Great, you're back.

No, It isn't a tax.

I object to the fact I have to pay it to capitalists profiting on other's labour, but I completely accept that I will have to be taxed, one way or another, to provide utilities.
Except that you're not being taxed.


I am told Naomi Klein is a good writer, but I have never read anything by her beyond the odd article on the web.

Like I say, try actually looking into what happened when Libertarianism was applied. State Terror and Economic disaster.
So if liberalism is the key to state terror, what's the key to peace and harmony? Illiberalism? Command economies?

Oh yes, just look at how successful those were!


I can (being generous) count on one hand the number of Libertarian groups not backing anti-Union legislation.
List them. Bearing in mind that dislike of unions does not equal legal prohibition.

[Demogorgon]

Only slaves don't own themselves. Your criticism of self-ownership is quite revealing.

What, slaves owned themsleves? I thought their masters owned them.
Are you aware of what Chattel Slavery was?


Social authoritatians we call conservatives. If you're going to start expanding the defintion of libertarianism as widely as you've expanded the definition of "tax" then consider this debate over.
If you want to be called a Conservative, then fine. The trouble is that those calling themselves Libertarian tend to be more authoritarian than Conservatives. I have lost count of the number of Libertarians I see who salivate over the Death penalty, who back ridiculously cruel punishments, who are racists, who oppose gay rights and so on.

One of the cornerstones of Libertarianism tends to be the repeal of Civil Rights legislation (all in the name of non-intervention. Come on!


If you were telling the truth (unlikely, considering that can't even tell the difference between a tax and a utility bill), you'd know that the "Austrian pseudo science" and it's variants, right or wrong, are generally the order of the day. Mentioning of the word "Marx" in an economics class has pretty much the same effect as the word "Rand" in a philosophy class- peals of laughter.

I'll bet you a million Zimbabwe dollars on it.Evidently you have never been inside an economics class. There are Marxist economists in pretty much every Economics department in Europe and in most North American ones too. There are less than two hundred Austrian "Economists" accredited to teach in Universities on Earth. Austrian junk has been utterly cast aside by mainstream economists, including those on the right because of its refusal to handle empirical data an its use of vague metaphysical claims in the place of proper academic rigour. Don't make as laugh by calling it "the order of the day". The most popular schools of Economics these days, in addition to ever-present Neo-Classical school are probably the post-Keynesians and the left overs of the Chicago school. Austrian stuff isn't even taught except at post-graduate level in certain universities and it certainly isn't used in the real world. It is impossible to form policy based on Austrian crap and difficult even to try and run a firm on the basis of it.

I'd take those Million Zimbabwean dollars, but you better keep them, it is about all your theory is worth.


Given that I'm not exactly an Austrian, it's a moot point. Still, it's a damn sight more rational that the idea that we can print our way into prosperity.
Did I say we could. I didn't actually say anything particular on the subject as far as I recall, but it has been proven that expanding and contracting the supply of money according to need will keep a capitalist economy stable

Tell me how this will happen, exactly.Not wishing to waste my time listing reasons, I will point you to a short essay that explains matters in more efficient language than I am wont to use. It is from the site of some Liberal Economist in the US, but it is broadly correct in its criticisms of the Gold Standard, even if his alternatives aren't always great

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gold.htm


I don't advocate that.I am glad of that, at least you have some common sense, but how exactly do you propose to stop bank runs from occurring on a regular basis


The use of oil in place of gold and dollars, despite massive dependency on oil, however, has not resulted in economic collapse.But our currency is not tied to oil. The money in your pocket is neither representative of oil, nor backed by it. During the days of the Gold Standard, the Sterling represented 113 grains of Gold. Its value was fixed and could only change in value according to the way gold was changing in value. That was bad enough, but imagine doing it with oil. Can you imagine the value of every pound or dollar doubling or halving or whatever every time America decides it is time to bomb an oil rich country or we lose or gain a large supplier of oil or whatever? It would be chaos. And as prices are, as I think the article I linked to explains (it's been a while since I read it so I might be wrong), prices wouldn't even be able to change to match this variation because of Price Stickiness, and so major economic problems would follow.

Fortunately we do not base our currencies on oil. Basing the currency on gold, would not of course cause such drastic problems because the Gold Market is more stable, but it caused the same problems only to a lesser degree in the past and as it is less stable than once it was, it would be worse.

A better comparison to the gold standard might be the manner in which some countries fix the value of their currency to other stronger currencies like the Dollar or Euro, that is better than fixing it to gold as it will at least indirectly still be Fiat Money, but that has been known to cause problems too. It is fine as a short term solution when currencies collapse (the Zimbabwean Dollar is sooner or later going to have to be tied to the Rand for instance), but in the long term it always causes problems. The East Asian Financial Crises being a case in point. Tying a currency to Gold would cause even bigger problems.

This notion of the Gold Standard is nothing more than a reactionary throwback for the sake of it.


So if liberalism is the key to state terror, what's the key to peace and harmony? Illiberalism? Command economies?

To put it simply, Democracy.


List them. Bearing in mind that dislike of unions does not equal legal prohibition.
List the Libertarian groups that don't oppose Unions? I confess, I was only being generous when I said there were some that were pro-Union, I can't actually think of them. I did hear of an America group right enough, but I can't remember their name.

If you want to prove me wrong, are you not anti-Union? Would you be willing, for instance, to see Thatcher's anti-Union legislation repealed?

[Trystan]

If the rest of your post in anything to go by, it's a safe bet you're just as ignorant of Ayn Rand as you are of us and therefore too thick/ignorant to criticise her properly anyway. Thanks for dropping in, though.

Here is an extract from a very insightful article by by Murray Rothbard, also a libertarian, but with at least an ounce of common sensem when it came to the Rand Cult:



We have already mentioned the excommunications and "purges" in the Randian movement. Often, the excommunications – especially of important Randians – proceeded in a ritual manner. The errant member was peremptorily ordered to appear at a "trial" to hear charges against him. If he refused to appear – as he would if he had any shred of self-respect left – then the trial would continue in absentia, with all the members present taking turns in denouncing the expelled member, reading charges against him (again in a manner eerily reminiscent of 1984). When his inevitable conviction was sealed, someone – generally his closest friend – wrote the excommunicate, a bitter, febrile, and portentous letter, damning the apostate forevermore and excluding him forever from the Elysian fields of reason and reality.


Here he describes the fascist-like character of the cult:


Under Randian theory, emotions are always the consequence of ideas, and incorrect emotions the consequence of wrong ideas, so that therefore, personal dislike of other (and especially of leading) Randians must be due to a grave canker of irrationality which either had to be kept concealed or else confessed to the leaders.

Seig Heil!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

I remember reading her "Virtue of Selfishness"or some such titled book. What drivel. Her goal was to "frighten" me and other collectivists. The only thing I found frightening was the fact that some people take her seriously. She was a sophist, too. Look at how she treated Nietzsche. Before she actually read him he was one of her favorites. When she did actually read him and discovered what he was talking about, she ditched him in favour of her oversimplified epistemology which is just naive realism in new clothes.

I want my £2.99 back.

[Robert]

When his inevitable conviction was sealed, someone – generally his closest friend – wrote the excommunicate, a bitter, febrile, and portentous letter, damning the apostate forevermore and excluding him forever from the Elysian fields of reason and reality.

The above reminds me of what happened to ever closer union.

[Bud Struggle]

The above reminds me of what happened to ever closer union.

Also Brother Robert, it sounds like Demo in the CC.

[RedAnarchist]

Demogorgon isn't permanently banned from the CC, and ecu left of his accord, after being honest about his politics.

[Bud Struggle]

Demogorgon isn't permanently banned from the CC, and ecu left of his accord, after being honest about his politics.

RA--you are kind of ruining our little OI orgy of self congradulation and self satisfaction.:lol:

[RedAnarchist]

RA--you are kind of ruining our little OI orgy of self congradulation and self satisfaction.:lol:

So?:D:lol: