Egalitarianism

[trivas7]

Kwisatz Haderach][/B]
How so? Is not human action guided by the human brain? Is not the human brain made of the same matter as the rest of the universe? Whatever laws apply to the rest of the universe must also apply to the human brain. Thus the social sciences are, and should always remain, a particular application of the natural sciences.

The fact is is that man, unlike trajectories, or atoms react differently to different stimuli, even the same person might react differently merely a second after. Man, and atom need to be classified differently if we are ever to truly understand either.

Indeed, human psychology isn't studied by studying biology; human action isn't studied by studying human brains.

[Invariance]

I'm not avoiding this thread, I just don't have the time/energy at the moment to address the points. I will in about two days.

[krazy kaju]

Hey look, the Miseslings are watching and selectively choosing to focus on "emotional" posts full of moral indignation against their anti-human ideology instead of taking the time to read through our lengthy, argumentative posts in reply to Kaju in other threads.

Is anyone surprised?

Hey look, the commies are ignoring Kaju's lengthy replies and instead locked him out of his own thread where their own "comrades" were getting out of hand with uncivil insults like the one presented in the above quotes.

Is anyone surprised?

[#FF0000]

Hey look, the commies are ignoring Kaju's lengthy replies and instead locked him out of his own thread where their own "comrades" were getting out of hand with uncivil insults like the one presented in the above quotes.

Is anyone surprised?

1) We've heard plenty of arguments from you lot. Many of them we've heard over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Lots of people do the whole "hey lets go convert some commies with a pamphlet about self-ownership and a pocketful of rainbows~" thing. So many, in fact, that it cluttered up the rest of the board into capitalism v. communism arguments when it was supposed to be a forum for leftists to discuss... leftism.

So now we have the OI.

[#FF0000]

I'm not avoiding this thread, I just don't have the time/energy at the moment to address the points. I will in about two days.

Oh god. Now you've done it, Miseans.

[laminustacitus]

So many, in fact, that it cluttered up the rest of the board into capitalism v. communism arguments when it was supposed to be a forum for leftists to discuss... leftism.

Its truly anti-egalitarian limiting dissenters to their own little forum instead of letting them have an equal opportunity to post.

[nerditarian]

1) We've heard plenty of arguments from you lot. Many of them we've heard over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Lots of people do the whole "hey lets go convert some commies with a pamphlet about self-ownership and a pocketful of rainbows~" thing. So many, in fact, that it cluttered up the rest of the board into capitalism v. communism arguments when it was supposed to be a forum for leftists to discuss... leftism.

So now we have the OI.

Who says we think we'll convert anyone?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Its truly anti-egalitarian limiting dissenters to their own little forum instead of letting them have an equal opportunity to post.

Unlike real space, internet "space" is not limited. The fact that all your posts go in OI does not mean that there is any less space for them than there would be otherwise. You may notice that OI is our second-largest forum, by number of posts.

[Jack]

Its truly anti-egalitarian limiting dissenters to their own little forum instead of letting them have an equal opportunity to post.

So we can go over to Mises and make a bunch of threads about how excellent Communism is, how wrong you are, how the Jews are doing something evil, how Mexicans took my job so now I'm going to lynch them, how awesome Hitler is, how awsome Franco is, and how awesome Durruti is?

After all, you wouldn't want to ban dissenters.

[nerditarian]

So we can go over to Mises and make a bunch of threads about how excellent Communism is, how wrong you are, how the Jews are doing something evil, how Mexicans took my job so now I'm going to lynch them, how awesome Hitler is, how awsome Franco is, and how awesome Durruti is?

After all, you wouldn't want to ban dissenters.

I don't know how that would play out. But we admit we're anti-egalitarians. And we say it's a good thing to use property rights to exclude those you don't like. Y'all contradictorily deny it!

[Jack]

I don't know how that would play out. But we admit we're anti-egalitarians. And we say it's a good thing to use property rights to exclude those you don't like. Y'all contradictorily deny it!

It's not contradictory, I just don't give a fuck about reactionaries or your petty feelings.

Should my anti-war group let in people who support war? Of course not, now stop trying to nitpick libertarianism (the real kind) and kindly fuck off.

[laminustacitus]

So we can go over to Mises and make a bunch of threads about how excellent Communism is, how wrong you are, how the Jews are doing something evil, how Mexicans took my job so now I'm going to lynch them, how awesome Hitler is, how awsome Franco is, and how awesome Durruti is?

After all, you wouldn't want to ban dissenters.

You would be allowed on every forum on the site other than those reserved for moderation; however, if you make comments that would damage the reputation of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, you would be banned.

Nevertheless, we do not exult in the glories of egalitarianism, and social equality, which your own forum sets a terrible example by discriminating against us dissenters.

[Jack]

You would be allowed on every forum on the site other than those reserved for moderation; however, if you make comments that would damage the reputation of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, you would be banned.

Nevertheless, we do not exult in the glories of egalitarianism, and social equality, which your own forum sets a terrible example by discriminating against us dissenters.

What reputation? A couple of virginal idiots on a website, and a couple of fat idiots that sponser talks by other fat idiots?

Freedom of association, which means we have the freedom not to associate with you, which I enjoy very much.

[laminustacitus]

Freedom of association, which means we have the freedom not to associate with you, which I enjoy very much.

Too bad it contradicts your egalitarian principles.

[Jack]

Too bad it contradicts your egalitarian principles.

No it doesn't, what is hierachial about not associating with certain people? What leftist texts have you ever read saying this?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Too bad it contradicts your egalitarian principles.

Only if you assume the existence of private property. But we don't. Try to think outside your Austrian box for once.

Nevertheless, we do not exult in the glories of egalitarianism, and social equality, which your own forum sets a terrible example by discriminating against us dissenters.

The purpose of having different subforums is so that each category of threads will be neatly sorted into its own subforum. This allows easier browsing, and people can find the kinds of threads they're looking for faster.

OI is the subforum for arguments between capitalists and communists. It's a big subforum - our second largest - precisely because those arguments are very common. Are you planning to participate in any other kinds of threads, besides the ones that challenge communism from a pro-capitalist perspective? No? Then you have no reason to post outside OI anyway, and your restriction has not prevented you from doing anything you wanted to do.

[nerditarian]

Only if you assume the existence of private property. But we don't. Try to think outside your Austrian box for once.

No one has to assume anything. He's talking in positive terms. Currently RevLeft.com is owned by somebody, is it not? It's not owned by a government, right? Then it's private property. So you are using private property to discriminate against and alienate your intra-left wing discussion from those who disagree with you.

For example, Left is a vague term and some market anarchists, Brad Spangler and Rod Long, do contend that it's a movement of the left in the terms initially sense of using the market to transcendent statist hierarchy. In order to deny this connotation you, or more properly the forum owners, engage in usage of property rights to do this.

I have no problem with this. But to be consistent you should.

The purpose of having different subforums is so that each category of threads will be neatly sorted into its own subforum. This allows easier browsing, and people can find the kinds of threads they're looking for faster.

Purpose is not important. What's important is that in order to do this, intentionally or not, RevLeft.com has exercised property rights and exclusion. Again, imho it's their opinion so I don't care. The question is, if you believe property rights are illegitimate why don't you care?

OI is the subforum for arguments between capitalists and communists. It's a big subforum - our second largest - precisely because those arguments are very common. Are you planning to participate in any other kinds of threads, besides the ones that challenge communism from a pro-capitalist perspective? No? Then you have no reason to post outside OI anyway, and your restriction has not prevented you from doing anything you wanted to do.

If there is a side forum for literary I might be interested in that. But you still haven't addressed the point. See Above.

[nerditarian]

It's not contradictory, I just don't give a fuck about reactionaries or your petty feelings.

Hey Jack, not to fuck with your petty feelings, but if you don't give a fuck why not just stay off OI? I'm not here long term. I'm just here to have a lil fun with the fuckin pinkos. If you don't like that you could ask the board admins to kick me off their property. O wait you don't believe in property rights. Guess your fucked!

Should my anti-war group let in people who support war? Of course not, now stop trying to nitpick libertarianism (the real kind) and kindly fuck off.

A. See above.
B. Anarcho-Communism is a dying philosophy that had degenerated into intellectually bankrupt college kids with signs. Pure libertarianism is growing. Flawed, LTV-loving libertarianism is dying a slow, painful and sad death. Really, it's sad. Goldman et al. were so dignified. Now they're stuck with vulgar loser fuckfaces like you!

[IcarusAngel]

Well, revleft having a server doesn't prevent anybody else, like von Mises.org, from having one.

If revleft controlled all the servers and prevented others from having their own sites, I'd be concerned about it. Since this is not the case, of course revleft can have a server and restrict who they want on it.

It is not revleft that is the problem with the internet but big corporations who are trying to make it more restrictive. This is why the internet should remain more open and free and away from market "property rights."

Leftists are concerned with others using their power to push them into things they otherwise wouldn't do, thus limiting their free choices. That is why there cannot be massive landed property and it wasn't even marx who first recognized this fact.

Libertarians are concerned with making everybody slaves to the corporations, who are only replaced by blind luck or chances or their colossal failures, rather than by democratic means.

[nerditarian]

Well, revleft having a server doesn't prevent anybody else, like von Mises.org, from having one.

If revleft controlled all the servers and prevented others from having their own sites, I'd be concerned about it. Since this is not the case, of course revleft can have a server and restrict who they want on it.

That argument could be extended to all property. Me owning a car does not in and of itself prevent you from buying a car, does it? Does that mean you'll recognize my right to that car?

It is not revleft that is the problem with the internet but big corporations who are trying to make it more restrictive. This is why the internet should remain more open and free and away from market "property rights."

At which point RevLeft can represent this openness by...exercising property rights? Do you disagree that regulation by the Federal government is a larger threat to freedom of information on the internet than whether corporations develop and use a lot of the web?

What's with this belief that corporations are this big evil to be reigned in or abolished by beneficent States? The German State was murderous. Not Volkswagon qua Volkswagon. The British State was murderous. Not Tetley's Tea. The American State is murderous. Not Wal-Mart. So what's with the anti-corporation conniption.

Leftists are concerned with others using their power to push them into things they otherwise wouldn't do, thus limiting their free choices. That is why there cannot be massive landed property and it wasn't even marx who first recognized this fact.

You mean the free choice to violate property rights? How about the free choice of Kaju's to post in another forum and violate revleft.com's property rights? Or the right of a thieve to break into your home, drink your milk and sleep in your bed naked? Oh and since your right to does things means nothing, why shouldn't he defecate in your bed too?

Libertarians are concerned with making everybody slaves to the corporations, who are only replaced by blind luck or chances or their colossal failures, rather than by democratic means.

What's so great about democracy? It gives us clowns like BO, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Gore and the rest. You want to make everyone a slave to the collective and the majority. We are to hope the masses make good choices because......well just because. Good luck with that. It hasn't worked and it won't.

Work can suck. I hated my job for a long, long time. However, that is not the same as slavery. That you don't understand this shows either a rhetorical arrogance or a genuine disrespect for those who have been in the condition of slavery around the world or in the past.