REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

So, what the heck is libertarianism?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, November 10, 2022 08:33
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 12044
PAGE 1 of 5

Friday, July 26, 2013 9:25 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Ive been tut-tutted at a few times about not knowing anything about libertarianism. Yet despite the fact that the topic has come up is several threads recently- the McDonald's war, where has libertarianism been tried in real life, are you a libertarian or wanna be, and the carbon dioxide thread... nobody has been able to provide a cogent explanation about libertarianism, and what it means TO THEM.

So, would someone... anyone, or preferably several someones... who claim to be libertarian please provide an explanation, and be prepared to answer specific direct questions about how it might work?

Until that explanation is provided, will you please refrain from tsking about a topic that you not yet explained?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:29 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



I feel like we've had this thread before here... Hmm. I've stated my views on the matter already, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to what is being asked here.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 3:53 AM

WHOZIT


Tsking? You drunk typing again? I do it all the time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 3:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Hmm. I've stated my views on the matter already
You have? Where?

I don't read every thread here, believe it or not, so it may have gotten past me. Can you either provide a link, or copy-and-paste, or just re-state your explanation of libertarianism?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 4:00 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Tsking?


Quote:

the clicky sound ya make wit ur tongue when ur lookin down on sumbody

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tsk


Quote:

tsk (a t-like sound made by suction rather than plosion; conventional spelling pronunciation, tsk) interj.Used to express disappointment or sympathy.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tsk

EXAMPLE: Apparently, drunk typing not as bad as reading stupid! Tsk tsk!

Remember, google is your friend (except when it dumps all of your searches to the NSA)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 4:06 AM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Tsking?


Quote:

the clicky sound ya make wit ur tongue when ur lookin down on sumbody

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tsk


Quote:

tsk (a t-like sound made by suction rather than plosion; conventional spelling pronunciation, tsk) interj.Used to express disappointment or sympathy.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tsk

Apparently, drunk typing not as bad as reading stupid! Tsk tsk! (google is your friend, except when it dumps all of your searches to the NSA)



OH! I thought you meant to type "talking", I'm going out to lunch at a Bar and Grill and will be drunk typing this afternoon

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 4:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


If you post, I promise not to read stupid then.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 4:13 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Hmm. I've stated my views on the matter already
You have? Where?

I don't read every thread here, believe it or not, so it may have gotten past me. Can you either provide a link, or copy-and-paste, or just re-state your explanation of libertarianism?



Summed up nicely here...

* Simply put, I believe in freedom. I believe the Constitution should be amended with a clause which states that neither the federal nor any state government shall make any activity that does not violate, through force or fraud, a persons right to life, liberty or property, a crime. I firmly believe that if liberty is to be preserved in America, it will be libertarian thought, if not the Libertarian Party, that saves it.[1]

* http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Neal_Boortz#cite_note-asg-1

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:12 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Ive been tut-tutted at a few times about not knowing anything about libertarianism. Yet despite the fact that the topic has come up is several threads recently- the McDonald's war, where has libertarianism been tried in real life, are you a libertarian or wanna be, and the carbon dioxide thread... nobody has been able to provide a cogent explanation about libertarianism, and what it means TO THEM.

So, would someone... anyone, or preferably several someones... who claim to be libertarian please provide an explanation, and be prepared to answer specific direct questions about how it might work?

Until that explanation is provided, will you please refrain from tsking about a topic that you not yet explained?



1. FAKE "TEA PARTY" LIBERTARIANISM = Foreign corporate GOP takeover by Sarah Palin et al to let the multinationals overthrow USA for world govt dictatorship (Rand Paul?)

2. REAL TEA PARTY LIBERTARIANISM = American freedom (formerly) by Ron Paul is the only way USA can survive by ending all wars, legalizing dope (kills 1000% less than meds and would kill the mafias), ending "Fed" Reserve Bank, ending IRS and ending income tax (no more govt churches in 501c3), no national sales tax, no property tax, no vehicle taxes, no driver license internal passport for non-commercial drivers, no welfare for illegal aliens, and putting govt back in the box

3. ACTUAL TEA PARTY LIBERTARIANISM = Kill all those who oppose American freedom in 1776, enforce 99% less taxes than we have today, US presidents have dope farms, kill millions of illegal aliens, joos have almost zero power since there is no private central joo bank counterfeiting all "money" then loaning it to govt at interest, no govt Church of England, no govt "christian" churches in joo 501c3




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, okay... one man's explanation. Thanks PN!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:26 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, okay... one man's explanation. Thanks PN!



Continued...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 11:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So hey, c'mon guys, this isn't a trick question! I went back thru a bunch of old threads just to see if anyone had posted anything aside from read this person's books (really?) and I hadn't found anything. Maybe I missed it. If so, can you provide a link? Maybe it was never posted. If so, can you post YOUR insight into what libertarianism means to you? I may ask detailed questions, but the intent is not to derail, just to understand.

So, how about it?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:08 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


E-T-A: I don't claim to be one, so I hope that doesn't disqualify me, but here's a general shot at it.

The classic definition is something along the lines of allowing each individual maximum personal freedom to do whatever he wants, in his own way, with minimum interference from anybody else, especially government.

Most definitions include something about restricting that freedom at the point where it harms another.

Another common policy is private property and privacy rights-- the freedom to do whatever you want on your own property, in your own home, without restriction or regulation by the government.

A third common policy is lassaize faire (I don't think I spelled that right.) economics- the government has no right to interfere in any economic transaction or relationship I choose to make.

Another policy is that no person has any mandatory duty to any other, but may choose to undertake such duty on his own for any personal reason. An obvious implication of this one it that a person has no duty to help another who is in difficulty, and may choose not to.

Those are the most common major points. Individual libertarians would accept or reject them to greater or lesser degrees.

An obvious and common interpretation of those points:

Government has no right to say how I treat workers on my private property- It's mine, I can do what I want. Government has no right to interfere between me and and any employee I hire- we both freely entered into whatever wage or working condition agreement we have, and if the workers don't like it, they are free to leave and go work somewhere else.

And another- government has no right to tax me to use my money to assist any other person or organization. No welfare, no unemployment, no social security, no disability pensions. No disaster relief. No veteran's benefits, except by contract between the government and the veteran. No assistance with educational costs, public education or college. I CAN CHOOSE to pay for those, individually, as or if I choose.


That's most of it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:16 PM

REAVERFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
The classic definition is something along the lines of allowing each individual maximum personal freedom to do whatever he wants, in his own way, with minimum interference from anybody else, especially government.

Most definitions include something about restricting that freedom at the point where it harms another.

Another common policy is private property and privacy rights-- the freedom to do whatever you want on your own property, in your own home, without restriction or regulation by the government.

A third common policy is lassaize faire (I don't think I spelled that right.) economics- the government has no right to interfere in any economic transaction or relationship I choose to make.

Another policy is that no person has any mandatory duty to any other, but may choose to undertake such duty on his own for any personal reason. An obvious implication of this one it that a person has no duty to help another who is in difficulty, and may choose not to.

Those are the most common major points. Individual libertarians would accept or reject them to greater or lesser degrees.

An obvious and common interpretation of those points:

Government has no right to say how I treat workers on my private property- It's mine, I can do what I want. Government has no right to interfere between me and and any employee I hire- we both freely entered into whatever wage or working condition agreement we have, and if the workers don't like it, they are free to leave and go work somewhere else.

Well stated. These themes vary among self-styled libertarians. There are "anarcho-capitalists" (the Kochs and their puppets), "libertarian socialists" (Chomsky), and other subsets among anarchist and libertarian schools of thought.

Your last paragraph is what the "an-caps" argue for. The opposite is what Chomsky argues for; regular folks standing up to power and forcing change.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:18 PM

REAVERFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by PIRATENEWS:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, okay... one man's explanation. Thanks PN!



Continued...

You're aware, of course, that the 2nd didn't happen until the war was won...

Even then, not everyone could have a gun. Slaves, in particular.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:44 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Well stated. These themes vary among self-styled libertarians. There are "anarcho-capitalists" (the Kochs and their puppets), "libertarian socialists" (Chomsky), and other subsets among anarchist and libertarian schools of thought.

Your last paragraph is what the "an-caps" argue for. The opposite is what Chomsky argues for; regular folks standing up to power and forcing change.



I added another paragraph up there , BTW.


The "an-cap" folks are the ones I have most often encountered. That seems to be the argument libertarians are the most interested in.

I remember "right-wingers/ libertarians" dismissing Chomsky as a "commie."

And isn't folks organizing to "stand up to power and force change" the exact kind of outside interference libertarians would say is improper? Two examples: isn't it OK for Alex Rodriguez to stand up and demand a $125 Million contract from the Yankees for 10 years service, as an individual talent, but not for 500 workers to organize and strike of a 10 cent an hour raise for 3 years, and safer working conditions, as a group?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 1:11 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I wasn't gonna post it, in case this had the potential for actual discussion, but since, well, anyways...
Ahem.



-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 2:31 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by PIRATENEWS:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, okay... one man's explanation. Thanks PN!



Continued...



Meh, whatever I think of the Monarchy, our system of government is still democratic and one of the most stable forms of government in history.

So it aint actually oppression.

(Can't believe I'm replying to King Troll)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 2:43 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

I wasn't gonna post it, in case this had the potential for actual discussion, but since, well, anyways...
Ahem.



-Frem




I like it, Frem. I think that's what's implied in my posts. That's certainly MY POV.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 6:04 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Hmm. I've stated my views on the matter already
You have? Where?

I don't read every thread here, believe it or not, so it may have gotten past me. Can you either provide a link, or copy-and-paste, or just re-state your explanation of libertarianism?



Summed up nicely here...

* Simply put, I believe in freedom. I believe the Constitution should be amended with a clause which states that neither the federal nor any state government shall make any activity that does not violate, through force or fraud, a persons right to life, liberty or property, a crime.



Unless the topic is gay marriage.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:11 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


* Simply put, I believe in freedom. I believe the Constitution should be amended with a clause which states that neither the federal nor any state government shall make any activity that does not violate, through force or fraud, a persons right to life, liberty or property, a crime. I firmly believe that if liberty is to be preserved in America, it will be libertarian thought, if not the Libertarian Party, that saves it.[1]

* http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Neal_Boortz#cite_note-asg-1



This is the spiel, but what do you actually mean by it all? How does it really work? How, in a large and complex society, where your individual rights start to infringe on anothers individual rights, and how does this get defined and sorted?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:16 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I like it, Frem. I think that's what's implied in my posts. That's certainly MY POV.


Yah, but theirs seems more a pay-to-play, ONLY for them, while making rules for everyone else, which is bullshit.
Rules should apply or not apply to all or none, anything less reeks of a caste system and is by design, a tyranny - and make no mistake, a lot of so-called libertarians are really just a false front for the NeoFeudoFascists who want exactly that and have ever since Robespierre put paid to that divine right of kings crap.

Speakin of, that is one of my concerns in regards to other Anarchists, cause sadly, from a historical perspective if they do somehow obtain enough concensus to "rule", or maybe un-rule.. language fails, an area, you know what their first move often is ?
Lynching the corpie bastards and their cronies.
I am not entirely sure that's inherently a bad thing, but surely there's a better way to handle the problem than partaking in the same might-makes-right garbage which encouraged the revolt in the first place, you know ?
(See Also: Catalonia)

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:24 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

And isn't folks organizing to "stand up to power and force change" the exact kind of outside interference libertarians would say is improper? Two examples: isn't it OK for Alex Rodriguez to stand up and demand a $125 Million contract from the Yankees for 10 years service, as an individual talent, but not for 500 workers to organize and strike of a 10 cent an hour raise for 3 years, and safer working conditions, as a group?



Exactly. Unions are not allowed in right winged libertarianism, which there is no recourse to address power inbalance, because that all will work like magic.

For example, the assumption that workers and employers have equal power. As I worker, if I am being paid pittance or my employer makes me work in unsafe conditions, I can always go elsewhere according to libertarianism? That assumes that my skills are more in demand that the opportunities out there, so that I can have some bargaining power. What about in a market where there are 100 people seeking the same job?

It's a very small percentage of the workforce that find themselves in the position of having skills in high demand, the rest are competiting with one another.

It also assumes that the economy will always be healthy enough to be able to provide jobs to all of the population, so that if you are not working, you are choosing not to work. What happens in recessions and depressions when you get high unemployment, do you let people starve?

And if you rely only on charitable contribution, what happens to those people who don't attract charity capital because their cause isn't noble enough?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 8:39 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


So...



If I were a "libertarian", as some here claim to be...


Would I have a problem with Iraq or Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons program? And if so, why wouldn't I have the exact same problem with France, India, South Africa, Israel, Pakistan, the United States, England, or Russia having the exact same kinds of weapons programs?

Also,

Should I have a problem with people in other countries preaching hatred of America and the West, to the point where I would bomb them and invade and occupy their countries?

After all, if I *REALLY* believe in freedom for all to do whatever they like, so long as they aren't causing me direct harm, then what care I if Iran wants nukes or if someone in Dubai says "Death to America!"?

As so many want to point out, it's not the weapon or the words that are the danger, right? They're just the tools; the actions are where the problems lie. If Iran has a nuke and doesn't use it, what harm is done to me? If someone hates America, how am I endangered by that?

Libertarian thought should have prevented our involvement in every war we've been involved in for the last 60 years.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 9:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


FREM- sometimes a baboon tribe needs to be purged of its alpha males and wanna-be's in order to find some kind of stability.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 9:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Thanks NOBC. I have some questions but I need to save them for later.

Altho, I have to say I think that the libertarians on this board are a pretty pathetic lot if they won't even speak for themselves.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 9:35 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:

You're aware, of course, that the 2nd didn't happen until the war was won...

Even then, not everyone could have a gun. Slaves, in particular.




Which was one of the main reasons the 2nd was put in at all - to appease Southern slaveholders who feared uprisings if they were unarmed.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 9:43 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Thanks NOBC. I have some questions but I need to save them for later.

Altho, I have to say I think that the libertarians on this board are a pretty pathetic lot if they won't even speak for themselves.




From what I've seen of them, they aren't actually libertarians. They're just the sad leftovers of 2004's "neo-conservative" gang with a slapdash paint job thrown on and a cheap, Chinese-made Gadsden Flag sticker trying to cover it up.


There's a reason I refer to them as "lie-bertarians", you know. It's an apt moniker.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 11:34 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So...



If I were a "libertarian", as some here claim to be...


Would I have a problem with Iraq or Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons program? And if so, why wouldn't I have the exact same problem with France, India, South Africa, Israel, Pakistan, the United States, England, or Russia having the exact same kinds of weapons programs?

Also,

Should I have a problem with people in other countries preaching hatred of America and the West, to the point where I would bomb them and invade and occupy their countries?

After all, if I *REALLY* believe in freedom for all to do whatever they like, so long as they aren't causing me direct harm, then what care I if Iran wants nukes or if someone in Dubai says "Death to America!"?

As so many want to point out, it's not the weapon or the words that are the danger, right? They're just the tools; the actions are where the problems lie. If Iran has a nuke and doesn't use it, what harm is done to me? If someone hates America, how am I endangered by that?

Libertarian thought should have prevented our involvement in every war we've been involved in for the last 60 years.



Libbers would say, I think, that all those activities should be opposed because they are the actions of groups , that have an effect on the rights of the (libbie) individual. If it was Raptor, or even Kwicko or NOBC or Niki, who had created the nuke, a single person, that should be OK.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 2:15 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
FREM- sometimes a baboon tribe needs to be purged of its alpha males and wanna-be's in order to find some kind of stability.


Ook Ook Eek Ack!

Dun even get me started on that, more and more I am wonderin if Robespierre had a point, and didn't also deliberately engineer his own cabals demise along the way in order to forever break the power and credibility of the so-called elite over the masses... cause the more I look at it, the more it LOOKS like he intentionally created a circular firing squad which would leave all of them, and most of the hangers-on and wanna-bes deader than doornails till the population themselves got sick of the constant bloodshed and turned their back on that whole system of governance.

Or, I could just be going even crazier from cognitive deterioration, but yanno, being a clever bastard to begin with, I'd have to fall pretty far to be as dumb as an RWA, so there's that...
Gawd, now I know how GLaDOS felt!



-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 7:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

This is the spiel, but what do you actually mean by it all? How does it really work? How, in a large and complex society, where your individual rights start to infringe on anothers individual rights, and how does this get defined and sorted?


RAPPY- Waving the word "freedom" like a flag isn't an explanation. Is it possible that you could come up with an answer to this question, and more?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 7:53 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Altho, I have to say I think that the libertarians on this board are a pretty pathetic lot if they won't even speak for themselves."

Seems like a fair summary.

I have questions - LOTS of questions - that I haven't asked b/c I didn't want to abort any glimmer of any potentially possible nascent coversations with our self-proclaimed 'libertarians'. But it's not in the nature of the self-proclaimed 'libertarians' who are here to discuss their - beliefs. Or notions. Or incohate yearnings. Or unadmitted goals. Or hatred of liberals. Or desire for the South to rise again - and the North to be crushed. Or whatever is driving them. No, they just spew random slogans and sound bites and dive back into ... wherever they come from.

Anyway, enough about them.

When I read very general derscriptions like what little rappy posted I start coming up with scenarios and wonder - according to a true believer - who wins the coveted 'allowed in libertarian-land' award?

So there I am on my own plot of land not bothering anyone. But directly upwind of me, on THEIR own plot of land, a battery recycling facility gets built. Now all of the sudden I'm breathing lead fumes; and lead, arsenic and cadmium dust; as well as generically harmful ultrafine particles; and having my health and lifespan slowly chipped away at. Not to mention the dust, traffic, and noise, and that I think the place is an eyesore. Surely they haven't taken out a gun and FORCED me to do anything. OTOH they didn't exactly give me a choice about whether or not I wanted to breathe toxic air. I suppose I could always stop breathing. Or I could sell my property and move away. But somehow that doesn't seem very libertarian to me - I didn't create the problem, so why should I have to be mitigating it?

Who in this circumstance wins the coveted 'allowed in libertarian-land' award? Me and my right to 'own' my own health and the qualities of the property, and the air and water that flow through, as I bought it? Or the battery recycler to do what they want on their own property as long as they haven't 'forced' anyone else to do anything.

I've also noticed that one thing 'libertarians' seem to abhor is the idea that people should come together freely - out of their own and their shared self-interest, and mutual interest in each other's well-being - and act as a group towards a common goal. Isn't freedom of association one of the rights of libertarianism - as long as no one is being 'forced' into it? I suppose I'll never get an ajudication on that either, from any of our self-proclaimed 'libertarians'.

I wonder about what they think is a 'libertarian' society. I took the time to dig out Geezer's references and at least glance through them. NONE of them had modern technology, which calls for a great deal of coordination and cooperation between many specialized groups. NONE of them had a capitalist economy, which requires that certain sacrifices be made by the society at large and by individuals (ownership of public goods for example, as well as a captive labor market) in order to function at all. Imagine a perfectly free labor market, especially economically free, able to accept or reject typical capitalist-economy jobs - McDonald's or piecework --- How long would capitalism survive that freedom? ALL of them had a high degree of social control. Some had socially-enforced slavery. Some had socially-required sacrifice that be made for the good of the group. What exactly does he think these examples have to do with the kind of 'libertarianism' he claims he wants? (I also note that when people freely try to organize themselves for mutual benefit to have a community they mutually desire, he sides against them in favor of corporations and large government - which speaks volumes about what he's REALLY for - and against.) But the end result is that none of his grudgingly-referenced explanations for 'libertarianism' hold water as a template for a modern society. But will he ever come back and discuss this? I suspect not.

I also wonder about the mentality of people who want to reduce every interaction to a money exchange. I can understand if you're basically a sociopath like little rappy - imagine a society of freely associating individuals where every one is free to accept or reject you. Quelle horreur! So much better to have people working for you (the boss is always right!), or selling you something (the customer is always right!) - assuming you identify with the upper crust as little rappy does. But what does that say about Geezer?

And, the numerous studies that have been done indicate that people who have more goods, status and/or power, are less caring, less generous, and more likely to be unethical than people who have less. This ALONE indicates that societies that allow for great accumulation - or in the case of pseudo-libertarian capitalism, REQUIRES it - will become societies where there are rulers who operate by unjust and unethical rules and means. We become like the chimps where the fruit is piled into one pile, even if we didn't start out that way. But will they ever discuss this? I'm not going to wait on them.


But mostly, I object to it as a RELIGION - the way they have imbibed it. I know I've harped on this before, but they can't even begin to THINK about the specifics. Let alone discuss them. It's become a belief, that we are supposed to adhere to and accept. Don't ask questions - if we believe ENOUGH, and trust ENOUGH it will all work out. BTW capitalism has been sold to us the exact same way - 'market forces' will somehow rule and it'll all eventually somewhow work out we'll somehow get to the promised land. You'll see. For people who claim to not be religious they sure are hucksters of it.

Anyway, I too would like some detail about what they think about 'libertarianism'. What are its precepts - not just some of them, ALL of them. How is it supposed to run. What is the eventual steady-state condition. What about specific conflicts - where are the dividing lines. What is the condition of public goods. And so on. Details. Specifics. Some indication this isn't just a con job but an actual working system that has a chance of getting where they say it will go. I suspect that will not happen.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 7:59 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:
This is the spiel, but what do you actually mean by it all? How does it really work? How, in a large and complex society, where your individual rights start to infringe on anothers individual rights, and how does this get defined and sorted?



Indeed, this is exactly the issue. I can't recall who I was talking to, but on some thread here it became clear to me that this lawless world libertarians dream of relies on human beings all suddenly and magically agreeing on what is right and wrong and abiding by those uniform ideals.

Libertarian: "If only everyone had the same morality and wanted the same way of life as me, then we wouldn't need a govt and everyone would be happy!"

There seems to be no realization that people are and always will be very different from each other. I've yet to see that satisfactorily addressed.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:38 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:

Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:
This is the spiel, but what do you actually mean by it all? How does it really work? How, in a large and complex society, where your individual rights start to infringe on anothers individual rights, and how does this get defined and sorted?



Indeed, this is exactly the issue. I can't recall who I was talking to, but on some thread here it became clear to me that this lawless world libertarians dream of relies on human beings all suddenly and magically agreeing on what is right and wrong and abiding by those uniform ideals.

Libertarian: "If only everyone had the same morality and wanted the same way of life as me, then we wouldn't need a govt and everyone would be happy!"

There seems to be no realization that people are and always will be very different from each other. I've yet to see that satisfactorily addressed.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.





Apparently, in the libertarian utopia, everyone would be FORCED to behave exactly the same way. But that have freedom to do whatever they wanted, as long as it's what everybody else wants, too. And as long as it benefits the corporations and doesn't benefit anyone else.

More and more, I'm realizing that what the right-wingers here call "libertarianism" is really just a new way of them sugar-coating their fascistic leanings.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:53 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:




Apparently, in the libertarian utopia, everyone would be FORCED to behave exactly the same way.







Sounds like the OLD OLD joke about the communist revolutionary.

Commie: Under the current system, the rich capitalist has a horse, and rides where he goes. The poor man has no horse, and must walk. But come The Revolution, Comrades, everyone will have a horse. Everyone will ride. NO one will walk.

Worker: But I hate horses. I'm allergic. I enjoy walking. I don't like to ride.

Commie: Come The Revolution, Comrade, you WILL LEARN TO LIKE IT!

Tyranny is tyranny, then and now and in the future, whether left or right wing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:28 AM

MAL4PREZ


The funny thing is what happens when you start pursuing the complications that might arise in a libertarian society. OK - everyone is free to do what they want. But what if people disagree? (The factory and the landowner.) Well, then you get some arbitrators to decide what's fair. How do you pick those deciders? How do you enforce their decision?

And on and on.

What the libertarian (if he/she actually attempt to address these questions rather than fleeing the conversation) comes up with begins more and more to describe the system we currently have. That's what happened with my conversation with _____ (Geezer?). He began to describe the jury system.

Except his system was libertarian because apparently it happens only in rural places where everyone was folksy and had the exact same ideas of right and wrong and fair.




*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 10:02 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Apparently, in the libertarian utopia, everyone would be FORCED to behave exactly the same way. But that have freedom to do whatever they wanted, as long as it's what everybody else wants, too.



I don't think this is how they see it. I think that in their utopia everyone WANTS to behave the same way, because in their utopia there are no annoying things like people with other racial backgrounds and varying religions and women who want to have sex and artists who don't want to work 9 to 5 and skate-boarders who skate outside the suburban park...

Maybe it's me, but it seems like every example of a functioning libertarian society is set in a rural community of honest hard-working down-home white farmers with guns and trucks and dogs and good little women that stay home and good little minorities who stay in other countries.


*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 12:57 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


We have had these discussions before, I remember them. There were a few libertarians prepared to actually paint a picture of the world as they would have liked it. Had some dammed good conversations as well.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 3:14 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)












"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 4:16 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:


It also assumes that the economy will always be healthy enough to be able to provide jobs to all of the population, so that if you are not working, you are choosing not to work. What happens in recessions and depressions when you get high unemployment, do you let people starve?

And if you rely only on charitable contribution, what happens to those people who don't attract charity capital because their cause isn't noble enough?



Yepper, that's how it works. There's also the concepts of "social Darwinism"-- and Malthusianism-- and meritocracy. If you're good enough, smart enough, hard working enough, you'll succeed. If not, you're a loser, and you know about survival of the fittest. Which implies non-survival of the not so fit.

NO matter how bad things are, the best folks will always find a job and survive-- even during the Great Depression some folks GOT rich-- proof of their superiority.

The Horatio Alger "rags to riches" story was a big deal in the 20's & 30's. It's a Heinlein staple theme too, in SF.

And as to those folks whose cause isn't noble enough, yeah, that's tough, too. Social Darwinism, Malthusian solution, yep, they die. And society is better off without 'em.

I really don't like being a Devil's Advocate for the Libertarians. I'd rather argue against them, that's where my sympathies lie, so I make arguments that aren't full strength. You and Kiki and Frem have all raised good questions or made good points. If nobody steps up pretty soon for the other side, I'll step in and make their arguments-- I understand their POV.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 4:43 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I would welcome it! Please - and thank you ahead of time.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 5:06 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"There were a few libertarians prepared to actually paint a picture of the world as they would have liked it."

I don't remember them. Maybe I was gone at the time. The one I remember is SignyM (I think) cajoling Geezer - as the sole posting representative of libertarianism at the time - into posting references to pre-industrial societies as examples of 'working libertarianism', rather than sit down and explain what EXACTLY was HE thinking when HE thought about libertarianism. In fact, I don't recall any of them posting anything substantive: at best a random quote like little rappy's above; and if really, really pressed, a link or two.

If you have an idea where these old discussions can be found and post a link to them I'd be much appreciative.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:20 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I think Anthony and Serg x, as well as Frem had some lengthy explanations. They tended to be more anarchist/libertarian rather than rightie libertarian

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:46 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


'Anthony and Serg x, as well as Frem'

Those are names I've not heard for a long time ...

That sounds like it goes years back ... ??? If so, that would be some digging.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 7:06 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
'Anthony and Serg x, as well as Frem'

Those are names I've not heard for a long time ...

That sounds like it goes years back ... ??? If so, that would be some digging.


I miss Anthony. Miss Serg x too. Glad Frem is still around.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:20 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, I went back to the only thread that dealt at length with libertarianism, which was the one about which societies tried it in real life. I didn't find much of value in the discussion, at least from the libertarian side. Rappy took a stab at it ....
Quote:

.... But those would be counter to what Libertarians believe, about how Rights of one only extend so far as not to impede onto another's. That includes both rights of the individuals and of govts.
but couldn't provide any detail. And of course, he didn't (couldn't?) answer the most immediate questions which such a statement would prompt:
Which rights are being discussed?
Which rights supersede which other rights? (Does yhour right to own money supersede my right to life?)
Who enforces such rights?

It's rather a blank.

Geezer took a stab at it

Quote:

Libertarians follow the Non-aggression Principle, generally, "It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.", or something similar. "Violence" is generally expanded to include physical, financial, or political coercion. Self-defense, BTW, is not considered aggression. This is probably one reason there are no Libertarian countries. The existing governments can use anything, up to and including physical violence, to make sure they stay in power. All Libertarians can do is try to persuade folks to change. ...
As noted above, most Libertarians follow the non-aggression principle, which is pretty much the antithesis of "might-makes-right". If I had to say, I'd describe Libertarianism as more of "Consensus makes right, as long as no consensus practices aggression on anyone."



Unfortunately, like rappy he couldn't or wouldn't answer any of the questions and conundrums that were posed, but referenced some books several times...
Quote:

Ever read Murray Rothbard or Bill Bradford? Or you could read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" or L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach.
and then also referenced several examples of possible libertarian "societies", some of which clearly are not libertarian and none of which supported complex technologies, money, or capitalism, and when pressed basically left the thread.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=55266&mid=9
39533


Also, people like 6IX and PN seem to think that libertarianism revolves around gun ownership, and people like Ron/Rand Paul have an Ayn Rand take. So I'm confused, I don't think I've really learned anything from the self-described libertarians here.

So, what is the purpose of libertarianism? Usually, political/ economic philosophies have some sort of stated goal: prosperity for all. Prosperity for some now, so that there will be more in the future. The genetic improvement of the human race in a dog-eat-dog system. Equity. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I've heard no such overarching goal for libertarianism. Now usually if people won't tell me why they're doing something and why I should too (What's in it for me and mine?) I get the strange feeling that either they don't know, or they don't WANT to tell me because... well, I probably wouldn't agree with it.

So, for anyone who has an idea of what the end goal of libertarianism is, please feel free to speak up!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 4:15 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


As well, I've yet to see any so-called "libertarian" who didn't support our two most recent wars (Iraq & Afghanistan), and who support major cuts to our defense budget, since in their view it should ONLY be for "self-defense", and NEVER for "aggression".



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 4:47 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, what is the purpose of libertarianism? Usually, political/ economic philosophies have some sort of stated goal: prosperity for all. Prosperity for some now, so that there will be more in the future. The genetic improvement of the human race in a dog-eat-dog system. Equity. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I've heard no such overarching goal for libertarianism. Now usually if people won't tell me why they're doing something and why I should too (What's in it for me and mine?) I get the strange feeling that either they don't know, or they don't WANT to tell me because... well, I probably wouldn't agree with it.

So, for anyone who has an idea of what the end goal of libertarianism is, please feel free to speak up!




Boy. I can't leave you people alone for a minute.

So to start, let's use the Wikipedia definition.

Quote:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism. Libertarians advocate a society with minimized government or no government at all.

In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives. According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should have a role. Anarchist schools advocate complete elimination of the state, while Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some schools accept governmental assistance for the poor. Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources, while others reject such private ownership and support various forms of left-libertarianism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Sounds reasonable to me as a starting point.



Looking further down in the Wiki article, it seems I'm probably a good bit Propertarian.

Quote:

Propertarian libertarian philosophies define liberty as non-aggression (an arrangement in which no person or group "aggresses" against any other party), where aggression is defined as the violation of private property. This philosophy implicitly recognizes private property as the sole source of legitimate authority. Propertarian libertarians hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes. They generally support the free-market, and are not opposed to any concentration of power (e.g. monopolies), provided it is brought about through non-coercive means.


And I have to throw in the Non-aggression Principle at this point.

Quote:

The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are. Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle


I'm probably a reasonably strict Minarchist.

Quote:

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions. Such states are generally called night-watchman states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

So a few minutes with Wikipedia gives a pretty reasonable description of my Libertarian position.

Have at it.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 7:16 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Rules should apply or not apply to all or none, anything less reeks of a caste system and is by design, a tyranny - and make no mistake, a lot of so-called libertarians are really just a false front for the NeoFeudoFascists who want exactly that

-Frem



Absolutely correct. That attitude is shallowly hidden, but clearly implied, in the comments of many libertarians I have encountered.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 7:20 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:


For example, the assumption that workers and employers have equal power.




That's one of the problems with Adam Smith style hands off capitalism. Economic power concentrates very quickly with wealth, but not necessarily with morality, compassion, or merit. Greed and ambition ( in the power-hunger sense.) tend to attract wealth, or once acquiring it, tend to use it for tyranny.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:50 - 3410 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL