REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

So, what the heck is libertarianism?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, November 10, 2022 08:33
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 12045
PAGE 3 of 5

Saturday, August 3, 2013 8:54 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Aw, damn, Sig, I feel bad.

You asked nice, SHORT, valid hypothetical questions. And all you got out of Geezer was dismissal and an attack on your perceived starting bias. And from Six, anger and hostility.



No.

I provided answers to SignyM's questions, based on my understanding of how a Libertarian system would work. She either ignores them completely, ignores the effect that a large libertarian-minded population would have on society, or comes up with hypotheticals that are so outlandish they're similar to "What would your pitiful Libertarian society do if the Sun exploded?"

Looking back at the threads Frem found, we went through the same thing five years ago.

If SignyM wants to stick to her belief that private property, individualism, and the free market will inevitably screw things up, and ignore any suggestion that there might be a way out of that, That's fine.

I've shown several ways that a Libertarian society could defeat her "Water Baron" scenario that seem reasonable to me. I'd be glad to discuss them with you, if you will agree to have an open mind.


"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  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 12:42 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

I was thinking about pioneering the other day, American wilderness style. In 1776, if you were broke, you could get a wagon, move westward over the mountains, find yourself a piece of land and make a fresh start, libertarian or anarchist style. Cut down the trees, build yourself a cabin, plant and grow animals and crops to feed yourself and family. Wouldn't have been EASY, would have been RISKY, but you could get away from society and do it all with your bare hands, or just a little help from your very few neighbors. .




Right, apart from the fact that the land was owned/managed by the Indigenous people in the area, who would have a high chance of being pissed off by you moving in. And when things start to get rough with them, the idea of living free from the rule of no other man would start to wear thing, and next thing you know you're asking for the protection of the military (to whom you don't fund - but they come anyway) to sort out these savages who keep attacking you.

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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 3:55 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


And again.

Let's look more at this "Ownership of property, individualism, and a free market lead inevitably to monopoly" thing.

This explains why I can only get a hamburger at McDonalds.

Wait a minute.

I can buty a burger at McDucks.

I can also buy one at Burger King.

And Sonic.

And Hardees.

And 5 Guys.

Not to mention local places like BGR the Burger Joint, and Ray's Hell Burger, that cater to the folks who want a high end burger.

If I travel a bit I can have Krystal, Steak and Shake, or White Castle.

Going to the West Coast, I can get Carl Jrs, In and Out, Fatburger, etc.

More locally, I can go to the Greek pizza place up the street and get a burger.

And I've probably left out a few thousand places where I can get a burger.

Hardly the "buy from me or you get no burger" monopoly SignyM says is inevitable.




"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  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 3:57 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I provided answers to SignyM's questions, based on my understanding of how a Libertarian system would work.
No, you didn't.
Quote:

She either ignores them completely, ignores the effect that a large libertarian-minded population would have on society, or comes up with hypotheticals that are so outlandish they're similar to "What would your pitiful Libertarian society do if the Sun exploded?"
What would libertarianism do SPECIFICALLY if there were individuals bent on using market forces to achieve power? That is the heart of the question. Since I can point to driven individuals in ANY economic system on any continent throughout history, I think it's a fair assumption that there will be such individuals under libertarianism as well.

So, what's the answer? What ethic, procedure, or contract would either prevent or respond to such a circumstance? All I ever got... and all I ever get... is That would never happen under libertarianism.

Why not? I happened under monarchism and fuedalism and imperialism and capitalism and socialism, so why not under libertarianism?

So, that's not an answer, that's wishful thinking.

As far as having a bias... or course, I have a bias. So do you. I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have about my "solutions"
... or what you think my solutions are. Right up front, I'll say that I don't think that I have "the" answer or even "an" answer. But if we discuss this together, with you in the role of the skeptic, maybe an idea will be developed.

Also, I quoted "property is theft" because it represents to me the essence of anarchism. I'm not an anarchist, so maybe I got it wrong.

Quote:

Hardly the "buy from me or you get no burger" monopoly SignyM says is inevitable.
Small things that can be made and used locally aren't necessarily subject to monopolism. But things that require large capital investments- large manufacturing concerns, "infrastructure", and what are now considered "public utilities", communications systems (exactly the things MY monopolist targeted) are subject to monopoly forces because the cost of entry is so high. Also, most of the stuff you originally thought were small- like Ben & Jerry's, and Burt's Bees... turned out all to have been bought out by larger concerns. Been there and done that with you before. Most of what you think you know about "market forces", economies, and people is mostly wishful thinking, IMHO.

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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:10 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Not quite true, Magons - okay yes, the pissing off part, maybe a little, but here's a little bit from american early history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watauga_Association
Quote:

In May 1772, the Watauga and Nolichucky settlers negotiated a 10-year lease directly with the Cherokee, and being outside the claims of any colony, established the Watauga Association to provide basic government functions. The lease and the subsequent purchase of these lands in 1775 were considered illegal by the British Crown, and were vehemently opposed by a growing faction of the Cherokee led by the young chief Dragging Canoe.

That's why the scene with Ten Bears in The Outlaw Josey Wales strikes a chord with me, cause the Wataugans, my ancestors, preferred to negotiate rather than use force.

Now mind you, despite giving lip service to the crown, and later to the colonies, the Wataugans were prettymuch Anarchists, or as close to such a thing as politics allowed back then, mainly cause no one much bothered them except Dragging Canoe and his flunkies, and that was kind of an ongoing spat where each side would shoot a couple of the other, call it a win, and leave it be for a while, which had less to do with Cherokee versus Europeans as much as it did with the fact that Dragging Canoe was kind of a dick, and John Sevier was kind of a dick, and crazy to boot.

Interesting note to that is again, Wataugans preferred not to fight, and even that whole mess over the failed attempt to create their own state (state of Franklin) when it came to shooting they mostly shot at each others cover (referred locally as shooting fenceposts) as bluster and threat of the I-COULD-have-shot-you-there stripe, at least when fighting amongst themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Franklin

The one noteable exception to this was that asshole Ferguson, who made the very dire mistake of saying, essentially "Hand over your guns, OR ELSE!" to the damn Wataugans...
That was probably the stupidest thing Ferguson EVER did, and as a direct result, one of the last.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kings_Mountain
After which they mostly went home and got drunk, though some few went and fought for the colonials, see - they were sympathetic to the colonials, moreso than the british, but mostly they just wanted to be left the hell alone, at least till Sevier and others got politically ambitious, which didn't last even then.

Anyways, they didn't go that route, being far more of a leave alone get left alone attitude, than the manifest destiny sense of entitlement which came later.

-F

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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:14 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Aw, damn, Sig, I feel bad.
You asked nice, SHORT, valid hypothetical questions. And all you got out of Geezer was dismissal and an attack on your perceived starting bias. And from Six, anger and hostility.
I'd take a shot at ANSWERING your question, I WILL, even tho' I'm not a believer, but I'm busy today, got real world stuff I gotta do, and this is the first thread here I've looked at today. Maybe tomorrow or Monday.

No worries, mate. I'm high on painkillers right now, so the time will pass quickly!

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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:15 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Mags,
of course. Or you could, maybe, buy the land from the Indians, as the Dutch did Manhattan. Or they might give it to you, as with William Penn. Or trade with 'em, as the French fur trappers did. Or you might steal it, and piss them off, especially if the piece you stole was special to them. Or they might not care. That's parts of what made it risky. Could get you killed. and you might do something that made you commit the non-libertarian act of asking the government for help.

But my main point was in the next paragraphs, where I was agreeing with Frem, wasn't I?-- You can't even do that in 2013. Somebody else will already claim ownership of the land, private citizen, corporation or government, and you'll have to buy it, and be bound by their laws and regulations. Which means you can't even get the chance to do it on your own without a bunch of oney.


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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:29 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


re Aquanopoly vs Geezer's Geysers, isn't the "cheaper short term, because it's a loss leader" strategy what Wal-Mart did?

And didn't the Apple Mac computer lose out to the PC and Windows because it was more expensive, even though better? and Sony BetaMax vs VHS? seems I remember a Sony DVD format losing the same way, but I don't remember the name, I might be wrong about that one.

And isn't that what the Federal dumping charges against Korean and other Asian steel were about? Sell below cost, lose money, make the competition lower its price to get any business at all, until it goes broke, then jack up the price and lower the quality. Isn't that the way the game is played ?

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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


RAPPY-
Quote:

Look at you. Wanting more and more answers, to be told what to think and how to live. And sure as hell if i were to produce any sort of manifesto, you'd call me CRAZY for trying to impose my rules on your lifestyle- rapppy

And look at you. Wanting to avoid answers more and more! I don't want to be told what to think and how to live. I just wanted to know what you think. Is that such a problem?-signy

I've already told you. -rappy

Well, that explains why you didn't write much- at least you didn't puff up your one-word thought (if you can call it that) into a multi-page bloviation.

6IX

Quote:

Pardon my french, Signy, but here's Libertarianism in TWO WORDS...
FUCK YOU
EDITED TO ADD:
Figured that wasn't sufficient.....
I'd like to elaborate.....
I own my own house and pay my taxes and the gumment wants in for any reason.....
FUCK YOU...
In the mean time, I'm glad that you were able to not have to go to the ghetto for weed and I could provide. Now that the government owns my house, not only do I apologize that you have to ask shady "niggers" in the ghetto for what after being covered in hair spray and MACE was weed, but you have to live with 3 feet of unkempt lawn across the street since I'm too busy being raped in prison to worry about mowing our lawns.

Bottom line Signy.......
Dems are even afraid of weed, although both sides allow it now (especially in corrupt IL) for money. Illinois decision will not alleviate illegal drug trade by a MICROCOSM because they will TAX IT SO HARRRRRDDDDDDDDDD.
That's the only reason the Pimps in IL allowed it.
Ahem... OBAMA.....
ILLINOIS IS EVIL$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Don't ask me....
you voted him in, assholes.....
Talk to his half-human hand

Jack, I don't know who the heck you're talking to, or what you're saying. I didn't vote for Obama, so why the heck do you keep going on.... and on... and on... about shit that even isn't part of the discussion?


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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:44 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What would libertarianism do SPECIFICALLY if there were individuals bent on using market forces to achieve power? That is the heart of the question. Since I can point to driven individuals in ANY economic system on any continent throughout history, I think it's a fair assumption that there will be such individuals under libertarianism as well.

So, what's the answer? What ethic, procedure, or contract would either prevent or respond to such a circumstance? All I ever got... and all I ever get... is That would never happen under libertarianism.



Oh, come on. I've answered this.

I've given several reasons why your "water baron" scenario would not work in a Libertarian society, and you ignore them all. All I get from you is "Oh. Private property, Individualism, and Free market lead inevitably to Monopoly". I've even shown that this is bogus, just using hamburgers.

Quote:

As far as having a bias... or course, I have a bias. So do you. I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have about my "solutions"


Fine. You have put forward no solutions to this point. Define them and we'll have a go.


Quote:

Small things that can be made and used locally aren't necessarily subject to monopolism. But things that require large capital investments- large manufacturing concerns, "infrastructure", and what are now considered "public utilities", communications systems (exactly the things MY monopolist targeted) are subject to monopoly forces because the cost of entry is so high.


Okay. So monopoly is not inevitable, depending on conditions. Strange you didn't mention this until now.


Quote:

Also, most of the stuff you originally thought were small- like Ben & Jerry's, and Burt's Bees... turned out all to have been bought out by larger concerns. Been there and done that with you before. Most of what you think you know about "market forces", economies, and people is mostly wishful thinking, IMHO.


I'd note that there are still a lot of independent ice cream and lip balm companies out there. Folks are starting up new ones every day.

Just for fun, name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone needs (that's not a government, or government sanctioned, monopoly).


"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  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:49 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.


Does a consortium count? How about price-fixing?

Most people would consider a trip to the gas station a perfect everyday example.

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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:54 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
re Aquanopoly vs Geezer's Geysers, isn't the "cheaper short term, because it's a loss leader" strategy what Wal-Mart did?



So we all have to shop at Wal-Mart because its the only store left. Right?


Quote:

And didn't the Apple Mac computer lose out to the PC and Windows because it was more expensive, even though better? and Sony BetaMax vs VHS? seems I remember a Sony DVD format losing the same way, but I don't remember the name, I might be wrong about that one.


I seem to recall passing an Apple store in the mall the other day. How could that be?

And Betamax lost out because it was awkward. I'd note that you can get movies and video streaming, on Netflix, by download, and various other ways instead of DVD. This is a monopoly?

Quote:

And isn't that what the Federal dumping charges against Korean and other Asian steel were about? Sell below cost, lose money, make the competition lower its price to get any business at all, until it goes broke, then jack up the price and lower the quality. Isn't that the way the game is played ?


Korea and other Asian producers subsidized by their governments. That's the way governments play the game. You okay with that?


"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  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone neeeds
Why "nationwide"? If you need it, and you can only get it from one source, it's a monopoly as far as you're concerned. Talk about a biased question!

ETA: if you see a lot of typos, just chalk it up to painkillers and muscle relaxants... I saved them for the evening .... WHEEEE!!!!!!

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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:59 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.


Very good observation. I wonder if Geezer has an answer.

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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 5:05 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I wonder if Geezer has an answer.
Muscle relaxants... they relax SO MUCH MORE than muscles! Whooda thunk???

OF COURSE Geezer doens't have answer!

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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 5:14 PM

MAL4PREZ


This thread leads me to two (not new) conclusions:

1) Geezer's dream libertarian system has nothing to do with a new system of government. It is a change in fundamental human nature. Go read his posts again. It's right there. The system doesn't change, it's only that in his utopia everyone is uniform in the way they buy into it. It all works in his fantasy because in his fantasy suddenly everyone wants the same thing and has the same values.

Yeah, it's easy to have a govt that works when there is no conflict in human nature. How about a system that can be applied in reality? Because, in reality, there will ALWAYS be conflicts in basic beliefs.

In my experience, libertarians will never admit for this inconvenient reality. Because they are so stuck in the idea that their values should somehow be universal. Because they are so very right. Why can't everyone see it? /irony

2) Six is on the sauce again.

*---------------------------------------*
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  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 5:15 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone neeeds
Why "nationwide"? If you need it, and you can only get it from one source, it's a monopoly as far as you're concerned. Talk about a biased question!



Oh, come on. You said that pretty much any society would eventually end up with monopolies and the very few running everything, and now you want to quibble about size.

And you complain about biased questions? Please.

But okay. Name an existing total monopoly in the U.S. over an area 100 miles from wherever the central water (or whatever) plant is (100 mile diameter), as you described earlier. Just to be fair (sorry) let's say in an area of pretty good population density, not wher there's 10 folks per square mile. And once again, no government, or government supported, monopoly.


"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  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 5:18 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
This thread leads me to two (not new) conclusions:

1) Geezer's dream libertarian system has nothing to do with a new system of government. It is a change in fundamental human nature.



Winner, winner chicken dinner. You're exactly right.

Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop, or for people to decide that keeping people enslaved was wrong. Glad you figured it out.

"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  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 5:18 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

now you want to quibble about size.
Of course I do. And so do you, apparently. If YOU depend on me for water, you depend on me.

What an ass you are!

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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 5:25 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

now you want to quibble about size.
Of course I do. And so do you, apparently. If YOU depend on me for water, you depend on me.

What an ass you are!



Okay. So you don't have an answer, and resort to insult.

I win.

Woopee.

Or I could assume that painkillers make you more prone to insult than good rye makes me, and wait for you to tell me about that 100 mile monopoly in a fairly well populated portion of the U.S. that doesn't involve government.

I'm going to bed, as it's 11:15PM here.

I'll check your answer, or continuing insults, in the morning.

p.s. still awaiting your solutin to the "inevitable monopoly" scenario.

Hope your pain is reduced and that you get a good rest.

You'll need it tomorrow.


"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  

Saturday, August 3, 2013 5:34 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.


Pfizer, Inc - Viagra - a monopoly. If you want Viagra, you have to pay Pfizer.


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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 5:37 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.



"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."

Do you think western democracy is the only point of all democratic development in this entire history of the human race? Really?

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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 8:52 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
And again.

Let's look more at this "Ownership of property, individualism, and a free market lead inevitably to monopoly" thing.

This explains why I can only get a hamburger at McDonalds.

Wait a minute.

I can buty a burger at McDucks.

I can also buy one at Burger King.

And Sonic.

And Hardees.

And 5 Guys.

Not to mention local places like BGR the Burger Joint, and Ray's Hell Burger, that cater to the folks who want a high end burger.

If I travel a bit I can have Krystal, Steak and Shake, or White Castle.

Going to the West Coast, I can get Carl Jrs, In and Out, Fatburger, etc.

More locally, I can go to the Greek pizza place up the street and get a burger.

And I've probably left out a few thousand places where I can get a burger.

Hardly the "buy from me or you get no burger" monopoly SignyM says is inevitable.



This says more about the nature of the obesity problem in the US, than the nature of libertarianism.

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

Saturday, August 3, 2013 8:55 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Mags,
of course. Or you could, maybe, buy the land from the Indians, as the Dutch did Manhattan. Or they might give it to you, as with William Penn. Or trade with 'em, as the French fur trappers did. Or you might steal it, and piss them off, especially if the piece you stole was special to them. Or they might not care. That's parts of what made it risky. Could get you killed. and you might do something that made you commit the non-libertarian act of asking the government for help.

But my main point was in the next paragraphs, where I was agreeing with Frem, wasn't I?-- You can't even do that in 2013. Somebody else will already claim ownership of the land, private citizen, corporation or government, and you'll have to buy it, and be bound by their laws and regulations. Which means you can't even get the chance to do it on your own without a bunch of oney.




Seems that to find the truth about how successful trades/purchases were from Native American, you have to ask yourself where are those thriving nations that existed pre white settlement?

Might have been beads for land, but the end result was displacement and cultural distruction.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 3:36 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


E-T-A:
Aw, gee. I'm responding chronologically, and between the original post and this response, you already made most of these points. Feel free to ignore most of this post. ANd I worked so hard to get it down to almost one screen.



Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Economic power, especially the monopoly power over vital resources, is a power itself, without government. And you're free to own all the doodads and gizmos you want.



then Geezer wrote:
Quote:


Next, when you talk about killing people by purposely withholding services, don't you think that's initiation of force?




Aha! That's where this discussion started breaking down. No, that's not initiation of force. Withholding your own services, that's a voluntary, individual choice of action, or non action. The motivation behind it might be undesirable, but nobody outside the actor gets to dictate, or judge, that motivation. Force is, well, force-- guns, knives, clubs, fists, mobs vandalizing things. That's FORCE.

Using economic power, the power of property, for individual benefit, is a common, nay, universal, phenomenon. That's what ALL commerce is about. Except that Geezer seems to be saying that, under libertarianism, that would never happen. But libertarianism promotes maximum individual freedom of action. Use it in a manner that Geezer disapproves of, it gets re-defined as "use of force", and "use of force" gets redefined as that.

Now, a left-wing, collectivist, socialist, Commie might define individual use of economic power against the group, "the masses" as that. Not exactly clear on what differentiates the Geez from the commie on that one.

And, Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider:

1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.

2. (Sig, I know you already know this one.) There used to be a concept called "the social contract"- One definition of that might be that a person gives up using certain individual rights in exchange for the benefit of the group, and for the benefit to him from the larger scale action of the group. It can be thought of as the basis of any civilization. Seems to be a concept, in any form, that I haven't heard from any libbie here. And you can tell how they feel about it from Six's post.

Yeesh, I've spent literally hours online here, revising and editing this little post. And there's a lot more I have comments on.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 4:16 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Firstly, what does 'land' mean? Does it mean that if you own it, you are able to do what you want with it entirely? Do you own it from the top down to the earth's core? The first hundred metres? Do you own the air above it, the airspace above it, the water that runs through it?




I'm catching up from a couple of days back here. If this has already been answered,feel free to ignore.

Theoretically yes, you own all those things. You can exploit or contract out, or sell, just those rights on your piece of ground. Oil rights, water rights, mineral rights, any or all may be in the legal title to your property. You may or may not have bought them when you bought the land. Pre-existing contracts may determine whether or not you can use, dam up, or even drink, the water that flows across the surface of your land.

I have read of situations where privately owned airports had to lease the air space in their approach or departure landing patterns, they paid so that no land owner could erect a radio tower or sky scraper to endanger planes operating there.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 4:42 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
re Aquanopoly vs Geezer's Geysers, isn't the "cheaper short term, because it's a loss leader" strategy what Wal-Mart did?



So we all have to shop at Wal-Mart because its the only store left. Right?


Quote:

And didn't the Apple Mac computer lose out to the PC and Windows because it was more expensive, even though better? and Sony BetaMax vs VHS? seems I remember a Sony DVD format losing the same way, but I don't remember the name, I might be wrong about that one.


I seem to recall passing an Apple store in the mall the other day. How could that be?

And Betamax lost out because it was awkward. I'd note that you can get movies and video streaming, on Netflix, by download, and various other ways instead of DVD. This is a monopoly?

Quote:

And isn't that what the Federal dumping charges against Korean and other Asian steel were about? Sell below cost, lose money, make the competition lower its price to get any business at all, until it goes broke, then jack up the price and lower the quality. Isn't that the way the game is played ?


Korea and other Asian producers subsidized by their governments. That's the way governments play the game. You okay with that?




1. I didn't say WalMart succeeded at it yet. But you could ask K-Nart, Sears, Wards, and local grocery chains how they feel about it.

2. Apple Stores sell phones now, maybe SMART phones; and maybe music players, but not general purpose computers, a market they dominated and innovated in before the IBM PC and the Windows box came along.

3. I remember Betamax as technically superior, better fidelity, longer playing time, several virtues. VHS only virtue was cheaper. That's how I remember it.

4.Subsidized by some other government or not, dumped steel was one factor driving American steel mills out of business. They got OUR government to step in on their side. Didn't help much, most of them are still gone.

All examples of somebody taking a short term loss to sell CHEAP, undercutting existing competition until in the long term that competition was gone from that market place, or reduced.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 4:46 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
This thread leads me to two (not new) conclusions:

1) Geezer's dream libertarian system has nothing to do with a new system of government. It is a change in fundamental human nature. Go read his posts again. It's right there. The system doesn't change, it's only that in his utopia everyone is uniform in the way they buy into it. It all works in his fantasy because in his fantasy suddenly everyone wants the same thing and has the same values.

Yeah, it's easy to have a govt that works when there is no conflict in human nature. How about a system that can be applied in reality? Because, in reality, there will ALWAYS be conflicts in basic beliefs.

In my experience, libertarians will never admit for this inconvenient reality. Because they are so stuck in the idea that their values should somehow be universal. Because they are so very right. Why can't everyone see it? /irony



Ah, damn. Spot on, and written better, more concisely, than I ever could have. Maybe a perspective I've never had, too.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 4:50 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone neeeds
Why "nationwide"? If you need it, and you can only get it from one source, it's a monopoly as far as you're concerned. Talk about a biased question!



Oh, come on. You said that pretty much any society would eventually end up with monopolies and the very few running everything, and now you want to quibble about size.

And you complain about biased questions? Please.

But okay. Name an existing total monopoly in the U.S. over an area 100 miles from wherever the central water (or whatever) plant is (100 mile diameter), as you described earlier. Just to be fair (sorry) let's say in an area of pretty good population density, not wher there's 10 folks per square mile. And once again, no government, or government supported, monopoly.





Possibly, maybe probably, we would have those monopolies here in the USA under a libertarian government. The US certainly had those tendencies between the Civil War and 1929. Maybe we don't have them because government regulation prevented them. Maybe not having them is proof that the existing system WORKS.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 4:52 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Pfizer, Inc - Viagra - a monopoly. If you want Viagra, you have to pay Pfizer.




ah, a critical monopoly.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 5:22 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Pfizer, Inc - Viagra - a monopoly. If you want Viagra, you have to pay Pfizer.




If you want a Ford, you have to pay Ford.

Of course you could buy a Chevrolet from Chevrolet.

Or if you're looking for ED drugs, you could buy Cialis from Lilly, or Levitra or Staxyn from Bayer, or a dozen more.


"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  

Sunday, August 4, 2013 5:24 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."

Do you think western democracy is the only point of all democratic development in this entire history of the human race? Really?



Did I say that? All I said was "democracy".




"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  

Sunday, August 4, 2013 5:28 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
This says more about the nature of the obesity problem in the US, than the nature of libertarianism.



Well, no. Actually it shows that Signym's "everything leads inevitably to monopoly" scenario is not true.


"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  

Sunday, August 4, 2013 5:39 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


OK, here's a new point in this discussion.

History. I have seen this theory written, can't cite exactly where. I propose it as a possible explanation, to be discussed; not because I believe it to be the Absolute truth.

THEORY-- The Declaration of Independence was a libertarian document, a statement justified on the level of individual rights, a reason for libertarian revolt. "inalienable rights"; "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"; "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

STILL THEORY- Thomas Jefferson, who wrote this, was a libbie.

NOW, FACT: This document was not LAW, never the basis of the government, but a statement of cause for Revolution.

MORE FACT: The Articles of Confederation were the document that set up the government for that Revolution. The national Congress could not do much, could not compel the states to do anything. The states were free to do as they pleased. This government was able to win the Revolution, barely, with lots of troubles caused by this government structure. Washington could not get the money from the states to operate the army, could not get enough men in his army. He bitched about it frequently. After the war, it was failing at regulating itself, commercially.

THEORY:The Articles were a libertarian document on the state level.

FACT: So the Convention set out to change the government, write the Constitution of the United States. Thomas Jefferson was not there-- he was ambassador in Paris.

THEORY. The Constitution was not a libertarian document. It was a social contract to unify, bind together, the states into a national whole. There's precious little about states rights, let alone individual rights, in the body of the Constitution. It's a pragmatic, practical, realist document. Explicit, detailed in a generalist way. "Congress shall consist of--"; "Congress shall pass no law--"; "first Tuesday after the first Monday"

FACT: The Convention approved the Constitution, a body representative of the people and governments of the colonies.

THEORY: The Bill of Rights had to be added to get the libertarians to ratify. It's a libertarian document, full of concern about things that no part of the government may do to an individual; abuses experienced under British rule that were now prevented.

NOBC's CONCLUSION. You can make the argument that the Articles of Confederation were an attempt at libertarian government, on a state level. They failed, ultimately, but not catastrophically. They had to be replaced by a unifying social contract that had some Libertarian features.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 5:39 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Using economic power, the power of property, for individual benefit, is a common, nay, universal, phenomenon. That's what ALL commerce is about. Except that Geezer seems to be saying that, under libertarianism, that would never happen. But libertarianism promotes maximum individual freedom of action.



Once again ignoring that libertarians believe in the maximum freedom of action for everybody, not just themselves. And that freedom of action is limited to actions that don't initiate force against others. Your idea that 'force' is only physical force flies in the face of reality.


Quote:

And, Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider:

1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.



Got any cites for this, or is it just an opinion based on nothing?

Quote:

2. (Sig, I know you already know this one.) There used to be a concept called "the social contract"- One definition of that might be that a person gives up using certain individual rights in exchange for the benefit of the group, and for the benefit to him from the larger scale action of the group. It can be thought of as the basis of any civilization. Seems to be a concept, in any form, that I haven't heard from any libbie here.



You should read the threads Frem cited. Plenty of discussion from several folks about voluntary associations of folks in a Libertarian society to provide everything from fire services to medical care to charity.

Seems you're slipping back into the "Every man for himself and devil take the hindmost" trap that does not accuarately most Libertarian thinking at all.


"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  

Sunday, August 4, 2013 5:43 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Possibly, maybe probably, we would have those monopolies here in the USA under a libertarian government. The US certainly had those tendencies between the Civil War and 1929. Maybe we don't have them because government regulation prevented them. Maybe not having them is proof that the existing system WORKS.



Could be, although government seems to support big businesses at least as much as it controls them.

BTW: It's SignyM saying that the current system, or any system based on private property, individualism, and the free market cannot possibly work.


"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  

Sunday, August 4, 2013 5:51 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.


NOBC "ah, a critical monopoly"
Geezer "If you want a Ford, you have to pay Ford"

It's an example. The same is true of many medications, including life-sparing ones like Cialis. These meds were based on government-supported research into NO blood vessel dilation, and originally conceived and developed as blood pressure medications. But they had an interesting side effect on men and so the companies went with them as a blockbuster-'lifestyle' market rather than a lifesaving one. But Cialis is the ONLY treatment for primary pulmonary hypertension, aside from a double-lung transplant. Another example is humulin (genetically-derived human insulin) for diabetics who've become allergic to the pig insulin. Then there's EPO for kidney-disease based anemia. Latisse which grows eyelashes but also treats sleeping sickness - except it's priced far too high to be used on poor African lives. All of these are just select examples of vital monopolies, where you pay the price, or die. Literally.

I'm surprised you both didn't realize that. NOBC, I realize you're playing devil's advocate. But Geezer - you believe this stuff. You should know your monopolies better.

Also, price fixing by a few companies - gasoline, heating fuel, natural gas. They are definitely vital and there's no effective competition.

Interesting example if you're into details - this whole hullabaloo about 'peak oil' and 'the end of oil' only applies to sweet light crude - the kind nearly all refineries have been built around over the last 50 years and the only kind they are able to handle. But there's other kinds of crude - heavy sour crude (and tar-sands crude, which I mention for completeness, but that's not part of this story). There is a virtually unlimited supply of that, and it's much cheaper. ONE refinery named Valero did have SOME capacity to refine heavy sour crude. Almost two decades ago they decided to specialize in it. So they took some huge profit hits and rebuilt their refineries to handle the stuff - crack at higher temps, remove sulfur and other unwanted elements etc. With light sweet crude trading at about $90/bbl heavy sour crude trades at about $70/bbl and their capital costs recouped a long time ago, and operating costs about the same as other refineries (they recoup sulfur removal costs by selling sulfur) you'd THINK their gasoline would be far cheaper. It's all about competition reducing prices - right? But their gasoline is a marginal $0.05 per gallon cheaper at a base price of about $4.00/gal. Costs of production 25% cheaper. Prices at the pump 1.25% cheaper.

So, let's here it for free competition and no monopolies! Not.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 5:52 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

And, Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider:

1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.



Got any cites for this, or is it just an opinion based on nothing?




Damn, can you read? DO you? Or do you just ignore stuff that isn't what you want to bitch about? You even quoted it right there.

"And Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider."

Of course they're opinions. I don't think they're based on nothing. They're an observation based on what I've read. I offered them for Sig to consider. You could Argue against them. Do you want to do that? Or just say that that's all been settled, somewhere else?

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 5:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
1. I didn't say WalMart succeeded at it yet. But you could ask K-Nart, Sears, Wards, and local grocery chains how they feel about it.


Still got Sears around here. Or you might ask Target, or Costco.

Quote:

2. Apple Stores sell phones now, maybe SMART phones; and maybe music players, but not general purpose computers, a market they dominated and innovated in before the IBM PC and the Windows box came along.

The Apple Mac Mini I got hooked up to my TV is pretty recent, and I bought it at an Apple store. There were plenty of MacBook notebooks, iMacs, and Mac pros there for sale.

Quote:

3. I remember Betamax as technically superior, better fidelity, longer playing time, several virtues. VHS only virtue was cheaper. That's how I remember it.
Never had much luck with Beta myself. Both are pretty much gone by now.

Quote:

4.Subsidized by some other government or not, dumped steel was one factor driving American steel mills out of business. They got OUR government to step in on their side. Didn't help much, most of them are still gone.

But without the government subsidies, the Asian steel makers couln't have stood the loss of profit, and certainly not for so long.

Quote:

All examples of somebody taking a short term loss to sell CHEAP, undercutting existing competition until in the long term that competition was gone from that market place, or reduced.


But where is the inevitible monopoly? Per SignyM's scenario, "There can be only one".




"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  

Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:06 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Damn, can you read? DO you? Or do you just ignore stuff that isn't what you want to bitch about? You even quoted it right there.

"And Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider."

Of course they're opinions. I don't think they're based on nothing. They're an observation based on what I've read. I offered them for Sig to consider. You could Argue against them. Do you want to do that? Or just say that that's all been settled, somewhere else?



You have opinions. You apparently base them on something you read. What is it you base them on?

I've listed what I think Libertarianism is, and backed it up with a cite that's pretty close to what I believe. If you have a different view, you should be able to cite the information that makes you believe that way. That's all I'm asking for.

I will note that I have mentioned that Libertarianism as I understand it, and as defined in several places, calls for every adherant to want the maximum of individual liberty for everybody, not just themselves, and to follow the Non-aggression Principle, which states no one has the right to initiate force against any ones else, but that force can be used in response to such aggression.

Given this, I'm not sure how you can continue to talk about "Social Darwinism" and leaving everyone but the rich behind.

Maybe if I know where you got your information about Libertarians, I can figure this out, and possibly show that it is not as reliable as you might think.


"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  

Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:10 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 NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
This thread leads me to two (not new) conclusions:

1) Geezer's dream libertarian system has nothing to do with a new system of government. It is a change in fundamental human nature. Go read his posts again. It's right there. The system doesn't change, it's only that in his utopia everyone is uniform in the way they buy into it. It all works in his fantasy because in his fantasy suddenly everyone wants the same thing and has the same values.

Yeah, it's easy to have a govt that works when there is no conflict in human nature. How about a system that can be applied in reality? Because, in reality, there will ALWAYS be conflicts in basic beliefs.

In my experience, libertarians will never admit for this inconvenient reality. Because they are so stuck in the idea that their values should somehow be universal. Because they are so very right. Why can't everyone see it? /irony



Ah, damn. Spot on, and written better, more concisely, than I ever could have. Maybe a perspective I've never had, too.




Bingo. Geezer's libertarian Utopia would work great, if it weren't for those all those darned PEOPLE! LIbertarians basically treat human nature as a rounding error in their computations.



"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, August 4, 2013 6:11 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.



"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."

So, what was your point? Be explicit. Spell it out.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:13 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)


Does the irony strike anyone else? The amazing irony that Geezer's libertarian paradise relies entirely upon a mass of people all acting, believing, behaving in the exact same way, almost as if they were a gigantic hive mind, a massive collective society, one of those kinds of personless statist societies that libertarians claim to hate?


He's basically arguing that the world would be perfect if we would all just act like him. How very ecocentric of him.



"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, August 4, 2013 6:16 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Your idea that 'force' is only physical force flies in the face of reality.





dug out my Webster's Unabridged dictionary. It's in the bookcase next to the computer desk, right here in the home office

Quote:



Force,n:
physical power or strength exerted against a person or thing;
physical coercion;
violence, as, the police resorted to force to disperse them.



A word in common usage means what the common usage says it mean. You don't get to change that. You wanta use a word, use it correctly. You mean some other concept, use the word for that.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:17 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.


Especially b/c he claims that people will in time evolve to a higher state of perfection to be - like him! A libertarian!

Says a lot about what he thinks of himself, and us.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:18 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 1kiki:

"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."

So, what was your point? Be explicit. Spell it out.




Did it really require a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop?

Before democracy, was it "human nature" to believe that kings ruled by divine right, or that one person was inherently worth more than another simply because of where they were born, or into which family?

When you watch children play, do you see it in their nature to treat one person among them as a king, far superior in every way to every other child they're playing with? Or do they tend to just treat each other as equals?

I'd posit that democracy - one person being the equal of another, having just as legitimate a voice, is closer to our default state of human nature, and it takes quite a bit of wrangling by kings and priests to try to drive that instinct out of people.



"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, August 4, 2013 6:22 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 NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Your idea that 'force' is only physical force flies in the face of reality.





dug out my Webster's Unabridged dictionary. It's in the bookcase next to the computer desk, right here in the home office

Quote:



Force,n:
physical power or strength exerted against a person or thing;
physical coercion;
violence, as, the police resorted to force to disperse them.



A word in common usage means what the common usage says it mean. You don't get to change that. You wanta use a word, use it correctly. You mean some other concept, use the word for that.




And Geezer, if you're talking about the "force of law", then you really should sit down and ask yourself exactly what that means. Behind every law is the threat of violence and a gun. If you don't agree, see what happens when you refuse to comply with even the most basic laws, like ones against jaywalking or ones that say you must pay your taxes.



"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, August 4, 2013 6:23 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Quote:

2. (Sig, I know you already know this one.) There used to be a concept called "the social contract"- One definition of that might be that a person gives up using certain individual rights in exchange for the benefit of the group, and for the benefit to him from the larger scale action of the group. It can be thought of as the basis of any civilization. Seems to be a concept, in any form, that I haven't heard from any libbie here.



You should read the threads Frem cited. Plenty of discussion from several folks about voluntary associations of folks in a Libertarian society to provide everything from fire services to medical care to charity.



OH, BTW, since I'm giving reading lessons, "here" means here, this thread. I haven't read others, didn't then, ain't gonna go back now.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:32 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
NOBC "ah, a critical monopoly"
NOBC, I realize you're playing devil's advocate.


Yep, hon, teasing, joking.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:43 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

posted by Geezer:
(as posted by NOBC)

1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.



Got any cites for this, or is it just an opinion based on nothing?




I notice that you haven't made any substantive response to my statement. What do you have to say about "the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled"? Do they not exist? DO you not care about them? When or where have YOU focused on them in your postings, in this thread?

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
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
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