Nazism or Communism; which one do you hate more

[marooned]

I wouldn't want to be rich and famous as I think it can become a prison (& I don't like the lime light and value my privacy possibly above all). I think that being a blue collar worker though takes a serious toll on a lot of people's self-image and self-esteem. I don't think it's all relative either. If you can imagine enough people looking down at you or treating you as someone there just to serve them or as someone who probably isn't too bright... that would probably eventually seep in. I probably think that being on the extreme ends (either really wealthy and/or famous or really poor or just in the working class) can be more difficult than being in the middle (maybe). Perhaps one always imagines with money that no one will know they have it and so they can just do whatever they want because they don't have any financial obstacles. Probably few people actually live that way. It's amazing how many people just throw large amounts of money away (I think this probably says something about the new kinds of temptations one is faced with if they have it, particularly if they just got it... but I still don't understand why they would wish to rush and spend it all and even end up in debt afterwards). I can see the interest in investing $ if one finds they have a lot of it. Perhaps this has to do with power to some extent. Having even more money means even more influence. One could actually affect the world in some way. Maybe it begins as a less than greedy ideal. Also, I'd imagine one might become paranoid about losing it and so investing it could bring a sense of security.

[ArchonAlarion]

[marooned]

No alternative way *so far discovered*. I think it's possible to change and be better.

[Absurd]

[marooned]

So I was saying that we're like the good banana gone bad intimidating people and that we can all be better bananas, and it was kind of silly?



I am a little confused. It looks like they picked a slick surface for that guy to slip on all those banana peels. I don't tend to slip on them when I'm swimming.

[Absurd]

[marooned]

[Absurd]

Hahaha, that was clever.

[glam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Einstein didn't construct his theories under order from a bureaucrat

yeah well Einstein did not do what he did out of materialistic greed, either...

Donahue's question was not even about government, but Friedman twisted it around so that he could use the fact that Einstein's work was not mandated by government as a defense of the free market and people's "greed", as if it was the free market and greed that was somehow responsible for Einstein's theories and his motivation to construct them.

i've seen many clips from that particular interview and it always kills me how dishonestly Friedman presents his arguments, how many things he says are so very subtly fallacious.

[ArchonAlarion]

yeah well Einstein did not do what he did out of materialistic greed, either...

Donahue's question was not even about government, but Friedman twisted it around so that he could use the fact that Einstein's work was not mandated by government as a defense of the free market and people's "greed", as if it was the free market and greed that was somehow responsible for Einstein's theories and his motivation to construct them.

No I think his point was that it wasn't caused by the government, rather than that it was caused by the free market.

i've seen many clips from that particular interview and it always kills me how dishonestly Friedman presents his arguments, how many things he says are so very subtly fallacious.

Friedman is arguing that people are always going to be greedy, or at least, we can always expect greed. How will giving monopolistic priviledges to some of these greedy people solve our problems?

[marooned]

I think it's an intriguing problem. I mean, I do think that not only are people incredibly self-interested but that life itself is. It's what enabled life to continue to flourish in a way. Everything is kind of out for itself to some extent. That's not the only element though. Sometimes creatures are also out for each other due to the importance of social bonds or even an instinctive inclination (the mother crocodile for instance does not eat all her eggs, she tries to defend them). I guess I see with humans that the species is a victim of its own success. But since people aren't entirely instinctual they can choose to do something other than that which they might tend to do. I rather refuse to believe that all of the history of life that brought about what is now did so only to fail by its own nature. So maybe I don't believe we're entirely self-interested. I guess I see the problem as not being divorced from the rest of nature or something, but as simply doing what all of nature does (as very much exactly what the rest of it is). What was the point of the history of all of that life and evolution if the template was flawed?

[glam]

No I think his point was that it wasn't caused by the government, rather than that it was caused by the free market.

his objective was to defend greed, so to back this up he argued the point that great discoveries have come out of greed, such as Einstein's theories.

it's a weak point to make, because great inventions and discoveries have arisen from government-commissioned initiatives, such as the Internet and nuclear weapons. and again, the question had nothing to do with government, it had to do with greed and its relation to capitalism, yet Friedman took the opportunity to bring up the government, hinting that it can't do something as well as the free market powered by greedy people can do. he was conflating irrelevant ideas.

he was also misrepresenting Einstein's motivations, in my opinion. Einstein was a socialist and critic of unfettered markets.

Friedman is arguing that people are always going to be greedy, or at least, we can always expect greed.

i don't disagree with this at all; once you accept that people operate out of self-interest you can understand human behavior better. my problem was with Friedman's reasoning - it's fallacious and misleading. this is concerning to me, because people eat up bad arguments such as his, and then go out and propagate these ideas that are based on fallacious reasoning.

How will giving monopolistic priviledges to some of these greedy people solve our problems?

the problem is how do you check the people out there who are greedy enough so as to take advantage of the system (whatever it may be, including a lack of one) to the point where other individuals' rights and welfare are threatened.

if you are referring to the government, of course the government won't solve all of our problems -i don't believe anyone out there actually believes that. what they disagree on is what the optimal level of government involvement should be.

[Park]

I hate women more.

[ArchonAlarion]

@Loki: The problem remains: How do you reliably sort those who are well meaning from those who aren't? Who decides who is well meaning? Who decides who decides who is well meaning? The capitalist answer is that there is no reliable way, and even if there were, the well meaning people still could not adequately provide good and services through a monopoly because of lack of information about the complexity of the economy. Instead, firms should peacefully compete to provide goods and services, and then their success can be measured by comparison. Further, the capitalist would argue that monolithic power structures on average attract people who are not well meaning.

The economy is an organic by-product. It has no purpose other than the provision of the desires of the organisms that make it up. The unit of purpose resides at the individual level... no one truly knows what is best for you. The statist fallacy is that the economy exists for the purposes of some imagined abstraction "the good of the many," "the collective," "the volk." These entities do not actually have needs because they do not actually exist as self-perceiving organisms.

[ArchonAlarion]

if you are referring to the government, of course the government won't solve all of our problems -i don't believe anyone out there actually believes that. what they disagree on is what the optimal level of government involvement should be.

~0

[mu4]

@Loki : The problem remains: How do you reliably sort those who are well meaning from those who aren't? Who decides who is well meaning? Who decides who decides who is well meaning? The capitalist answer is that there is no reliable way, and even if there were, the well meaning people still could not adequately provide good and services through a monopoly because of lack of information about the complexity of the economy. Instead, firms should peacefully compete to provide goods and services, and then their success can be measured by comparison. Further, the capitalist would argue that monolithic power structures on average attract people who are not well meaning.

The economy is an organic by-product. It has no purpose other than the provision of the desires of the organisms that make it up. The unit of purpose resides at the individual level... no one truly knows what is best for you. The statist fallacy is that the economy exists for the purposes of some imagined abstraction "the good of the many," "the collective," "the volk." These entities do not actually have needs because they do not actually exist as self-perceiving organisms.

Stop talking about states or capitalism or whatever. You're talking from a warped perspective and ideological strawmens.

How to organize, when to use force, what regulations should exist, who/what enforces those regulations. Stop talking in ideological absolutes and start talking about practical interactions. You want to live in a world of purely voluntary interactions, fine, seems like a good idea, but how do you put that into practice.

Tell us how things will be organize, and prove that organization works, and the provide the product in a convenient format. This is how a capitalist will sell it right? So create the product, make a place, make it work, then people will follow.

Just remember, it won't last forever, someone will change it.

The thing is you promote the idea that somehow absent some of the organization mechanisms which exist in the world somehow the world would be somehow bet better. Prove it. You can't, and I doubt you can even make the attempt. The thing is the world is already anarchy, the organizations that exist in the world is emergent structure which has arisen naturally, and that dissolution of those structures may only lead to their emergence again perhaps in a different configuration, and not necessarily for the better.

I agree that the world could be made better, and that states have problems and that the existing organizational structures in the world aren't great, but until you give me a option that isn't a fantasy, you're never going to convince a great majority of people. Maybe you will, maybe it'll even work, but I doubt it.

[ArchonAlarion]

As soon as I get out of college I'll find an island and create an anarcho-capitalist society, happy?

As I've said before, if people want a state, they will get one. Citing the existence of the state as its reason for being there is silly and unproductive. Everything that exists is natural, and yes has arisen over time, but so what? ******'s regime was natural, but should we advocate such a model? Seriously, what do you want, a five year plan for anarchism? The entire point is that I can't tell you how things will be organized except generally. If I was able to tell you, then why not have centralization?

Just remember, your ideal state won't last forever, someone will change it. Once the idea of state power is legitimate, it will be continuously extended to more and more spheres. There is no balance between master and slave. Once someone can say, "because I said so" the wheel forever turns in that direction.

Basically, you are claiming that I could be arguing any point as long as it's yours. Otherwise, I'll need to write a book detailing exactly how I'd personally bring it about. You on the other hand, can make any claim you want without backing it up because "supposedly" your statist philosophy has all the ready evidence of its "success" at hand. In truth, you merely describe what already exists without offering any model, and further you misshapenly describe it in the first place. Stop playing the status quo card: What you believe to be the case isn't even anyway. Give me a model or some theory. Tell me how state power will not be abused, or tell me how its abuse is better than the alternative.

[Gilly]

hkkmr, I've realized I can't blame these people...they are just weights rolling to the edges of the scale.

[mu4]

As soon as I get out of college I'll find an island and create an anarcho-capitalist society, happy?

Yes please do, I want to see the experiment and how it turns out.

As I've said before, if people want a state, they will get one. Citing the existence of the state as its reason for being there is silly and unproductive. Everything that exists is natural, and yes has arisen over time, but so what? ******'s regime was natural, but should we advocate such a model? Seriously, what do you want, a five year plan for anarchism? The entire point is that I can't tell you how things will be organized except generally. If I was able to tell you, then why not have centralization?

States exists because they exist, there are reasons why they exist and I won't go into it as that's unproductive. Now whether it should or should not exist is a entirely different discussion and although not unproductive, not something I am going to make assumptions about. I know of plenty of reasons why a organization kinda of like a state might not need to exist.

1. Very few people
2. Heat death of the universe

When you do it, I will have other reason to believe you. So go do it.

Just remember, your ideal state won't last forever, someone will change it. Once the idea of state power is legitimate, it will be continuously extended to more and more spheres. There is no balance between master and slave. Once someone can say, "because I said so" the wheel forever turns in that direction.

Stop strawmanning. I do not care about states, I do not believe in ideals. I do not care about it dying. It's a tool. To be used, no more, no less. Some tools are better then others. When you realize I don't care about the state anymore then I care about your fantasy, and that my opinion is purely a pragmatic choice for my personal benefit and well-being and maybe even others(and isn't this what capitalism is all about). All states die, so will I, I just want to have a good time and hopefully do something interesting and appreciated by others. I think states will arise after one dies, and I hope whatever advancement I made in organization methods and understanding of the world will make the world better and I hope people within that world will make advancement which will make organizations further in the future better. I don't believe in states, but I believe in a well run organization, benevolence, truth, peace, kindness, these are the kind of values I can practice.

Basically, you are claiming that I could be arguing any point as long as it's yours. Otherwise, I'll need to write a book detailing exactly how I'd personally bring it about. You on the other hand, can make any claim you want without backing it up because "supposedly" your statist philosophy has all the ready evidence of its "success" at hand. In truth, you merely describe what already exists without offering any model, and further you misshapenly describe it in the first place. Stop playing the status quo card: What you believe to be the case isn't even anyway. Give me a model or some theory. Tell me how state power will not be abused, or tell me how its abuse is better than the alternative.

The only model and theory I believe is evolution. And Nazi Germany failed that as did many flawed states and other organizations, but there are some places still around and some places doing better then others. I don't care about states, but I think your idea is weak and will likely fail to be put into practice. I don't care about states, I'm going to keep saying this until you get this thru your thick head. I do care about having a good time, kindness, benevolence, and they might even be "fit" behaviors, but I don't know that nor do I care whether I'm "fit" or "unfit".

[ArchonAlarion]

I hope the bubble you live in is never rudely popped by the consequences of the system you advocate, whatever it may actually be.

Otherwise, I'm glad you practice those values in your personal life.

[ArchonAlarion]

hkkmr, I've realized I can't blame these people...they are just weights rolling to the edges of the scale.

Chimed in Gilly from across the Sea of Hypocrisy.

[Gilly]

Jake don't worry, its all going to be ok.

[mu4]

I hope the bubble you live in is never rudely popped by the consequences of the system you advocate, whatever it may actually be.

Otherwise, I'm glad you practice those values in your personal life.

What consequences? Death? Torture? Bombs? I can plan for them, but do I want them? Not really.

Anyways I don't advocate any systems(you do however). I advocate understanding the world and how it works and functions and then taking a practical approach to it. I have changes I would like to see based on existing circumstance and ideas on how to achieve that change, but I don't think you're going to be able to do much from a top down perspective(which is what your perspective boils down to) without social collapse.

College kid telling me I live in a bubble, how quaint. It's been a long time since I've lived in a bubble with my ideological security blanket. I see you're still in your Linas stage. I think my blanket got popped when tanks rolled down the streets I used to walk and I started to worry about what would happen to that world, or maybe it was a bomb, I guess I was too young to remember. Let me say I believe I was indoctrinated by the best, the Chinese and Americans, very professional at what they do. I guess in all the mess of having to repeat what other people had to say or what they wanted me to believe, I decided most of it doesn't matter and the only things that really matter was what I thought, how I would change the world, and perhaps if I was able, actually doing it.

I guess I do live in a bubble, but it's more like a fortress, where I don't listen to people and what they tell me to believe. I view myself as a scientist and engineer, which is what I do, I'm not a politician or preacher, but some days, I want to be, because the alternative is that politicians and preachers rule the world and sell fantasies instead of tools. Stop being a preacher, and think for yourself instead or repeating what everyother libertard is saying.

[Gilly]

ITT hkkmr keeps it real

Fan-boy-ing a political system truly is useless in the end, I think. Most people will never give a fuck, so ultimately you are shouting down a black hole because you like the way it feels. If you can accept that, cool, but don't preach like you actually have any idea about how to fix shit, given the way it is NOW.

Just spreading the word? Fine. Talking down to other people because they don't share your beliefs, or pretending that you are superior in any way because of your beliefs, is both hypocritical and stupidly counter-productive.

[krieger]

it's a choice between evil and stupid.

[marooned]

@Loki : The problem remains: How do you reliably sort those who are well meaning from those who aren't? Who decides who is well meaning? Who decides who decides who is well meaning? The capitalist answer is that there is no reliable way, and even if there were, the well meaning people still could not adequately provide good and services through a monopoly because of lack of information about the complexity of the economy. Instead, firms should peacefully compete to provide goods and services, and then their success can be measured by comparison. Further, the capitalist would argue that monolithic power structures on average attract people who are not well meaning.

I don't know if I understand what you're saying. Why is it important to define "well meaning" and sort those who fit the standard from those who do not? Do you mean in a society that has no laws or power of authority? I mean in most societies laws that are basically external standards perform this function. Some of those who are possibly not "well meaning" may reveal themselves by breaking a law and are thus "sorted" out of the general population where they can't do further harm. If a society was actually in the business of actually trying to sort everyone as "well meaning" or not then it would be oppression for everyone.

I guess my thought about the economy is, should it continue in its unbridled ways even if it is becoming increasingly impractical? Or would it be better for individuals in a finite & closed space to realize eventually the fire that feeds on oxygen is going to run out of oxygen and then no one will be able to breathe? I mean if the economy is its own animal that arose out of the trading between individual entities and their individual desires, but that seems to carry on as though there aren't any individuals (as though for itself, when it doesn't even have a self), could it be possible that it (if left unchecked) is wreaking havoc on the very things that the individuals would or perhaps should hold dear?

[Absurd]

Blahblah?

[ArchonAlarion]

Yeah whatever, let's just do the easy thing. The world is what it is and if the world were to be not what it is then it wouldn't be what it is now or before when it was something else and then everything exploded because God came down from heaven with his army of aliens and Crazedrat was right all along.

How am I not thinking for myself? Because I agree with a certain model of social organization? I chose libertarianism because of its convincing power to me, its consistency and the historical evidence that supports it. Going through every specific practical problem separately will lead to unintended consequences. You have to have some consistency.

Instead of repeating what every libertard says I'm now going to "'think for myself" by Hkkmr standards:

On the second Tuesday of March all member of Libertopolis have the right to kill one pet of one neighbor.
In suits involving death by toothpaste, the defendant must circumnavigate the globe thrice before chopping off the hand of the first person they see when they reach their destination.
If you own a red house, then it is perfectly fine to pee on black people.
The taller your hat, the less compensation you must pay for minor sexual assault.
On moving onto a street of less than five people, you may if you wish designate yourself as their rightful sovereign. You and your appointed heirs will then rule over them for all time.
You are not allowed to possess or distribute cucumbers. If you do so, you'll be thrown into an pit of anal rape.
Walking backwards on the ides of march is a capital offense.

There, now I'm thinking for myself, and solving problems individually, which is superior to having an over-arching model.

edit: In the end, it really comes down to knowing that Hkkmr will never be convinced anyway. We are coming at this from completely different angles with different definitions. The only way it seems I can convince you is to run through every issue separately without reference to ideology. I think it's unfair for you to ask this from me, but ignore the fact that you entered the thread with the sweeping generalization, "capitalism has killed more people than communism and nazism." You are using purely emotional appeals by trying to appear as a respectable moderate who thinks for himself and pays no heed to ideologues, but really you are evading the point I'm making about the abuse and expansion of power. In communism and nazism this potential for abuse is ignored, and in libertarianism it is recognized as something to be in every possible way minimized. The question of minimal state or no state is something I'm still open to, and consider quite a bit, despite your belief that I am a brainless fanatic.

[mu4]

Yeah whatever, let's just do the easy thing. The world is what it is and if the world were to be not what it is then it wouldn't be what it is now or before when it was something else and then everything exploded because God came down from heaven with his army of aliens and Crazedrat was right all along.

How am I not thinking for myself? Because I agree with a certain model of social organization? I chose libertarianism because of its convincing power to me, its consistency and the historical evidence that supports it. Going through every specific practical problem separately will lead to unintended consequences. You have to have some consistency.

The only real consistency I see in the world are natural laws, and I could give a shit about libertarian-ism and its consistency and so called historical evidence(which I view as mere interpretation). Consistent and literal interpretation of the guiding principles of men has has always led to tyranny and it seems you're no more then what I thought you were, a closet fascist with the desire to impose some arbitrary set of standards on others "consistently" with little regard for human decency. You are ultimately your own worst enemy.

I view unintended consequences as inevitable, and I know the unintended consequences of the path you walk all too well, as history has shown well meaning leaders in their thirst for purity of doctrine, consistency, fear. Yes, let's make a wall to prevent all those unintended consequences. Your ideology is a prison.

If I know the law of nature and the laws of the universe, I can know more of the consequences of my actions and those are the only law I feel I need to remain consistent to. What do you want? Utopia in perpetuity? Heaven? Dystopia in perpetuity? My understanding of nature say that it is unlikely if not impossible.

Maybe you don't know what you want.

I don't solve problems one by one, maybe just the first time. I like to make tools to solve problem sets, and when you realize that business, government, academia, even religion are just tools humanity has created to solve problem sets. Unfortunately our tools break down, we don't learn how to use them, they don't solve new problems that have arisen, and they sometimes get misused. Tragic I know.

here, now I'm thinking for myself, and solving problems individually, which is superior to having an over-arching model.

Smells like a system, sounds like centralization? Are you sure you know what you want?

Every problem is solved individually in practice, but the means and tools to solve the problem can be systematic. The sad thing is that although you claim to be a individualist or libertarian, you cannot disassociate yourself from some social organization of humanity and define yourself in those terms.

I believe the only thing that's ever freed man was the understanding of the world and our place it and the use of that understanding to improve the conditions of our fellow men and women. And I do this not out of some great sense of morality, but because the alternative is retarded. In between those moments of enlightenment; despair, misery, suffering and injustice is everywhere, you wade in the muck and roll up your sleeves and push thru and maybe even succeed(temporarily of course). No guarantees, plenty of unintended consequences, and you'll probably fail. And this is the hard path.

What's your path, repeat some words, promote some slogan?

[Gilly]

Don't throw stubbornness out like its an effective point. Nobody is ever convinced by anything said on the internet.

[ArchonAlarion]

Hkkmr, it's like you don't read what I say. You pick out words like "over-arching model," which in the context I put it in meant something purely abstract and metaphorical. Human decency? How can you possibly accuse me of this? THE ENTIRE POINT OF ANARCHISM IS NOT HAVING IMPOSED ARBITRARY STANDARDS.THAT IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN ARBITRARY IMPOSITIONS BY OTHERS ARE NOT CONDONED, MANDATED, OR PERPETUATED.

[mu4]

Hkkmr, it's like you don't read what I say. You pick out words like "over-arching model," which in the context I put it in meant something purely abstract and metaphorical. Human decency? How can you possibly accuse me of this? THE ENTIRE POINT OF ANARCHISM IS NOT HAVING IMPOSED ARBITRARY STANDARDS.THAT IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN ARBITRARY IMPOSITIONS BY OTHERS IS NOT CONDONED, MANDATED, OR PERPETUATED.

Then why do you go about it by wanting to arbitrarily impose your viewpoint on everyone.... I don't care about what your whatever-ism says, words lie. Stop repeating words from a book and see what it is that you're really advocating.

In practice, what you're really doing and what other people I think are doing is imposing the words of anarchism on others, so they would repeat it. In practice, it's full of bullshit. I've had experience with this whole indoctrination thing in my life. Just thought you should know.

[ArchonAlarion]

I'm advocating my viewpoint that people should not impose their viewpoints or desires through fraud, coercion, or force.

Your claim is analogous to coming upon a scene of gang rape and not wanting to "impose" your viewpoint on the rapists to stop them raping (i.e. imposing their own viewpoints).

[Absurd]

Yeah whatever, let's just do the easy thing. The world is what it is and if the world were to be not what it is then it wouldn't be what it is now or before when it was something else and then everything exploded because God came down from heaven with his army of aliens and Crazedrat was right all along.

Who said world is not to be this or that way. Damn Matrix again.

I chose libertarianism because of its convincing power to me[/quote]

You "political boy", there are many kinds of libertarianisms, same as they're many kind of anarchism's and socialism's (you alpha boy). Ahem.

[mu4]

I'm advocating my viewpoint that people should not impose their viewpoints or desires through fraud, coercion, or force.

Your claim is analogous to coming upon a scene of gang rape and not wanting to "impose" your viewpoint on the rapists to stop them raping.

You can't make this analogies for my viewpoint as my viewpoint is practical and non-ideological.

I have no problem with imposing on rapist by force or coercion, heck even fraud. I have no problem with the regulated use of coercion, fraud and force, but for generally very limited arrangements such as war, criminal justice, etc.

Anyway what is your plan to keep other people from using fraud, coercion, or force? I guess since you view the government as rapists, then coercion, fraud and force are allowed to remove it... or are they not?

What's your methodology?

You're probably going to keep on making increasingly absurd and ridiculous comparisons because I don't really think you know what you're talking about.

[ArchonAlarion]

You "political boy", there are many kinds of libertarianisms, same as they're many kind of anarchism's and socialism's (you alpha boy). Ahem.

Sure, and I'm willing to discuss each kind, and maybe eventually modify my position, as I did in the past to reach my libertarian position in the first place. All I know for certain is that power is easily abused and thus it must be minimized to the farthest extent. Where that extent lies, is more uncertain to me, but so far it seems to be in statelessness and definitely not in nazism or communism.

[Absurd]

Sure, and I'm willing to discuss each kind, and maybe eventually modify my position

Fine. I'm not pressing if anything, I did he same in your age, and I'm sure it applies to other young and willing (revolutionaries) people on here.

All I know for certain is that power is easily abused and thus it must be minimized to the farthest extent. Where that extent lies, is more uncertain to me, but so far it seems to be in statelessness and definitely not in nazism or communism.

You sound like Ashon and CPig to me combined but not quite. Must be this NT dichotomy or something. Not Nazism nor Communism means you voted other not knowing what is it like, or I'm wrong, although I can't be wrong for it is not specified.

But again, I take it is this magical libertarianism you speak about.

Anyway, I'm going to check this thread if I won't won't forget about it.

[Gilly]

I'm advocating my viewpoint that people should not impose their viewpoints or desires through fraud, coercion, or force.

Your claim is analogous to coming upon a scene of gang rape and not wanting to "impose" your viewpoint on the rapists to stop them raping (i.e. imposing their own viewpoints).

And your actions are analogous to standing across the street and babbling incoherently.

[ArchonAlarion]

Yeah, basically.

[Gilly]

So why aren't you kicking those mean robbers' asses already?