This is a derail from the Alternative Solutions to Government Ran Services which clearly specified that:
I will put anything that resembles like a derail in here.Originally Posted by Aquagraph
Socialism vs. Libertarianism
This is a derail from the Alternative Solutions to Government Ran Services which clearly specified that:
I will put anything that resembles like a derail in here.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Aye, aye, skipper...
Can you point out what problems have been encountered with private roads so far? I respect your point of view and I don't support enforcing violence on you to respect mine so I think you owe me a thorough explanation why is this the only way.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Feel free to explicate.
but it's so silly.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Are stores enforcing waiting lines effectively socialist?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
I always hated government because of the futility of it. All societies die eventually. I think people should learn to govern themselves. And for those who think it's not possible, I would ask, "What makes you think they can govern other people then?" Oh, the irony.
Yes? Enforcement of order isn't peculiar to any one system. Socialism isn't some feeding frenzy.
Well, then I don't get your point. If things that enforce order/decency/humane ideals in a society are "effectively socialist", then I guess I libertarians would believe that there are "effectively socialist" features in libertopia.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
The Social Contract.
If you have people governing themselves you go back to Genghis Khan times.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Many forms of socialism is a form of libertarianism, but left libertarianism. Libertarian-ism is fairly corrupt today as a term which exclude left-libertarians and dilutes the purpose of libertarian-ism and that is freedom, from the oppression of states as well as other individuals. Trading one chain for another is stupid.
Let's make this clear.
Libertarian-ism <> market fundamentalism or market despotic-ism.
It means freedom from oppression, government, business, market, individuals, all forms of oppression.
I wasn't debating libertarian-ism in the other thread, as I am a libertarian(left) however what most people know of libertarian-ism is corrupt and really just right wing ideology promoted by big business propaganda. It's the same old story in the past when big newpapers used to spread the exact same propaganda. It's funny how most libertarians spout the same propaganda as turn of the century right wing newspapers.
Almost every private road I've ever been on had a sign that said no trespassing on it, but since I was there for official purposes it meant I wasn't hauled off to jail, probably violently. People have private roads because they want to get from their private property to other folks property but they don't really want other people to use their private roads. Market is all about private ownership and not public ownership and any sort of community based road system is not market oriented because it's fundamentally becomes a matter of public interest. Now if only stake holders were allowed to speak to the particulars of what happens to the property in this community then it merely is a despotic-ism of the stakeholders. Much like I'm the despot of the16types.info.
I'm a big proponent of private ownership where only private interests exist, but something which includes public interest(i.e people who are not stake holders but are nonetheless necessarily engaged with the interest), a private or market based solution leaves much to be desired, as market interest do not have the tools to deal with public interest, as it gives no tangible rights to non-stakeholders. That's the beauty of private enterprise, the fact that all tangible interests are in the hands of the stakeholders(except those which are prohibited by law or the system which the private enterprise is established in). It's good to be the king.
Libertarian (left)
This is new.
It is the alpha response to their efficient socialist reforms, just to make it a bit more efficient...
order can be effectively socialist or capitalist or whatever. it's the kind of order that differs between ideological systems and who the major players enforcing it are.
in your examples, it was the community as a whole getting together to take ownership of roads. that's socialism.
if a private individual (or individuals) owned the roads and charged people to use them, turning the community into customers (for profit), that would be capitalism.
if a community which controlled the roads charged other communities to use them, that would be socialism between individuals and capitalism between communities.
Libertarians cannot seem to comprehend the necessary and historically developed relationship between the "free market" and the state. The state must inevitably govern the market precisely because the market cannot govern itself.
Last edited by Red Villain; 03-27-2014 at 07:44 AM.
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".
Hmm, I'm sure you would liek Lavrentiy Beria.
So why aren't the big businesses sponsoring those "right-wing" libertarian movements but the parties/politicians that want to expand the government?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
A lot of them are? Like Koch brothers, most of the movements are funded by big pocket billionaires and and such. As well as think tanks which are created to promote these causes. The top 1% knows there's a lot of tangible benefit in lowering taxes heavily for the top %1 while keeping everyone almost the same. There's a lot less money in stuff like you know climate change, and other things that are real problems, mostly because well solving problems is expensive and lowering taxes on the rich is very lucrative.
True, libertarian think tanks (like Cato Institute) are sponsored by big business yet the most infamous and wealthiest corporations (like Goldman Sachs, General Electric, Pfizer and Monsanto) are basically married with the Obama administration you voted for.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Anyone that is going to be elected is going to need funding, but Obama actually gets tons of his funding from grass roots donations and individual donations from people like me. Obama changed the game on campaign financing because he as a candidate is one of the least tied to big business in recent memory, and this is because his grass roots funding was huge. The fact that big business donate and have many people in places of influence in the government is irrelevant as far as the party, business has billions of dollars to send their people out and lobby. However Obama gets enough money out of the grass root that he is less beholden to the big corporations.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84080.html
Obama is basically the candidate of the grassroots, he had one of the biggest grassroots donations of any candidate ever in modern history. Talking about how Obama is tied to those big corporations is willful ignorance of the ties every administration has to big corporations, it's not like Bush wasn't doing everything Paulson was telling him to do. Libertarian propaganda is going to go out of it's way to make Obama look like he's "married" to big business, but he's the candidate that's least married to big business in recent memory, especially with his current push for raising minimum wage and other initiatives. His fiscal policy and record shows he's not pro-business but has to deal with the pragmatics of Washington politics and the influence of big business.
Trying to tie Obama to lobbying and using him as a egregious example in Washington and corporate influence is just disingenuous, corporate influence is pervasive and difficult to ignore in this world. Money talks and bullshit walks, in a libertarian world where private and market rules, that's even more so the case. A market is about money and competition, money talks and bullshit walks. If you imagine for a moment that in a right leaning libertarian society, that people with money would somehow lose power, that's a ludicrous fantasy. In a private society, stakeholders hold all the tangible rights and non-stakeholders are fucked.
I have no interest in living in a world where money and competition is everything and that's what a market is about, money and competition being everything.
I'm a primitive capitalist...socialism is just another commodity. Supply and demand is instinctive. It drives the action. Sheep demand. Powerbrokers supply. Fidel Castro was an entrepreneur. True believers are suckers. In the end, the sheep get slaughtered. PT Barnum said, "a sucker is born every minute". Economics 101: capitalism is a closed fist. socialism is the open hand. A punch is weightier than a slap.
they absolutely love seeing the economy collapse around their ears. great for profits, that.
The government can't govern itself either. Where's your argument?
“Every aspect of human existence is on the table. As far as political parties go, they're all anachronisms. They're all products of centuries gone by. The human race now is only going to be concerned, not with an ideology, but what allows them to survive. Capitalism, socialism and communism are all terms that need to be tossed in the trash can immediately, because all of them were created on the assumption of infinite resources. Not one of those ideologies--that are now dead dinosaurs, archaic fossils--are [any] longer relevant to our way of life. Not one of them recognizes that there must be a balance between growth, and the resources, and the planet. Forget the idea that you can have as much as you want, because until mankind surrenders to the fact that it lives on a finite planet, and it must have balance with that planet, with the planet's resources, with the animal life and all the other life, there can be no happiness for anything.” -- Michael Ruppert
“ ‘Left’ and ‘right’ are artificial constructs designed to polarize. And all the powers that be—the people that control the monetary paradigm—want is for the so-called ‘left’ and ‘right’ to fight each other, because then they can’t stand up against the real enemy. And let me tell you something: a liberal bleeds exactly the same way as a conservative. A far-right-winger starves to death exactly the same as a communist or socialist does.” -- Michael Ruppert
“What I see now, is the end of a paradigm that is as cataclysmic as the asteroid event that killed almost all life on the earth and certainly the dinosaurs. Now, the dinosaurs were kings of their paradigm. And a paradigm is what you think about . . . before you think about it. Somebody thinks about money, and you automatically accept without thinking that compound interest, fractional reserve banking and fiat currency is okay and we have to protect that because if we don't protect that, it's gonna be bad for us. If you know anything about Darwinism, basically what it said, was that those species that had evolved, or were able to adapt to changing circumstances, were the ones that survived, and those that were not equipped, or had become evolutionary dead ends, were destined to die.” -- Michael Ruppert
I type Michael Ruppert EIE-Ni.
And here's what my Puerto-Rican/Taino-American ex-boyfriend [who was born in America] had to say about Barack Obama (in 2009):
“Never since Bill Clinton has there been someone with the gall and the intellect to rope the conservative party.”
"president obama is a great president because he is young, smart, and is a man of color. Pres. Obama would not make a good president because he is not illuminati. i voted for pres. obama"
And then in 2011:
"next democratic president better have a presidential template and forget the mediation. With a divided and partisan congress that we have now, waiting for meaningful legislation to come from congress is truly wishful thinking. I still plan on voting for Obama in 2012, but there after democrats need to get on tough, or i'm looking for another political party to support."
HERO: I think I can agree that Obama [while being a 'neo-liberal' Democrat (along with Hillary Clinton et al.)] is better than most Republicans for America domestically (i.e. for the American people). And I definitely don't view him as weak...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/...-liberal-coup/
- libertarian: 1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian ).
- libertarian: 1. a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc
2. philosophy [Compare determinism] a believer in the doctrine of free will
- libertarian: '1789, "one who holds the doctrine of free will" (opposed to necessitarian), from liberty (q.v.) on model of unitarian, etc. Political sense of "person advocating liberty in thought and conduct" is from 1878. U.S. Libertarian Party founded in Colorado, 1971.'
Last edited by HERO; 03-29-2014 at 09:36 AM.
no discussion on capitalism is full without the essential thing that maintains the division of labor: guns.
the day proletariats try to seize my means of production is the day you'll find a bunch of dead underpaid orange pickers on the street.
fuck, i wouldn't relinquish ownership of a bottle cap. notice that bleeding hearts like fatass ate one too many candy bars michael moore don't
like the second amendment. imagine, that sick bastard wants to deprive owners of the right to protect what's theirs.
"Only government can take perfectly good paper, cover it with perfectly good ink and make the combination worthless." - Milton Friedman
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
+1
I don't see really any incompatibility between libertarian-ism and socialism. False dichotomies like this generally mislead and confuse and is a method that is used often in propaganda to divide people. Unfortunately people are suckers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism certainly exists.
Occupy Wall Street is a libertarian socialist movement as well so anyone that protest in those are basically libertarian socialists. The reasons why power structures are persistent and resistant to libertarian overthrow is that the powerful have power and unless people organize and empower themselves, they cannot overturn the powerful. Once organized and empowered, they fall prey to the same problems the powerful have and the cycle begins again. I see governing structures that are successful today as quarantine mechanisms for power struggle, where the effects of power struggle do not create social instability and let people live their lives peacefully.
From political picture thread:
All people are for profit, even the individuals who call themselves "the government". Why can't private security & law protect people of ancapistan from violations of non-aggression policy?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Its a lot less easy to buy government than it is private entities when it comes to tipping scales of equal treatment / equal playing fields for activities of survival. trade, production and commerce.
What? Competition? This is heresy. Everyone knows that monopolies provide the best quality business to their sl--customers.
The fun part about intelligent selfishness is that it knows that sometimes, allowing public use of private property is good for business. Intelligent people understand that, for example, even though this is my private property, I can benefit from allowing others to make use of it, sometimes even without recompense. In other words, supporting others helps me. Institutions that don't understand this concept usually end up destroying themselves in the long run because they kill off the lifeblood and break the backs of those they stand on. This is why tyranny never can last forever.
Do you mean this in general? There are many multinational corporations and other institutions out there that break the backs of workers and they will continue to do so. It is very sustainable as long a you have a cheap and dependent workforce to exploit. Capitalist tyranny will live a good long while.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Can and must are the two things which confuses people. Private enterprise can allow public use of its property, but sometimes there is a must. Or the public demands a must and then there may be a conflict. It's a fallacy that people do things for their best interest, self interest perhaps but best interest probably not. The problem with a institution destroying itself is the collateral damage, ultimately people are not willing to allow the collateral damage and they will capitulate in some fashion to prevent such a event. Tyranny doesn't last forever, but it can last a long time certainly longer than tolerable by people.
It's imprudent to think that people will always do the right thing which is why systems of checks and balances have evolved in human history to facilitate decision making. The legal concept of private property is a human invention and the concept of ownership as well, these are the legal mechanisms of power, and one should always beware of power, regardless of who wields it.
It's called Libertarian Socialism.
Actually, the far left has usually been about abolishing the state. The confusion partly arises because what people mistakenly refer to as Socialism is actually Social Democracy: a capitalist economy with social services; as in the EU, Canada, etc. ( not the best name either, btw ).
I don't believe that the comminterns idea that by giving total power to the state to smash all the other states will ever lead to the dissolution of the state. It's rationally inside out.
Some leftists like to talk about "right-wing" deviations from leftism, such as when the more authoritarian Bolsheviks led by Lenin (counterposed to the Mensheviks) branched out from Russia's communist party. It's not too different from the distinction between conservatives and libertarians within the right wing; both see themselves as capitalists in spite of deep divisions over the role of the state.
The rhetoric of abolishing the state generally turns into imposing despoticism once the more authoritarian members start purging the more naive members of whatever group it is, libertarian, communist, left, right. Once power structure forms human beings are fairly proficient and prone to abusing it and any sort of organization capable of abolishing the state is also prone to the same despoticism as the state due to the power it must wield. Human innovation in the administrative side of society is largely how to prevent power structures that arise from abuse.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
