Donald Duck Meets Glenn Beck [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

FrankRep

10-03-2010, 08:36 PM

Latest Epic Viral Video Beck Remix Features Entranced…Donald Duck (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/latest-epic-viral-video-beck-remix-features-entranced-donald-duck/)

The Blaze
October 3, 2010

Glenn has been mocked, parodied, pilloried, satirized, smeared, caricatured and lampooned in just about every conceivable way. But this, to our knowledge, is the first long-form Donald Duck cartoon remix to explore Glenn’s “seemingly sympathetic voice.” Don’t miss the violent ending!

======

Rebellious Pixels: (http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/2010/right-wing-radio-duck-donald-discovers-glenn-beck)

This is a re-imagined Donald Duck cartoon remix constructed from dozens of classic Walt Disney cartoons from the 1930s to 1960s. Donald’s life is turned upside-down by the current economic crisis and he finds himself unemployed and falling behind on his house payments. As his frustration turns into despair Donald discovers a seemingly sympathetic voice coming from his radio named Glenn Beck.

This transformative remix work constitutes a fair-use of any copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US copyright law. “Right Wing Radio Duck” by Jonathan McIntosh is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 License – permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.

Knightskye

10-03-2010, 09:24 PM

How much of that was taken out of context?

FrankRep

10-03-2010, 09:26 PM

How much of that was taken out of context?
All of it was completely out of context.

LibertyEagle

10-03-2010, 09:34 PM

FrankRep

10-03-2010, 09:38 PM

To think that the current state that our country is in is a joke and not real, sounds like something that the socialists/marxists would promote.

RedStripe is a Socialist.

Don't want to derail, but basically I'm for socialist ends (pro: economic egalitarianism, worker's rights, wide distribution of capital, labor class-consciousness, sustainability and anti: bigotry, racism, homophobia etc) through libertarian (anti-state) means.

Many old school socialists were anarchists/libertarians who understood that the state, along with capitalism, must be defeated in order to have a truly just society.

SOURCE (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2679717#post2679717)

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 09:39 PM

All of it was completely out of context.

Haha

Too bad it's a fairly accurate depiction of Glenn Beck's sensationalism and propensity for seducing the vulnerably uninformed middle-class, middle-age dolts who constitute a considerable portion of the Fox News viewership.

LibertyEagle

10-03-2010, 09:41 PM

Wow, RedStripe, did you say this?

Originally Posted by RedStripe
Don't want to derail, but basically I'm for socialist ends (pro: economic egalitarianism, worker's rights, wide distribution of capital, labor class-consciousness, sustainability and anti: bigotry, racism, homophobia etc) through libertarian (anti-state) means.

Many old school socialists were anarchists/libertarians who understood that the state, along with capitalism, must be defeated in order to have a truly just society.

You want to defeat capitalism? I can understand wanting to get rid of corporatism, but capitalism?

Uh, excuse me for asking, but what do you find appealing about Ron Paul and this movement? Because it most certainly is not anti-capitalism and it in no way is supportive of socialism or marxism.

low preference guy

10-03-2010, 09:43 PM

Wow, RedStripe, did you say this?

Look at his signature:

Forum Asshole & Resident Annoying Leftist

Dr.3D

10-03-2010, 09:46 PM

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 09:57 PM

To think that the current state that our country is in is a joke and not real, sounds like something that the socialists/marxists would promote. The message being sent is go back to sleep America. The people who are sounding the alarms are just fear-mongers, or so they would like everyone to think.

Ok, either you actually educate yourself about what socialist and marxists actually believe or perhaps you should refrain from exposing your ignorance for everyone to see. For one thing, have you ever read a single book Marx wrote?

Actual socialists have been complaining about the raping of the middle class for decades. I'm not saying that their (state) socialist answers are the right ones - primarily because of my deep skepticism over the degree to which state socialist initiatives are helpful rather than counterproductive when it comes to promoting the interests of the have-nots.

Your post, and most every other accusation leveled against the left under the assumption that the "left" supports Obama, is a perfect example of the false paradigm that exists in the mind of the typical right-wing libertarian. Many on the left view Obama as a complete corporate cocksucker, just like Bush. They sympathize with the plight of the homeowner who can't afford his mortgage - that's why even people like Michael Moore make a point of supporting their struggle against the sheriff's office and banks.

Just look: here is a video lampooning Glenn Beck's sensationalist bullshit, and you are claiming some sinister conspiracy behind it: to pat people on the head and tell them that everything is all-right. Um, that's not what the video is about, if you actually watch it. It's protagonist is a person with real grievances against a fundamentally unfair system (that predated the Wall Street problems of 2007-08). It's a video which recognizes the true unjust nature of our economic system but which also parodies those who take advantage of such injustice to promote insane conspiracy theories of communist infiltrations, militant minorities, dangerous immigrants, and, frankly, ever other tactic of the fascist playbook. It's GLENN BECK who is the sensationalist fear-monger... not the video.

The nature of the unfairness of our system is actually quite simple, and has nothing to do with ACORN, Obama's Pastor, the Mosque at 'Ground Zero', or any other bullshit hot topic: it's CRONY CAPITALISM, aka state capitalism, aka capitalism.

eOs

10-03-2010, 09:58 PM

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 09:59 PM

Wow, RedStripe, did you say this?

You want to defeat capitalism? I can understand wanting to get rid of corporatism, but capitalism?

Uh, excuse me for asking, but what do you find appealing about Ron Paul and this movement? Because it most certainly is not anti-capitalism and it in no way is supportive of socialism or marxism.

Corporatism is just the latest phase of capitalism. That is, an economic system founded on state-granted privilege and inequality.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 10:00 PM

Look at his signature:

I put that there to filter out the idiots who based their opinions on it.

Trap sprung.

LibertyEagle

10-03-2010, 10:01 PM

Again, if you believe that, why are you here?

FrankRep

10-03-2010, 10:02 PM

Again, if you believe that, why are you here?
Or better yet. Why isn't he banned yet?

low preference guy

10-03-2010, 10:03 PM

I put that there to filter out the idiots who based their opinions on it.

Trap sprung.

That could've been true if your posts didn't show just how incredibly accurate is your signature.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 10:03 PM

Again, if you believe that, why are you here?

Believe "that"? What is "that"?

Can you do better than an ambiguous one-liner?

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 10:04 PM

That could've been true if your posts didn't show just how incredibly accurate is your signature.

Oh, cause assholes are people that don't agree with you on every point. Haha.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 10:05 PM

Or better yet. Why isn't he banned yet?

lol

FrankRep doesn't like people who disagree with him. :(

FOR THE RECORD: I've never called for the banning of anyone because I do not fear contrary opinions. I am willing to debate and change my mine - I have on many occasions. I enjoy free discussion. I believe that I have, for many years, gained much from the undisturbed flow of opinion and knowledge. I find it hard to imagine how someone who has been as fortunate as I have, in benefiting from unrestrained, constructive conversation, to demand an end to such debate. It's simply foolish and petty.

LibertyEagle

10-03-2010, 10:13 PM

Believe "that"? What is "that"?

Can you do better than an ambiguous one-liner?

Oh, sorry.

Corporatism is just the latest phase of capitalism. That is, an economic system founded on state-granted privilege and inequality.

I'm just curious. Because RP is very pro-capitalism.

I agree with you though. There's nothing wrong with conversation and that is what I am trying to have with you here.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 10:16 PM

Oh, sorry.

Yes, I stand 100% behind that statement. Would you like to actually make a claim to the contrary?

It's not as if a system of government favoritism "sprung up" magically when corporations became more prominent in the latter 1800s.

Here's a great question for you: when did free market capitalism begin?

PS: just a reminder, that's two explicit questions for you to answer.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 10:19 PM

I'm just curious. Because RP is very pro-capitalism.

I agree with you though. There's nothing wrong with conversation and that is what I am trying to have with you here.

I agree with Ron Paul to the extent that Ron Paul is in favor of a free market.

I'm glad you are in favor of conversation - I can't help but be defensive since people (who usually post nothing but one-liners or pasted articles) are suggesting that I be banned. Ah, such is the plight of someone presenting a view that doesn't fit into the typical "Obama = Left-wing = Bad" narrative.

Jeremy

10-03-2010, 10:21 PM

The liberals will love this video.

Vessol

10-03-2010, 10:24 PM

Meh I'm not a liberal and I still found it funny :\

I guess my humor doesn't always bend on a certain political spectrum.

Let's face it, Beck acts like a clown sometime and while all out of context, the video was pretty funny. It's like watching videos of Alex Jones freaking out or something. Sure it's taken out of context, but it's still pretty funny.

Dr.3D

10-03-2010, 10:28 PM

Snip~
Ah, such is the plight of someone presenting a view that doesn't fit into the typical "Obama = Left-wing = Bad" narrative.

How about this....

"Obama = Left-wing = Bad"
"Bush/McCain = left of right-wing (neoconservative) = Bad"
"Democrat/Republican = both far left = Bad"
"Everything we presently have = status-quo = Bad"
"It's time for something different = restoring government to what was intended = Good"

?

seapilot

10-03-2010, 10:29 PM

Or better yet. Why isn't he banned yet?

Because this is a forum that promotes liberty, unlike many sites that ban people that disagree with them.

May not believe in what they say but defend their rights to say it. Thats freedom.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 10:31 PM

How about this....

"Obama = Left-wing = Bad"
"Bush/McCain = left of right-wing (neoconservative) = Bad"
"Democrat/Republican = both far left = Bad"
"Everything we presently have = status-quo = Bad"
"It's time for something different = restoring government to what was intended = Good"

?

What makes something left-wing, in your view?

Dr.3D

10-03-2010, 10:34 PM

What makes something left-wing, in your view?

That would be the concept of "sharing the wealth".

I would prefer Ron Paul and those who agree with him to be thought of as being neither left nor right, but rather center.

Vessol

10-03-2010, 10:35 PM

What makes something left-wing, in your view?

The "left wing" is a bad word. I personally think that "right and left" as idealogies are complete jokes. The left-right paradigm.

Either you are for individual freedoms(which include economic freedoms) or you are against individual freedoms(also known as a collectivist). Those are the only "wings" that I see. So what are you, do you believe that a man is entitled to his freedom?

There is no difference between those on the Right and those on the Left besides rhetoric.

FrankRep

10-03-2010, 10:37 PM

The "left wing" is a bad word. I personally think that "right and left" as idealogies are complete jokes. The left-right paradigm.

Here's the Real Political Spectrum.

YouTube - The Political Spectrum Easily Explained - Basic Forms of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJfwa9XKZQ)

Vessol

10-03-2010, 10:39 PM

Here's the Real Political Spectrum.

Always liked that video, thanks for relinking it FrankRep.

But, yup. Oligarchies on both the left and the right, there is little difference between the two besides rhetoric.

Dr.3D

10-03-2010, 10:42 PM

Always liked that video, thanks for relinking it FrankRep.

But, yup. Oligarchies on both the left and the right, there is little difference between the two besides rhetoric.

I believe that pretty much sums it up.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 10:43 PM

That would be the concept of "sharing the wealth".

I would prefer Ron Paul and those who agree with him to be thought of as being neither left nor right, but rather center.

So you're an anarchist, right?

Cause all distributions of tax funds are incidents of wealth-sharing.

Vessol

10-03-2010, 10:46 PM

So you're an anarchist, right?

Cause all distributions of tax funds are incidents of wealth-sharing.

If you wish to share your wealth voluntarily, that is your own choice. I will not stop you by force and threaten you not to do so.

Would you afford me the same right to choose?

Dr.3D

10-03-2010, 10:50 PM

So you're an anarchist, right?

Cause all distributions of tax funds are incidents of wealth-sharing.

No, I'm not an anarchist.

I'm against income taxes. I can understand paying a "tax" for trash collection, the fire department and such, but other taxes are just a way to get people to pay for things they may not want.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 10:50 PM

If you wish to share your wealth voluntarily, that is your own choice. I will not stop you by force and threaten you not to do so.

Would you afford me the same right to choose?

What makes wealth yours?

Let's get down to the fundamentals instead of this false paradigm bullshit.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 10:51 PM

No, I'm not an anarchist.

I'm against income taxes. I can understand paying a "tax" for trash collection, the fire department and such, but other taxes are just a way to get people to pay for things they may not want.

Ok so you're for wealth redistribution in favor of garbage collectors. Grats on being an Obama socialist.

Vessol

10-03-2010, 10:54 PM

What makes wealth yours?

Let's get down to the fundamentals instead of this false paradigm bullshit.

How about instead of avoiding the question, why don't you answer it.

Would you by gunpoint force me to give my private property to someone else?

If so, do you believe you stand on higher morale ground?

Dr.3D

10-03-2010, 10:57 PM

Ok so you're for wealth redistribution in favor of garbage collectors. Grats on being an Obama socialist.

I suppose I could pay to have my trash picked up myself (I have in the past). In that case, the fire departments would have to charge people if they are called out to put out a fire. (not a big deal, or they could be volunteer)

At least when I pay a "tax" to get my trash picked up, I get what I pay for.

I should not be forced to pay for things I don't use or want.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 10:57 PM

How about instead of avoiding the question, why don't you answer it.

Would you by gunpoint force me to give my private property to someone else?

Your question includes the assumption of "my private property." I'm challenging you to define the term of your question so that I may submit a response.

How do I know that it is your "private property" and what makes it so?

low preference guy

10-03-2010, 11:01 PM

Vessol

10-03-2010, 11:05 PM

Your question includes the assumption of "my private property." I'm challenging you to define the term of your question so that I may submit a response.

How do I know that it is your "private property" and what makes it so?

What is your definition of private property?

My own is any production of mine that is not taken by force from others.

Whether this be a piece of wood that I carve that I took from land that I own(from making it productive). Or it is money that I earn from mutually agreeing to a contract between an employer and myself in which my labor is exchanged for property.

Dr.3D

10-03-2010, 11:13 PM

Here is a pretty good example:

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg202/DrThreeDee/happyhalloween.jpg

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 11:14 PM

yeah, why have private property? why not just... live in a jungle?

Why take the time to think about the things we believe in? Why not just be an idiot?

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 11:17 PM

What is your definition of private property?

My own is any production of mine that is not taken by force from others.

Whether this be a piece of wood that I carve that I took from land that I own(from making it productive). Or it is money that I earn from mutually agreeing to a contract between an employer and myself in which my labor is exchanged for property.

I think "private property" is a pretty meaningless term. All societies have rules which govern the relationships between individuals and physical matter. They could be called property rights. It's doesn't mean much to say that you believe in them, as they are inevitable when discussing how human beings interact with the physical world.

Ah, but your post finally gets to the meat of the issue: homesteading. The myth upon which the modern right-wing libertarian myth of property was born. Tell me, if someone steals a shoe from you, and trades it to a man named Bob, does Bob own the shoe?

Vessol

10-03-2010, 11:18 PM

Glancing to your homepage RedStripe, you claim to be a mutualist.

Mutualists I know would be offended by some of the things you seem to state.

Mutualism also encompases the homsteading idealogy in which those private property of land is consistent as long as that land remains in production and/or use.

Mutualism is voluntary by nature, you are advocating a system of forced coercion in which gunpoint charity is the means of maintaining the State.

I think "private property" is a pretty meaningless term. All societies have rules which govern the relationships between individuals and physical matter. They could be called property rights. It's doesn't mean much to say that you believe in them, as they are inevitable when discussing how human beings interact with the physical world.

You seem to believe that society is a product of the State. How you can wrap your mind into believing this is beyond me. The State is a concept created by people in order to legitimize the theft of property.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 11:18 PM

Here is a pretty good example:

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg202/DrThreeDee/happyhalloween.jpg

Hahahaha

Yeah, those democrats. Tell me another one, Limbaugh.

low preference guy

10-03-2010, 11:19 PM

Or better yet. Why isn't he banned yet?

First there was WaltM. And he was banned. Now we have someone else who is trying hard to become the next WaltM. It's like a plague that's really hard to get rid of.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 11:20 PM

Glancing to your homepage RedStripe, you claim to be a mutualist.

Mutualists I know would be offended by some of the things you seem to state.

Mutualism is voluntary by nature, you are advocating a system of forced coercion.

Here's a great opportunity for you to live up to a very specific accusation you've just made: that I've advocated a system of "force coercion" (a bit redundant). Please go ahead and give me some direct quotes, from myself, showing that I have done so.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 11:21 PM

First there was WaltM. And he was banned. Now we have someone else who is trying hard to become the next WaltM. It's like a plague that's really hard to get rid of.

Yeah, except I was here two years before you even registered. Get off my grill, noob.

low preference guy

10-03-2010, 11:22 PM

Yeah, except I was here two years before you even registered. Get off my grill, noob.

So was WaltM. Having many years in trolling is not something to be proud of.

Vessol

10-03-2010, 11:24 PM

Ok, I'm done with feeding the troll.

I can't believe I fell for this shit again. What a waste of time, I have class at 8am.

Edit: And before you make some disparaging comment. Asking someone to specify a specific quote so you can then just wave it off constantly and constantly and then change the topics and just wave it off, that IS trolling.

It's not a debate when you constantly don't answer questions or just vaguely say "Well it doesn't really exist so" or if you just ask them constantly "Well where do I say that? Refer to where I do" in order so you can make them waste more and more time for your own amusement.
I've answered your questions and your points, the polite thing you could do in a debate is to do the same instead of trying to go off-topic or try to be vague instead of being direct. It's a dishonest way to debate.

Successful troll is successful. Happy?

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 11:32 PM

Ok, I'm done with feeding the troll.

I can't believe I fell for this shit again. What a waste of time, I have class at 8am.

Hey I understand having early class, that's why I'm about to log out. But if you, a supposed hardcore supporter of "private property" can't even begin to engage in a discussion about what the term means, perhaps you should reconsider your willingness to jump on anyone who happens to disagree with you.

I'm not trolling you - I'm actually interested in debating the very meaning of the term (which is where the fundamental disagreement between left-libertarians and right-libertarians lies). I want to go there. I want to discuss it. I want to figure out what kind of property system you believe in before I offer any objection. Don't play the coward card and just write me off as a troll as an excuse for not debating - man up. If you really believe in the power of ideas you won't stop just because someone asks you to define the terms you are using... asking you to scratch perhaps a bit further beneath the surface than you are used to scratching.

Anti Federalist

10-03-2010, 11:33 PM

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 11:34 PM

So was WaltM. Having many years in trolling is not something to be proud of.

Have you done anything except whine and complain in this thread?

And you want to make some pathetic attempt to call me out for trolling? Heh, I've probably done more for the Ron Paul campaign and movement than most people on here yet I'm getting attacked by some whiny white-noise poster who has nothing to contribute to this thread. Get a life.

Dr.3D

10-03-2010, 11:34 PM

Hey RedStripe, would you say you own an automobile, or do you even drive one?

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 11:36 PM

Hey RedStripe, would you say you own an automobile, or do you even drive one?

I use the bus and walk, why?

Dr.3D

10-03-2010, 11:36 PM

I use the bus and walk, why?

Just wondered if you had anything you considered as being your own.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 11:39 PM

Edit: And before you make some disparaging comment. Asking someone to specify a specific quote so you can then just wave it off constantly and constantly and then change the topics and just wave it off, that IS trolling.

What are you referencing?

It's not a debate when you constantly don't answer questions or just vaguely say "Well it doesn't really exist so" or if you just ask them constantly "Well where do I say that? Refer to where I do" in order so you can make them waste more and more time for your own amusement.

You made a direct accusation that "you are advocating a system of forced coercion in which gunpoint charity is the means of maintaining the State" yet you've not provided a single piece of evidence you support your claim. It's cowardice, and it makes you the troll.

I've answered your questions and your points, the polite thing you could do in a debate is to do the same instead of trying to go off-topic or try to be vague instead of being direct. It's a dishonest way to debate.

Successful troll is successful. Happy?

Actually, instead of clarifying anything that you've said, you've simply claimed that I'm a troll. It's pathetic.

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 11:40 PM

Just wondered if you had anything you considered as being your own.

Whether or not I view myself as having a more just claim on something than someone else depends on a lot of circumstances.

Dr.3D

10-03-2010, 11:42 PM

Whether or not I view myself as having a more just claim on something than someone else depends on a lot of circumstances.

Well, just what are those circumstances? I mean, don't you own anything?

RedStripe

10-03-2010, 11:49 PM

Well, just what are those circumstances? I mean, don't you own anything?

I view the circumstances with a consequentialist outlook. In other words I view human happiness and well-being as some of the most important factors.

Whether or not I own something is a legal distinction, created by the SOCIALIST COMMUNIST BARACK OBAMA government.

Dr.3D

10-03-2010, 11:58 PM

silverhandorder

10-04-2010, 12:11 AM

Dr.3D

10-04-2010, 12:21 AM

Even my dogs know the concept of possessing something. Just try to take their food away from them and see what happens.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 05:05 AM

Or better yet. Why isn't he banned yet?

Frank is ever quick to ban those he disagrees with. Aren't you the freedom loving tolerant one. How about you confront his views and use arguments from reason to dismantle his falsely held beliefs? Of course you never debate anyone. You copy and paste JBS. I couldn't imagine a person with less imaginative thought.

Besides, how do you expect to become more knowledgable if you fail to debate your opponents? RedStripe like many who sympathize with egalitarian ends do not fully understand what that entails, and that only a strong-State can institute their desires. It quickly becomes the worst of totalitarian Governments. By nature, we are inegalitarian. I don't really expect Redstripe to read much Herbert Spencer.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 05:33 AM

I view the circumstances with a consequentialist outlook. In other words I view human happiness and well-being as some of the most important factors.

Whether or not I own something is a legal distinction, created by the SOCIALIST COMMUNIST BARACK OBAMA government.

Actually property ownership comes about through human interaction without Government. Property is not a product of Government, but pre-dates Government. We can say that Government by necessity distorts, skews, and centralizes the acquisition of property, but the very essence of property is fundamental to our nature. Besides, from a strictly utilitarian view, property ownership, is the surest means to covet our desired ends in the most efficient beneficial means possible. No other system than freely interacting individuals (Markets), make possible the ends to our happiness. Morally, aggressive force is never justified.

Vessol

10-04-2010, 07:33 AM

What are you referencing?

You made a direct accusation that "you are advocating a system of forced coercion in which gunpoint charity is the means of maintaining the State" yet you've not provided a single piece of evidence you support your claim. It's cowardice, and it makes you the troll.

Actually, instead of clarifying anything that you've said, you've simply claimed that I'm a troll. It's pathetic.

I take back the troll comment as I was cranky and pissed off that you keep avoiding my own questions and instead just ask your own or vaguely answer.

"
I think "private property" is a pretty meaningless term. All societies have rules which govern the relationships between individuals and physical matter. They could be called property rights. It's doesn't mean much to say that you believe in them, as they are inevitable when discussing how human beings interact with the physical world.

Ah, but your post finally gets to the meat of the issue: homesteading. The myth upon which the modern right-wing libertarian myth of property was born. Tell me, if someone steals a shoe from you, and trades it to a man named Bob, does Bob own the shoe?"

This right here is why I consider you a proponent and support of gunpoint charity. You seemingly believe that private property is granted by the auspice of the State, that it is not a inherent right of an individual.

And perhaps the idea of that of homesteading is not perfect, but it is more moral than the current Statist system.

It would please me greatly if you could firmly answer what you believe is private property and what is not.

Fredom101

10-04-2010, 07:48 AM

Awesome! You could also interchange Beck with Alex Jones and have him rant about how "THE NWO IS COMING TO GETCHA!"

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 08:09 AM

I take back the troll comment as I was cranky and pissed off that you keep avoiding my own questions and instead just ask your own or vaguely answer.

""

This right here is why I consider you a proponent and support of gunpoint charity. You seemingly believe that private property is granted by the auspice of the State, that it is not a inherent right of an individual.

And perhaps the idea of that of homesteading is not perfect, but it is more moral than the current Statist system.

It would please me greatly if you could firmly answer what you believe is private property and what is not.

It is quite hilarious how inconsistent RedStripe can be. I mean, if he dismisses homesteading then how can he confess to have Tucker's quote in his sig and believe it? If the natural wage is the product of your labor, and your labor's product is the cultivation of unused, unproductive, abandoned, etc. land, then is not the land your wage? This is why Mutualism, Georgism, etc. etc. is absurd. The whole philosophy is incoherent, or at least is so by its confessed proponents.

Homesteading is an integral part of ownership. It is a fundamental basis for property.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 08:27 AM

Okay, then I guess I can understand your viewpoint, since you don't seem to own anything, you wouldn't be upset if somebody took what you don't have.

What do you think it means to "own" something? To physically exert control over it?

By that definition I would "own" the car you drive the second I break into it and start it up.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 08:28 AM

Even my dogs know the concept of possessing something. Just try to take their food away from them and see what happens.

Ah so dogs can own property. Now we're getting somewhere!

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 08:35 AM

I agree with left libertarians to a point. That point ends when they try to say what I own is not mine. If we are to work together on anything there would never be any redistribution from any group to another. It is ok to stop giving the group that benefited the benefits. It is not alright to retroactively to take things away.

I disagree. I support squatters in many cases (people refusing to leave a house when Wachovia tries to kick them out) along with factory workers seizing control of their plant against the wishes of whatever holding company claims a government-enforced privilege of controlling them.

See, the deficiency shown by my detractors in this thread is the lack of appreciation for the fundamentals of just property theory. We can't hide behind black-and-white absolutist appeals to the "morality" of current (government-backed) property claims when the principles of just property acquisition simply do not apply.

pcosmar

10-04-2010, 08:35 AM

Ah so dogs can own property. Now we're getting somewhere!

I think I know what you are getting at (perhaps/maybe)

You only own what you can defend.
My land is mine. Try to take it, I'll do my best to plant you somewhere on it.
I can always use the fertilizer.
;)

Dr.3D

10-04-2010, 08:36 AM

What do you think it means to "own" something? To physically exert control over it?

By that definition I would "own" the car you drive the second I break into it and start it up.
Perhaps that might be true if you lived long enough to get the chance to start it.

Ah so dogs can own property. Now we're getting somewhere!
Yes, they will defend their property if needed. It is just plain natural to protect ones property.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 08:39 AM

RedStripe like many who sympathize with egalitarian ends do not fully understand what that entails, and that only a strong-State can institute their desires. It quickly becomes the worst of totalitarian Governments. By nature, we are inegalitarian. I don't really expect Redstripe to read much Herbert Spencer.

Haha this is objectively FALSE.

For the vast majority of human history people lived in egalitarian social groups. Only in the, say, last ~5% of our history have some of us lived under oppressive, hierarchical social structures.

Human beings have some of the most uniform DNA of all species. Naturally inegalitarian my ass. Rothbard's argument consists of building up a strawman (that people are for egalitarianism are for absolute equality in everything, which simply isn't the case) and knocking it down. *golfclap* :rolleyes:

jake

10-04-2010, 08:40 AM

What do you think it means to "own" something? To physically exert control over it?

By that definition I would "own" the car you drive the second I break into it and start it up.

that's called stealing. You can't be so thick.

I own my car because I engaged in a VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION with the previous owner (the car dealership). It is now mine.

brandon

10-04-2010, 08:41 AM

Leave Redstripe alone!!!!

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 08:42 AM

Perhaps that might be true if you lived long enough to get the chance to start it.

So in your view the government is the legitimate owner of all it's wealth, since you didn't stop them from taking what they have.

Yes, they will defend their property if needed. It is just plain natural to protect ones property.

Is it natural to "steal"? Yes. So? What is your point?

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 08:42 AM

Leave Redstripe alone!!!!

Nah it's all good. :D

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 08:43 AM

I disagree. I support squatters in many cases (people refusing to leave a house when Wachovia tries to kick them out) along with factory workers seizing control of their plant against the wishes of whatever holding company claims a government-enforced privilege of controlling them.

See, the deficiency shown by my detractors in this thread is the lack of appreciation for the fundamentals of just property theory. We can't hide behind black-and-white absolutist appeals to the "morality" of current (government-backed) property claims when the principles of just property acquisition simply do not apply.

It seems you are under the delusion that absolutely all property in existence currently is unjust. This is just false. Just property theory is hodgepodge for homesteading which you just shown a distinct lack of support for. The only unjust property in existence today is that held by State-entities. You can argue that Government-subsidized businesses (And this includes the Banks), should be liquidated to homesteaders, but the totality of their holdings are not derived from the State. A large portion is, but not a totality. If you want a good example take roads and highways. Walter Block provides an excellent critique and suggestion to how to go from where we are today, to where we need to go through homesteading, joint-stock companies, etc.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 08:45 AM

Actually property ownership comes about through human interaction without Government.

Ok but what is it? What, actually, "comes about?"

Property is not a product of Government, but pre-dates Government. We can say that Government by necessity distorts, skews, and centralizes the acquisition of property, but the very essence of property is fundamental to our nature. Besides, from a strictly utilitarian view, property ownership, is the surest means to covet our desired ends in the most efficient beneficial means possible. No other system than freely interacting individuals (Markets), make possible the ends to our happiness. Morally, aggressive force is never justified.

Of course I agree with the bold portion.

But the rest of your response is just begging the question - what is property ownership? What makes force aggressive rather than defensive?

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 08:46 AM

that's called stealing. You can't be so thick.

I own my car because I engaged in a VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION with the previous owner (the car dealership). It is now mine.

What if the person you bought it from stole the car? It's still a VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION between you and the person you bought it from. Is it still yours?

If someone stole your car and sold it to Bob, is Bob now the owner?

Dr.3D

10-04-2010, 08:48 AM

So in your view the government is the legitimate owner of all it's wealth, since you didn't stop them from taking what they have.

No, I just haven't found a way to keep them from taking it. I would defend my property if I could, but they have a monopoly on force.

Is it natural to "steal"? Yes. So? What is your point?
Yes, it's natural to "steal"....take for example the lion with a fresh kill and the Jackals trying to take that kill. The Lion expended his energy to make the kill and the undeserving Jackals are expending their energy attempting to take it.

Humans are a bit different in that they have enacted laws to enforce property ownership. This is done to help set humans apart from animals. Being civilized, we have come to an understanding on property ownership.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 08:48 AM

Haha this is objectively FALSE.

For the vast majority of human history people lived in egalitarian social groups. Only in the, say, last ~5% of our history have some of us lived under oppressive, hierarchical social structures.

Human beings have some of the most uniform DNA of all species. Naturally inegalitarian my ass. Rothbard's argument consists of building up a strawman (that people are for egalitarianism are for absolute equality in everything, which simply isn't the case) and knocking it down. *golfclap* :rolleyes:

Actually, for most of human history society has been stratified. Even in the familial bonds we covet, it is extremely inegalitarian. There are always those who will perform better than others in all aspects of life. We are never equal in our abilities, desires, etc. To argue the contrary is to argue against nature. What other egalitarian ends are you talking about? That everyone should earn approximately the same? That seems extremely objective to me, and we know as a fact, that our existence is subjective in nature. Some goods and ends for me are much more desired than the same for others. I will pay more for some things than others, and pay less than others for other things. This is fact.

What egalitarian ends are you exactly talking about here?

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 08:56 AM

It seems you are under the delusion that absolutely all property in existence currently is unjust.

Everything has been tainted by government interference to one degree or another - you can't pull the drop of ink out of the milk.

The reason I point this out is that it is factually incorrect to engage in a defense of the current distribution of wealth by relying on the "morality" of that wealth and the "immorality" of it changing hands without the consent of it's supposed "owner" on the grounds of just property theory.

This is just false. Just property theory is hodgepodge for homesteading which you just shown a distinct lack of support for.

Actually I've never claimed not to support homesteading.. indeed my complaint is the degree to which the right-wing of the libertarian ideology is under the delusion that homesteading, to any meaningful degree, accounts for currently-held property. This is not surprising since most right-wing libertarians spend far more time working out their theory as it applies to Robinson Crusoe and his island than reality and history.

The only unjust property in existence today is that held by State-entities.

Hahahaha

So if I steal your money and give it to someone else, the second it leaves my hand it's now "justly" owned by the other person, even if they had a hand in the crime.

Wow some theory of morality you got going there.

You can argue that Government-subsidized businesses (And this includes the Banks), should be liquidated to homesteaders, but the totality of their holdings are not derived from the State. A large portion is, but not a totality.

How do you determine what portion is owned justly?

PS: all businesses are subsidized. Actually everyone is, to one degree or another.

If you want a good example take roads and highways. Walter Block provides an excellent critique and suggestion to how to go from where we are today, to where we need to go through homesteading, joint-stock companies, etc.

And that's a good example of what exactly?

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 08:59 AM

Ok but what is it? What, actually, "comes about?"

Of course I agree with the bold portion.

But the rest of your response is just begging the question - what is property ownership? What makes force aggressive rather than defensive?

You are horrible at the Socratic Method, while at the same time evading others questions.

What comes about? Obviously a system of property management. From land clubs & associations, to other privately formulated methods of the allocation of property and its defense. This arises naturally from our societal interactions free from the State.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 09:00 AM

No, I just haven't found a way to keep them from taking it. I would defend my property if I could, but they have a monopoly on force.

Ok, so when they take it from you anyway, is it now their property? What about when they give it to Bob? What if they pay Bob to perform a service for Jane?

Yes, it's natural to "steal"....take for example the lion with a fresh kill and the Jackals trying to take that kill. The Lion expended his energy to make the kill and the undeserving Jackals are expending their energy attempting to take it.

Humans are a bit different in that they have enacted laws to enforce property ownership. This is done to help set humans apart from animals. Being civilized, we have come to an understanding on property ownership.

Other animals, such as our primate cousins, also have social rules. But I'll agree that the complexity of our social systems definitely set us apart from the rest of life.

heavenlyboy34

10-04-2010, 09:04 AM

The "left wing" is a bad word. I personally think that "right and left" as idealogies are complete jokes. The left-right paradigm.

Either you are for individual freedoms(which include economic freedoms) or you are against individual freedoms(also known as a collectivist). Those are the only "wings" that I see. So what are you, do you believe that a man is entitled to his freedom?

There is no difference between those on the Right and those on the Left besides rhetoric.

QFT!! :cool:

Dr.3D

10-04-2010, 09:05 AM

Ok, so when they take it from you anyway, is it now their property? What about when they give it to Bob? What if they pay Bob to perform a service for Jane?

~snip

No, I indirectly was robbed by Bob. Bob would be in possession of stolen property.
If they pay Bob, with stolen money, Jane is in possession of a service paid for with stolen money.

I suppose in your view, nobody should have to work, all they have to do is let the government give them money. Of course, that wouldn't work, because somebody has to be productive. Seems in the system you advocate, no one would be productive, because everyone would be just standing around waiting for a handout.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 09:11 AM

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 09:23 AM

Actually, for most of human history society has been stratified.

You really could not be more wrong. For the vast majority of our time as a species we did not live in stratified societies, at all.

Even in the familial bonds we covet, it is extremely inegalitarian.

In many modern societies, yes. Modern social custom does not constitute an objective law of nature.

There are always those who will perform better than others in all aspects of life. We are never equal in our abilities, desires, etc. To argue the contrary is to argue against nature.

Obviously we are all unique, etc. Even still, the range of all human abilities, desires, and needs is relatively limited. For example, look at the Bell Curve of human intelligence. Certainly there are the Steven Hawkings of the world, but there are also the Glenn Becks, but for the vast majority of people intellectual capacity is distributed in a fairly egalitarian way. Same with height, weight, propensity for creativity, mastery of language, artistic vision, inventiveness, etc (to the extent they are determined by our genetics (our "nature") as opposed to the oppressive, stratified social structure we are born into - a very important distinction)

And when I say that the range is "relatively limited" I mean that it is so as compared to the inequalities of social power/wealth which are the focus of the egalitarian's dissent. That graph - the graph of how social power and wealth are distributed in modern societies - is radically different, with a tiny portion of humanity having an astronomically high amount of wealth/power and the vast majority having next to nothing by comparison.

The question is what would explain such a skewed graph, and the correct answer clearly isn't the typical right-wing answer of "some people naturally work harder, are naturally more intelligent, etc" because, while true to a limited extent, their baseline values (bell curve distribution) have almost no correlation (as a matter of general distribution) to the graph of social power/wealth.

A separate dead giveaway that the right-wing explanation of "natural" difference accounting for the distribution of wealth/power is incorrect is a simple comparison of the distribution of wealth and income in modern societies to that of past societies that even the most regressive turd at the Heritage foundation wouldn't attempt to condone as being one where an individual's wealth/power was based on "innate" superiority, such as feudal times, etc. By and large, they are the same. A few people own a majority of the wealth, hold the important positions of power in various social institutions, and control the government.

What other egalitarian ends are you talking about? That everyone should earn approximately the same? That seems extremely objective to me, and we know as a fact, that our existence is subjective in nature. Some goods and ends for me are much more desired than the same for others. I will pay more for some things than others, and pay less than others for other things. This is fact.

What egalitarian ends are you exactly talking about here?

See above.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 09:26 AM

You are horrible at the Socratic Method, while at the same time evading others questions.

What comes about? Obviously a system of property management. From land clubs & associations, to other privately formulated methods of the allocation of property and its defense. This arises naturally from our societal interactions free from the State.

No, I'm not asking you how feudalism started, I'm asking you what exactly it means to say that property ownership "comes about" in "nature." (Again the right-wing libertarian tendency to play theory in an ahistorical make-believe world).

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 09:32 AM

No, I indirectly was robbed by Bob. Bob would be in possession of stolen property.
If they pay Bob, with stolen money, Jane is in possession of a service paid for with stolen money.

And what is the moral significance, in your view, of possessing stolen goods? What if you know they are stolen?

I suppose in your view, nobody should have to work, all they have to do is let the government give them money. Of course, that wouldn't work, because somebody has to be productive. Seems in the system you advocate, no one would be productive, because everyone would be just standing around waiting for a handout.

I guess what happens when you challenge people on a religiously-held belief that underpins their ideology they tend to lash out and accuse you of advocating for things that you simply haven't advocated for.

Remember how people accused Ron Paul of being an "isolationist" simply because he questioned the legitimacy of our foreign policy? When people in this thread (at least three, by my count) accuse me of being in favor of government theft, forced charity, violent revolutions, etc, they are being just as intellectually dishonest. I've never once in this thread or on this forum advocated for any of those things.

Shameful.

Dr.3D

10-04-2010, 09:37 AM

And what is the moral significance, in your view, of possessing stolen goods? What if you know they are stolen?

I guess what happens when you challenge people on a religiously-held belief that underpins their ideology they tend to lash out and accuse you of advocating for things that you simply haven't advocated for.

Remember how people accused Ron Paul of being an "isolationist" simply because he questioned the legitimacy of our foreign policy? When people in this thread (at least three, by my count) accuse me of being in favor of government theft, forced charity, violent revolutions, etc, they are being just as intellectually dishonest. I've never once in this thread or on this forum advocated for any of those things.

Shameful.
Oh please do tell us what you do advocate? Is it the redistribution of wealth? Is it socialism? Please elucidate yourself.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 09:42 AM

No, I'm not asking you how feudalism started, I'm asking you what exactly it means to say that property ownership "comes about" in "nature." (Again the right-wing libertarian tendency to play theory in an ahistorical make-believe world).

Where did you get Feudalism from? I am specifically talking about the real-world not even too long ago in both anarchistic Pennsylvania, and the largely anarchistic West in the 1800s. I all ready told you how property ownership comes about. If you are that dense to not understand free interactions between individuals, I can see why you fail to grasp the basics of Voluntaryism, and you trying to paint me as a Heritage/Reasonite, is pretty funny, and typical of those with presupposed views and tendencies towards an egalitarian utopia which has never existed anywhere.

I think we can both agree that the free-market, is more egalitarian than our current situation, but it is not egalitarian. Perhaps you should broaden your horizon and read some Anthony de Jasay to gain a better perspective. Oddly you believe egalitarianism means average, or median. That there is an average, or median height that many people fall under determines your definition of egalitarianism, fails to take into account the large swath of people that fall outside the range. When taking egalitarianism into account it accounts for all ranges, not merely the largest segment of a broad range. For someone who doesn't like black-and-white scenarios, you seem to be presupposing quite a few.

What is funny is that egalitarians actually believe that the plumber should be as well to do as the chemist, or the farmer as well to do as the engineer. It is the age-old question why diamonds are more expensive than wheat. Egalitarianism is bull-honky.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 09:47 AM

I think RedStripe doesn't remember the French Revolution, and other Revolutions that sought to reverse the unjustness of current society through such a massive undertaking. It was utter chaos, and resulted in the opposite of the desired ends. On such a scale, it would be more beneficial to allow all non-State entities to keep their current property, and allow all State-property to be homesteaded. Any other system is strictly chaotic to the detriment of the goals. Think of it as a clean-slate. Eventually through the market process the distortions will be corrected. Similarly, much of this property was taken a long time ago, and many of the original owners are no longer alive. It isn't as simple as you make it.

For an anarcho-capitalist who wants to abolish the state outright (I assume you're a "I'd push the button" kind of guy) to chastise me for suggesting a chaotic method to "reverse the unjustness of current society" (a 'revolution' I have not actually advocated at all, in this thread or any other) is quite ironic.

To even think of revolution in the terms you use, which suggest that large businesses ought to be 'allowed' to maintain possession of their property is unrealistic for a lot of reasons. Ignoring the fact that any revolution that overthrows this government will be the culmination of a dizzying array of social trends and pressures, it's stupid to talk about what will happen to property as if some uniform rule will be applied... as if the revolution is yet another top-down managed social transition where some central committee decides how it will be carried out... that's not a libertarian revolution that's a government transition.

But I do agree that, given enough time and an elimination of the government interferences which give rise to wealth disparity, society could begin to approach a level of egalitarianism that I would be happy with. The problem is that so long as wealth is concentrated as it is, we won't have a libertarian revolution because the rich will continue to own and control the state. Reality is the exact opposite of the right-wing libertarian fantasy world where the rich are some persecuted minority. The rich own and have owned it since the system began.

That aside, I think we can agree that, although property is generally distributed on an unjust basis it might be more unjust to forcibly redistribute (especially when done by a state). As a general rule of thumb, I agree with that. I don't like violence and I don't like, or trust, the government. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna just sit back and pretend that everything is fine and dandy. I'm not going to play some silly little game were I treat all contracts as equally binding or "sacred." I'm going to be rooting for the little guy against the privileged at every opportunity. (And, in my opinion, you aren't much of a libertarian if you don't.)

(I am pretty sure RedStripe doesn't support the formation of Israel, even though it was technically being given back to the original owners -- The Israelites. After all, Israel was taken by Muslims...) Right Redstripe? Right? :p

Actually it wasn't being "given back" to it's original owners since the original owners were long dead. Man I'm surprised that you'd let such a collectivist statement slip like that.

pcosmar

10-04-2010, 09:50 AM

I guess what happens when you challenge people on a religiously-held belief

And that is your whole point in a nutshell.
You offer NO concrete solution or Ideas, but simply disparage everyone and everything simply for the sake of argument.
While giving no alternative view that can be examined or debated.

Yes it is shameful.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 09:52 AM

Oh please do tell us what you do advocate? Is it the redistribution of wealth? Is it socialism? Please elucidate yourself.

I'm a left libertarian. I'm a big fan of the early American anarchists/libertarians of the 1800s.

My views are best summed up by the motto of the Alliance of the Libertarian Left:

"The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a multi-tendency coalition of mutualists, agorists, voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, radical minarchists, and others on the libertarian left, united by an opposition to statism and militarism, to cultural intolerance (including sexism, racism, and homophobia), and to the prevailing corporatist capitalism falsely called a free market; as well as by an emphasis on education, direct action, and building alternative institutions, rather than on electoral politics, as our chief strategy for achieving liberation. "

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 10:01 AM

Where did you get Feudalism from? I am specifically talking about the real-world not even too long ago in both anarchistic Pennsylvania, and the largely anarchistic West in the 1800s.

I'm insinuating that when all the rich land-owners get together and form a "defense force" it is the embryonic form of a government which will inevitably grow into an adult and impose feudal power relations on the propertyless class.

I all ready told you how property ownership comes about. If you are that dense to not understand free interactions between individuals, I can see why you fail to grasp the basics of Voluntaryism, and you trying to paint me as a Heritage/Reasonite, is pretty funny, and typical of those with presupposed views and tendencies towards an egalitarian utopia which has never existed anywhere.

No you didn't explain your views on what it means for "property ownership" to magically come out of the garden of eve, and I've asked you at least twice. Buck up, son.

And I'm not painting you as a Heritage/Reasonite - you're a typical Mises.com believer.

I think we can both agree that the free-market, is more egalitarian than our current situation, but it is not egalitarian. Perhaps you should broaden your horizon and read some Anthony de Jasay to gain a better perspective.

Perhaps you should re-read Anthony de Jasay so that you can provide a useful summary of his views on whatever subject he writes about instead of sounding like a pompous asshole?

Oddly you believe egalitarianism means average, or median.

Nope.

That there is an average, or median height that many people fall under determines your definition of egalitarianism, fails to take into account the large swath of people that fall outside the range. When taking egalitarianism into account it accounts for all ranges, not merely the largest segment of a broad range. For someone who doesn't like black-and-white scenarios, you seem to be presupposing quite a few.

Something else you might want to re-read: my post on egalitarianism, where I distinctly point out that my use of the term "egalitarianism" in connection with the range of genetic human attributes was relative to a different range - that of the distribution of power and wealth in society. Seriously, go re-read it so I don't have to waste my time say the same thing for a third time.

What is funny is that egalitarians actually believe that the plumber should be as well to do as the chemist, or the farmer as well to do as the engineer. It is the age-old question why diamonds are more expensive than wheat. Egalitarianism is bull-honky.

Maybe some people believe that, but I'm not arguing that. Did you learn how to strawman at mises.com too?

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 10:05 AM

For an anarcho-capitalist who wants to abolish the state outright (I assume you're a "I'd push the button" kind of guy) to chastise me for suggesting a chaotic method to "reverse the unjustness of current society" (a 'revolution' I have not actually advocated at all, in this thread or any other) is quite ironic.

To even think of revolution in the terms you use, which suggest that large businesses ought to be 'allowed' to maintain possession of their property is unrealistic for a lot of reasons. Ignoring the fact that any revolution that overthrows this government will be the culmination of a dizzying array of social trends and pressures, it's stupid to talk about what will happen to property as if some uniform rule will be applied... as if the revolution is yet another top-down managed social transition where some central committee decides how it will be carried out... that's not a libertarian revolution that's a government transition.

But I do agree that, given enough time and an elimination of the government interferences which give rise to wealth disparity, society could begin to approach a level of egalitarianism that I would be happy with. The problem is that so long as wealth is concentrated as it is, we won't have a libertarian revolution because the rich will continue to own and control the state. Reality is the exact opposite of the right-wing libertarian fantasy world where the rich are some persecuted minority. The rich own and have owned it since the system began.

That aside, I think we can agree that, although property is generally distributed on an unjust basis it might be more unjust to forcibly redistribute (especially when done by a state). As a general rule of thumb, I agree with that. I don't like violence and I don't like, or trust, the government. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna just sit back and pretend that everything is fine and dandy. I'm not going to play some silly little game were I treat all contracts as equally binding or "sacred." I'm going to be rooting for the little guy against the privileged at every opportunity. (And, in my opinion, you aren't much of a libertarian if you don't.)

Actually it wasn't being "given back" to it's original owners since the original owners were long dead. Man I'm surprised that you'd let such a collectivist statement slip like that.

Yes, I am a push the button guy, however, I distinguish letting individuals live how they want, with the massive forcible undertaking of such a scenario. Are you even aware the magnitude of which you speak of? It is one thing to abolish an entity that merely seeks to control your life, while it is a whole other can of beans to literally shift in a relatively small time period such quantities of goods. I seek not the huge undertaking that would be, especially considering the history of trying this. Who would determine whos property is just and unjust? Would it be carried out through the pitchfork or through civil discourse? I find the former likely, than the latter. There is a massive distinction even in our society with subsidized industry (in nominally private hands), and State-entities, in purely public hands. One can easily be derelict and abandoned to allow homesteading (Since it has no singular owner), and one cannot. Walter Block gives some suggestions on how we can actually accomplish this. Perhaps you should read the book.

Actually it would be more realistic to assume that as long as we have the disparities of privilege that is current in our society a libertarian revolution is actually more probable than not. If you wish for me to elucidate why, I will, but I think this is rather obvious if you think for a moment. I also do not seek to overthrow the government, as that implies another taking its place. I seek to ignore and abolish it. This actually has historical precedent of succeeding.

I don't know of many "right-wing" (What does this even mean?) libertarians who believe the rich are persecuted. Care to name names?

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 10:11 AM

And that is your whole point in a nutshell.
You offer NO concrete solution or Ideas, but simply disparage everyone and everything simply for the sake of argument.
While giving no alternative view that can be examined or debated.

Yes it is shameful.

Here's some ideas:

1. Abolish the Federal Reserve
2. End intellectual property rights
3. Dismantle the military
4. Deregulate unions
5. Legalize all drugs
6. Get rid of professional licensing
7. Eliminate sales taxes

etc, etc, etc

All highly unlikely to happen because the political system is just a perpetual power machine that is unlikely to yield on any of these issues (for the most part).

Alternatively:
1. Develop encrypted, electronic monetary system for use on the internet that cannot be regulated effectively.
1a. Develop local currencies, distribution/trade networks based on bartering and service exchange which are difficult to regulate.
2. Help promote the sharing of copyrighted information (especially from large corporations), promote the use of open-source software, open-source hardware technologies, etc.
2a. Leak corporate/government agendas and other sensitive information.
3. Protest the military, sabotage recruiting efforts, leak embarrassing information, expose military crimes/dysfunction
4. Encourage spontaneous worker defection, slowdowns, sit-ins, walkouts
4a. Encourage self-employment, self-sufficiency - reduce dependence on wage labor to increase labor's relative power in the bargaining process
5. Smoke weed, everyday.
6. Operate small businesses without licensees, without paying taxes.
7. Buy stuff on the black market, through craigslist, etc and don't pay any sales taxes on it.

pcosmar

10-04-2010, 10:31 AM

Here's some ideas:

.

Ok. But I don't see that any (or at least most) of that was ever authorized by our Constitution.
And it is the deviation from the founders intention that has brought us to where we are today.
Corporatism is not free market as you had alluded earlier.
as far as your alternatives. Well, I do most of that already (except the drugs, though I have no opposition to them)

Most of the problems you point out are due to socialism (yes Corporatism is socialism). Not Capitalism. Certainly not property ownership or the Free Market. (which is only seen today in the Black Market)

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 10:38 AM

Yes, I am a push the button guy, however, I distinguish letting individuals live how they want, with the massive forcible undertaking of such a scenario. Are you even aware the magnitude of which you speak of? It is one thing to abolish an entity that merely seeks to control your life, while it is a whole other can of beans to literally shift in a relatively small time period such quantities of goods. I seek not the huge undertaking that would be, especially considering the history of trying this.

I don't think you really grasp how interconnected our government is with the rest of society. If society were a human body, abolishing the state would be like attempting to remove every blood vessel - it's that deeply and extensively entrenched into every facet of modern society. Like removing the circulatory system of a human, it would effectively "kill" society - that is, kill this particular type of society. This would be radically different without the state.

But you can't just yank the state out, and the state alone. The line between public and private - a line drawn by the decisions of courts which belong to the government legal system - is completely blurred. Any true revolution is going to be much much more fundamental.

Who would determine whos property is just and unjust? Would it be carried out through the pitchfork or through civil discourse?

Who could know? It's going to be a process, and people will have to judge for themselves as we go. New rules and norms will have to be developed spontaneously to respond to changing conditions.

I find the former likely, than the latter. There is a massive distinction even in our society with subsidized industry (in nominally private hands), and State-entities, in purely public hands. One can easily be derelict and abandoned to allow homesteading (Since it has no singular owner), and one cannot. Walter Block gives some suggestions on how we can actually accomplish this. Perhaps you should read the book.

To the bold section: I completely disagree. Just think about it for a minute. Other than the state's holdings, is there any other massive collection of capital that has no singular owner? That is a product of state fiction? Truth be told, the assets of most corporations aren't really owned by anyone, and much as banks may be said to abuse their bailment privilege (according to those who oppose fractional reserve banking) the corporation's top executive and managers generally get to treat the assets of the legal fiction as their own. This certainly applies to most publicly-held corporations in which the idea that the stockholders actually "own" the corporation in any real sense is as illusory as the social contract.

I've got a couple Walter Block books and, frankly, I'm not impressed. I've read his article on road privatization when it came out a while back. Meh. He's not really focused on the reality of where we are headed. Stuff like infrastructure isn't going to be voluntarily repossessed by the people - it's either going to be auctioned off to some well-connected corporation who will just continue to extract rents from people or it's going to fall into such disrepair that it is only maintained if the local community actually finds it worthy of the effort.

Actually it would be more realistic to assume that as long as we have the disparities of privilege that is current in our society a libertarian revolution is actually more probable than not. If you wish for me to elucidate why, I will, but I think this is rather obvious if you think for a moment. I also do not seek to overthrow the government, as that implies another taking its place. I seek to ignore and abolish it. This actually has historical precedent of succeeding.

Agreeing with you on this. I guess what I mean by a "libertarian revolution" was an overt, violent overthrow of the state akin to the French Revolution and the others you mentioned.

I don't know of many "right-wing" (What does this even mean?) libertarians who believe the rich are persecuted. Care to name names?

There are a lot of ways to describe right-wing libertarianism, also known sometimes as vulgar libertarianism and thin libertarianism. Basically right-wing libertarians are those closest to conservatives on a lot of issues. More sympathetic to owners/managers than workers, culturally conservative, don't really recognize that oppression exists outside of the state (racism, sexism, etc) and tend to think that the only thing that matters is the non-aggression axiom (thin libertarians) and that libertarianism has nothing to say about other issues that left-libertarians care about.

Obviously the general contours of the definition of a right-wing libertarian don't apply to everyone.

Yea that was a really short and bad definition, but we can talk about it some more if you want. Some examples? Ayn Rand and her zealots, George Reisman, Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson, CATO, Reason Magazine, and um, basically a lot of people at Mises.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 10:43 AM

Ok. But I don't see that any (or at least most) of that was ever authorized by our Constitution.

The Constitution regulates the state - not me and what I do with my own time to undermine the system.

I mean, the Constitution doesn't authorize you to post here.

And it is the deviation from the founders intention that has brought us to where we are today.

Actually what you're describing is called time + limited foresight of man.

Why should I care about the "founders" intentions?

Corporatism is not free market as you had alluded earlier.
as far as your alternatives. Well, I do most of that already (except the drugs, though I have no opposition to them)

Great.

Most of the problems you point out are due to socialism (yes Corporatism is socialism). Not Capitalism. Certainly not property ownership or the Free Market. (which is only seen today in the Black Market)

No, corporatism isn't socialism, but if you want to invent new meanings for words go for it.

What's the difference between capitalism and the free market? The state.

AuH20

10-04-2010, 10:45 AM

T

No, corporatism isn't socialism, but if you want to invent new meanings for words go for it.

What's the difference between capitalism and the free market? The state.

Isn't corporatism the same as socialism, but instead of an individual receiving benefits from the pooled public resources it's a corporation? It's basically the same premise.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 10:47 AM

Isn't corporatism the same as socialism, but instead of an individual receiving benefits from the pooled public resources it's a corporation? It's basically the same premise.

Actually no. Corporatism is just another word for Fascism.

AuH20

10-04-2010, 10:50 AM

Actually no. Corporatism is just another word for Fascism.

The merging of corporation and state when you speak of fascism. But I still see striking parallels between socialism and corporatism, the most notable being that these seemingly two different ideologies can not exist without each other.

LibertyEagle

10-04-2010, 10:52 AM

Always liked that video, thanks for relinking it FrankRep.

But, yup. Oligarchies on both the left and the right, there is little difference between the two besides rhetoric.

I think there is a lot of difference. The problem is that while some of the left wing readily admit their socialist, big government beliefs, many of the people who think they are on the right, do not.

It doesn't change the fact that those who believe in a lot of government control are on the left, while those who advocate a limited constitutional government, states' rights and self-government, are on the right side of the spectrum.

That is what the video tried to bring home.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 10:53 AM

Isn't corporatism the same as socialism, but instead of an individual receiving benefits from the pooled public resources it's a corporation? It's basically the same premise.

To some extent, yes, although the distinction of who the beneficiary of the coordination is critical - either the masses or the few. The entire reason socialism became a political movement was a desire, by the masses, for a more egalitarian system. Unfortunately state socialism won out (because the early socialists made the mistake of trying to improve things through party politics **cough**) but it's pretty clear that from the beginning there were socialists of many varieties, but all had the same aim of creating a more just system which would be more egalitarian.

Obviously, in places like Europe, state-socialism has increased egalitarianism to some extent (although there is still a ton of injustice), but even to the extent to which state socialist policies may "accidentally" exacerbate inequality, the goal is pretty well established.

The goal of corporatism (which is just the latest form of capitalism, since privilege is nothing new but corporations basically are) is the exact opposite: the enriching of the few at the expense of the many (inegalitarianism). It's very similar to feudalism actually.

Food for thought:

Feudalism ----> time passes -----> ?????????? -----> time passes -------> corporatism

1. Where does capitalism fit into this graph?
2. Where does the free market fit into this graph?
3. What should we call the economic system between feudalism and corporatism?

LibertyEagle

10-04-2010, 10:55 AM

Actually no. Corporatism is just another word for Fascism.

Aren't you splitting hairs here?

Fascism is nothing more than National Socialism.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 11:04 AM

Aren't you splitting hairs here?

Fascism is nothing more than National Socialism.

Fascism is actually the melding of Corporations and the State. National Socialism is as it implies -- Nationalistic Socialism in lieu of international Socialism. Mussolini's Italy was different than Hitler's National Socialism. It is an important distinction.

Sola_Fide

10-04-2010, 11:04 AM

Food for thought:

Feudalism ----> time passes -----> ?????????? -----> time passes -------> corporatism

1. Where does capitalism fit into this graph?
2. Where does the free market fit into this graph?
3. What should we call the economic system between feudalism and corporatism?

It doesn't matter what goes in between what.

The market is the basis of human action, it exists in every system, even communism....it just becomes black the more the State tries to destroy it.

AuH20

10-04-2010, 11:09 AM

This is how I view our current predicament. Corporations and their governmental partners need the fantasy of state socialism to draw in the masses to adhere to and ultimately carry out their agenda. With that said, pure capitalism is an admirable goal but subject to the rapid erosion of time. Time (prosperity?) along with man's malice will ultimately corrupt and imprison the "free market."

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 11:15 AM

It doesn't matter what goes in between what.

The market is the basis of human action, it exists in every system, even communism....it just becomes black the more the State tries to destroy it.

AquaBuddha doesn't think history is important. Shocking.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 11:16 AM

To some extent, yes, although the distinction of who the beneficiary of the coordination is critical - either the masses or the few. The entire reason socialism became a political movement was a desire, by the masses, for a more egalitarian system. Unfortunately state socialism won out (because the early socialists made the mistake of trying to improve things through party politics **cough**) but it's pretty clear that from the beginning there were socialists of many varieties, but all had the same aim of creating a more just system which would be more egalitarian.

Obviously, in places like Europe, state-socialism has increased egalitarianism to some extent (although there is still a ton of injustice), but even to the extent to which state socialist policies may "accidentally" exacerbate inequality, the goal is pretty well established.

The goal of corporatism (which is just the latest form of capitalism, since privilege is nothing new but corporations basically are) is the exact opposite: the enriching of the few at the expense of the many (inegalitarianism). It's very similar to feudalism actually.

Food for thought:

Feudalism ----> time passes -----> ?????????? -----> time passes -------> corporatism

1. Where does capitalism fit into this graph?
2. Where does the free market fit into this graph?
3. What should we call the economic system between feudalism and corporatism?

Corporatism has nothing to do with Capitalism. As I have said, Corporatism is just another word for Fascism. If you look closely they are identical. It is pretty canonical with Mussolini. Intervention at home and abroad, imperialistic, State-privilege through private hands, etc.

Capitalism on the contrary is value-free. I think the problem is one of linguistics, not actual policy.

BenIsForRon

10-04-2010, 11:40 AM

LibertyEagle

10-04-2010, 11:43 AM

Fascism is actually the melding of Corporations and the State. National Socialism is as it implies -- Nationalistic Socialism in lieu of international Socialism. Mussolini's Italy was different than Hitler's National Socialism. It is an important distinction.

Yada yada. It's all huge government control. Thus, by definition they are all together on the extreme left of the political spectrum. With neoconservatism not far away.

low preference guy

10-04-2010, 11:45 AM

Most of the Ron Paul supporters I've met in reality share lean more RedStripe than Austrian Econ Disciple. This forum, however, leans very much AnCap, due to the fact that the freedomainradio peeps have nowhere else to go.

lol!

most Ron Paul supporters are closer to believing that private property doesn't mean anything? that's a good one!

Sola_Fide

10-04-2010, 11:48 AM

AquaBuddha doesn't think history is important. Shocking.

Huh?

I never said history is not important. What I do think is that axioms are more important than historical "facts", because the presuppositions you use to interpret the "facts" determine what the "facts" mean (and even determine what is "fact" to begin with).

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 11:52 AM

Corporatism has nothing to do with Capitalism. As I have said, Corporatism is just another word for Fascism. If you look closely they are identical. It is pretty canonical with Mussolini. Intervention at home and abroad, imperialistic, State-privilege through private hands, etc.

Capitalism on the contrary is value-free. I think the problem is one of linguistics, not actual policy.

Saying that capitalism is the exact same thing as a free market is ignoring the fact that the word capitalism has been used to describe actually-existing quasi-market economies for hundreds of years. I mean, if you want to redefine what the word "tree" means go for it but it's one of the biggest reasons that people are turned off of libertarianism.

aravoth

10-04-2010, 11:55 AM

Some of you guys get lost in all the various "isms" that you forget that none of it is stable, all of it is bullshit, it doesn't last, and it never will. Why? Because every system eventually becomes corrupt beyond recognition.

Besides there are a lot of people like me out there, that don't give a shit about what system you think is best, because we know that it won't fucking work, not ever.

My system works, because my system is me. It's a closed circuit with it's own power source that lasts until the day I die. Then it disappears from the earth forever, leaving no destruction in its wake.

Unlike the "isms" Which siphons the labor of it's dependents, destroys genuine liberty, and calls countless masses to their banners with the fervency of a well organized cult, ultimately leading to the deaths of millions, and the collapse of the very civilization the "isms" built.

Screw that shit...

Sola_Fide

10-04-2010, 11:55 AM

Saying that capitalism is the exact same thing as a free market is ignoring the fact that the word capitalism has been used to describe actually-existing quasi-market economies for hundreds of years. I mean, if you want to redefine what the word "tree" means go for it but it's one of the biggest reasons that people are turned off of libertarianism.

That's what he just said. It's linguistics. You are usng the Marxist/Michael Moore interpretation of the world "capitalism". It's not accurate.

The people who are turned off to Libertarianism are the people who worship at the altar of the State and can't imagine life without this god in their life...much like you do.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 11:56 AM

In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class---who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth---began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was not for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labor to the land-holding class---their former owners---for just what the latter might choose to give them. Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them, having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no alternative---to save themselves from starvation---but to sell their labor to the landholders, in exchange only for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as that.

These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely less slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence were perhaps even more precarious than when each had his own owner, who had an interest to preserve his life. They were liable, at the caprice or interest of the landholders, to be thrown out of home, employment, and the opportunity of even earning a subsistence by their labor. They were, therefore, in large numbers, driven to the necessity of begging, stealing, or starving; and became, of course, dangerous to the property and quiet of their late masters.

The consequence was, that these late owners found it necessary, for their own safety and the safety of their property, to organize themselves more perfectly as a government and make laws for keeping these dangerous people in subjection; that is, laws fixing the prices at which they should be compelled to labor, and also prescribing fearful punishments, even death itself, for such thefts and tresspasses as they were driven to commit, as their only means of saving themselves from starvation. - Lysander Spooner

This is the birth of capitalism.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 11:56 AM

AquaBuddha doesn't think history is important. Shocking.

I am pretty sure Aqua Buddha thinks that history isn't all connected through one contigious motion. You hold the Marxian view of economic history, which is certifiably false. There is no set deterministic path. One does not necessarily lead to the next "step". At least that is what I believe he is meaning, which is what I too believe.

I on the contrary do not believe that history is deterministic.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 12:16 PM

Most of the Ron Paul supporters I've met in reality share lean more RedStripe than Austrian Econ Disciple. This forum, however, leans very much AnCap, due to the fact that the freedomainradio peeps have nowhere else to go.

Thank you. Glad your small anecdote is indicative of all Ron Paul supporters. However, all the Ron Paul supporters I know here are all very Voluntaryist (Ken Van Doren, Ed Thompson, etc.), so I guess all Ron Paul supporters lean towards myself, instead of RedStripe. ::rollseyes::

BenIsForRon

10-04-2010, 12:17 PM

lol!

most Ron Paul supporters are closer to believing that private property doesn't mean anything? that's a good one!

More in the sense that they care more about creating a just society than abolishing all forms of government. Most Ron Paul supporters I know understand that corporations are just as good at taking liberty as government.

FrankRep

10-04-2010, 12:20 PM

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 12:24 PM

Yada yada. It's all huge government control. Thus, by definition they are all together on the extreme left of the political spectrum. With neoconservatism not far away.

Yes, they are both Government control, but they are pretty opposed philosophically. Personally left-right is a misleading way to characterize philosophies. I should say more precisely it is a misnomer. The only actual measuring device of ones philosophy is liberty & individualism being opposed by collectivism & control.

The reality is most philosophies intertwine both. The only consistent people are the complete statist & the complete voluntaryist.

AuH20

10-04-2010, 12:27 PM

The Ron Paul Movement is in deep trouble if it's leans Socialist like RedStripe.

But he's not your typical, modern-day socialist foot soldier. He takes a communal, voluntary based tact.

BenIsForRon

10-04-2010, 12:29 PM

The Ron Paul Movement is in deep trouble if it's leans Socialist like RedStripe.

I think they would be in trouble if they leaned Glenn Beck like you. thankfully, most are more independent minded than that.

Dr.3D

10-04-2010, 12:29 PM

But he's not your typical, modern-day socialist foot soldier. He takes a communal, voluntary based tact.

Is that were some people are sort of voluntarily forced to give up their wealth so others can have it? LOL

Vessol

10-04-2010, 12:29 PM

The Ron Paul Movement is in deep trouble if it's leans Socialist like RedStripe.

I disagree with BenIsForRon. Don't take one persons word(including my own too) to much to heart.

I believe that most whom have entered the Ron Paul movement have come from two primary backgrounds. Liberal and Conservative leaning. Both of these are fairly even in distribution and they only materialize usually in particular biases on certain issues.

Ron Paul supporters whom come from a liberal background tend to usually focus more on foreign policy issues I find. While those with conservative backgrounds tend to focus more on fiscal issues. There may even be some indifference towards other issues. It's just natural, not everyone is going to care about everything equally. That's why we have to focus on our various strengths and use them.

As for AnCaps. The reason why I believe there are so many AnCaps here is because of the natural progression of anti-Statism. Having it happen myself, I think that it is very natural for someone whom studies much to change their views from what I was when I first started posting here(a Minarchist) to what I am now(AnCap). I've noticed many others have made this change as well. And if you haven't it doesn't mean something is wrong, just that you haven't.

I didn't even know about freedomainradio or Stephen until a few months ago, but before then I even considered myself AnCap. Sure they have augmented my beliefs more, but I am not here because I have anywhere else to go. I am here because I enjoy the many posters that I've grown familiar with and enjoy debating, bitching and dreaming with.

As for left-libertarians. Most that I've met whom actually call themselves left libertarians tend to be raging Statists whom dislike Ron Paul and worship Chompsky, but that's just my take on things.

I think on these forums we have a good mix of libertarians, constitutionalists, minarchist, voluntaryists, and what -ists that diverge from libertarianism and anarchism. It's enough to keep things interesting, but of course it prompts stupid threads like this to happen where you have childish name calling(I am guilty of this) or other petty BS.

AuH20

10-04-2010, 12:30 PM

I think they would be in trouble if they leaned Glenn Beck like you. thankfully, most are more independent minded than that.

Guys, you need to stop squabbling. I have no problem with Stripe or Frank.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 12:31 PM

More in the sense that they care more about creating a just society than abolishing all forms of government. Most Ron Paul supporters I know understand that corporations are just as good at taking liberty as government.

Corporations and Government are of the same ilk! They aren't seperate.

AuH20

10-04-2010, 12:33 PM

Is that were some people are sort of voluntarily forced to give up their wealth so others can have it? LOL

It's sounds more like a monastical approach to communalism.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 12:34 PM

Is that were some people are sort of voluntarily forced to give up their wealth so others can have it? LOL

There are many communal arrangements. They never work though. I have no desire to force my personal belief systems on anyone else. If people want to live in communal arrangements more power to them, as long as they don't force me to abide by their systems.

One would think that Fruitlands would be the prime example to show how communism is fundamentally flawed and destructive, but communists themselves haven't really delved too deep into the actual system. It is an emotional state of mind for most.

Sola_Fide

10-04-2010, 12:36 PM

So many good liberty-minded responses in this thread...

Dr.3D

10-04-2010, 12:39 PM

So many good liberty-minded responses in this thread...

I'm must trying to figure out who's liberty is being supported here. The liberty of some to take from others what they have not earned, or the liberty of those who who have worked to keep what they worked for.

Sola_Fide

10-04-2010, 12:52 PM

Well, I wouldn't even call RedStripe a left-libertarian, since I get the impression from his posts that he favors coercive State aggression to force us to be equal.

He is like the kid who has read his first Chomsky book and can't wait to tell everybody about it.

mczerone

10-04-2010, 01:08 PM

I'm must trying to figure out who's liberty is being supported here. The liberty of some to take from others what they have not earned, or the liberty of those who who have worked to keep what they worked for.

How about the liberty to formalize an equitable relationship among consenting adults? Or the liberty to agree with another person that he or she will own what you work for?

There appears to be a fair amount of "knee-jerking" reactions being posted here that don't really address the opposing points. Either some posters are responding without understanding the points being made by the other side, or they are ignoring the actual arguments in favor of sticking with a "party-line" on certain modes of thought.

In either case, I'm rather disappointed in the quality of some responders for not having an open enough mind to address new arguments with an actual understanding but with stilted rhetoric and hallow assumptive retorts.

Dr.3D

10-04-2010, 01:15 PM

How about the liberty to formalize an equitable relationship among consenting adults? Or the liberty to agree with another person that he or she will own what you work for?
Seems we already have that, it's called charity. It's when people who have a little extra, give freely to others who are less fortunate.

There appears to be a fair amount of "knee-jerking" reactions being posted here that don't really address the opposing points. Either some posters are responding without understanding the points being made by the other side, or they are ignoring the actual arguments in favor of sticking with a "party-line" on certain modes of thought.

In either case, I'm rather disappointed in the quality of some responders for not having an open enough mind to address new arguments with an actual understanding but with stilted rhetoric and hallow assumptive retorts.

The Dude

10-04-2010, 01:33 PM

Funny, but way out of context. Beck is right on 90% of what he says and he recently said he is still more Ron than Sarah. Save criticism for him until we see what he does during the '12 elections. Until then, he is an ally.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 02:01 PM

That's what he just said. It's linguistics. You are usng the Marxist/Michael Moore interpretation of the world "capitalism". It's not accurate.

I'm using the word as it means to most people, not just some people on the left.

The people who are turned off to Libertarianism are the people who worship at the altar of the State and can't imagine life without this god in their life...much like you do.

You're the biggest baby on this forum. You continue to accuse me of worshiping the state - why don't you man up and find a quote from me to support that claim, or admit that you're a petty little liar.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 02:02 PM

The Ron Paul Movement is in deep trouble if it's leans Socialist like RedStripe.

Get out of this thread coward.

You never have the balls to debate me head on, and resort to using words you don't even understand. And then you call for me to be banned. You're pathetic.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 02:06 PM

Is that were some people are sort of voluntarily forced to give up their wealth so others can have it? LOL

You still don't understand what I believe, even though I've explained it to you. All you can do is mischaracterize my beliefs, just like several other people have repeatedly done.

Just because I'm questioning the validity of most property claims (as in, their status as absolutely and morally "sacred") that doesn't mean I support the government in any form of fashion. I have to repeat myself over and over again, and it's pretty sad for a place that usually has so many open-minded people.

FrankRep

10-04-2010, 02:06 PM

Get out of this thread coward.

You never have the balls to debate me head on, and resort to using words you don't even understand. And then you call for me to be banned. You're pathetic.
I've debated you many times and it's just a big waste of time. You have your views and I have mine.

silverhandorder

10-04-2010, 02:07 PM

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 02:09 PM

There are many communal arrangements. They never work though.

You seem to be ignorant of the 95% of human history when all human beings lived in relatively egalitarian, communal systems. To make a long story short: it was pretty damned successful. It's probably the reason human beings conquered the Earth in a relatively short period of time.

Oh right. I'm a believe in "MARXIST HISTORY" so this doesn't even register I'm guessing.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 02:10 PM

I'm using the word as it means to most people, not just some people on the left.

You're the biggest baby on this forum. You continue to accuse me of worshiping the state - why don't you man up and find a quote from me to support that claim, or admit that you're a petty little liar.

I think a more precise meaning would be that you sympathize with the Welfare State because you perceive it just as any Statist with egalitarian goals does -- perception that it alleviates the plight of those who are less fortunate, and or victims of oppression. However, if you were truly opposed to the oppression and sympathetic for their plight you would undoubtedly fight for a free-market and savagely against the Welfare State because not only do you contradict yourself if you say you love liberty, but then sympathize with taxation for any means, and because the Welfare State is a subsidary of chattel slavery of yore. It is literally the state of total dependance. Instead of the plantation owner being your master, the politician is. You simply swapped one for one.

I think you are smart enough to realize this. I only wonder if you recognize what your sympathies give rise to. Ultimately it boils down to what you value most. Liberty or egalitarianism.

I don't understand how anyone can sympathize with the State on any levels. It is an aberration, a monstrosity. I think many people also confuse their political philosophy with their personal philosophy -- this is the fundamental problem of nearly all philosophies. The only philosophy which eschews this schism is Voluntaryism or Autarchism. This to me is fundamentally important.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 02:13 PM

I've debated you many times and it's just a big waste of time. You have your views and I have mine.

Haha, yeah just look at the vigorous exposition of ideas you delivered in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257565

A thread you copy and pasted articles in and yet could not, for the life of you, even hope to defend - oh, except for childish name-calling. Pathetic.

If you could debate me, you might actually try. But we both know better.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 02:15 PM

Well, I wouldn't even call RedStripe a left-libertarian, since I get the impression from his posts that he favors coercive State aggression to force us to be equal.

Haha, quoting this for the record. Sad.

silverhandorder

10-04-2010, 02:18 PM

Sorry RedStripe but I want what is mine and will work to make other see how great it is to have a system of private property. So you are welcome to spread your ideas but should you attempt to aggres against me (this is what I will view any attempts to take my wealth) I will defend.

I am want just distribution but not at the expense of people who stole nothing (even if by your interpretation they have stolen goods).

brandon

10-04-2010, 02:18 PM

You seem to be ignorant of the 95% of human history when all human beings lived in relatively egalitarian, communal systems. To make a long story short: it was pretty damned successful.

OH yea humans did great back then. The medicine, technology, sanitation, irrigation, virtual elimination of hunger, and vastly increased lifespan that have come about due to capitalism in the last 250 years are pale in comparison to the achievements of the rest of history....right?

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 02:20 PM

You seem to be ignorant of the 95% of human history when all human beings lived in relatively egalitarian, communal systems. To make a long story short: it was pretty damned successful. It's probably the reason human beings conquered the Earth in a relatively short period of time.

Oh right. I'm a believe in "MARXIST HISTORY" so this doesn't even register I'm guessing.

Human history began with Sumeria (But most prominently with Babylonia). Since written history, society has nearly always been stratified, hierachical. Even in familial communistic bonds, it is hierarchical. In hunter-gatherer times, it was probably the most inegalitarian time of man. The state of nature is inegalitarian. The weak do not prosper, and the strong do. Given the absence of the state, and a return to a meritocratic ethos, we find ourselves that the most skilled flourish and the less skilled are worse off than the better skilled. Similarly, it is a fundamental fact of life that each of us will be better or worse off than another. We will never be equal in any terms (except in liberty).

We are societal beings, but we are not hive borgs. I don't know exactly what history you have read, but I would like to find out. I was unaware that Babylonians were communists. I was unaware the Egyptians and Mesoptamians were communist, and I was unaware that Ancient Chinese were communists. Even tribalistic entities are not communist. The oldest known communistic formation is actually the family, and even that is not egalitarian. Women throughout history certainly weren't equal with their husbands. :D

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 02:29 PM

I think a more precise meaning would be that you sympathize with the Welfare State because you perceive it just as any Statist with egalitarian goals does -- perception that it alleviates the plight of those who are less fortunate, and or victims of oppression.

Yea, and Ron Paul must be a "Statist with egalitarian goals" because he thinks the welfare state should be the last thing to go. :rolleyes:

However, if you were truly opposed to the oppression and sympathetic for their plight you would undoubtedly fight for a free-market and savagely against the Welfare State because not only do you contradict yourself if you say you love liberty, but then sympathize with taxation for any means, and because the Welfare State is a subsidary of chattel slavery of yore. It is literally the state of total dependance. Instead of the plantation owner being your master, the politician is. You simply swapped one for one.

Ok this has been a common theme of this entire thread: people, such as yourself, are assuming that I hold certain beliefs just because I'm willing to question right-libertarian dogma.

I'm well aware of the welfare state, and I understand why it exists. Actually the origin of the welfare state is a good way to separate people who understand state-capitalism and those who don't (right-wing libertarians). The welfare state is simply yet another required state input to maintain the economic order. It's a means of controlling people, and has some nasty authoritarian side effects (you get sickos like some people on this forum who would like to see castration of the indigent implemented via the welfare system, drug testing, evaluations, loss of privacy, hierarchy, oppressive power relations, etc).

But welfare is just the safety-valve of state-capitalism, it's what keeps the system chugging along.

I think you are smart enough to realize this. I only wonder if you recognize what your sympathies give rise to. Ultimately it boils down to what you value most. Liberty or egalitarianism.

Liberty and egalitarianism go hand in hand - why can't you see this? The political and economic ruling class is basically one-and-the-same. It's a chicken and egg problem: what came first, a tiny rich minority or the state which they control and which maintains/promotes their privileged position? Actually they evolved side-by-side and if we are to get rid of one of them we must get rid of both.

I don't understand how anyone can sympathize with the State on any levels. It is an aberration, a monstrosity.

Um, the local county government and it's public library is a lot less offensive to me than something like Monsanto. By like a million degrees.

Stop looking at things in such unrealistically stark terms. Sure, the state sucks. But some of it sucks a lot, and some is more of a minor inconvenience.

I think many people also confuse their political philosophy with their personal philosophy -- this is the fundamental problem of nearly all philosophies. The only philosophy which eschews this schism is Voluntaryism or Autarchism. This to me is fundamentally important.

Political philosophy is a personal philosophy.

Vessol

10-04-2010, 02:32 PM

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 02:45 PM

Actually political philosophy is interpersonal, not personal. A personal philosophy would be something akin to spirituality, while politics deals with society -- interpersonal.

Ron doesn't want to add onto or create new Welfarisms, while it appears you would be likely to support such initiatives and agenda's if they were to manifest themselves as truly "for the people" (Lets assume for sake of argument). Ron however, would still be against it, because he views all taxation as theft. This nuanced difference eluded you..I thought you didn't like black-and-white scenarios? :p

I'm well aware of the welfare state, and I understand why it exists. Actually the origin of the welfare state is a good way to separate people who understand state-capitalism and those who don't (right-wing libertarians). The welfare state is simply yet another required state input to maintain the economic order

This is odd considering your earlier historic views in that, the Welfare State arose out of the peoples determinism for a more egalitarian means to correct the perceived inegalitarian ends of the market. I would argue there were certainly areas where the State was massively intertwined (Public infrastructure most importantly), however, the areas where this perception arises from those who believe in the Marxian view, is actually displaced agrarians "forced" to work in factories. Given an accurate portrayal, would be that due to rises in capital, it displaced the previous required manpower to fulfill the same demand, thereby eliminating wasteful jobs, and liquidating that labor to flow into more productive means, which at the time was Factory work. Invariably you fail to understand that while there were certainly State supported industry at the time, it was generally concentrated in certain areas. (Area's oddly the "left" massively support)

While I would agree there were Industry voices pushing for this as a means to subsidize wages throughout society, it was more pushed through as you say -- populist socialist rhetoric. It is always the same -- those yearning for power coalesce together. You have the upper echelon socialist leaders planning with the Industry powers for more power. The industries benefit by reducing what they would otherwise pay to their workers because the workers now themselves socialize their costs (E.g. theft from each other), and the socialist leaders gain new found power. This repeats over and over. The overarching theme here is to never allow anyone to tax for any reason. Taxation is the most destructive thing there is on this planet.

Theft is offensive to me in any form it takes.

This is simple and is a fundamental key in understanding our different views. You value egalitarianism. I value liberty. In fact, my ordinal preference for egalitarianism is zero. My ordinal preference for liberty is atop the food chain. While video games are damn close. JK JK :p

Sola_Fide

10-04-2010, 02:48 PM

But welfare is just the safety-valve of state-capitalism, it's what keeps the system chugging along.

"State-capitalism" is not capitalism, it is facism...it is collectivism. Either start using the terms correctly or leave.

Liberty and egalitarianism go hand in hand - why can't you see this? The political and economic ruling class is basically one-and-the-same. It's a chicken and egg problem: what came first, a tiny rich minority or the state which they control and which maintains/promotes their privileged position? Actually they evolved side-by-side and if we are to get rid of one of them we must get rid of both.

Wrong. Egalitarianism is the antithesis of Liberty. They do not go hand in hand, in fact egalitarian societies like Mao's China have been the most repressive regimes known to man.

Um, the local county government and it's public library is a lot less offensive to me than something like Monsanto. By a million degrees.

Kind of Marxist.....

Stop looking at things in such unrealistically stark terms. Sure, the state sucks. But some of it sucks a lot, and some is more of a minor inconvenience.

Getting more Marxist....

Political philosophy is a personal philosophy.

Full on Marxist....

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 03:05 PM

OH yea humans did great back then. The medicine, technology, sanitation, irrigation, virtual elimination of hunger, and vastly increased lifespan that have come about due to capitalism in the last 250 years are pale in comparison to the achievements of the rest of history....right?

The last 250 years have been an "improvement" over the 250 years which preceded it. So what? That doesn't mean history is some linear ascent.

Medicine? You mean the medicine that was necessary to combat the variety of diseases which only came about due to urban living and close proximity to domesticated animals?

Technology? What is it but a means to an end? Are you referring to the technology which was developed to kill over 100 million people?

Sanitation? Was sanitation a major problem before people started living in closely-packed urban centers?

Hunger? People today eat UTTER SHIT, and many still go hungry. Hunter gatherers, in some places, were able to subsist for an entire year off of a few month's time of gathering/work.

Most hunter-gatherer societies were/are extremely egalitarian. There are no "rulers" there are no "regulations." You eat when you feel like it and sleep when you feel like it. You have tons of free time. There is no sexism, no oppressive power relationship. There is no boss/employer you have to ass-kiss. There is no rent to be paid, there are no bills.

Before I go any further, based on the abysmal reading comprehension so far displayed in this thread I'm going to preempt the inevitable Aquabuddha response of "if you love that lifestyle so much, why don't you go live like an Indian; why don't you stop using consumer goods; etc, etc."

I'm not saying that hunter-gatherers had great lives (obviously it varied greatly), or that I prefer that lifestyle to my own. I'm simply pointing out that for most of our existence as a species egalitarian social structures were not only possible - they DOMINATED. It's not "in our nature" to live in hierarchies, to have rulers, to have bosses, to be oppressed by racism, sexism, or to be patriotic or cruel.

Here's an important observation: the life of fucking CAVEMAN was superior to that of the typical factory worker in the 1800s - DESPITE THE FACT that the factory worker had vastly more knowledge and technology than the caveman. How is this possible? It's possible when you have a fucked up, oppressive social system.

I'd rather take my chances being born a hunter-gatherer than I would being born a European from 1950 downward.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 03:07 PM

Women throughout history certainly weren't equal with their husbands. :D

They were during hunter/gather times.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 03:08 PM

The welfare state may be the least damaging of the various aspects of the government, but that does not mean it is any less dangerous.

If you have various cancerous growths over your body. Would it make sense to only remove a few and let the smaller ones stay because they "promote egalitarianism"?

They don't promote egalitarianism, they promote corporatism by keeping the system in check.

The reason for not wanting to cut all welfare spending is that it would cause a lot of suffering for the dependent victims of the state. Think of the lower class as being held hostage by the state.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 03:09 PM

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 03:11 PM

They were during hunter/gather times.

No they weren't. In what ways would you measure this equality? It certainly didn't come to food, because the men ate more than the women. It certainly didn't come to physical attributes because the men didn't allow women to hunt. It certainly didn't come to freedom, because the men didn't allow women to pursue many activities. What sort of fucked up luddite romanticism do you believe in? Finally we get to the truth of your views.

Vessol

10-04-2010, 03:18 PM

The last 250 years have been an "improvement" over the 250 years which preceded it. So what? That doesn't mean history is some linear ascent.

Medicine? You mean the medicine that was necessary to combat the variety of diseases which only came about due to urban living and close proximity to domesticated animals?

Technology? What is it but a means to an end? Are you referring to the technology which was developed to kill over 100 million people?

Sanitation? Was sanitation a major problem before people started living in closely-packed urban centers?

Hunger? People today eat UTTER SHIT, and many still go hungry. Hunter gatherers, in some places, were able to subsist for an entire year off of a few month's time of gathering/work.

Most hunter-gatherer societies were/are extremely egalitarian. There are no "rulers" there are no "regulations." You eat when you feel like it and sleep when you feel like it. You have tons of free time. There is no sexism, no oppressive power relationship. There is no boss/employer you have to ass-kiss. There is no rent to be paid, there are no bills.

Before I go any further, based on the abysmal reading comprehension so far displayed in this thread I'm going to preempt the inevitable Aquabuddha response of "if you love that lifestyle so much, why don't you go live like an Indian; why don't you stop using consumer goods; etc, etc."

I'm not saying that hunter-gatherers had great lives (obviously it varied greatly), or that I prefer that lifestyle to my own. I'm simply pointing out that for most of our existence as a species egalitarian social structures were not only possible - they DOMINATED. It's not "in our nature" to live in hierarchies, to have rulers, to have bosses, to be oppressed by racism, sexism, or to be patriotic or cruel.

Here's an important observation: the life of fucking CAVEMAN was superior to that of the typical factory worker in the 1800s - DESPITE THE FACT that the factory worker had vastly more knowledge and technology than the caveman. How is this possible? It's possible when you have a fucked up, oppressive social system.

I'd rather take my chances being born a hunter-gatherer than I would being born a European from 1950 downward.

Ah, so you're an Anarcho-primitivist. You could've just said so instead of writing a whole long-winded rant about how good things were back in the day, subjective as it may be. One can not easily measure happiness in any objective manner.

I also find it humorous that you actually use the name "caveman", which has been a long used derogatory term for hunter/gatherer societies.

I'll also do a little bit of editing.

"Most hunter-gatherer societies were/are extremely socially stratified. " You eat when rarely have food and sleep a few scant hours in between constantly gathering food.. You have no free time because you are constantly gathering food and hunting in order to sustain yourself. There is sexual roles(men hunt, women handle the household, like most of history), Darwinian power relationship."

Ever read the excellent book "Hatchet" by Gary Paulson? Does it describe the main character as living it up in some egalitarian paradise?

Similarly. Watch Survival Man on Discovery channel(the only good survival show, fuck Man vs Wild), does it seem like he is happy? Yes those are very important skills to know and I myself love going camping with just a tent and some supplies, but would I prefer to live like that? No thanks.

I have the strange feeling that you have had to do very little "roughing" unless it was camping in your backyard in your middle class neighborhood. Trust me, being able to eat at least one meal a day and be able to take a shower once a day is something I still cherish after being homeless for 2 months when I was 16.

After a few weeks of only eating what you can subsist on, it becomes an obsession almost. You think about your next meal as if it was the most important thing keeping you going. I find it absolutely hilarious that you think that hunter/gatherers had tons of free time. Maybe the starving ones did, but everyone else had to work to get their food and work hard

Sola_Fide

10-04-2010, 03:19 PM

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 03:23 PM

Actually political philosophy is interpersonal, not personal. A personal philosophy would be something akin to spirituality, while politics deals with society -- interpersonal.

Personal philosophy is influenced by interpersonal relationships.

Ron doesn't want to add onto or create new Welfarisms, while it appears you would be likely to support such initiatives and agenda's if they were to manifest themselves as truly "for the people" (Lets assume for sake of argument). Ron however, would still be against it, because he views all taxation as theft. This nuanced difference eluded you..I thought you didn't like black-and-white scenarios? :p

What "nuanced difference" are you talking about? You need to be more clear. However, it is true that I would support some measures. If the government, by legislation, converted weapons contractors into non-profits which donated proceeds to war orphans you fucking bet I'm going to support that. Just as if the government were to regulate the federal reserve so that it has to limit the restrictions on entry into the banking market. The healthcare bill sucks in a lot of ways, but I support the pre-existing conditions requirement because I see nothing wrong with the government, since its going to dole out corporate welfare, also requiring the recipients to not be assholes.

This is odd considering your earlier historic views in that, the Welfare State arose out of the peoples determinism for a more egalitarian means to correct the perceived inegalitarian ends of the market.

False - I stated that socialism as a political movement (and a lot of separate varieties) arose because people were sick of having a system in which the privileged few lived as kings while the masses toiled in misery.

I would argue there were certainly areas where the State was massively intertwined (Public infrastructure most importantly), however, the areas where this perception arises from those who believe in the Marxian view, is actually displaced agrarians "forced" to work in factories.

This sentence is very unclear. What is your point, precisely?

Given an accurate portrayal, would be that due to rises in capital, it displaced the previous required manpower to fulfill the same demand, thereby eliminating wasteful jobs, and liquidating that labor to flow into more productive means, which at the time was Factory work. Invariably you fail to understand that while there were certainly State supported industry at the time, it was generally concentrated in certain areas. (Area's oddly the "left" massively support)

What time period are you even talking about? If you're referring the the enclosure of the commons and the internal regulation of the peasants, there's plenty of literature confirming the transformation to factory life wasn't just the peasant's choice.

While I would agree there were Industry voices pushing for this as a means to subsidize wages throughout society, it was more pushed through as you say -- populist socialist rhetoric. It is always the same -- those yearning for power coalesce together. You have the upper echelon socialist leaders planning with the Industry powers for more power. The industries benefit by reducing what they would otherwise pay to their workers because the workers now themselves socialize their costs (E.g. theft from each other), and the socialist leaders gain new found power. This repeats over and over. The overarching theme here is to never allow anyone to tax for any reason. Taxation is the most destructive thing there is on this planet.

I agree with what you're saying up until your hyperbolic and fairly unrelated conclusion.

The terms you speak in, "never allow anyone to tax for any reason," is so strange - umm, is that personal advice? What?

You could just as well say "never allow anyone to lie for any reason" - equally useless.

Theft is offensive to me in any form it takes.

But which cases involve theft, and which ones do not, is the very essence of the question of property.

This is simple and is a fundamental key in understanding our different views. You value egalitarianism. I value liberty. In fact, my ordinal preference for egalitarianism is zero. My ordinal preference for liberty is atop the food chain. While video games are damn close. JK JK :p

I don't think you really understand what liberty is. You have a very one-dimensional and contextless (and therefore useless) conception of liberty, in my opinion

heavenlyboy34

10-04-2010, 03:24 PM

It is complete Romanticism. It is the idea of the "noble savage" all over again. Technology is evil, return to nature, crap in holes in the ground....blah, blah, blah....

Actually, if I understand him correctly, he's talking about the illusion of wealth/technology created by fascism. Absent a State system, technology would improve much more rapidly, as it did before the regime clamped down on it through schemes like IP and other absurd regulations. He and I agree here, if I understand him correctly.

AuH20

10-04-2010, 03:24 PM

It is complete Romanticism. It is the idea of the "noble savage" all over again. Technology is evil, return to nature, crap in holes in the ground....blah, blah, blah....

I wouldn't go that far but the threat of a scientific dictatorship developing in the future is very real. Ethics will not keep man from corrupting himself with technology.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 03:24 PM

I have nothing further to add to this discussion.

Been obvious for a while.

Vessol

10-04-2010, 03:25 PM

I wouldn't go that far but the threat of a scientific dictatorship developing in the future is very real. Ethics will not keep man from corrupting himself with technology.

A gun may be used to murder innocent people, but it can also be used to defend yourself and those you love.

I am not a Futurist by any stretch of the means, but I do acknowledge technology in its proper place in society.

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 03:26 PM

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 03:28 PM

"State-capitalism" is not capitalism, it is facism...it is collectivism. Either start using the terms correctly or leave.

lol, either I accept your invented definitions or I leave? Baby having a temper tantrum!

Wrong. Egalitarianism is the antithesis of Liberty. They do not go hand in hand, in fact egalitarian societies like Mao's China have been the most repressive regimes known to man.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You think Mao's China was egalitarian? Ahahahhahaahhaah

BUY A DICTIONARY.

Kind of Marxist.....

Getting more Marxist....

Full on Marxist....

Yea, this all you know to do: throw around the word you think is scary.

Name a single book you've read by Marx. A single one. You're so uneducated it's pathetic that you even bother to pop into this thread.

You still can't define the term "rights" either. haha

Vessol

10-04-2010, 03:29 PM

One last question on your anarcho-primitivism stance.

How do you defend infant exposure that virtually all hunter/gatherer societies practiced?

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 03:32 PM

No they weren't. In what ways would you measure this equality? It certainly didn't come to food, because the men ate more than the women. It certainly didn't come to physical attributes because the men didn't allow women to hunt. It certainly didn't come to freedom, because the men didn't allow women to pursue many activities. What sort of fucked up luddite romanticism do you believe in? Finally we get to the truth of your views.

Women didn't hunt because hunting while carrying a child is not very effective. They were "forced" to gather by the men. Men are larger than women, so they also eat more food. So what? If you think that constitutes "sexism" you have your head much farther up your ass than I ever imagined.

Just look at your own sexist assumptions that the men decided what the women were allowed to do. This is right-wing vulgar libertarian ignorance at it's most asinine.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 03:39 PM

Women didn't hunt because hunting while carrying a child is not very effective. They were "forced" to gather by the men. Men are larger than women, so they also eat more food. So what? If you think that constitutes "sexism" you have your head much farther up your ass than I ever imagined.

Just look at your own sexist assumptions that the men decided what the women were allowed to do. This is right-wing vulgar libertarian ignorance at it's most asinine.

Sure it is sexist. Nature is sexist. Men are larger than women. Women didn't have guns during that time, and thus, did not have the great "equalizer!" . They were subserviant to the men (This is a fact that you are trying to deny). I still don't understand why you believe this was some egalitarian wonderland. It was perhaps the most inegalitarian time in human history. I don't even know what your definition of egalitarianism is --- how do you define egalitarianism?

Why didn't the women hunt, and the men tend to the children? Why didn't the women hunt with the men? Why do you fight against nature? Women simply are not equal to men when it comes to physical attributes. I don't understand the need to fight against this. Let's get even more fundamental. Do you believe that no one should discriminate on any grounds, or have any prejudices?

I prefer shorter women, with average to above average intelligence, and average sized breasts. I suppose I am being sexist against males, since I am heterosexual and not bi-sexual. How far are you willing to go here?

Sola_Fide

10-04-2010, 03:43 PM

Actually, if I understand him correctly, he's talking about the illusion of wealth/technology created by fascism. Absent a State system, technology would improve much more rapidly, as it did before the regime clamped down on it through schemes like IP and other absurd regulations. He and I agree here, if I understand him correctly.

Is this what you mean, Redstripe.

Sola_Fide

10-04-2010, 03:47 PM

O
lol, either I accept your invented definitions or I leave? Baby having a temper tantrum!

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You think Mao's China was egalitarian? Ahahahhahaahhaah

BUY A DICTIONARY.

Yea, this all you know to do: throw around the word you think is scary.

Name a single book you've read by Marx. A single one. You're so uneducated it's pathetic that you even bother to pop into this thread.

You still can't define the term "rights" either. haha

......

Are you actually saying that Mao was not an egalitarian?

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 03:50 PM

Ah, so you're an Anarcho-primitivist. You could've just said so instead of writing a whole long-winded rant about how good things were back in the day, subjective as it may be. One can not easily measure happiness in any objective manner.

1. I'm not an anarcho-primitivist. This is probably the 200th inaccurate accusation leveled against me in this thread by reactionary libertarians who get their panties in a bunch anytime someone challenges one of their religious doctrines.

2. No, it's not easy to objectively measure happiness. I'm responding to someone who is trying to lavish praise on how great life has become over the past 250 years by pointing out the fact that their "progress" narrative is inaccurate.

I also find it humorous that you actually use the name "caveman", which has been a long used derogatory term for hunter/gatherer societies.

Charming anecdote.

Ever read the excellent book "Hatchet" by Gary Paulson? Does it describe the main character as living it up in some egalitarian paradise?

Haha, you're comparing well-establish tribal groups who have lived comfortably on the land for generations with a young boy being abandoned alone in an unfamiliar wilderness. Hahahahaha what a absolutely horrendous analogy.

Similarly. Watch Survival Man on Discovery channel(the only good survival show, fuck Man vs Wild), does it seem like he is happy? Yes those are very important skills to know and I myself love going camping with just a tent and some supplies, but would I prefer to live like that? No thanks.

I don't watch TV, and the fact that you're using a discovery channel reality show to illustrate your understanding of the lives of hunter-gatherers is extremely revealing and hilarious.

I have the strange feeling that you have had to do very little "roughing" unless it was camping in your backyard in your middle class neighborhood. Trust me, being able to eat at least one meal a day and be able to take a shower once a day is something I still cherish after being homeless for 2 months when I was 16.

Hunter-gatherer's aren't homeless. They aren't ill-equipped. They aren't alone.

I've spent extended periods of time (2 weeks +) in the wilderness and it is a wonderful thing. That's why spending time "roughing it" is a luxury not available to most poor people.

Of course, I do prefer a lot of aspects of modern society, namely family and friends followed by technology that makes my life easier. But there's no reason that the same technological knowledge couldn't be combined with a more simplistic, off-the-grid, low-overhead, locally-oriented, and self-sufficient social system.

After a few weeks of only eating what you can subsist on, it becomes an obsession almost. You think about your next meal as if it was the most important thing keeping you going. I find it absolutely hilarious that you think that hunter/gatherers had tons of free time. Maybe the starving ones did, but everyone else had to work to get their food and work hard

Actually there are studies showing that you are, frankly, wrong.

"Anthropologists have often pointed out that hunter-gatherers' work is skill-intensive but not labor-intensive. Research studies suggest that hunter-gatherers' work somewhere between 20 and 40 hours a week, on average, depending on just what you count as work. Moreover, they do not work according to the clock; they work when the time is ripe for the work to be done and when they feel like it. There is ample time in hunter-gatherers' lives for leisure activities, including games of many sorts, playful religious ceremonies, making and playing musical instruments, singing, dancing, traveling to other bands to visit friends and relatives, gossiping, and just lying around and relaxing. The life of the typical hunter-gatherer looks a lot like your life and mine when we are on vacation at a camp with friends.

It's amazing when you think about it. During the 10,000 years since the onset of agriculture and then industry, we have developed countless laborsaving devices, but we haven't reduced our labor. Today, most people spend more time working than did hunter-gatherers, and our work, on average, is less playful."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200907/play-makes-us-human-v-why-hunter-gatherers-work-is-play

You should read the article.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 03:52 PM

It is complete Romanticism. It is the idea of the "noble savage" all over again. Technology is evil, return to nature, crap in holes in the ground....blah, blah, blah....

Actually it's based on anthropology and has nothing to do with hating technology. But then again you're free to continue living in your denial-filled fantasy world.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 03:53 PM

LibertyEagle

10-04-2010, 03:55 PM

Yes, they are both Government control, but they are pretty opposed philosophically. Personally left-right is a misleading way to characterize philosophies. I should say more precisely it is a misnomer. The only actual measuring device of ones philosophy is liberty & individualism being opposed by collectivism & control.

The reality is most philosophies intertwine both. The only consistent people are the complete statist & the complete voluntaryist.

I understand where you are coming from. But, while they may be "consistent", I don't believe either is viable, nor the best option for liberty, due to the nature of man. But, we've been down this path many times before.

Lord Xar

10-04-2010, 03:57 PM

RedStripe has no agenda here for liberty. He is ONLY here to recruit.
He probably already relieved himself upteen times over Chomsky and tea, and it's not even supper time.

A big distraction.

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 03:59 PM

I understand where you are coming from. But, while they may be "consistent", I don't believe either is viable, nor desirable due to the nature of man. But, we've been down this path many times before.

If you do not believe most people are generally good most of the time and the most good is achieved leaving people to their own devices then you must believe most people are generally bad most of the time and need to be told what to do.

In fact you pretty much stated that by saying something is not viable, or desirable due to the nature of man. That means too many baaadddd people.

Since you actually believe people need to be told what to do because they are bad, why do you support Ron Paul? It seems like Obama would be more preferable because he has no problem telling people how to live and assassinating the undesirable nature of man.

heavenlyboy34

10-04-2010, 04:01 PM

But which cases involve theft, and which ones do not, is the very essence of the question of property.

This is a really important point, and is probably lost on most people here. For example, fiat money, though it "seems" like property (and right libertarians/conservatives claim it is), is really a tool of the government and connected elites to exploit the politically unconnected. Even the Austrian and Salamca scholars understood this-the difference between fungible and non-fungible goods (which regimes have historically used to exploit/impoverish the people).

I don't think you really understand what liberty is. You have a very one-dimensional and contextless (and therefore useless) conception of liberty, in my opinion

This is also a very important point. "Liberty" is often used incorrectly, even (especially) on these forums. It is too often spoken of in the "scholastic" or "limited" sense, totally disconnected from reality.

TTYL, RedStripe.

heavenlyboy34

10-04-2010, 04:03 PM

RedStripe has no agenda here for liberty. He is ONLY here to recruit.
He probably already relieved himself upteen times over Chomsky and tea, and it's not even supper time.

A big distraction.

I don't agree with him on many things, but he makes some valid points. I suspect he is for liberty, just not your (very limited) understanding of it. I doubt he's here to "recruit" (if so, it didn't work on me). I could be wrong-we'll see.

LibertyEagle

10-04-2010, 04:08 PM

If you do not believe most people are generally good most of the time and the most good is achieved leaving people to their own devices then you must believe most people are generally bad most of the time and need to be told what to do.

In fact you pretty much stated that by saying something is not viable, or desirable due to the nature of man.

Since you actually believe people need to be told what to do why do you support Ron Paul? It seems like Obama would be more preferable because he has no problem telling people how to live and assassinating the undesirable nature of man.

Talk about twisting words. lolol

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and has stated countless times that he wants to reinstate the Constitution. For you to twist in your mind that he is against all government at all levels is really fascinating.

But, since you seem to have created a mythology that anyone who doesn't want f'ing anarchy is some kind of socialist/marxist pig, then why don't you be the first to go tell Dr. Paul that he should be supporting Obama, big man. :rolleyes:

Carry on.

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 04:09 PM

Regarding my previous point...

Did God create actually create something that is generally bad most of the time?

Did God create man so that man could fear man?

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 04:10 PM

Man how did I miss such a great thread. Red, I am so glad you have stuck it out in this thread and all the other threads you suck it up and take it. The only solution the banning crowd has ever had is.... banning. Unfortunately this tactic does not work in the real world and these people will never convince people because you can't ban Americans from America.

Thank you for your kind words. It's frustrating some times, especially when people repeated accuse me of being a statist (with no evidence), but I know that these are important topics and I'm not going to back down just because some immature people on this forum are throwing temper tantrums.

I think we are going to disagree on land. I do adopt and support land ownership for my reasons and I think you oppose land ownership for your reasons. These reasons are likely where the conversation will focus and I would rather get right to the heart of the matter.

Actually, I'm not at all opposed to land ownership. But land ownership, as a set of rules, can take an infinite number of forms, and it is my preferences of form and character of those rules which probably separates me from some on this forum (but from my personal experience most people are completely unaware of the various distinctions between land ownership systems).

For example, I believe that the rules of adverse possession should be dramatically relaxed, and that it should be more difficult to have an enforcible claim of ownership of vast, unaltered tracts of land. This would allow renters, along with housing/construction deregulation, to erect their own homes and communities, rent free, thus making them less dependent on wage labor and more likely to conduct their own small-scale household production and exchange.

First I want to comment on this:

What's the difference between capitalism and the free market? The state. Society.

True, to me because the state is an aspect of modern society.

Now getting to the heart of the matter...

How can human beings get along on the planet earth sharing the same land?

Please review my couple posts in this thread on Mises so you know my perspective and let me know where you want to start:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20037.aspx

I think that land presents a unique problem when it comes to the development and enforcement of social rules regulating scarcity. Due to the special properties of land, and it's essential character, I think that a good case could be made for special rules, or rules of property ownership that make constructive abandonment easier and which otherwise create a rebuttable presumption that unused land is abandoned.

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 04:12 PM

Talk about twisting words. lolol

I did not twist shit. I posted your exact quote regarding something that is not viable, nor desirable due to the nature of man.

I am not the one that needs to reconcile that. You do.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 04:13 PM

One last question on your anarcho-primitivism stance.

How do you defend infant exposure that virtually all hunter/gatherer societies practiced?

It's unfortunate. I'm not here to defend everything any hunter-gather has ever done: I'm here to educate you and others on the fact that hunter-gatherers actually had an arguably comfortable life, which, in some ways, was better than the life of a modern American laborer.

Read the article I linked.

Dr.3D

10-04-2010, 04:15 PM

Regarding my previous point...

Did God create actually create something that is generally bad most of the time?

Did God create man so that man could fear man?

No, God has never created anything that was not good.
Man became perverted after he was created.

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 04:20 PM

Actually, I'm not at all opposed to land ownership. But land ownership, as a set of rules, can take an infinite number of forms, and it is my preferences of form and character of those rules which probably separates me from some on this forum (but from my personal experience most people are completely unaware of the various distinctions between land ownership systems).

I pretty much knew before I posted based on previous exchanges.

For example, I believe that the rules of adverse possession should be dramatically relaxed, and that it should be more difficult to have an enforcible claim of ownership of vast, unaltered tracts of land. This would allow renters, along with housing/construction deregulation, to erect their own homes and communities, rent free, thus making them less dependent on wage labor and more likely to conduct their own small-scale household production and exchange.

True, to me because the state is an aspect of modern society.

I think that land presents a unique problem when it comes to the development and enforcement of social rules regulating scarcity. Due to the special properties of land, and it's essential character, I think that a good case could be made for special rules, or rules of property ownership that make constructive abandonment easier and which otherwise create a rebuttable presumption that unused land is abandoned.

Care to share anything that would elaborate on rules of land ownership you support?

I adopt land ownership as a preference, not because I am a huge fan of land ownership per se, but because I prefer decentralized, voluntary, non-coerced allocation of scarce resources. Since I prefer that I pretty much have to accept land ownership even thought it could potentially interfere with human beings freely traveling the earth.

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 04:24 PM

No, God has never created anything that was not good.
Man became perverted after he was created.

Is the greatest good achieved by leaving people to their own devices because most people are generally good most of the time?

-or-

Is the greatest good achieved by telling people what to do because most people are generally not good most of the time?

I subscribe to the former.

LibertyEagle

10-04-2010, 04:25 PM

I did not twist shit. I posted your exact quote regarding something that is not viable, nor desirable due to the nature of man.

I am not the one that needs to reconcile that. You do.

Yeah, you did. You created your own little story from what I said.

You believe in all or nothing and I think that is juvenile and naive, at best. Not to mention very dangerous. Nor, do I think it is the best way to achieve liberty.

However, we both know what your goal is and it is to find a reason to preach more anarchist crap and try to convert more people. After all, that's your interest in being here, isn't it?

Sorry, it won't work with me.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 04:28 PM

Yeah, you did. You created your own little story from what I said.

You believe in all or nothing and I think that is juvenile and naive, at best. Not to mention very dangerous.

We both know what your goal is and it is to find a reason to preach more anarchist crap and try to convert more people. After all, that's your interest in being here, isn't it?

Sorry, it won't work with me.

Isn't the goal of any individual here to bring more people to his or her view point? Aren't you here to preach more Constitutionalism?

He didn't create anything. I still don't understand people who believe man are inherently bad need to be ruled by men...It makes no sense whatsoever.

Dr.3D

10-04-2010, 04:28 PM

Is the greatest good achieved by leaving people to their own devices because most people are generally good most of the time?

-or-

Is the greatest good achieved by telling people what to do because most people are generally not good most of the time?

I subscribe to the former.

No man (mankind) is sinless all of the time.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 04:30 PM

Sure it is sexist. Nature is sexist. Men are larger than women.

The premise of your beliefs about sexism is that women are naturally inferior. That is what you are insinuating. No, nature isn't sexist - you ignorant assumptions, however, most definitely ARE. You're the one who assumes that being bigger is better than being smaller. Who says? In some cases being big is a good thing, in some cases being small is a good thing. Yet just look at the crap you actually believe. Ahahaha so hilarious.

Women didn't have guns during that time, and thus, did not have the great "equalizer!" . They were subserviant to the men (This is a fact that you are trying to deny).

Coming from someone who appeared to believe that the start of humanity was Babylon, it's no surprise that you would believe something so ludicrous. Women were not subservient to men in hunter-gatherer societies. There were no leaders, no orders to be followed, good god I can't believe you actually believe this crap.

I still don't understand why you believe this was some egalitarian wonderland. It was perhaps the most inegalitarian time in human history. I don't even know what your definition of egalitarianism is --- how do you define egalitarianism?

"the most inegalitarian time in human history" Get. A. Fucking. Dictionary.

Right now. Get out of your chair. Get your keys. Go to the store. Buy a fucking dictionary.

My definition: "Its general premise is that people should be treated as equals on certain dimensions such as religiously, politically, economically, socially, or culturally. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status"

A society is egalitarian to the extent that it lives up to this aspirational statement.

Why didn't the women hunt, and the men tend to the children? Why didn't the women hunt with the men? Why do you fight against nature? Women simply are not equal to men when it comes to physical attributes.

Yea, women are clearly superior since they have the ability to birth children. :rolleyes:

Ok, I'm gonna go really nice and slow as if I'm talking to a 10 year old, which might actually be the case:

Men and women are physically different, but that doesn't mean that one is "superior" to the other. They are designed to work together cooperatively, and they compliment each other.

This has nothing to do with egalitarianism - which is a doctrine which deals with social structures and power relationships. People performing different tasks, due to physical character of their bodies, does not constitute inegalitarianism.

I don't understand the need to fight against this. Let's get even more fundamental. Do you believe that no one should discriminate on any grounds, or have any prejudices?

No. (What a terribly-worded question)

I prefer shorter women, with average to above average intelligence, and average sized breasts. I suppose I am being sexist against males, since I am heterosexual and not bi-sexual. How far are you willing to go here?

Haha God you really do not understand sexism at all. No wonder you hold so many dumb views.

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 04:30 PM

You believe in all or nothing and I think that is juvenile and naive, at best. Not to mention very dangerous. Nor, do I think it is the best way to achieve liberty.

It's pretty simple LE. Either people are generally good or generally bad. If you think people are not generally good the only logical conclusion is people do not deserve freedom.

You don't need to tell me what I believe. I have stated what I believe and it supports freedom because I believe people are generally good and leaving people to their own devices creates the most good. That is liberty.

The opposite of liberty is regulating the nature of man. There is no rocket science here.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 04:31 PM

O

......

Are you actually saying that Mao was not an egalitarian?

Also, the sky is blue.

PS: Buy a fucking dictionary.

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 04:31 PM

Coming from someone who appeared to believe that the start of humanity was Babylon, it's no surprise that you would believe something so ludicrous. Women were not subservient to men in hunter-gatherer societies. There were no leaders, no orders to be followed, good god I can't believe you actually believe this crap.

Yo...

that is not my quote...

LibertyEagle

10-04-2010, 04:33 PM

Isn't the goal of any individual here to bring more people to his or her view point? Aren't you here to preach more Constitutionalism?

He didn't create anything. I still don't understand people who believe man are inherently bad need to be ruled by men...It makes no sense whatsoever.

I came here to support Ron Paul and promote his ideals. I damn sure did not come here to promote other agendas. If I had them, I would respect him enough to take them elsewhere, instead of using a forum carrying his name as an opportunity to recruit people over to my own agenda.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 04:33 PM

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 04:34 PM

No man (mankind) is sinless all of the time.

Ok...

and what is your answer to my question? Are people generally good or generally bad?

Edit:
Let me rephrase. Do people generally ACT good or generally ACT bad?

Dr.3D

10-04-2010, 04:36 PM

Ok...

and what is your answer to my question? Are people generally good or generally bad?

People are generally good. No one is perfect though and that is were the rub comes in. Sooner or later there will come a time when one will wrong another and then there needs to be a mediator. A judge if you will.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 04:36 PM

This is a really important point, and is probably lost on most people here. For example, fiat money, though it "seems" like property (and right libertarians/conservatives claim it is), is really a tool of the government and connected elites to exploit the politically unconnected. Even the Austrian and Salamca scholars understood this-the difference between fungible and non-fungible goods (which regimes have historically used to exploit/impoverish the people).

This is also a very important point. "Liberty" is often used incorrectly, even (especially) on these forums. It is too often spoken of in the "scholastic" or "limited" sense, totally disconnected from reality.

TTYL, RedStripe.

Agreed on both points. Your first paragraph also brings up another related social theory - power elites - which ties into everything that is being argued about in this thread.

Anyone who actually pays attention to what is going on can clearly see that the elites, corporate, political or otherwise cannot be trusted and don't give a damn about anyone but themselves (for the most part). This is a massive rigged game, and it's been rigged for thousands of years (though it is constantly evolving and changing).

LibertyEagle

10-04-2010, 04:39 PM

It's pretty simple LE. Either people are generally good or generally bad. If you think people are not generally good the only logical conclusion is people do not deserve freedom.

You don't need to tell me what I believe. I have stated what I believe and it supports freedom because I believe people are generally good and leaving people to their own devices creates the most good. That is liberty.

The opposite of liberty is regulating the nature of man. There is no rocket science here.

What you're saying is complete and utter bullshit. All people are not the same, but all people sin.

According to your train of thought, there should be no laws whatsoever, no jails/prisons, because that would be "regulating the nature of man".

Last time I checked, that is not in fact what anarchists believed. And if I am correct in that, anarchists are for a bit of regulation too. They just differ in who is going to impose and run that regulation.

Be consistent and apply your own pie-in-the-sky talking points to your own beliefs.

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 04:42 PM

People are generally good. No one is perfect though and that is were the rub comes in. Sooner or later there will come a time when one will wrong another and then there needs to be a mediator. A judge if you will.

I am not claiming perfection just that most people are generally good most of the time and the most good is achieved leaving people to their own devices.

Even though I recognize society is collective fiction, make believe, and de facto fantasy land I do recognize any claim can only have validity when it is recognized by other people (aka society or judge as you put it).

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 04:43 PM

Care to share anything that would elaborate on rules of land ownership you support?

I adopt land ownership as a preference, not because I am a huge fan of land ownership per se, but because I prefer decentralized, voluntary, non-coerced allocation of scarce resources. Since I prefer that I pretty much have to accept land ownership even thought it could potentially interfere with human beings freely traveling the earth.

I think I'm right there with ya. One thing I would say is that in a reformed system, things like right-of-ways and "community" easements would be important (allowed so long as reasonable under the circumstances. I'm also skeptical as to absentee landlords and their ability to get a police force to physically kick someone out of a house after breaking a lease agreement. I think a better system would be one in which the remedies available for landlords in whatever court system evolves should be quite limited, and should not include eviction (just as bankruptcy precludes some remedies for creditors in our current system, for the sake of fairness and equity).

It's pretty clear, however, that we would want a land system which promotes wide-spread ownership of small plots of land by individuals, families, extended families, voluntary work-communities, etc. An egalitarian distribution of land begets an egalitarian distribution of wealth/power, and all of these things help promote a healthy culture of self-sufficiency and skepticism of the state. It's sort of like some of Jefferson's arguments.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 04:44 PM

Yo...

that is not my quote...

lol sorry, messed up my copy/paste

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 04:56 PM

According to your train of thought, there should be no laws whatsoever, no jails/prisons, because that would be "regulating the nature of man".

No, according to my train of thought, the most good is achieved the more local something is resolved starting with individual property ownership, individuals voting with their feet or wallets everyday, and less good is achieved the farther removed it is.

They just differ in who is going to impose and run that regulation.

They differ in how far removed it should be from the people.

Be consistent and apply your own pie-in-the-sky talking points to your own beliefs.

If I were you I wouldn't worry about my pie-in-the-sky talking points and address whatever guides you to believe the nature of man does not deserve freedom because it is not viable or desirable.

BenIsForRon

10-04-2010, 04:58 PM

Isn't the goal of any individual here to bring more people to his or her view point?

Actually, this forum was created to facilitate the sharing of ideas between grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. The philosophy stuff was on the side, but came more the fore after the campaign ended.

Most of the people who originally posted on this forum were primarily concerned with restoring the federal government to its constitutional bounds. All the AnCaps wanting to eliminate any and all vestiges of the state came later.

Sadly, the AnCaps have a unique ability to make constitutionalists feel weak and inadequate. Constitutionalists are made to feel less "hardcore" than the AnCaps because they still believe there are legitimate roles for government in various aspects of society. Thus, when the AnCaps say "Oh, you think the government should be involved in national defense? You fuckin' pussy, private militaries FTW!!!!" it actually works.

I've seen a few members become anarchists, but some others who haven't are almost apologetic about their views. "I'm really sorry guys, I think there should be some form of national defense under the jurisdiction of the federal government... but hey, maybe I'll come around later! Please don't call me a statist!"

LibertyEagle

10-04-2010, 05:06 PM

No, according to my train of thought, the most good is achieved the more local something is resolved starting with individual property ownership, individuals voting with their feet or wallets everyday, and less good is achieved the farther removed it is.

We agree on that.

If I were you I wouldn't worry about my pie-in-the-sky talking points and address whatever guides you to believe the nature of man does not deserve freedom because it is not viable or desirable.

That is not what I said. You are twisting yet again. I did not say that man did not deserve freedom. Quite the contrary.

I do not believe that your all or nothing approach is the best way to achieve freedom; nor maintain it. I believe our liberty is best achieved and preserved by a very small, limited government kept very close to the people. Yes, I believe that there is a legitimate role of government, which is to protect the liberty of the minority, or the one, from the force of the majority. With the vast majority of "government" being self-government.

mczerone

10-04-2010, 05:06 PM

Of course, I do prefer a lot of aspects of modern society, namely family and friends followed by technology that makes my life easier. But there's no reason that the same technological knowledge couldn't be combined with a more simplistic, off-the-grid, low-overhead, locally-oriented, and self-sufficient social system.

Hi, I'm generally in support of your argumentation in this thread, and think you have made the better points than those arguing with you. This isn't to say I agree with your stance, but that you're obviously more justified than your adversaries.

However, this last portion of your paragraph lays bare your position's weakness. You want to devise a system, you want to design society. I entirely support your right to practice these ideas, but only with the voluntary support of all those involved. A co-op, or other firm structure, may be the most efficient structure of society, but only market competition can make that decision. And unfortunately for your goals, history and theory show that planned systems flounder in comparison to organically formed economies.

Actually there are studies showing that you are, frankly, wrong.

"Anthropologists have often pointed out that hunter-gatherers' work is skill-intensive but not labor-intensive. Research studies suggest that hunter-gatherers' work somewhere between 20 and 40 hours a week, on average, depending on just what you count as work. Moreover, they do not work according to the clock; they work when the time is ripe for the work to be done and when they feel like it. There is ample time in hunter-gatherers' lives for leisure activities, including games of many sorts, playful religious ceremonies, making and playing musical instruments, singing, dancing, traveling to other bands to visit friends and relatives, gossiping, and just lying around and relaxing. The life of the typical hunter-gatherer looks a lot like your life and mine when we are on vacation at a camp with friends.

It's amazing when you think about it. During the 10,000 years since the onset of agriculture and then industry, we have developed countless laborsaving devices, but we haven't reduced our labor. Today, most people spend more time working than did hunter-gatherers, and our work, on average, is less playful."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200907/play-makes-us-human-v-why-hunter-gatherers-work-is-play

You should read the article.

I did hope that you would bring this point up, as not all pre-state or pre-industrial lives were "nasty brutish and short."

In all, there are an infinite number of ways to conduct "society", and they may only be judged subjectively. Thus, each actor should be free to judge his own utopia, and not be forced to subject to the will of any other actor.

It seems that everyone here is just arguing about which system deserves the most faith put into it. In fact, that's probably why this resembles a whargarbl about religion. There is no objective correct answer because each man is free to decide for himself. And that impediment to agreement in faiths is precisely the theoretical basis for advocating liberty and the free market.

heavenlyboy34

10-04-2010, 05:08 PM

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 05:09 PM

Actually, this forum was created to facilitate the sharing of ideas between grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. The philosophy stuff was on the side, but came more the fore after the campaign ended.

Most of the people who originally posted on this forum were primarily concerned with restoring the federal government to its constitutional bounds. All the AnCaps wanting to eliminate any and all vestiges of the state came later.

Sadly, the AnCaps have a unique ability to make constitutionalists feel weak and inadequate. Constitutionalists are made to feel less "hardcore" than the AnCaps because they still believe there are legitimate roles for government in various aspects of society. Thus, when the AnCaps say "Oh, you think the government should be involved in national defense? You fuckin' pussy, private militaries FTW!!!!" it actually works.

I've seen a few members become anarchists, but some others who haven't are almost apologetic about their views. "I'm really sorry guys, I think there should be some form of national defense under the jurisdiction of the federal government... but hey, maybe I'll come around later! Please don't call me a statist!"

Here is the problem with Constitutionalists. For all of the bitching, whining, moaning, and groaning there is one clear fact.

We The People are the fourth branch of government. This is why the damn Second Amendment exists.

So make me a believer that you actually believe in the Constitution and start pledging lives, fortunes, and sacred honor and let's get the We The People Militia in the field to start defending against unlawful Federal encroachments ocurring against our fellow Citizens.

Until that happens I don't think people actually believe in what they say or are unwilling to take any personal risk to believe in the freedom they moan about. Until that happens I prefer some competition in defense. Eternal vigilance is not eternally bitching...

AuH20

10-04-2010, 05:10 PM

Only because the Constitution itself is weak and inadequate. ;)

The Constitution is as weak and inadequate as the people it guides. I can assuredly speculate that the Articles of Confederation would have been systematically diluted in a similar fashion.

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 05:12 PM

I do not believe that your all or nothing approach is the best way to achieve freedom; nor maintain it. I believe our liberty is best achieved and preserved by a very small, limited government kept very close to the people. Yes, I believe that there is a legitimate role of government, which is to protect the liberty of the minority, or the one, from the force of the majority. With the vast majority of "government" being self-government.

Same goes for you too. Make me a believer the Constitutional system can work and you are prepared to exercise your Constitutional civic duties as the fourth branch of Constitutional government.

LibertyEagle

10-04-2010, 05:15 PM

Same goes for you too. Make me a believer the Constitutional system can work and you are prepared to exercise your Constitutional civic duties as the fourth branch of Constitutional government.

I have no duty to you. Nor, would I be so ignorant to talk about such things on an open forum.

BenIsForRon

10-04-2010, 05:16 PM

Same goes for you too. Make me a believer the Constitutional system can work and you are prepared to exercise your Constitutional civic duties as the fourth branch of Constitutional government.

This whole movement is about turning the tide so we never have to get to that stage.

LibertyEagle

10-04-2010, 05:17 PM

Only because the Constitution itself is weak and inadequate. ;)

hb, you have been told and told and told that your Constitution-bashing BULLSHIT belongs in the Philosophy forum.

:mad:

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 05:22 PM

Yo...

that is not my quote...

I also never said that. If you read what I wrote I start with the beginning of documented written history, then move back before the start of written history. I also did not start written history with Babylonia, but with the proper fact of Sumeria. For one who accuses of strawmanning, that was an outright lie.

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 05:24 PM

I have no duty to you. Nor, would I be so ignorant to talk about such things on an open forum.

And your lack of Constitutional civic duty is the reason you earn no respect defending something only in words not deeds.

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."

low preference guy

10-04-2010, 05:24 PM

this is a funny forum

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 05:26 PM

This whole movement is about turning the tide so we never have to get to that stage.

Constitutional government is about We The People exercising civic duty to prevent the government from raping and pillaging the people. If people are unwilling to defend against such things now which have been plainly been happening to people for years I have no respect for a Constitutional system missing the very important fourth branch of government. I would rather have competition in defense.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-04-2010, 05:29 PM

Vessol

10-04-2010, 05:29 PM

Agreed on both points. Your first paragraph also brings up another related social theory - power elites - which ties into everything that is being argued about in this thread.

Anyone who actually pays attention to what is going on can clearly see that the elites, corporate, political or otherwise cannot be trusted and don't give a damn about anyone but themselves (for the most part). This is a massive rigged game, and it's been rigged for thousands of years (though it is constantly evolving and changing).

You say a lot of stuff I agree with fully, but I guess we all have our differences.

RedStripe

10-04-2010, 05:34 PM

Hi, I'm generally in support of your argumentation in this thread, and think you have made the better points than those arguing with you. This isn't to say I agree with your stance, but that you're obviously more justified than your adversaries.

I appreciate that.

However, this last portion of your paragraph lays bare your position's weakness. You want to devise a system, you want to design society. I entirely support your right to practice these ideas, but only with the voluntary support of all those involved. A co-op, or other firm structure, may be the most efficient structure of society, but only market competition can make that decision. And unfortunately for your goals, history and theory show that planned systems flounder in comparison to organically formed economies.

I think you may be misunderstanding my purpose in laying out my general sketch of what a freer society could or might look like. I don't advocate forcing a particular system on anyone, and in truth I believe that if society does evolve past the state, it will most likely be a hodgepodge of many different systems (sometimes called panarchy), and I'm definitely alright with that too.

Based on where we are right now, I do think that the decentralized, underground, off-the-grid'ish', networked economic systems are a trend towards a possible future society founded on a fundamentally different sort of state/economic system, and I like where the trends are heading. Right now I'm reading Kevin Carson's Homebrew Industrial Revolution book (http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/contents/) which is amazing, although not quite as mind-blowing as his book on Organizational Theory (http://www.amazon.com/Organization-Theory-Libertarian-Kevin-Carson/dp/1439221995).

Like you say, societies future is not going to be determined by the desires of any particular Utopian ideology - it's going to be determined by the evolution of market forced. And what I'm saying is that market forces are headed in the general direction of the sort of system I support. State-capitalism can't last much longer, but the question is what will "replace" it, in that society will continue to evolve and exist. A lot depends on the character of the decline of our current system, but, to borrow Kevin Carson's analogy, the networked, low-overhead, decentralized, egalitarian, mutualist economic system is the rat living in the dinosaur's nest.

I did hope that you would bring this point up, as not all pre-state or pre-industrial lives were "nasty brutish and short."

In all, there are an infinite number of ways to conduct "society", and they may only be judged subjectively. Thus, each actor should be free to judge his own utopia, and not be forced to subject to the will of any other actor.

It seems that everyone here is just arguing about which system deserves the most faith put into it. In fact, that's probably why this resembles a whargarbl about religion. There is no objective correct answer because each man is free to decide for himself. And that impediment to agreement in faiths is precisely the theoretical basis for advocating liberty and the free market.

Human societies are extremely diverse of course. To me the importance of that fact, and the fact that many hunter-gatherer societies were superior to contemporary societies in many respects (and yet were still egalitarian), just goes to show that this whole idea of the "nature" of human beings is not set in stone. The hypothesis that stratification is inevitable or universal (by appeal to a "law of nature") is objectively false and shouldn't be used to justify the vast array of unjust power relationships which dominate modern society.

I suspect that I disagree with you slightly. I'm a little less inclined to just sit back and let "spontaneous order" do it's things, in consideration of the fact that the state itself, and all it's associated unjust institutions and history, is a product of "spontaneous order." Maybe that's not what you're saying and I'm just not understanding you.

mczerone

10-04-2010, 05:47 PM

We agree on that.

That is not what I said. You are twisting yet again. I did not say that man did not deserve freedom. Quite the contrary.

I do not believe that your all or nothing approach is the best way to achieve freedom; nor maintain it. I believe our liberty is best achieved and preserved by a very small, limited government kept very close to the people. Yes, I believe that there is a legitimate role of government, which is to protect the liberty of the minority, or the one, from the force of the majority. With the vast majority of "government" being self-government.

An "all or nothing approach" with what means toward what goal? You say "to achieve freedom", but the only way to get freedom is by getting total freedom. There is no "95%" free. You are either under threat of being stolen from or beaten, or you're not.

If the legitimate role of the government is to protect the liberty of the minorty - how is it ever going to restrain itself from encroaching on those very liberties when it is, since it's the only protecting game in town, susceptible to the will of the majority and the rich? How many resources should be taken from the majority to enforce the rights of the minority, and who decides what those rights are? If there is only a single arbiter of these rights, it's naturally going to be tyrannical to the minority.

Only voluntarily supported agencies could ever claim to protect liberty, and they would have no right to claim a monopoly over any person's choices, for liberty includes choosing how you want to protect your liberties.

TNforPaul45

10-04-2010, 05:56 PM

That Cartoon Remix was so epic...there are no words.

I've never seen Glen Beck so precisely defined: Empty Hope, just like Obama.

Live_Free_Or_Die

10-04-2010, 06:01 PM

Empty Hope

Brilliantly articulated.

heavenlyboy34

10-04-2010, 06:47 PM

hb, you have been told and told and told that your Constitution-bashing BULLSHIT belongs in the Philosophy forum.

:mad:

1) it's not "bullshit"-it's a legitimate POV that's been around long before you or I were even born.
2) I responded to an existing thread-I did not start a new thread "bashing" the constitution, per the rules.

un.privileged

10-05-2010, 11:31 AM

I appreciate that.

I think you may be misunderstanding my purpose in laying out my general sketch of what a freer society could or might look like. I don't advocate forcing a particular system on anyone, and in truth I believe that if society does evolve past the state, it will most likely be a hodgepodge of many different systems (sometimes called panarchy), and I'm definitely alright with that too.

Based on where we are right now, I do think that the decentralized, underground, off-the-grid'ish', networked economic systems are a trend towards a possible future society founded on a fundamentally different sort of state/economic system, and I like where the trends are heading. Right now I'm reading Kevin Carson's Homebrew Industrial Revolution book (http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/contents/) which is amazing, although not quite as mind-blowing as his book on Organizational Theory (http://www.amazon.com/Organization-Theory-Libertarian-Kevin-Carson/dp/1439221995).

Like you say, societies future is not going to be determined by the desires of any particular Utopian ideology - it's going to be determined by the evolution of market forced. And what I'm saying is that market forces are headed in the general direction of the sort of system I support. State-capitalism can't last much longer, but the question is what will "replace" it, in that society will continue to evolve and exist. A lot depends on the character of the decline of our current system, but, to borrow Kevin Carson's analogy, the networked, low-overhead, decentralized, egalitarian, mutualist economic system is the rat living in the dinosaur's nest.

Human societies are extremely diverse of course. To me the importance of that fact, and the fact that many hunter-gatherer societies were superior to contemporary societies in many respects (and yet were still egalitarian), just goes to show that this whole idea of the "nature" of human beings is not set in stone. The hypothesis that stratification is inevitable or universal (by appeal to a "law of nature") is objectively false and shouldn't be used to justify the vast array of unjust power relationships which dominate modern society.

I suspect that I disagree with you slightly. I'm a little less inclined to just sit back and let "spontaneous order" do it's things, in consideration of the fact that the state itself, and all it's associated unjust institutions and history, is a product of "spontaneous order." Maybe that's not what you're saying and I'm just not understanding you.

Kevin Carson is awesome. His writings largely contributed to my left leaning libertarianism, especially emphasizing for localized, decentralized, and a Co-operative market economy, which personally for me is what a truly free market would look like. Workers would have more opportunity of ownership and control over their own means of production. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/workers-of-the-world-unite/

RedStripe

10-05-2010, 01:06 PM

Lord Xar

10-05-2010, 01:15 PM

Kevin Carson is awesome. His writings largely contributed to my left leaning libertarianism, especially emphasizing for localized, decentralized, and a Co-operative market economy, which personally for me is what a truly free market would look like. Workers would have more opportunity of ownership and control over their own means of production. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/workers-of-the-world-unite/

OMG What are the chances, that another leftist/marxist happens upon such an unassuming thread title as "Donald Duck meets Glen Beck" and responds to RedStripe with a link and some manly love. Then Redstripe responds with some praise for some nameless dude.... and remarks how fortuitous to find another with views such as his... RedStripe, that is the recruitment I was talking about. Indirect and manipulative. Create your brokeback lefttist agenda somewhere else please.

AuH20

10-05-2010, 01:28 PM

OMG What are the chances, that another leftist/marxist happens upon such an unassuming thread title as "Donald Duck meets Glen Beck" and responds to RedStripe with a link and some manly love. Then Redstripe responds with some praise for some nameless dude.... and remarks how fortuitous to find another with views such as his... RedStripe, that is the recruitment I was talking about. Indirect and manipulative. Create your brokeback lefttist agenda somewhere else please.

I don't think Stripe's motives are that sinister. He's simply engaging in some witty banter.

RedStripe

10-05-2010, 01:28 PM

OMG What are the chances, that another leftist/marxist happens upon such an unassuming thread title as "Donald Duck meets Glen Beck" and responds to RedStripe with a link and some manly love. Then Redstripe responds with some praise for some nameless dude.... and remarks how fortuitous to find another with views such as his... RedStripe, that is the recruitment I was talking about. Indirect and manipulative. Create your brokeback lefttist agenda somewhere else please.

I was trying to think of a way of parodying your reactionary ignorance and then I realized that you are so pathetic it's impossible to even parody you. (but if someone else wants to try, feel free to prove me wrong)

Lord Xar

10-05-2010, 01:37 PM

I was trying to think of a way of parodying your reactionary ignorance and then I realized that you are so pathetic it's impossible to even parody you. (but if someone else wants to try, feel free to prove me wrong)

yawn

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-05-2010, 01:44 PM

I like Sheldon Richmann and Roderick Long, but they are not mutualists like Carson. Equating those persons together is fallacious. You should know better RedStripe.

zade

10-05-2010, 02:15 PM

RedStripe, as always you utterly outshine your detractors. Please don't stop or get discouraged!

RedStripe

10-05-2010, 06:22 PM

I like Sheldon Richmann and Roderick Long, but they are not mutualists like Carson. Equating those persons together is fallacious. You should know better RedStripe.

What? When did I say that Long and Richman were mutualists? Wait, did I even mention them in this thread at all?

And yes, of course I know "better" than the false fact that you falsely accuse me of asserting. Those two are, of course, definitely left-libertarians (and some of the best libertarian commentators around).

RedStripe, as always you utterly outshine your detractors. Please don't stop or get discouraged!

:) Thanks. Don't worry, I'm not gonna stop.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-05-2010, 06:38 PM

What? When did I say that Long and Richman were mutualists? Wait, did I even mention them in this thread at all?

And yes, of course I know "better" than the false fact that you falsely accuse me of asserting. Those two are, of course, definitely left-libertarians (and some of the best libertarian commentators around).

:) Thanks. Don't worry, I'm not gonna stop.

I try not to get myself tangled into labels like left & right, which don't accurately portray much at all, but I was more alluding to the fact that the post you quoted brought up Carson, but then posted a Richman article...seemed kind of odd considering Richman is not a mutualist like Carson, but is a Market Anarchist (E.g. not favoring one sort of business formation over another).

I agree. Richman and Long are very good. Policy wise I don't think you and I differ too much, but personally we are pretty well divided. Probably comes about through different lens. I am more of Spencerian in my views, and you take a more Marxian view.

Though it does seem odd you call yourself a Mutualist, then decry activities that Mutual Aid societies would actively participate in (like not rendering assistance with Society money to that individual whose house burned down because of bad decisions he made), nonetheless, I foresee more forays between us in the future :p

You may reject the state of nature, but you can't change it! :D

LibertyEagle

10-05-2010, 06:42 PM

And your lack of Constitutional civic duty is the reason you earn no respect defending something only in words not deeds.

You have no clue what I have done or not done.

Get off your soap flake.

LibertyEagle

10-05-2010, 06:44 PM

RedStripe, as always you utterly outshine your detractors. Please don't stop or get discouraged!

Yeah, all hail the dude who says his goal is to "undermine the system" to bring to America something akin to the French Revolution.

Do you know who orchestrated that thing? Perhaps you should go look it up. Hint: It has nothing whatsoever to do with Ron Paul or his principles..

RedStripe

10-05-2010, 08:05 PM

I try not to get myself tangled into labels like left & right, which don't accurately portray much at all, but I was more alluding to the fact that the post you quoted brought up Carson, but then posted a Richman article...seemed kind of odd considering Richman is not a mutualist like Carson, but is a Market Anarchist (E.g. not favoring one sort of business formation over another).

Sorry I don't remember posting any articles? I think you are referring to someone else.

Actually market anarchists can favor one sort of business formation over another. I'm a market anarchist and I have preferences.

I agree. Richman and Long are very good. Policy wise I don't think you and I differ too much, but personally we are pretty well divided. Probably comes about through different lens. I am more of Spencerian in my views, and you take a more Marxian view.

Yea, and I think libertarians could gain a lot of insight into the world by adopting some of Marx's class analysis. Carson does so brilliantly.

Though it does seem odd you call yourself a Mutualist, then decry activities that Mutual Aid societies would actively participate in (like not rendering assistance with Society money to that individual whose house burned down because of bad decisions he made), nonetheless, I foresee more forays between us in the future :p

This is a spin-off of something you posted in another thread, but it's simply not what I'm talking about. It's entirely circumstantial whether or not it is reprehensible or perhaps slightly anti-social to fail to render basic services to the needy. If the man attempted to join the Mutual Aid society, but in submitting his paperwork accidentally forgot to sign the last page (but had not yet submitted his dues, which would be required after the paperwork was processed), it's kind of fucked up for the society to turn a cold shoulder to him (or if he accidentally let his membership expire for a day, because of some unforeseen circumstance, and on that very day his leg gets crushed and he can no longer work). Then again, there is the opposite end of the spectrum which might involve someone who is openly antagonistic to the society, or tells them "screw you guys I'm not going to join your silly club" and who subsequently asks them for help. Do you understand why society's moral expectations can vary and are dependent upon an extremely wide range of circumstances?

See, life is complex thing. Doing the "right" thing in a complex world isn't always easy to determine. One major benefit of mutual aid societies is that they are run by the common people themselves, and are much more likely to be sympathetic to each other and non-members as opposed to some faceless state/corporate bureaucracy.

Now that I think about it, the non-aggression axiom itself is exactly the sort of broadly-recognized basic social/moral expectation. It's wide acceptance is similar to the broad expectation of basic acts of humanitarianism, such as helping someone else when 1) they (and society) would benefit immensely from your help and 2) rendering help costs you essentially nothing.

You may reject the state of nature, but you can't change it! :D

If there's one thing I've learned over the years of studying political philosophy, it's that appeals to "natural," "the nature of man," and "natural law" tend to be the most bogus, and are used in place of actual facts/argument.

RedStripe

10-05-2010, 08:06 PM

Yeah, all hail the dude who says his goal is to "undermine the system" to bring to America something akin to the French Revolution.

I'd love to see you back up that with a quote from me.

Or is that just more hot air coming from your rear?

un.privileged

10-07-2010, 04:02 PM

I like Sheldon Richmann and Roderick Long, but they are not mutualists like Carson. Equating those persons together is fallacious. You should know better RedStripe.

They are not Mutualists, but they are still Left wing libertarians. And Sheldon Richman made a wonderful lecture of Free Market vs Capitalism, which you can view it here : YouTube - Sheldon Richman at FFF: "Capitalism" vs. the Free Market (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSvoj76NRLM)

Both of them praise Kevin Carson for not being a vulgar libertarians.

Even Sheldon Richman also made a facebook group called Libertarians against Capitalism http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2010/01/libertarians-against-capitalism.html

Libertarians was originally from the left. Both Roderick Long and Sheldon Richman acknowledge this.

Roderick Long also acknowledge that in a truly free market society, Corporations will wither out, and most companies would be employee-owned. He also goes along way more with Kevin Carson than say, Walter Block. Together, they run the Center For Stateless Society (http://www.c4ss.org).

One of the earliest free market anarchist, Thomas Hodgskin, was anti-Capitalist. He used the term pejoratively far before Marx's era.