AdrianHealey: nirgrahamUK: what are the *goals* of the right? "right-libertarians" Hoppe is often considered to be one ,as is Rockwell and Karen De coster.I'm unsure how I feel about this. "One could argue that people who are libertarians and combine this with a hope for less immigration, less drugs, more homogeneous neighboorhoods and so on and so forth, together with an attitude 'poverty is mainly caused by one's own actions', 'pregnant teens are not victims who should be helped, but people who should be punished' " That's a fair description of paleo-libertarians.Sounds like Hoppe. Again: there is a difference between what rules should guide a society and what people think ought to happen given those rules.
nirgrahamUK: what are the *goals* of the right?
what are the *goals* of the right?
"right-libertarians"
Hoppe is often considered to be one ,as is Rockwell and Karen De coster.I'm unsure how I feel about this.
"One could argue that people who are libertarians and combine this with a hope for less immigration, less drugs, more homogeneous neighboorhoods and so on and so forth, together with an attitude 'poverty is mainly caused by one's own actions', 'pregnant teens are not victims who should be helped, but people who should be punished' "
That's a fair description of paleo-libertarians.Sounds like Hoppe.
Again: there is a difference between what rules should guide a society and what people think ought to happen given those rules.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
nirgrahamUK: My point boild down to this; IF you think some sweatshop is immoral but that there should be no use of force to amend it, you have no functional difference from a 'rightist' who loves the fact that the sweatshop is immoral (or if thats not what rightists do , that disagrees with you that the sweatshop is immoral). As far as as you are 'libertarian' I see no difference, the difference is only in the place where your libertarianism is not in question and needs no modification, the difference is on your opinions of what is moral, or on your likings. Perhaps you can 'win' this argument by saying that libertarian modifies your 'left' morality and preferences. i.e. Left-Libertarianism is a strand of the LEFT by which you can be marked out from others on the LEFT who are not libertarians. This makes way more sense to me.
My point boild down to this; IF you think some sweatshop is immoral but that there should be no use of force to amend it, you have no functional difference from a 'rightist' who loves the fact that the sweatshop is immoral (or if thats not what rightists do , that disagrees with you that the sweatshop is immoral). As far as as you are 'libertarian' I see no difference, the difference is only in the place where your libertarianism is not in question and needs no modification, the difference is on your opinions of what is moral, or on your likings.
Perhaps you can 'win' this argument by saying that libertarian modifies your 'left' morality and preferences. i.e. Left-Libertarianism is a strand of the LEFT by which you can be marked out from others on the LEFT who are not libertarians. This makes way more sense to me.
(I made 2 paragraphs here.)
I'm in complete agreement with your first paragraph. The (only) way 'left' and 'right' libertarianism makes sense to me, is that we are both in agreement about what rules should guide a libertarian world - we all know them: property, non-aggression and so on and so forth - but they both have disagreements about what ought to happen in that world. Voluntarily oppose x or support y and stuff like that.
I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with the second paragraph, but it sounds oke.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Sounds like stereotypes.It's gross to talk of those who are downtrodden and marginalized as 'losers' ,making such blanket statements.
Stereotypes come about for a reason. Gross or not.
Scott F:I definately agree there is a tendency towards syndicalism(of the anarcho kind) in left libertarianism.Mutualism even more so.I am like certain aspects of anarcho-syndicalism and have increasingly been inclined towards it -maybe even calling myself one.
Then have you read Ludwig von Mises' argument that syndicalism is even more preposterous as an idea for socioeconomic system than is socialism?
AdrianHealey:Which is odd; the capitalist-entrepreneurial function is as important as all other, so why discriminate against it?
It's not just odd. It's ridiculous. With capital, just as much as with land, outside of freak coincidences, those who are best at allocating resources will not be the same individuals as those who are best at laboring with them. Furthermore, as I've written, paraphrasing part of Mises' refutation of syndicalism:
As soon as the needs of society change in the slightest, how is a syndicalist order to adapt? Under capitalism, shifts in consumer demand adjust prices. In seeking profits, entrepreneurs try to anticipate these price adjustments, and thereby adjust the structure of production to best satisfy consumer wants in the new state of affairs. In the flux of the market, resources shift from one industry to another, in response to consumer demand. But, under syndicalism, why would any producer's syndicate acquiesce to a diminution of its importance and wealth in society? Production is for the sake of consumption, never the other way around. Therefore, any system of social production worthy of the name must have some means of at least conceivably adjusting production for the sake of consumption. Even socialism ostensibly fits this bill, because the central administration at least has the authority to adjust production by diktat, in order to try to better serve society (if not the intellectual means to do so rationally). But no syndicalist has ever put forth any idea of how a syndicalist state would do so, that did not involve becoming, in essence, capitalism or socialism.
This is why Mises compared socialism favorably to syndicalism. Socialism is suicidal. But it at least it is coherent enough to begin to imagine as a social system of production in a world of changing data, even if it is ultimately completely unattainable. But with syndicalism, you can hardly go beyond just simply defining it, before you realize how nonsensical it is.
Danny Sanchez:It's not just odd. It's ridiculous. With capital, just as much as with land, outside of freak coincidences, those who are best at allocating resources will not be the same individuals as those who are best at laboring with them. Furthermore, as I've written, paraphrasing part of Mises' refutation of syndicalism.
Well there are a lot of one-man companies (I don't know the English word for it), which does combine entrepreneur, manager, capitalist and laborer in one entity. If I get the left-libertarian concept right, than they would argue along the line of: 'in a libertarian world, there will be more of these' and 'there would be a bigger tendency to have a comparative advantage with companies where labor = manager = entrepreneur'. I honestly couldn't care less about how a firm works, but I'm inclined to believe that the regulation today decreases the amount of firms who work like that. This is an empirical matter - it could also be the other way around and I don't really care about it.
In any case, this kind of dwellings are empirical matters, which aren't all that relevant to libertarianism per se.
It changes, however, when you want to make it illegal to act differently than the syndicalist model. Than it's just a divergence from libertarianism as such.
vaguelyhumanoid: LS, two problems: 1. Initiation of force against what? I bet you mean against person or property, but are those really equivalent?
LS, two problems:
1. Initiation of force against what? I bet you mean against person or property, but are those really equivalent?
They are to me. My property is a product of my life.
vaguelyhumanoid:2. All moral statements are "ought" statements.
The definition of something which would classify it as moral or immoral, is not an ought statement. This world would be a significantly better place if people argued the subject, instead of arguing strawmen.
vaguelyhumanoid:Are you saying that which is moral is not preferable to that which is immoral?
No. But you can tell that, by going back and reading what I have written.
AdrianHealey:Well there are a lot of one-man companies (I don't know the English word for it)
Sole proprietorship.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Scott F:Your a rightwing reactionary.
There is nothing right wing about me. You can't even define right wing, let alone find something right wing about my opinions or positions.
Scott F:I've said plenty about economics -undeniable things as a matter of fact
What were they?
Scott F: and secondly this isn't communism and if you can't tell the different then your no scholar
You tell me what the difference between communisms positions and the positions you posted are. Show me what is unique in your ideology that isn't also common to communism.
Scott F:You've epitomised the false capitalist vs socialist dichotomy I reject.
All you do is talk about how you are left, and other people have conservative baggage, and then you claim you reject particular dichotomies. It's hard to take you seriously, when you don't seem to follow what you say you believe.
Scott F:You ask for clarity,I gave it.
I agree. You did give the most clarity possible for a muddled and incoherent libertarian philosophy.
Scott F:You have nothing to contribute here.
That may be very true. I certainly have nothing like the OP to contribute.
Scott F:It's comments like this that have made me lose massive amounts of respect and love for these forums and this site in general.
You should try reading some Austrian economics. It might help.
Scott F:An-cap orthodoxy rides again.
Nothing I have said in anyway is related to ancap. Again, you're the one obsessed with dichotomies. You're the one bringing up left, or conservative, ancap or worker/owner.
Scott F:"The stuff that Scott posted in his manifesto, is basically the same post hoc, ergo propter hoc rationale for socialism that Communists use." ummm how? I'm libertarian. Socialists don't tend to say the things I do and that's the problem.
ummm how? I'm libertarian. Socialists don't tend to say the things I do and that's the problem.
Sure they do. Danny just pointed out that your positions, when summed up, are very close to syndicalism.
Do you know what historical materialism is?
Scott F:"I'm a voluntaryist." Voluntaryism is okay I guess.
Voluntaryism is okay I guess.
That's mighty nice of you to take such a strong and principled stand against arbitrary violence.
Scott F:But it's thin libertarianism i.e. it seems to say as long as it's voluntary it's okay which is like saying if someone is being treated like dirt but it's voluntary that's fine.
If they want to be treated like dirt, what business is it of yours? Who are you to have anything to say about how other people choose to live their lives?
That's the problem with leftism. I have yet to meet a self-described leftist I was impressed by on a character level, and yet they all seem to think they are so righteous they can second guess everyone's choices. I tried to call Kevin Carson on this, and he squirmed. I used to tell Wombatron that the biggest racists are left-libertarians. They are obsessed with race and sex relations, to the point of treating minorities and women like defacto victims in every relationship. In fact, I cannot see how your style of leftism can consistently see relationships as healthy, because you "believe" that voluntary relationships can be immoral. It's the huge contradiction of leftism.
Another huge problem with the platform of the self-styled left-libertarians is the divisive elements.
From the OP:
"The political class.The State has throughout history to present day acted to artificially privilege the rich,corporations, landlords and employers(The political class) at the expense of everyone else particularly the poor, employees,women, black people,foreigners, tenants,small businesses,the self employed, unions and the like(the exploited class).Following from this left-libertarians are on the side of the downtrodden and the marginalized."
The problem is that both the rich and the poor don't understand the harmony of interests. The poor have also striven for privileges, and they have done plenty to try to "eat the rich", believing, along with the rich, in the "Montaigne Dogma" that no man can benefit except by another man's loss. They are ignorant of the harmony of interests. As I've written,
Cognizance of this harmony of interests is what underpinned the scientific liberalism (one might call it "harmonist doctrine", as Mises does) that first arose in the writings of men like Hume, Smith, and Condillac; that intellectually won the field in the days of Ricardo and Say; and that had its greatest impact on policy in the days of Cobden and Bastiat. And it was the denial of this harmony of interests-- what amounted to a philosophy of irreconcilable conflict (or, as Mises termed it, an "anti-harmonist doctrine")-- that underpinned the revolt against liberalism which reached its culmination in the twentieth century.
Don't take their "side". Don't take anyone's "side". Teach anyone who will listen that, at bottom, there are no sides, because capitalism (yes, capitalism) improves everybody's standards of living, rich and poor.
"My point boild down to this; IF you think some sweatshop is immoral but that there should be no use of force to amend it, you have no functional difference from a 'rightist' who loves the fact that the sweatshop is immoral (or if thats not what rightists do , that disagrees with you that the sweatshop is immoral). As far as as you are 'libertarian' I see no difference, the difference is only in the place where your libertarianism is not in question and needs no modification, the difference is on your opinions of what is moral, or on your likings."
Normal commentators ignore the moral aspect.Left-libertarians do not and see it as an important part of libertarianism too.
Angurse: Sounds like stereotypes.It's gross to talk of those who are downtrodden and marginalized as 'losers' ,making such blanket statements. "Stereotypes come about for a reason." Yep.Prejudice and discrimination. It's not really an argument to say X stereotype exists so therefore it must be true.You could apply that to any idea or belief so that's redundant.You sound like one of these reactionary types left libertarians are arguing against.
"Stereotypes come about for a reason."
Yep.Prejudice and discrimination. It's not really an argument to say X stereotype exists so therefore it must be true.You could apply that to any idea or belief so that's redundant.You sound like one of these reactionary types left libertarians are arguing against.
Danny Sanchez: Scott F:I definately agree there is a tendency towards syndicalism(of the anarcho kind) in left libertarianism.Mutualism even more so.I am like certain aspects of anarcho-syndicalism and have increasingly been inclined towards it -maybe even calling myself one. "Then have you read Ludwig von Mises' argument that syndicalism is even more preposterous as an idea for socioeconomic system than is socialism?" I have not however does that not refer to syndicalism with a state?
"Then have you read Ludwig von Mises' argument that syndicalism is even more preposterous as an idea for socioeconomic system than is socialism?"
I have not however does that not refer to syndicalism with a state?
"But no syndicalist has ever put forth any idea of how a syndicalist state would do so, that did not involve becoming, in essence, capitalism or socialism."
I think its entirely moral to have a sweatshop. Hell even leftist mainstreamers like Paul Krugman are fans of sweatshops,
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
AdrianHealey: Danny Sanchez:It's not just odd. It's ridiculous. With capital, just as much as with land, outside of freak coincidences, those who are best at allocating resources will not be the same individuals as those who are best at laboring with them. Furthermore, as I've written, paraphrasing part of Mises' refutation of syndicalism. "If I get the left-libertarian concept right, than they would argue along the line of: 'in a libertarian world, there will be more of these' " I know of no one arguing for one man companies. "It changes, however, when you want to make it illegal to act differently than the syndicalist model. Than it's just a divergence from libertarianism as such. " I don't know of anyone arguing for this.
"If I get the left-libertarian concept right, than they would argue along the line of: 'in a libertarian world, there will be more of these' "
I know of no one arguing for one man companies.
"It changes, however, when you want to make it illegal to act differently than the syndicalist model. Than it's just a divergence from libertarianism as such. "
I don't know of anyone arguing for this.
Scott F: Danny Sanchez: Scott F:I definately agree there is a tendency towards syndicalism(of the anarcho kind) in left libertarianism.Mutualism even more so.I am like certain aspects of anarcho-syndicalism and have increasingly been inclined towards it -maybe even calling myself one. "Then have you read Ludwig von Mises' argument that syndicalism is even more preposterous as an idea for socioeconomic system than is socialism?" I have not however does that not refer to syndicalism with a state?
No, it refers to syndicalism as such.
http://mises.org/etexts/mises/interventionism/section5.asp
Scott F: "But no syndicalist has ever put forth any idea of how a syndicalist state would do so, that did not involve becoming, in essence, capitalism or socialism."
No syndicalist has ever put forth any idea of how it could be accomplished under syndicalism, with or without a state.
liberty student: Scott F:Your a rightwing reactionary. "There is nothing right wing about me." You sound like your giving status quo apologetics and scaremongering about communism like it's the cold war all over again. " You can't even define right wing," I've already done so. Scott F:I've said plenty about economics -undeniable things as a matter of fact "What were they?" In the manifesto.If your not going to look I have nothing more to say to you.People like you lower the tone of these forums and mises.org. It puts people off when they see you rant like this.You say there's no orthodoxy in libertarianism or An-cap yet act like your it's whip. Scott F: and secondly this isn't communism and if you can't tell the different then your no scholar "You tell me what the difference between communisms positions and the positions you posted are. Show me what is unique in your ideology that isn't also common to communism." I favour a free market as a means and an end.I'm open that I do.I remain strictly in favour of the NAP.The better question is why do you find my positions so threatening and why do you think I'm a communist -which is laughable. Scott F:You've epitomised the false capitalist vs socialist dichotomy I reject. "All you do is talk about how you are left, and other people have conservative baggage, and then you claim you reject particular dichotomies." There is left and conservative.That is not a dichotomy.What is a dichotomy is the idea you can't be socialist or broadly leftist and free market.I and others show not only can you but you should be.Libertarianism is incomplete without leftism and leftism is incomplete without libertarianism. Scott F:You ask for clarity,I gave it. "I agree. You did give the most clarity possible for a muddled and incoherent libertarian philosophy." That's strange when others have said my theme consistently leads them to think I'm a syndicalist or the like. Scott F:An-cap orthodoxy rides again. "Nothing I have said in anyway is related to ancap." Your an An-cap.Your philosophy is under attack.The dichotomies are being smashed and the contradictions exposed.Not only that but An-caps are being called out on moral evils.But no.You continue to ad hom,straw man,paint me as a communist,refuse to listen, carry on your arrogant echo chamber and fight back with reactionary ideas of how a free market must be X,Y,Z without much analysis of why or understanding that these are assumptions read into An-cap and AE. " Again, you're the one obsessed with dichotomies. " It would be a mistake to say I reject all dichotomies.Many are genuine.But I'm pointing out some very specific ones are false here.
"There is nothing right wing about me."
You sound like your giving status quo apologetics and scaremongering about communism like it's the cold war all over again.
" You can't even define right wing,"
I've already done so.
"What were they?"
In the manifesto.If your not going to look I have nothing more to say to you.People like you lower the tone of these forums and mises.org. It puts people off when they see you rant like this.You say there's no orthodoxy in libertarianism or An-cap yet act like your it's whip.
"You tell me what the difference between communisms positions and the positions you posted are. Show me what is unique in your ideology that isn't also common to communism."
I favour a free market as a means and an end.I'm open that I do.I remain strictly in favour of the NAP.The better question is why do you find my positions so threatening and why do you think I'm a communist -which is laughable.
"All you do is talk about how you are left, and other people have conservative baggage, and then you claim you reject particular dichotomies."
There is left and conservative.That is not a dichotomy.What is a dichotomy is the idea you can't be socialist or broadly leftist and free market.I and others show not only can you but you should be.Libertarianism is incomplete without leftism and leftism is incomplete without libertarianism.
"I agree. You did give the most clarity possible for a muddled and incoherent libertarian philosophy."
That's strange when others have said my theme consistently leads them to think I'm a syndicalist or the like.
"Nothing I have said in anyway is related to ancap."
Your an An-cap.Your philosophy is under attack.The dichotomies are being smashed and the contradictions exposed.Not only that but An-caps are being called out on moral evils.But no.You continue to ad hom,straw man,paint me as a communist,refuse to listen, carry on your arrogant echo chamber and fight back with reactionary ideas of how a free market must be X,Y,Z without much analysis of why or understanding that these are assumptions read into An-cap and AE.
" Again, you're the one obsessed with dichotomies. "
It would be a mistake to say I reject all dichotomies.Many are genuine.But I'm pointing out some very specific ones are false here.
I've said my piece to you LS.
Danny Sanchez: Scott F: "But no syndicalist has ever put forth any idea of how a syndicalist state would do so, that did not involve becoming, in essence, capitalism or socialism." No syndicalist has ever put forth any idea of how it could be accomplished under syndicalism, with or without a state.
1. I don't buy that.Seems like more An-cap assumptions read in.
2. I'm not a syndicalist so I'm not worrried.All I said was I have an interest in Anarcho-Syndicalism and that left-lib has some similiarities to it.Not that they were the same.
Angurse: Yep.Prejudice and discrimination. It's not really an argument to say X stereotype exists so therefore it must be true.You could apply that to any idea or belief so that's redundant.You sound like one of these reactionary types left libertarians are arguing against. " With very little information I'm being labeled as reactionary." Per se defense of prejudice IS reactionary. "Yeah, discrimination and prejudice are quite necessary " I fail to see so.
nirgrahamUK: "I think its entirely moral to have a sweatshop." I disagree.Not only that but they are currently only possible due to statism. "Hell even leftist mainstreamers like Paul Krugman are fans of sweatshops," 1. he's not a leftist but far right. 2. That doesn't say much really.he's a mouthpiece of the statist quo
"I think its entirely moral to have a sweatshop."
I disagree.Not only that but they are currently only possible due to statism.
"Hell even leftist mainstreamers like Paul Krugman are fans of sweatshops,"
1. he's not a leftist but far right.
2. That doesn't say much really.he's a mouthpiece of the statist quo
Danny Sanchez: "Another huge problem with the platform of the self-styled left-libertarians is the divisive elements." And libertarian class theory in general isn't? if it's a valid distinction it's okay. "The problem is that both the rich and the poor don't understand the harmony of interests." But you assume it holds with statism which is does not. " The poor have also striven for privileges, and they have done plenty to try to "eat the rich", believing, along with the rich, in the "Montaigne Dogma" that no man can benefit except by another man's loss. They are ignorant of the harmony of interests." Your correct but this says nothing against my point. " Don't take their "side". Don't take anyone's "side". " This is nonsense.It sounds like "shut up and get along" which isn't how it works.
"Another huge problem with the platform of the self-styled left-libertarians is the divisive elements."
And libertarian class theory in general isn't? if it's a valid distinction it's okay.
"The problem is that both the rich and the poor don't understand the harmony of interests."
But you assume it holds with statism which is does not.
" The poor have also striven for privileges, and they have done plenty to try to "eat the rich", believing, along with the rich, in the "Montaigne Dogma" that no man can benefit except by another man's loss. They are ignorant of the harmony of interests."
Your correct but this says nothing against my point.
" Don't take their "side". Don't take anyone's "side". "
This is nonsense.It sounds like "shut up and get along" which isn't how it works.
liberty student: Scott F:"The stuff that Scott posted in his manifesto, is basically the same post hoc, ergo propter hoc rationale for socialism that Communists use." ummm how? I'm libertarian. Socialists don't tend to say the things I do and that's the problem. "Sure they do. Danny just pointed out that your positions, when summed up, are very close to syndicalism." "Very close" is not "THE SAME AS". "Do you know what historical materialism is?" Roughly and no I don't believe in it and I see no reason to. Scott F:"I'm a voluntaryist." Voluntaryism is okay I guess. "That's mighty nice of you to take such a strong and principled stand against arbitrary violence." Nice way to quote mine.I say it's okay as anti-statism and anti-aggression.But beyond that it's a poor position. Scott F:But it's thin libertarianism i.e. it seems to say as long as it's voluntary it's okay which is like saying if someone is being treated like dirt but it's voluntary that's fine. "If they want to be treated like dirt, what business is it of yours?" Your conflate legal issues with moral. I'm talking about moral issues.I'm not saying moral overrules legal which is what you seem to be implying. " I have yet to meet a self-described leftist " Somehow I doubt you've met a left lib in person. " I tried to call Kevin Carson on this, and he squirmed." If here is anything to go by you probably said he was a marxist and he was bored of your nonsense. " I used to tell Wombatron that the biggest racists are left-libertarians. They are obsessed with race and sex relations, to the point of treating minorities and women like defacto victims in every relationship." I know of no left-lib who has ever argued that.Merely that they are in the worse position due to statism and culture. " because you "believe" that voluntary relationships can be immoral. " If we're back to you trying to argue that voluntary relationships cannot be immoral then I have nothing more to add than last time.Your denying the emotionally abusive boyfriend and girlfriend, the overbearing parent, the manipulative friend etc.That's absurd and no one will take you seriously.
"Sure they do. Danny just pointed out that your positions, when summed up, are very close to syndicalism."
"Very close" is not "THE SAME AS".
"Do you know what historical materialism is?"
Roughly and no I don't believe in it and I see no reason to.
"That's mighty nice of you to take such a strong and principled stand against arbitrary violence."
Nice way to quote mine.I say it's okay as anti-statism and anti-aggression.But beyond that it's a poor position.
"If they want to be treated like dirt, what business is it of yours?"
Your conflate legal issues with moral. I'm talking about moral issues.I'm not saying moral overrules legal which is what you seem to be implying.
" I have yet to meet a self-described leftist "
Somehow I doubt you've met a left lib in person.
" I tried to call Kevin Carson on this, and he squirmed."
If here is anything to go by you probably said he was a marxist and he was bored of your nonsense.
" I used to tell Wombatron that the biggest racists are left-libertarians. They are obsessed with race and sex relations, to the point of treating minorities and women like defacto victims in every relationship."
I know of no left-lib who has ever argued that.Merely that they are in the worse position due to statism and culture.
" because you "believe" that voluntary relationships can be immoral. "
If we're back to you trying to argue that voluntary relationships cannot be immoral then I have nothing more to add than last time.Your denying the emotionally abusive boyfriend and girlfriend, the overbearing parent, the manipulative friend etc.That's absurd and no one will take you seriously.
It is, which is why I think it is counterproductive, as well as erroneous. You won't read Mises going on about "net tax payers" and "net tax eaters".
" Don't take their "side". Don't take anyone's "side". " This is nonsense.It sounds like "shut up and get along" which isn't how it works.
Per se defense of prejudice IS reactionary.
I fail to see so.
Danny Sanchez: "Another huge problem with the platform of the self-styled left-libertarians is the divisive elements." And libertarian class theory in general isn't? if it's a valid distinction it's okay. " You won't read Mises going on about "net tax payers" and "net tax eaters"." I favour Rothbard or Mises so that's irrelevant to me.Mises isn't the be all and end all.He's one important thinker among many others. " Don't take their "side". Don't take anyone's "side". " This is nonsense.It sounds like "shut up and get along" which isn't how it works. "How in the world do you get "shut up and get along" from "Teach anyone who will listen that, at bottom, there are no sides," The problem is that while statism exists there is sides as mentioned in libertarian class theory above. I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know. Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist. | Post Points: 20
" You won't read Mises going on about "net tax payers" and "net tax eaters"."
I favour Rothbard or Mises so that's irrelevant to me.Mises isn't the be all and end all.He's one important thinker among many others.
>> I disagree.Not only that but they are currently only possible due to statism.
you disagree because what? because foreign investment is evil?
>>1. he's not a leftist but far right.
>>2. That doesn't say much really.he's a mouthpiece of the statist quo
Oh, is this were you say if you are for the status quo you are right and if you are radical you are left. so people that want to blow up the whole world are of the left? and people who don't want to go that far are to the right?
There are only "sides" with regard to specific interventions. With regard to general legal/social orders, everybody is on the same "side" (although they don't realize it) because everybody would be more prosperous under a maximally capitalist order than under severely hampered capitalism.
Scott F:"Do you know what historical materialism is?" Roughly and no I don't believe in it and I see no reason to.
Your OP was based off of it. Leftist narratives tend to be based around historical materialism and not science or facts.
It's truly bizarre that you say you are interested in or sympathetic to syndicalism, then backtrack, then say you don't believe in historical materialism, when your manifesto is mostly based off it.
Scott F: Scott F:"I'm a voluntaryist." Voluntaryism is okay I guess. "That's mighty nice of you to take such a strong and principled stand against arbitrary violence." Nice way to quote mine.I say it's okay as anti-statism and anti-aggression.But beyond that it's a poor position.
How can being for peace ever be a poor position?
Scott F: Scott F:But it's thin libertarianism i.e. it seems to say as long as it's voluntary it's okay which is like saying if someone is being treated like dirt but it's voluntary that's fine. "If they want to be treated like dirt, what business is it of yours?" Your conflate legal issues with moral. I'm talking about moral issues.I'm not saying moral overrules legal which is what you seem to be implying.
I am asking you what is immoral about someone doing whatever they want with their body or life? I'm not talking about legality, I almost never do.
Scott F:" I used to tell Wombatron that the biggest racists are left-libertarians. They are obsessed with race and sex relations, to the point of treating minorities and women like defacto victims in every relationship." I know of no left-lib who has ever argued that.Merely that they are in the worse position due to statism and culture.
You just made my point.
Scott F:" because you "believe" that voluntary relationships can be immoral. " If we're back to you trying to argue that voluntary relationships cannot be immoral then I have nothing more to add than last time.Your denying the emotionally abusive boyfriend and girlfriend, the overbearing parent, the manipulative friend etc.That's absurd and no one will take you seriously.
How can they be immoral? If someone wants emotional abuse, or if someone doesn't mind being manipulated, where is the moral crime?
Your problem, again like a lot of leftists, is that you think you have the right to judge other people's relationships. You're incredibly arrogant to feel that way. It also exposes how disingenuous leftists are about personal freedom. It's ok for me to beat myself with a stick, but if I get someone else to do it, I am being exploited.
nirgrahamUK: >> I disagree.Not only that but they are currently only possible due to statism. you disagree because what? because foreign investment is evil? >>1. he's not a leftist but far right. >>2. That doesn't say much really.he's a mouthpiece of the statist quo "Oh, is this were you say if you are for the status quo you are right and if you are radical you are left. so people that want to blow up the whole world are of the left? and people who don't want to go that far are to the right?" No that's a straw man. So apparently against left-libs your now on Krugman's side? ..well least we know where we all stand.
"Oh, is this were you say if you are for the status quo you are right and if you are radical you are left. so people that want to blow up the whole world are of the left? and people who don't want to go that far are to the right?"
No that's a straw man. So apparently against left-libs your now on Krugman's side? ..well least we know where we all stand.
liberty student: Your OP was based off of it. Leftist narratives tend to be based around historical materialism and not science or facts. It's truly bizarre that you say you are interested in or sympathetic to syndicalism, then backtrack, then say you don't believe in historical materialism, when your manifesto is mostly based off it.
Can you proof this assertion by given 3 examples?
Danny Sanchez: "There are only "sides" with regard to specific interventions. " But look at the bigger picture and you see who is harmed most - those who are already suffering in the world especially due to being culturally excluded or mistreated- and who is harmed consistently as a tendency. " With regard to general legal/social orders, everybody is on the same "side" (although they don't realize it) because everybody would be more prosperous " I'd say anarchy/free market not "capitalism" but yes I agree.
"There are only "sides" with regard to specific interventions. "
But look at the bigger picture and you see who is harmed most - those who are already suffering in the world especially due to being culturally excluded or mistreated- and who is harmed consistently as a tendency.
" With regard to general legal/social orders, everybody is on the same "side" (although they don't realize it) because everybody would be more prosperous "
Danny Sanchez:There are only "sides" with regard to specific interventions.
This is true, however, taxes are a form on specific intervention. So saying that there are "net tax payers" and "net tax consumers" is to simply indicate that there are always "winners" and "losers", with respect to the specific intervention. It is just to indicate that the system creates antagonistic groups and conflict of interests that would not exist absent the system of taxation.
It is not, as you are suggesting, tantamount to making fallacious divisive class distinctions that do not and cannot ever exist, such as "workers vs. capitalists" or "producers vs. consumers", etc....
>>>> I disagree.Not only that but they are currently only possible due to statism.
>>you disagree because what? because foreign investment is evil?
not biting?
>>>>>>1. he's not a leftist but far right.
>>>>>>2. That doesn't say much really.he's a mouthpiece of the statist quo
>>>>"Oh, is this were you say if you are for the status quo you are right and if you are radical you are left. so people that want to blow up the whole world are of the left? and people who don't want to go that far are to the right?"
>>No that's a straw man. So apparently against left-libs your now on Krugman's side? ..well least we know where we all stand.
What was the strawman? didn't you say that the left are radicals and the right are for the status quo? And when Krugman argues correctly about sweatshops I am on his side. Its rather because the issue of sweatshops has NOTHING to do with Right and Left (aside from that people who associate with such labels routinely get worked up about them)
Scott F:I'd say anarchy/free market not "capitalism" but yes I agree.
What would be exchanged (presumably freely and without coercion) in this market of yours if not property (goods, capital, etc.) and services (labor, advice, etc.)? Also, which parties would be exchanging them if not their respective owners?
Z.
liberty student: Scott F:"Do you know what historical materialism is?" Roughly and no I don't believe in it and I see no reason to. "Your OP was based off of it." LS, your trolling on a truly absurd level.Your really the moderator? are some chimps mods too? I neither believe in historical materialism nor do I know anyone who does. " Leftist narratives tend to be based around historical materialism and not science or facts." To conflate me -a left libertarian with a certain KIND of marxist(not all marxists accept historical materialism) is absurd.It's knee jerk anti-leftism of the highest level.Let the dirty truth about these forums be known right here.See, An-caps will say things will this and wonder why their dismissed as right wing or reactionary.I'm not a marxist nor hegelian. "It's truly bizarre that you say you are interested in or sympathetic to syndicalism," Mix of both but I am not one.Which is a crucial difference. "then backtrack, then say you don't believe in historical materialism, when your manifesto is mostly based off it." It's not.I don't believe in it.I've never mentioned it once. Scott F: Scott F:"I'm a voluntaryist." Voluntaryism is okay I guess. "That's mighty nice of you to take such a strong and principled stand against arbitrary violence." Nice way to quote mine.I say it's okay as anti-statism and anti-aggression.But beyond that it's a poor position. "How can being for peace ever be a poor position?" Nice way to strawman.I see why BP go sick of this. Voluntaryism is vital.I favour there only being voluntary relations however that's not the end of the story.Morality enters in too. Scott F: Scott F:But it's thin libertarianism i.e. it seems to say as long as it's voluntary it's okay which is like saying if someone is being treated like dirt but it's voluntary that's fine. "If they want to be treated like dirt, what business is it of yours?" Your conflate legal issues with moral. I'm talking about moral issues.I'm not saying moral overrules legal which is what you seem to be implying. "I am asking you what is immoral about someone doing whatever they want with their body or life? " Depends what their doing.There's plenty wrong with certain things you can choose to do with your body or life that aren't NAP violations. Scott F:" I used to tell Wombatron that the biggest racists are left-libertarians. They are obsessed with race and sex relations, to the point of treating minorities and women like defacto victims in every relationship." I know of no left-lib who has ever argued that.Merely that they are in the worse position due to statism and culture. "You just made my point." I didn't say they are always in the inferior position in every relationship.Non sexist,racist etc relations do occur. Scott F:" because you "believe" that voluntary relationships can be immoral. " If we're back to you trying to argue that voluntary relationships cannot be immoral then I have nothing more to add than last time.Your denying the emotionally abusive boyfriend and girlfriend, the overbearing parent, the manipulative friend etc.That's absurd and no one will take you seriously. "How can they be immoral? " Don't be so silly. "If someone wants emotional abuse," I think you'll struggle to find people who WANTs emotional abuse. "or if someone doesn't mind being manipulated, where is the moral crime?" I'd like to know of someone who likes being manipulated plus in the definition is deceit. "Your problem, again like a lot of leftists, is that you think you have the right to judge other people's relationships." That's part of being a human.Part of being a moral person.According to you since you have no right to judge ,we should all be relativists and that's what thin libertarianism often amounts to i.e. relativism or subtle endorsement of evils like sexism,racism etc. " It's ok for me to beat myself with a stick," Legally? yes.Morally? I'd say not. "but if I get someone else to do it, I am being exploited." morally,yes.Legally,depends.
"Your OP was based off of it."
LS, your trolling on a truly absurd level.Your really the moderator? are some chimps mods too?
I neither believe in historical materialism nor do I know anyone who does.
" Leftist narratives tend to be based around historical materialism and not science or facts."
To conflate me -a left libertarian with a certain KIND of marxist(not all marxists accept historical materialism) is absurd.It's knee jerk anti-leftism of the highest level.Let the dirty truth about these forums be known right here.See, An-caps will say things will this and wonder why their dismissed as right wing or reactionary.I'm not a marxist nor hegelian.
"It's truly bizarre that you say you are interested in or sympathetic to syndicalism,"
Mix of both but I am not one.Which is a crucial difference.
"then backtrack, then say you don't believe in historical materialism, when your manifesto is mostly based off it."
It's not.I don't believe in it.I've never mentioned it once.
"How can being for peace ever be a poor position?"
Nice way to strawman.I see why BP go sick of this. Voluntaryism is vital.I favour there only being voluntary relations however that's not the end of the story.Morality enters in too.
"I am asking you what is immoral about someone doing whatever they want with their body or life? "
Depends what their doing.There's plenty wrong with certain things you can choose to do with your body or life that aren't NAP violations.
"You just made my point."
I didn't say they are always in the inferior position in every relationship.Non sexist,racist etc relations do occur.
"How can they be immoral? "
Don't be so silly.
"If someone wants emotional abuse,"
I think you'll struggle to find people who WANTs emotional abuse.
"or if someone doesn't mind being manipulated, where is the moral crime?"
I'd like to know of someone who likes being manipulated plus in the definition is deceit.
"Your problem, again like a lot of leftists, is that you think you have the right to judge other people's relationships."
That's part of being a human.Part of being a moral person.According to you since you have no right to judge ,we should all be relativists and that's what thin libertarianism often amounts to i.e. relativism or subtle endorsement of evils like sexism,racism etc.
" It's ok for me to beat myself with a stick,"
Legally? yes.Morally? I'd say not.
"but if I get someone else to do it, I am being exploited."
morally,yes.Legally,depends.
z1235: Scott F:I'd say anarchy/free market not "capitalism" but yes I agree. What would be exchanged (presumably freely and without coercion) in this market of yours if not property (goods, capital, etc.) and services (labor, advice, etc.)? Also, which parties would be exchanging them if not their respective owners? Z.
It seems your implying 'Capitalism' (not clearly defined) = free market which I disagree with. I favour property and services.False dichotomy of an absurd level.