banned: Stranger: You can get some bread if you stand in the bread line, even if it means other people will wait longer. If you don't stand in the bread line, you starve. False analogy. You're not using violence on people to get the bread.
Stranger: You can get some bread if you stand in the bread line, even if it means other people will wait longer. If you don't stand in the bread line, you starve.
False analogy. You're not using violence on people to get the bread.
Neither are you by voting either. You're merely writing on paper.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Eh? What are you trying to say? That western statists are evil? Of course they are. Just like any other statists.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Stranger:But they can win. You can get some bread if you stand in the bread line, even if it means other people will wait longer. If you don't stand in the bread line, you starve.
Right, so they choose to stand in line, until the day when they won't have to stand in line to keep from starving.
Stranger:Maybe, but we are not those people.
No, we are not. But then you and I differ, in that I do not believe that I have to acquiesce to every threat of force. I believe I can resist, and I think (not sure how you feel) that it is necessary for me to resist, if I ever want to stop being coerced.
Stranger: liberty student:2. All of these, "I am enslaved" scenarios, rely on the the notion that coercion removes choice. I don't buy that. Under that reasoning, every act of coercion would be infinitely successful. In which case, we're in a game we can't win. I don't understand what this means.
liberty student:2. All of these, "I am enslaved" scenarios, rely on the the notion that coercion removes choice. I don't buy that. Under that reasoning, every act of coercion would be infinitely successful. In which case, we're in a game we can't win.
I don't understand what this means.
There seems to be the prevailing notion, that if someone coerces me, that I'm no longer making choices. That I no longer even have choices. I disagree with that. We're only slaves because we accept slavery over resistance.
Stranger:Neither are you by voting either. You're merely writing on paper.
And I suppose that paying a hitman to do away with somebody is just "handing them peices of paper with faces on them while making sounds come out of your mouth that could or could not be interpreted as commands."?
banned:Marxist class theory isn't entirely invalid. It's just applied in the wrong sense. The exploitation is happening between governments and their "citizenry".
That's also inaccurate. It's happening between the majority, which includes a lot of citizenry, against the minority. Looters and social planners against producers and libertarians.
banned: Stranger:Neither are you by voting either. You're merely writing on paper. And I suppose that paying a hitman to do away with somebody is just "handing them peices of paper with faces on them while making sounds come out of your mouth that could or could not be interpreted as commands."?
I must now give you a taste of your own medicine and call this a false analogy, since there's nothing about voting that involves commands.
liberty student: There seems to be the prevailing notion, that if someone coerces me, that I'm no longer making choices. That I no longer even have choices. I disagree with that. We're only slaves because we accept slavery over resistance.
Certainly. But not voting is not resistance. The powers will just brush it off as irrelevant and continue, as Hugo Chavez did. Voting for enemies of the powers that be is resistance, even if it has little hope of succeeding.
Electoral contest may not be a sufficient strategy for freedom, but that doesn't mean it can't be part of one.
Rubén: It is appalling to see how Americans, so confortable and used to the liberties and democracy their founding fathers fought their lives for, are wasting their opportunities to have their say on how their country is run. Not voting is not a solution. The opposition in Venezuela learned the lesson the hard way. In December 2006, due to the osbscene advantages of the official Chavez supporters through the electoral system, most of the opposition candidates decided to withdraw their candidacies into the National Assembl, and the opposition voters supported that move by not voting for the few opposition candidates that still remained in the polls. The result? The National assembly today is composed by 95% or more of Chávez supporterts, clearly not representative of the country's demography.
It is appalling to see how Americans, so confortable and used to the liberties and democracy their founding fathers fought their lives for, are wasting their opportunities to have their say on how their country is run.
Not voting is not a solution. The opposition in Venezuela learned the lesson the hard way. In December 2006, due to the osbscene advantages of the official Chavez supporters through the electoral system, most of the opposition candidates decided to withdraw their candidacies into the National Assembl, and the opposition voters supported that move by not voting for the few opposition candidates that still remained in the polls. The result? The National assembly today is composed by 95% or more of Chávez supporterts, clearly not representative of the country's demography.
That just shows you that every democracy eventually turns into dictatorship.
Natalie:I understand. But it did sound eerily like would a Marxist say about the exploitation of the poor. I'd just like to distinguish between political actions of the American government and business decisions of the companies.
Well, businesses run the US government, it certainly is not the people!
Natalie:I used to live in a poor country where many of the jobs were provided by the foreign companies so all the attacks on outsoursing really annoy me.
I dislike attacks on outsourcing as well. I wasn't on about outsourcing. Or immigration. Pure theft is the problem.
Natalie:Also, don't forget that the government imposes minimal wage and other regulations that create more incentives for the companies to hire labor elsewhere.
Right, but the wages in many of these countries (I'm thinking specifically in SE Asia and Africa) are repressed by governments home and abroad, their globalist tools (IMF, World Bank), the threat of military force and subsidies to the ruling elite in those countries.
I'm all for hiring someone abroad at a cheaper rate if they are being properly compensated relative to their output, value and economic environment. I'm not for forced work, or people having their wages confiscated by a state that we (the west) support and maintain. That's outsourcing tyranny.
It's sort of mutual. Citizens like to use the government to solve their problems at the expense of others.
Stranger:Certainly. But not voting is not resistance. The powers will just brush it off as irrelevant and continue, as Hugo Chavez did. Voting for enemies of the powers that be is resistance, even if it has little hope of succeeding. Electoral contest may not be a sufficient strategy for freedom, but that doesn't mean it can't be part of one.
There may be merit to what you are writing, because the greatest reason why I did not vote this time around, was that I am totally sickened to my stomach by the state. I couldn't bring myself to do it physically, not just ideologically.
However, one should be clear that if they are voting, it is part of ending the state, not reforming it. Because that would just be kidding ourselves.
Stranger: Certainly. But not voting is not resistance. The powers will just brush it off as irrelevant and continue, as Hugo Chavez did. Voting for enemies of the powers that be is resistance, even if it has little hope of succeeding. Electoral contest may not be a sufficient strategy for freedom, but that doesn't mean it can't be part of one.
What's your take on the argument that by voting, you're giving support moral legitimacy to the system as a whole?The idea is that trying to use the political process to stop the political process is sort of like trying to stand in a bucket and lift it up.
Stranger:I must now give you a taste of your own medicine and call this a false analogy, since there's nothing about voting that involves commands.
Really? So you don't "cast" a vote? It isn't some sort of legal command towards one candidates campaign for presidency? Certainly in some ways it's not as explicit as a verbal command, but it is indeed a command.
banned: Stranger:I must now give you a taste of your own medicine and call this a false analogy, since there's nothing about voting that involves commands. Really? So you don't "cast" a vote? It isn't some sort of legal command towards one candidates campaign for presidency? Certainly in some ways it's not as explicit as a verbal command, but it is indeed a command.
I think the mess in Florida in 2000 shows how much of a command a vote is.
Ultimately Stalin had it right, the people who count the votes send the commands.
nje5019: What's your take on the argument that by voting, you're giving support moral legitimacy to the system as a whole?The idea is that trying to use the political process to stop the political process is sort of like trying to stand in a bucket and lift it up.
The system doesn't need your support. However it does get scared when you vote the wrong way.
liberty student: banned:Marxist class theory isn't entirely invalid. It's just applied in the wrong sense. The exploitation is happening between governments and their "citizenry". That's also inaccurate. It's happening between the majority, which includes a lot of citizenry, against the minority.
That's also inaccurate. It's happening between the majority, which includes a lot of citizenry, against the minority.
In the case of democracy, yes. But I'm talking about a global trend among all governments and societies. Those who coerce are the ones who are the exploiters.
Stranger: I think the mess in Florida in 2000 shows how much of a command a vote is. Ultimately Stalin had it right, the people who count the votes send the commands.
A hitman doesn't have to act out what you tell him to either.
Just to place the electoral system in perspective, here is how France became a democracy. After the second empire was overthrown at Sedan by the Germans, the three most powerful factions of France were the monarchists (traditional monarchy), the bonapartists (pro-empire monarchy) and the republicans (liberals, democrats and socialists). The two monarchist factions were powerful enough to beat out the republicans, but since they couldn't agree with each other, elections were used as a compromise to settle the issue.
The republicans won because the two monarchist factions split their vote. The third republic was established and monarchy never came back. (Although it almost did under Charles De Gaulle.)
The moral of this story is, the people who vote decide nothing. The election was a way of settling a score between the country's ruling class, and the people just suffered that.
liberty student: Natalie:I understand. But it did sound eerily like would a Marxist say about the exploitation of the poor. I'd just like to distinguish between political actions of the American government and business decisions of the companies. Well, businesses run the US government, it certainly is not the people!
With all the anti-business taxation and regulations? I don't think so. Businesses can use the government to their advantage. But as a whole, I doubt it.
liberty student: Right, but the wages in many of these countries (I'm thinking specifically in SE Asia and Africa) are repressed by governments home and abroad, their globalist tools (IMF, World Bank), the threat of military force and subsidies to the ruling elite in those countries. I'm all for hiring someone abroad at a cheaper rate if they are being properly compensated relative to their output, value and economic environment. I'm not for forced work, or people having their wages confiscated by a state that we (the west) support and maintain. That's outsourcing tyranny.
Ok, I won't argue with that. However, I don't see how American (or Canadian) people benefit from it. Yes, they get cheap goods from China. But without government intervention they'd get them even cheaper. And they probably even wouldn't have to be made in China.
Where did the bread come from?
Stolz25:Where did the bread come from?
It wasn't defined in the analogy, so it's not relevant.
The November 2008 issue of Liberty Magazine contains "The Intelligent Person's Guide to Presidential Politics"--a series of four articles that make the libertarian case for Barr, McCain, Obama, and not voting. Bruce Ramsey penned the piece in 'support' of Obama. It can be found here. He mentions a number of libertarians who will vote for Obama and outlines their reasons for doing so. It's pretty clear that The Economist's assertion that libertarians comprise "the biggest brigade in the Obamacon army" is clearly preposterous.
You also might be interested in reading the article on not voting by the always entertaining Doug Casey. Here's the link.
I'll go only to vote for the proposed law to eliminate the state income tax. Other than that, I don't care much as I don't think it's going to change anything.
GilesStratton: banned: Stranger:Not with the other players. It wasn't their choice to play. No one's forcing them to pull the trigger. They're doing it out of incentive. Exactly, these people have no right to complain about the hard ship of being poor as a result of the state, through voting for others people's money (which they feel they have some claim to) they create this system.
banned: Stranger:Not with the other players. It wasn't their choice to play. No one's forcing them to pull the trigger. They're doing it out of incentive.
Stranger:Not with the other players. It wasn't their choice to play.
No one's forcing them to pull the trigger. They're doing it out of incentive.
Exactly, these people have no right to complain about the hard ship of being poor as a result of the state, through voting for others people's money (which they feel they have some claim to) they create this system.
You all got it wrong:
he does it because of incentive and because he was forced ( If he didn't do it they would point a gun at his head and pull the trigger anyways). In the real world the poor can either receive welfare or starve or become a wage slave earner, Which All the aboveare imposed by the government.
So it's ok for a poor person to receive welfare? That's what you're saying right?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
The contemporary media thinks libertarians are people who always complain about intrusions on personal freedom and big government, without any view on economics.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Twirlcan: One thing that really matters to people , is that Obama is not George W. Bush or associated with him.
One thing that really matters to people , is that Obama is not George W. Bush or associated with him.
Or maybe they are brothers in an unadvertised secret society like Bush and Kerry are Brothers in the Skulls and Bones
secret society or maybe they are in the same circle holding hands while worshiping the devil. Both Bush And Obama are known to use satanist hand signals/signs/symbols while in public. see here and here
Thanks,
Michael
GilesStratton: So it's ok for a poor person to receive welfare? That's what you're saying right?
I never said it was ok because they have the choice to become a wage slave
GilesStratton: In all fairness when Bob Barr gets the LP nomination what can you expect? Actually I was reading Wikipedia a while back when I stumbled across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibertarianism My favourite part is this: ...means making a political commitment to combat the initiation of force and fraud by the most effective and moral route possible; paleo-libertarians deal in words and thoughts, while neo-libertarians commit themselves to expanding freedom from the rhetorical world to the real world. It's the difference between saying something for freedom and doing something for freedom. Moreover, it's a commitment to the universality of freedom; just as calling oneself 'The Government' cannot legitimately add to one's natural rights, drawing an invisible line on a map and calling it 'The Border' cannot legitimately subtract from one's natural rights. People in foreign lands have the same natural rights as people in the house next door; neo-libertarianism is about finding the most practical ways to stop infringements against the liberty of those around the globe, including the use of force if necessary, just as we would use local police and courts to stop infringements of liberty next door. Put more succinctly: Individuals are the only morally significant unit of political economy. Individuals are imbued with infinite liberties circumscribed only by the rights of others to not be coerced or defrauded. The central right of humanity is the right to resist an aggressor, even if you aren't the victim.What next? Neopacifism?
In all fairness when Bob Barr gets the LP nomination what can you expect?
Actually I was reading Wikipedia a while back when I stumbled across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibertarianism
My favourite part is this:
...means making a political commitment to combat the initiation of force and fraud by the most effective and moral route possible; paleo-libertarians deal in words and thoughts, while neo-libertarians commit themselves to expanding freedom from the rhetorical world to the real world. It's the difference between saying something for freedom and doing something for freedom. Moreover, it's a commitment to the universality of freedom; just as calling oneself 'The Government' cannot legitimately add to one's natural rights, drawing an invisible line on a map and calling it 'The Border' cannot legitimately subtract from one's natural rights. People in foreign lands have the same natural rights as people in the house next door; neo-libertarianism is about finding the most practical ways to stop infringements against the liberty of those around the globe, including the use of force if necessary, just as we would use local police and courts to stop infringements of liberty next door. Put more succinctly: Individuals are the only morally significant unit of political economy. Individuals are imbued with infinite liberties circumscribed only by the rights of others to not be coerced or defrauded. The central right of humanity is the right to resist an aggressor, even if you aren't the victim.
Libertarians in the olden days believed that that the path to a free society was through education first then action. If you think about it it makes perfect sense and that they made the right decision! If they didn't write books, papers and, newsletters and etc then we wouldn't have anything to work with or we would have to take the time to write and do it ourselves.
Those damn libertarians are right again!
A word with neo at the beginning gives that word a futuristic meaning or feel to it. The addition of Neo to a word pretty much means something new and something different!
Michael S: GilesStratton: So it's ok for a poor person to receive welfare? That's what you're saying right? I never said it was ok because they have the choice to become a wage slave
You sound like a Marxist.
GilesStratton: Michael S: GilesStratton: So it's ok for a poor person to receive welfare? That's what you're saying right? I never said it was ok because they have the choice to become a wage slave You sound like a Marxist.
How is that automatically Marxist?
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Rubén: It is appalling to see how Americans, so confortable and used to the liberties and democracy their founding fathers fought their lives for, are wasting their opportunities to have their say on how their country is run. Not voting is not a solution. The opposition in Venezuela learned the lesson the hard way. In December 2006, due to the osbscene advantages of the official Chavez supporters through the electoral system, most of the opposition candidates decided to withdraw their candidacies into the National Assembl, and the opposition voters supported that move by not voting for the few opposition candidates that still remained in the polls. The result? The National assembly today is composed by 95% or more of Chávez supporterts, clearly not representative of the country's demography. I am not voting for Obama because I am not an American citizen, but I am actively campaigning for him through the internet and college friends appreciate my support and lament I will not be in the polls with them next Tuesday. I do not know if I am a libertarian or not. I know that I enjoy many ideas I read in this forum and I think there are many valuable thougts here that should go into mainstream.
I am not voting for Obama because I am not an American citizen, but I am actively campaigning for him through the internet and college friends appreciate my support and lament I will not be in the polls with them next Tuesday. I do not know if I am a libertarian or not. I know that I enjoy many ideas I read in this forum and I think there are many valuable thougts here that should go into mainstream.
It's not as appalling as the EU citizens who gave up their rights to the EU! How about you stop criticizing us Americans and start criticizing the Europeans? I mean, after all, there is a EU not a North American Union! You gotta give the Americans some credit, we are putting up a much more and better fight then the Europeans did.
Michael S:You gotta give the Americans some credit, we are putting up a much more and better fight then the Europeans did.
It's like deciding who is less retarded. Americans IMO have not too much to be proud about on the liberty front. The heavy lifting was done generations ago. Today's American would be a despicable creature to the Founding Fathers.
liberty student: Michael S:You gotta give the Americans some credit, we are putting up a much more and better fight then the Europeans did. It's like deciding who is less retarded. Americans IMO have not too much to be proud about on the liberty front. The heavy lifting was done generations ago. Today's American would be a despicable creature to the Founding Fathers.
Hopefully a such Remnant can emerge & we more or less repeat a similar process the Founding Fathers went through.However, day to day conversations with others is enough to question how long my sanity will last in our current situation.
Rubén:I am not voting for Obama because I am not an American citizen, but I am actively campaigning for him through the internet and college friends appreciate my support and lament I will not be in the polls with them next Tuesday. I do not know if I am a libertarian or not. I know that I enjoy many ideas I read in this forum and I think there are many valuable thougts here that should go into mainstream.
Why the hell are you Helping/campaigning for Obama? Why not help Chuck Baldwin/Castle or maybe even Bob Barr or Nader? LOLZ? Are you helping Obama for principle or because of the color of his skin? I would use the term McObama but since he's mixed I won't
Disclaimer: I am not a racist
Michael S:Disclaimer: I am not a racist Michael
For someone who is not a racist, you seem pretty concerned with race.
Nitroadict:However, day to day conversations with others is enough to question how long my sanity will last in our current situation.
Tell me about it. Some Canadians have the unmitigated gall to look me in the eye, and tell me they like the system because they get things they couldn't buy.
I'm starting to become increasingly disheartened. We're such a small group, and there are literally thousands for every one of us, who are socialized to believe that they are entitled to things, people who have no understanding principle, rational thought, economics anything.
I mean, I get excited when I turn a person or two, but it feels so pointless when confronted with how not everyone I turn has the same passion for evangelism I do. If we can't double our numbers every 12 months, then we're doing something wrong.
Nitroadict: GilesStratton: Michael S: GilesStratton: So it's ok for a poor person to receive welfare? That's what you're saying right? I never said it was ok because they have the choice to become a wage slave You sound like a Marxist. How is that automatically Marxist?
Thank YOU Giles! That Marxist remark you made was perfect, because it proves my point even further! Obviously you thought I was posting my beliefs when in fact, I was telling the reader about the system we have now. nice try though!
liberty student: Michael S:Disclaimer: I am not a racist Michael For someone who is not a racist, you seem pretty concerned with race.
Oh please! Give me a break! I only made some interesting observations! I said the McObama thing because I'm noticing people using that term all over the place! I'm even sure you have used it! Enough said!
Michael S:Oh please! Give me a break! I only made some interesting observations! I said the McObama thing because I'm noticing people using that term all over the place! I'm even sure you have used it! Enough said! Michael
It had nothing to do with McBama. It's just that you would accuse someone you don't know of supporting Obama due to his colour.
That means you're the one with race on the brain. Maybe slow down a little.