General

Re: What we call ourselves.!

grant.w.underwood — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:16:06 GMT

vive - this is my whole point. People dont find opposition with capitalism. 64% of Americans believe in capitalism which is a 10% gain from a couple years before. I also believe that somewhere in the mid 90 percentcile believe capitalism is the best way to handle the business sector.

So thats why we should be standing up for capitalism and not freedom. Freedom will come when capitalism starts being legalized.

Pick any aspect of freedom you want that libertarianism fights for and it can be realized through capitalism, but try and convince a majority on a specific aspect of freedom and you have debate (drugs, gambling, prostitution, education, banking, CIA, debt, national defense, police, ect ect ect).

I believe socialism has been proven completely wrong by facts. Thats the battle that should be fought.

We should be demanding from our politicians why they are socialists when they claim to believe in capitalism. That fight can be won.

Just look at these socialist they admit capitalism has been proven correct or else they wouldnt claim businesses should be privatized. We shouldnt be arguing with socialists about healthcare, roads, military, wars, or whatever else. We should be asking why are they a walking contradiction? how can you claim capitalism is good here, but not there.

Then throw out the Thomas Sowell's three questions. They cant answer it.

Capitalism has the truth on its side. We shouldnt hide it by preaching freedom and mask the truth because we feel the truth has an adverse reation to people. We should be putting the truth uncomfortably close to there face and let them prove it wrong. They cant, all they can say is "well i just dont believe it." All you have to say is 'fine, continue living a lie in a state of ignorance'. You cant win them all, but you will find most people want the truth.

People like me who saw the truth of capitalism all around me, but before Mises i couldnt prove it. Well lets give the 64% that believe in capitalism the ammunition to defend it. Let the people reach the same conclusion of anarcho capitalism at their own pace, but in the mean time let them fight for capitalism.

Re: What we call ourselves.!

vive la insurrection — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:36:25 GMT

I'm just saying that to start with a label that most people find "in opposition" in any conversation or debate is going to be met with a Sisyphus like task. It's best to just focus on a few specific "little things" and prevent the topic on hand from going "meta". A political label is going to come with A LOT of baggage, may as well not give your hand away unless you need to.

Re: What we call ourselves.!

gotlucky — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:56:23 GMT

I thought you despised progessives. Have I been reading you wrong or were you making a joke? Maybe there is a third option I haven't considered.

Re: What we call ourselves.!

vive la insurrection — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 08:46:24 GMT

I just say progressive-liberal or social-democrat, because I see little use in calling or identifying myself with anything else.

Re: What we call ourselves.!

grant.w.underwood — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:28:33 GMT

JJ - i responded to you last night with a nice long message, but of course i forgot my IPad eats my long posts.

I think you are missing point. Though in places you get it, but there is a slight perspective differience.

As for the milton friedman video - I think its a great example of this perspective differience. First, Friedman defines that EVERY country has capitalism. I think this is a great argument to shut down that socialist. There is always going to be capital and someone HAS to own it, in the soviet union it is owned by the state. Its an abstract thought that im sure 99% of socialists have never even thought of and probably 99% of capitalist havent either. Since, it is a different way of looking at it that im sure most people have never thought of it is NOT the definition of capitalism. It also proves my point of the need for a clear definition of capitalism one that everyone agrees on, 'capitalism requires private ownership of the factors of production'. (here i would like to hear an argument of why this definition cant be the standard or at least be a part of the definition? Do you believe people's subjective definition of 'capitalism' really differ from private ownership?)

Here is our differience though. When you defend milton when he says along the lines of, 'just because a country has capitalism doesnt mean they have freedom. What i say is if they have freedom they have capitalism.' By his and your definition it doesnt make ANY sense. If every country in the world has capitalism, like you are arguing by showing me this video, then you can say any country that doesnt have freedom has capitalism. There is ZERO point to the word capitalism. It means nothing.

Im saying the word has to mean something and it means private ownership of the factors of production. So the soviet union didnt have capitalism like milton says they had socialism.

Now the argument of if we focus our efforts in defending capitalism rather than defending freedom.

I take this argument a few ways. i believe libertarianism is losing, but i dont believe Ron Paul has failed. Libertarian has gained enormous ground because of the Ron Paul movement gathering millions of libertarians along the way. I know this sounds like a contradiction, but its not. The only thing the Ron Paul movement did was pick up followers of freedom from the republican base and the social liberal fiscally conservative democrat base. Where we have gained 10 million, conservativism has lost the entire base. The Goldwater movement im talking about that ultimately peeked with Ronald Reagan. The huge majority of this country in the 80s believed in small government and knew government interfered with prosperity and businesses. During the Clinton years, we lost sight of why we were the wealthiest country in the world, because we were so wealthy. It didnt matter if government grew or shrank because the economy was booming. Then of course 9/11 happened and the conservative base is lost.

Where libertarianism has gained (throwing out a random guess) 10 million, pro-intervention has picked up probably over 5 times that (another guess).

as for where i found the poll. It was an article, now of course i cant find it that had combined two of rasmussens polls, asking americans about their opinions of socialism and capitalism. the poll you found is the same one of the two i found, but with much few questions and numbers.

lets use this one (since its the most recent), which obviously isnt as good as the 95% one i found, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/january_2012/39_say_u_s_has_crony_capitalist_system .

Putting out the numbers here, what i think it means, and comparing to my original poll:

"64% of American Adults now rate capitalism as a better system than socialism." - compared to the original report i found this is better. I was originally saying that only 53% of the population believed in a capitalist system. So this is fairly good news although still shocking that only 64% of the people think this.

15% think socialism is the better way to go - i believe this is the same question, as the one you found where 20% think socialism is better. which is better. I was claiming 10% here. I believe my poll the question was more along the lines of 'are you a socialist'. The 20% you presented was also in my article i had just omitted from my post for propaganda reasoning, since 10% was better than 20%, and i think this question is phrased in a more of sympathetic to socialism sort of way. Medicare/food stamps/free healthcare/ect do you support that sort of system over a capitalist system. Which i think its reasonable to assume the numbers would double from a question like 'are you a socialist'.

21% who are undecided. - i believe my poll was the same as yours with 27% undecided.

So in a matter of 3 year 1/10 Americans went from supporting socialism to capitalism.

i think 64% believing in capitalism is a great number and with so many undecided, along with the trend of undecided moving to capitalism, its a good outlook.

So lets take the 15% who believe socialism is a better system. If we were to ask them about strictly the business aspect. Which is a better system a capitalist system or socialist system. Clearify it to, do you think that mom and pop hardware store down the block should be owned by mom and pop or the government. I would say a conservative estimate would be that half of them would agree mom and pop should own it and therefore believe a capitalist economy is better than a socialist economy.

as for the 21% - no clue what they are thinking, maybe they just dont know what socialism is? haha. I have to believe that anyone on the fence about this doesnt believe the government should own a mom and pop store because if they did they would definately already be a socialist.

So that would put us at 92.5% believing a capitalist economy is better than a socialist run economy when i was saying the poll found 95% believe that.

That is an incrediblely high number. I dont think a wack job like michael moore has even advocated putting small businesses in government ownership. I could be wrong since i dont spend much time keeping up with fat socialist gossip.

the definition of capitalism - you are advocating that i have to 'trick' people or convince people to believe in a different definition of capitalism than one they already believe. Its quite the contrary, im saying 99% of the population already knows my definition of capitalism. They already know that capitalism means the people own the businesses and in socialism the government owns it (maybe 99% cant spew that out of their mouth, but i think 99% if asked under capitalism can you own your own business they will say yes). Thats all i am looking, private ownership of the factors of production.

Do you really think i would have to result to trickery to achieve that?

So far it has nothing to do with getting people to vote with you or agree with any ideologies.

So lets go into starting a Capitalist Party:

I agree with you that this does not initially mean freedom. There would be blue dogs and republicans with vast opinions on social issues, but they would agree on the main thing im after, private ownership of the factors of production.

'If i go around and ask 20 people if capitalism works and you ask 20 people if they are pro-freedom.' Of course you will win. Even Stalin advocated pro-freedom though.

If you go around and define your concept of freedom and everything your freedom entails to 20 people and i go around and ask 20 people do people have the right to own their own business then who do you think will win?

I will win everytime i promise you. Do you think im delusional in thinking that?

Advocating freedom does make us innovators. Look at the people in the world today, you are pushing for freedom in a sea of interventionalists. Whether or not your mommy ever told you that you are special you are. If you need a hug i will give you one. Freedom is special and so is the mises.org. when we are living in a state free state one day you will tell your grandkids about how you were a part of that movement from the beginning.

When you say how did obama get 70 million votes and mccain 60 million when they were outright supporting socialism if this country isnt socialist. Its easy, the people are choosing the lesser of two evils. Obama and Mccain parade around not claiming to be socialist, but capitalist. They arent proclaiming, "loud and proud" as you put it, to be socialist. If ANYONE had forced them to say they are a socialist then they wouldnt of been elected.

If you disagree with that then why doesnt obama just come out and say he is a socialist? its because he will lose the vote.

We are allowing these socialists to prance (or in Romney's case dressage) across our TV sets cloaked in the misconception of capitalism because no one is defending capitalism. When all anyone has to do is stop and think, hey wait a second thats not capitalism. Its something else and no one is telling them what that is. Its socialism.

People are afraid to say 'hey im a capitalist'. So no i dont think people want to be known as a capitalist, but they would rather be a capitalist than a socialist.

Its not 'nonsense' if you convince people interventionism is socialism that people will convert. Look at the Ron Paul supporters. They learned. They converted. I converted. I had no clue that false patriotism and intervention leads to socialism because no one until Ron Paul told me. I was in the 2.5% with a lot of the libertarian ideals, but i was still an interventionist. Once i peeled away a couple of my interventionist ideals they all started going away. Its not stupid to be this naive either, it started the second we won our independence.

Thats what i think will happen when we start defending capitalism. with the new poll, probably 90% of this country, do not think government should be involved in the peoples right to own their own business.

the factors of production - land, capital, entrepeneurship, and LABOR. You are a factor of production, you have self ownership. No one has a right to that property. Once people start fighting for capitalism again freedom will be realized. The ultimate conclusion of capitalism is anarchy.

You say capitalism doesnt mean anarchy? how can it not? If the people own themselves, all the land, and capital where is the government in that? If the government has no claim in the factors of production they have no claim in anything.

Where i think Ron Paul was fighting an uphill battle was he was trying to change everyone's belief of freedom. I think he would of been much more successful if he explained it the other way around. We believe you should own your own business. that means owning the land on which you stand, the capital you accumulate, and you have self ownership of your labor. That means the president cant send us to war unless you allow him to goto war, the federal reserve cant own the dollar you own the dollar, ect.

Thats the law of diffusion of innovation. Start with the why? Capitalism, because it creates economic growth and makes everyone more prosperous. Then the how? we will get the government out of the factors of production land, labor, capital. Lastly the what? the what is every piece of freedom.

Going Ron Paul's route - what was his 'why'? he didnt have one. he had freedom. We need to audit the fed. why? We need to get out of these wars. why? We need to cut the budget. why? We need to follow the constitution. why? when need to close our bases across the globe. Why? We need to get government out of medicine. Why? we need to give the power back to the states. why? We need to end conscription. why? We need to end the income tax. Why? We have to much debt. Why? We need to privitize tsa. Why? We need to cut 5 cabinet agenies. Why? We need to eliminate foreign aid. Why? We need to end the war on drugs. Why? We need to eliminate capital taxes. Why? We need a gold standard. Why? Why does he believe all this? he has never said. People subjective definition of freedom is infinitely more complicated the the subjective definition of capitalism

ECT ECT ECT ECT ECT ECT.

All those why require a specific answer when the why with me is because its not capitalism. Its easy. Your average american will look at ron paul's platform and just be confused. They think it is strange and all over the place.

I'm not saying a libertarian party cant do it by doing it the same way or that it wouldnt be preferable because they would have more of a freedom ideology. I just dont think the American people arent political enough to go out on the fringe and vote against what their family and friends have done for 100 years. A capitalist party wouldnt be on the fringe. 64% already 100% in it. It will be new and different. It will give the millions of Americans a new party to vote for that has the same platform their family and friends have voted for since the birth of this country, capitalism.

Re: What we call ourselves.!

Andrew Cain — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:29:01 GMT

I don't know what you guys call yourselves but I call myself...

Superfly!

[view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cmo6MRYf5g]

Re: What we call ourselves.!

SkepticalMetal — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:01:00 GMT

Yes, but Rothbardianism is so much more...evocative.

Re: What we call ourselves.!

Kelvin Silva — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:59:03 GMT

^^^

Or we can call ourselves heralds of the austrian school.

Re: What we call ourselves.!

SkepticalMetal — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:54:49 GMT

We should call ourselves Rothbardians.

Let's see...Rothbardianism is a philosophy based on the Austrian School of Economics and employs both anarchist and capitalist thought to create a system known as anarcho-capitalism, which emphasizes the free market within a stateless society.

Re: What we call ourselves.!

Kelvin Silva — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:48:18 GMT

Nonarchist?

Re: What we call ourselves.!

John James — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:59:29 GMT

grant.w.underwood:

good stuff. i have to put my son to sleep before i respond to the rest. for the record. this was rasmussen poll that said "95% of americans believe capitalism works best"

so whether they like it or not, they are still admitting it that capitalism is better than any other system. unless you can present a reason why the poll is incorrect it should be allowed as evidence in american's beliefs and not delusional.

First of all, you're going to have to provide a link to this survey. The only one I found was this one, which shows a full 20% saying "socialism" is a better system.

But more importantly, once again, you entire strategy hinges on (among other things) the assumed fact that people do not hold "capitalism" to mean the same thing you do. Indeed, that's you're entire strategy...convince people that "capitalism" means something other than what they currently think it means, and then voila they'll agree with you...because they already agree "capitalism works best".

Again your whole thing is:

"It's not ideology that matters. The particular policies that people ascribe to and advocate don't matter at all. All that matters is how you define the terms. It's simple. You find something that people say they agree with, say, "capitalism"...and then you simply convince them that that word doesn't mean what they think it means...but rather it refers to what you want it to mean. See how easy this is? You don't have to change anyone's feelings about policy or their philosophy...you just have to find a concept they say they already agree with, and then tell them that that concept is actually whatever you want them to agree with!"

"Like, for example, lets say I wanted people to agree that I should be able to keep slaves. All I have to do is realize that 95% of the population thinks 'capitalism' is the best system. My job is basically done for me! All I do now is any time I say something about owning slaves and someone objects, I simply say 'oh you don't agree with me owning slaves? Well you're in favor of capitalism, right? And you think owning slaves should be outlawed? THAT'S NOT CAPITALISM!' And then they'll go: 'Oh really?' And I'll tell them that actually capitalism is all about owning slaves. And then they'll come to the realization: 'Wow. I never knew that. Well. I'm definitely pro-capitalism...so if that means owning slaves is okay, I guess I'm good with that too.' Easy as pie!!!"

You're literally claiming that you can gain philosophical allies with cunning use of definitions.

It's utter nonsense. It doesn't matter what people call it...they're in favor of aggression and collective ownership of goods. You're not going to get them to all of a sudden aggree with non-aggression and private ownership by simply telling them that the term they use to describe their philosophy actually refers to your philosophy.

Re: What we call ourselves.!

grant.w.underwood — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:17:46 GMT

good stuff. i have to put my son to sleep before i respond to the rest. for the record. this was rasmussen poll that said "95% of americans believe capitalism works best"

so whether they like it or not, they are still admitting it that capitalism is better than any other system. unless you can present a reason why the poll is incorrect it should be allowed as evidence in american's beliefs and not delusional.

Re: What we call ourselves.!

John James — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:58:28 GMT

grant.w.underwood:
When you say that capitalism doesnt fully express the details, that EXACTLY why im for it.

So you're for labeling something, just so long as the label doesn't really give anyone a good understanding of what's inside. Great philosophy.

It doesnt require the 95% of the population to believe in anything different from what they believed yesterday.

Here again I think you're really getting close to delusion.

Lets do it the other way around! if 95% of the population knows that capitalism works best economically then lets push that!

One more time:

"Abolish capitalism, and replace it with socialism."

"I'm pro-intervention"

"[Capitalism doesn't work]"

President of the United States: "[Capitalism] doesn't work. It has never worked."

(Yes, yes, "THAT'S NOT CAPITALISM" blah blah blah. Again, I just don't think you're going to trick people into being against intervention by somehow convincing them they just don't have the right definition of a single word. To be honest I'm not even sure how you're going to convince them about the definition in the first place, but even if you could I'm not sure how that's supposed to change the political philosophy of interventionism espoused by more than 95% of the population...people that you claim actually are for the opposite.)

grant.w.underwood:
We want to unite the people not divide it. We can talk all day to people about freedom and they wont care. Ask if capitalism works, and they will agree.

You have got to be kidding. You go around and ask 20 people if "capitalism works" and I'll go ask another 20 if they're "pro-freedom", and we'll see who gets more "yes"s.

I'm afraid you really are delusional.

"people are literally outright saying "I'm pro-intervention" - just as we are the innovators, the 2.5%, those people are the 2.5% for socialism.

1) advocating freedom does not make us "innovators" by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you.

2) if only 2.5% of the population is in favor of socialism, how in the hell do you explain Barack Obama getting almost 70 million votes [23% of the population]? Then you got another 60 million for John McCain. That's anoter 20%. So that's more than 40% of the population (63% of the voting public) outright casting their support for socialism.

And I'm supposed to believe "pro-intervention" is only 2.5%? Flip it around. I will bet you any amount you want that it is less than 2.5% that isn't pro-intervention.

Not kidding. Bring me anyone who doesn't already identify with the term "anarcho-capitalist" and I'll show you how they're pro-intervention.

All i care about is the silent majority in the middle with 68% of the population. If those are the people we are up against we cant lose. If we draw a line in the sand, that government isnt capitalism (which i believe vast majority of people will understand and believe)

Then my friend you are delusional.

grant.w.underwood:
then those advocating intervention will have to say they are something other than capitalist.

They already proclaim it, loud and proud. I have no idea what you think this will accomplish. It's as if you think everyone wants to be known as a "capitalist", and they'll do anything to be part of that club...so all you have to do is convince enough people that interventionism isn't capitalism, and the interventionists either have to convert or get shunned.

This is total nonsense.

as for gary johnson's campaign stragedy - they still have to vote libertarian which only 17% will do. Could we of really asked for a better candidate than Ron Paul? How do we expect anyone to be better than him?

Ah so you think Gary's problem isn't his strategy, it's just he's using the wrong word. Instead of telling everyone they're libertarian, he should be telling them they're capitalists, and then all of a sudden he'll be President.

Okie dokie.

Plus I really want to reiterate this point. "Capitalism" does not imply anarchism. This is the reason for the specificity of the terms that are more widely used to describe the political philosophy of property rights and non-aggression.

i was the in the 68% and didnt even waste time looking at ron paul. Although i like a lot of what he said i didnt waste anytime reading up on him because i thought he was just like every other politician (basically because i knew he wasnt going to win).

Well then you're in a severe minority of the population you group yourself in with.

So i picked up 'revolution' and then he had to convince me that in fact those things that i disagreed with him on that I was the one that was wrong. Thats almost impossible considering how hard headed i am.

Would you look at that. Ron Paul converted even a hard headed curmudgeon like you. Yeah. Total failure, this guy.

grant.w.underwood:
If he just would of preached capitalism, something that i knew was right and moral, pointed out how the other candidates arent capitalists i would of been voting for him without a second thought. Thats something i could relate to. Thats something 95% of the population relates to.

No, it isn't. You're delusional. 95% of the population does not believe "capitalism" is "right and moral". Did you see this? Have you talked to any random person outside the Mises forum?

Do we as libertarians really care if people vote for libertarianism in the name of capitalism? Do we care if social democrats vote for libertarianism because economically speaking its the right choice? NO.

What we wont get, as Ron Paul proved, a majority of the people voting for our concept of liberty.

what? Then what the hell are you arguing? You seriously just made my point for me. Your entire argument is that people innately support "capitalism", and all you have to do is convince them that "capitalism" is anarchy, and they'll be on your side...because they already support capitalism...so once they get the definition right, everything will be right as rain.

...yet here you literally just said that just because people vote for libertarianism in the name of capitalism, it won't lead to a majority of people voting for our concept of liberty.

So what in the world are you arguing?

P.S.

"Capitalism" does not imply anarchy. This is the reason for the specificity of the terms used to refer to the political philosophy of property rights and non-aggression.

Re: What we call ourselves.!

Minarchist — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:44:27 GMT

I cant help but consider this an elitist assertion

It is an elitist assertion.

anyone who is not omniscient can be considered ignorant in some respect.

Everyone is ignorant to some extent, but some more than others.

Is this how a collectivist sees the world?

Interesting question, you'll have to find one and ask him.

Re: What we call ourselves.!

grant.w.underwood — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:42:21 GMT

since i havent really said it the only definition capitalism needs is the private ownership of the factors of production. That is the basis for freedom. All government action is in direct contradiction of that definition.