Much hostility has transpired over the weeks concerning 'left' and 'right' libertarains [ 'thick' & 'thin' whatever you call them ] however, have we forgotten which institution we are truly both against? Do we not have a common foe who still exists at this time? Let us not squabble about which is better or worse but that which we all concede is immoral and unjust, the State. Did the Anti-Imperialist league tear itself apart about the just size of government in the face of imperialism? Did the 'Old Right' denounce each other? We are linked by a common goal. Let us not forget that.
To: Minarchists, sorry you guys don't belong
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: Much hostility has transpired....
Much hostility has transpired....
What hostility? Oh, you mean the hot air? It'll pass; that's what the weather man told me anyways (it finally stopped being humid around here when it finally rained).
"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
Now you are advocating "thin" libertarianism though, at least, according to some. Also not squabbling over which is better or worse could result in (1) another state (2) a non-desirable society, the opposite of eudaimonia, (kakomonia?) at least,according to some. Also I didn't know we all agreed that morals even exist?
And lets not chase off minarchists so quickly.
Angurse:Now you are advocating "thin" libertarianism though, at least, according to some. Also not squabbling over which is better or worse could result in (1) another state (2) a non-desirable society, the opposite of eudaimonia, (kakomonia?) at least,according to some. Also I didn't know we all agreed that morals even exist?
Thin and Thick libertarians are married together [ that is why this is called a declaration of intent, they are usually made for marriages ] until the state is gone. When the state is gone, then thin and thick can do battle for the hearts and minds of the world. Prepare for libertarian global domination.
Laughing Man:Thin and Thick libertarians are married together [ that is why this is called a declaration of intent, they are usually made for marriages ] until the state is gone. When the state is gone, then thin and thick can do battle for the hearts and minds of the world. Prepare for libertarian global domination.
Spoken like a true "anorexic" libertarian, you'll never reach eudaimonia without eating a little before.
Angurse: Laughing Man:Thin and Thick libertarians are married together [ that is why this is called a declaration of intent, they are usually made for marriages ] until the state is gone. When the state is gone, then thin and thick can do battle for the hearts and minds of the world. Prepare for libertarian global domination. Spoken like a true "anorexic" libertarian, you'll never reach eudaimonia without eating a little before.
Eating what? I just had a bagel.
Here's the thing, and I don't wish to stir anything up over this, I'm just pointing out what I believe to be true about the LvMI.
The LvMI has a somewhat well defined ideological orientation. That being a mixture of the following lines of thought: cultural conservatism, the Mises-Rothbard line of Austrian thought, natural rights based libertarian political philosophy and revisionist history. The LvMI is hardly a homogenous group, and there are perhaps other aspects to the LvMI that I'm missing (for example, strategy) but this list probably covers all the major bases. In regards to cultural conservatism, almost all scholars associated with the Institute are conservatives to one extent or another (Long being a notable exception). For example, there's Hoppe, Rothbard, Block (a pro religion, pro family atheist), Tucker, Rockwell.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Laughing Man: To: Minarchists, sorry you guys don't belong
Maybe they should rename the Institute?
The irony chills the bone.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Rooster: Laughing Man: To: Minarchists, sorry you guys don't belong Maybe they should rename the Institute?
Mises has his place in history. There are just some respects in which we have advanced past him. It is common, with new times come new scholars. That whole 'standing on the shoulders of greats' jazz
In a globalized world, populated by multinationals and transnational industrialists, however, the free market no longer just works in single countries but can inflence market forces everywhere. Rational self-interest, therefore, can enrich and impoverish large sections of the world’s population well away from national boundaries. In the 1990s, the relocation of foreign industries to China, for example, altered the direct capital flows to Southeast Asia. At the beginning of the 1990s, the bulk of Asia’s foreign direct investment from Japan and the United States went to this region while China received the remainder. By the end of the decade the situation reversed. Highly competitive production and labor costs transformed China’s factories into workshops for the world, shutting down industries elsewhere and affecting the economic performance of distant regions, such as Mexico. In 2002, Royal Philips Electronics closed two-thirds of its television production lines in Mexico and relocated them to China.
alimentarius:In the 1990s, the relocation of foreign industries to China, for example, altered the direct capital flows to Southeast Asia. At the beginning of the 1990s, the bulk of Asia’s foreign direct investment from Japan and the United States went to this region while China received the remainder. By the end of the decade the situation reversed. Highly competitive production and labor costs transformed China’s factories into workshops for the world, shutting down industries elsewhere and affecting the economic performance of distant regions, such as Mexico. In 2002, Royal Philips Electronics closed two-thirds of its television production lines in Mexico and relocated them to China.
And?
alimentarius:In a globalized world, populated by multinationals and transnational industrialists, however, the free market no longer just works in single countries but can inflence market forces everywhere. Rational self-interest, therefore, can enrich and impoverish large sections of the world’s population well away from national boundaries.
No one is impoverished by rational self-interest. Economics is not a zero sum game. One improves his lot through trade. Trading, involves satisfying your trade partner, and you being satisfied by him. So every voluntary trade, means both partners are better off for having done it, or they would not have. This is the basis of acting in rational self-interest. You trade what you value less, for what you value more, and likewise, your partner does the same. In this way, both parties get more of what they value more, and less of what they value least, and so resources are distributed rationally to where they are most valued. Things which are valued less by everyone disappear from the marketplace, and the things not yet created but ostensibly valued greatly, will be researched and produced.
If you don't like it, start your own competing forum or website.
If the moderators let flamewars get out of hand, then people will leave.
This is a problem that any open forum faces. Spies for the State participate in many online discussion forums, with the specific goal of disrupting discussion.
It's practically certain that any sufficiently popular online forum has State spies posting in it.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
liberty student: No one is impoverished by rational self-interest. Economics is not a zero sum game. One improves his lot through trade. Trading, involves satisfying your trade partner, and you being satisfied by him. So every voluntary trade, means both partners are better off for having done it, or they would not have. This is the basis of acting in rational self-interest. You trade what you value less, for what you value more, and likewise, your partner does the same. In this way, both parties get more of what they value more, and less of what they value least, and so resources are distributed rationally to where they are most valued. Things which are valued less by everyone disappear from the marketplace, and the things not yet created but ostensibly valued greatly, will be researched and produced.
You can't fool me greedy John Stossel.
LS: alimentarius: In the 1990s, the relocation of foreign industries to China, for example, altered the direct capital flows to Southeast Asia. At the beginning of the 1990s, the bulk of Asia’s foreign direct investment from Japan and the United States went to this region while China received the remainder. By the end of the decade the situation reversed. Highly competitive production and labor costs transformed China’s factories into workshops for the world, shutting down industries elsewhere and affecting the economic performance of distant regions, such as Mexico. In 2002, Royal Philips Electronics closed two-thirds of its television production lines in Mexico and relocated them to China. And?
alimentarius: In the 1990s, the relocation of foreign industries to China, for example, altered the direct capital flows to Southeast Asia. At the beginning of the 1990s, the bulk of Asia’s foreign direct investment from Japan and the United States went to this region while China received the remainder. By the end of the decade the situation reversed. Highly competitive production and labor costs transformed China’s factories into workshops for the world, shutting down industries elsewhere and affecting the economic performance of distant regions, such as Mexico. In 2002, Royal Philips Electronics closed two-thirds of its television production lines in Mexico and relocated them to China.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
fsk: If you don't like it, start your own competing forum or website. If the moderators let flamewars get out of hand, then people will leave. This is a problem that any open forum faces. Spies for the State participate in many online discussion forums, with the specific goal of disrupting discussion. It's practically certain that any sufficiently popular online forum has State spies posting in it.
One thing is for sure: there are conspiracy nuts here. I'm asking a few critical questions and I'm being told to leave if I disagree. That's how a religious forum works.
Thanks to liberty student for a good answer. I'll give it more thought.
alimentarius: One thing is for sure: there are conspiracy nuts here. I'm asking a few critical questions and I'm being told to leave if I disagree. That's how a religious forum works.
FSK was replying to another member. If you click the REPLIED ON link on his post, it shows you who he was talking to (Laughing Man). That's a feature unique to this forum software (Community Server).
You haven't been trolling, so I hope no one has asked you to leave.
Also, there are some conspiracy theorists here, but they are not the bulk of the community. FSK has a good point about agent provocateurs. They are a reality of discussing politics online. There is no shortage of that sort of goofiness going on, although I don't think this community is much of a target for that. I'd rather you didn't call people "nuts" because it is disrespectful. That's why I don't call people coincidence nuts.
Isn't it true that capitalism as it has worked out can be blamed for much of the poverty and mafia activity, e. g. the mafia in Bulgaria was due to a too rapid change from communism to capitalism. Revolutions always lead to chaos.
alimentarius:Isn't it true that capitalism as it has worked out can be blamed for much of the poverty and mafia activity, e. g. the mafia in Bulgaria was due to a too rapid change from communism to capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private property rights. Why would that cause poverty and mafia activity? Also, I wasn't aware that Bulgaria became capitalist. I believe it became social democratic.
liberty student: I'd rather you didn't call people "nuts" because it is disrespectful. That's why I don't call people coincidence nuts.
Have you read Estulin?
I apoligize the disrespectful enunciation, but it stroke me as a little paranoid to assume people to be state spies just because they are of a different opinion.
liberty student:No one is impoverished by rational self-interest. Economics is not a zero sum game. One improves his lot through trade.
If you can improve your lot simply by owning money, you will eventually end up owning all money in the world, thereby impoverishing others.
How would one do so...?
For instance, lending money with interest.
I reiterate... how would one do so?
Juan:The only way to come to own money is by producing things that people value, and exchanging those things for money. Unless you are a politician in which case you can simply steal what you want without giving any value in return.
They give something in return.
liberty student: In this way, both parties get more of what they value more, and less of what they value least, and so resources are distributed rationally to where they are most valued.
If I need a surgery, but cannot afford it, that's not the case.
Jon Irenicus:I reiterate... how would one do so?
Starting with say 1 million. Lending out half of it at 20% interest --> 1.1 million. One more step and you will have 1.21 million. 20 steps and you have 6.7 million. Etc etc.
Still wouldn't get you anywhere near to owning all the wealth in the world, even if you believe the compound interest paradox...
Capital Pumper: liberty student: No one is impoverished by rational self-interest. Economics is not a zero sum game. One improves his lot through trade. Trading, involves satisfying your trade partner, and you being satisfied by him. So every voluntary trade, means both partners are better off for having done it, or they would not have. This is the basis of acting in rational self-interest. You trade what you value less, for what you value more, and likewise, your partner does the same. In this way, both parties get more of what they value more, and less of what they value least, and so resources are distributed rationally to where they are most valued. Things which are valued less by everyone disappear from the marketplace, and the things not yet created but ostensibly valued greatly, will be researched and produced. You can't fool me greedy John Stossel.
You don't believe it?
alimentarius:If I need a surgery, but cannot afford it, that's not the case.
If you need anything, and can't trade for it, you are out of luck. So what will you do? Will you use violence to get what you want when you cannot trade for it? If you will use violence for surgery, will you use it for food and shelter as well?
Using violence to take from others is barbarism. I oppose barbarism.
liberty student:Using violence to take from others is barbarism. I oppose barbarism.
You would rather see poor people die than having a welfare state that steals a small amount of your income to take care of those very few people who are not able to take care of themselves?
alimentarius:Starting with say 1 million. Lending out half of it at 20% interest --> 1.1 million. One more step and you will have 1.21 million. 20 steps and you have 6.7 million. Etc etc.
Capitalism is a profit and lose system, not a profit system.
You enjoy dwelling upon strawmen?
It was an honest question. I'm new into libertarian ideas, so it will probably take some effort getting used to them.
Jon Irenicus:You enjoy dwelling upon strawmen?
I would also call it an appeal to emotion. Fallacies are fun fun fun!
hypothetical.
lets imagine there are two weird worlds. and i will ask you which one you would prefer to live in
in weird world 1) people have no 'rights' to food, water, clothing, shelter,healthcare, income anything, ... yet somehow very few suffer deprivation.
in wierd world 2) people have rights to food water clothing shelter healthcare income etc.yet somehow..... very many suffer deprivation, many people die for poverty related reasons.
what sounds better to you?
more can be said about these two worlds later.......
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
Market exchanges take place when both parties agree to the terms facing them. If one party has nothing to offer to the other, there is no reason to carry the transaction through barring eleemosynary sentiments... which themselves are a form of "exchange" in a sense. Markets will most rationally allocate resources according to effective demand (i.e. demand backed by sufficient purchasing power, i.e. productive activity), not just "wishes" or "needs". I.e. they stimulate production for the purpose of consumption.
There is absolutely no way to prove that taking something from one person (leaving aside the question of whether this is even justifiable) to grant it to another will generate more "utility" than not doing so. What this means is, how much a "small" amount of income matters to someone may be disproportionately greater than what benefit the recipient experiences, meaning the harm done to the former can be very high even if the amount of money involved is "small" by your estimation. Of course I am not even granting that "poor" people will die in a market economy, as this is nonsense. They'll likely be better off without an interventionist nanny state coddling them from gradle to grave.
Laughing Man:I would also call it an appeal to emotion.
I'd rather say an appeal to consequences.
In my opinion libertarian rights are also based on emotions.
nirgrahamUK: hypothetical. lets imagine there are two weird worlds. and i will ask you which one you would prefer to live in in weird world 1) people have no 'rights' to food, water, clothing, shelter,healthcare, income anything, ... yet somehow very few suffer deprivation. in wierd world 2) people have rights to food water clothing shelter healthcare income etc.yet somehow..... very many suffer deprivation, many people die for poverty related reasons. what sounds better to you? more can be said about these two worlds later.......
1) of course. I'm a consequentialist.