EPTI wonder where the TL Libertarians first came across Austrian economy (especially those from Europe) since in Central Europe it is practically impossible to be exposed to sound economic theory unless you are searching for the information on purpose. 99.9% of people there don't even know something like Austrian economy exists (that goes for university students studying economy too)
Political Roll Call - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
bUbUsHeD
China54 Posts
I wonder where the TL Libertarians first came across Austrian economy (especially those from Europe) since in Central Europe it is practically impossible to be exposed to sound economic theory unless you are searching for the information on purpose. 99.9% of people there don't even know something like Austrian economy exists (that goes for university students studying economy too) | ||
|
neVern
United States115 Posts
Study the Constitution people!! | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On January 30 2010 05:59 nttea wrote: your vote do make a difference, but more importantly your words make a difference. Everytime i see a post like yours i die a little inside. no, it is an illusion of choice. Everytime I see a view like yours I die a little inside. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On January 30 2010 06:37 neVern wrote: If you're not an independent (Constitutional Party, no it's not a combo of Republicans/Democrats) you do not understand US politics or the history of the United States. Honestly, the US had the strongest economy prior to 1913 (Federal Reserve Act) when only 5% of income was taxed, nowdays I believe the average family is taxed 33% of their income. Among other things, it's stupid to vote Republican/Democrat...really who's the last President who has helped the United States? Neither of the two parties give a damn about you, they only care about themselves. Study the founding fathers of America (Back when America was by far the most powerful country in the world) and you will understand politics a lot better. Income/Wage/Federal aid taxes are all illegal (Unconstitutional) for the government to even charge in the first place. Study the Constitution people!! when you said "Study the founding fathers of America (Back when America was by far the most powerful country in the world)" your post lost all it's credibility | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On January 30 2010 06:46 CharlieMurphy wrote: no, it is an illusion of choice. Everytime I see a view like yours I die a little inside. Yeah, until you realize that Obama is not a being born of a superior race / social class / political class. He's a guy, like 300 million others. Sure, when there's that many people and power is concentrated in government, most of them have only a little political power (their vote, and those of whoever else they manage to convince). If you want more political power, there's no one stopping you from dedicating yourself to politics, however. | ||
|
lIlIlIlIlIlI
Korea (South)3851 Posts
| ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On January 30 2010 01:44 Mystlord wrote: I'm betting that the trend in Social Democrat is caused by the fact that it was basically European Day time, and that trend will soon reverse itself. Also, why are there so many Libertarians? Well, when Bush started pissing even the right-wing off, every semi-intelligent conservative caught the Ron Paul bug and identified with libertarianism. That is, the ones who hadn't already been libertarians beforehand. Hell, when the Iraq War was first starting, some of the staunchest opponents were libertarians, and I remember even my socialist self being in agreement with most of what they wrote in regard to foreign policy. Of course, then domestic issues come up, and one wonders how someone who actually cares about the fate of others in the world can actually believe free markets are the answer to all our problems. Granted, there are many libertarians who don't actually care about the fate of others, and those are generally the loudest. On January 30 2010 05:38 KnightOfNi wrote: What the hell is corporatist? 'Corporatist' (corporatism) is a system where most of the functions of the state are run by corporations rather than subdivisions of the state itself. In many cases, this means the people running the corporations are also active politicians. Of course, it seems really similar to fascism no matter how you splice it. The vice of this type of system is that corporations are not interested in anything other than providing a service in order to make a profit. When used to describe America, it usually refers to lobbying and the amount of control corporations actually have over the government. Also, in regards to the military being replaced by private mercenaries, and in the frame of no-bid contracts. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On January 30 2010 00:22 Etherone wrote: im a libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist or something im between lol basically I'd adhere to a form of voluntary socialism with anarchy chips sprinkled in the mix Yurebis please explain to me what capitalist entails in anarcho-capitalist edit: also this thread needs to CLEARLY STATE whether any of those poll categories are the american ones, or the ones the rest of the world uses. Libertarian in the american sense IS NOT nearly the same as in the European (rest of the world) sense On January 30 2010 01:44 Aim Here wrote: No way. Anarchism and libertarianism are decidedly not an 'internal division' of each other (unless you're using the old fashioned/European term 'libertarian' or you believe that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, which is rejected by almost all left-anarchists). One has it's origins in Europe in the 19th century, is generally considered left wing, and has a vehement opposition to the private ownership of 'property' (where the word property means, at minimum, 'the means of production'). The other is a twentieth century phenomenon, largely originated in the US, is generally considered right-wing (though some libertarians tend to object to this), and considers the private ownership of property to be almost sacrosanct. They do have some beliefs in common, and both parties do witter on about freedom much, but essentially Anarchists are all socialists (but reject the state) and Libertarians are all capitalists (and sometimes reject the state). They don't share the same philosophers (apart from perhaps Robert Anton Wilson...), they don't hang around in the same social circles and saying their differences are an 'internal division' would be like saying that the philosophies of Mao Tse Tung and Ronald Reagan are essentially similar. Just because there are no anarchist parties doesn't mean you can disregard the views of pretty much all anarchist thinkers and lump them together with a largely unrelated philosophy. The only real difference is property rights and what constitutes aggression... think about it. anacho-socialists or anarcho-syndicalists see the claim to private property as aggression too. You can't own shit. You can only use shit. There may be personal items you can have, idk, don't know them philosophies too well, but beyond a certain point, you can't own anything, and all claims to the control of property have to do with their use, and not who owns them. Property: Use <------------------> ownership Anarcho-: socialism <----------> capitalism with some degrees inbetween. Imo, owning things, even land, isn't a problem at all if you got a good claim for it. It can't be so extreme in that you can own a piece of land in perpetuity (there has to be some arbitrary criteria for abandonment) and it can't be so easy to claim that which you didn't use (homesteading or some similar concept could be seen as legit) Don't be so butthurt as to disconsider anarcho-capitalist as an oppressive ideology just cuz it acknowledges people can and should have the exclusive control over their homesteaded property... | ||
|
RivalryRedux
United States173 Posts
http://ivo.co.za/2007/08/09/libertarian-iq/ TLDR Version: Libertarians tend to think more like programmers I find the article to be true in my case as I'm a libertarian and I love to simulate the effects of a given policy in any system, which is why I chose Econ as my major and CS as my minor. | ||
|
Incognito
United States2071 Posts
Anarchist means no state. Anarchist does not mean violence and chaos etc. Its just that everyone who hates anarchists says everyone is like that. Anarchist/Libertarian doesn't really suggest themselves to be right or left wing. There are left wing libertarians and right wing anarchists. Anarchist/Libertarian is just a term describing views on the power of government. Its not really a political agenda. Libertarians are not overrepresented on TL. They're just underrepresented in the polls because a lot of them don't really go to the polls. (Or if you live in the US they may just vote Republican). I don't know too many Libertarians who actively participate in the political process. The American Democratic and Republican parties are not two parties, they're just 30-50 parties who align themselves into two groups. The only thing they share in common is that they're both corporatist. I'm surprised more people are talking more about anarchists/libertarians than socialists/communists. Anyway, if you're going to have a political poll, it should be multiple polls for different issues. None of this labeling business. | ||
|
bUbUsHeD
China54 Posts
On January 30 2010 10:13 RivalryRedux wrote: Here's an interesting article I found which talks about how libertarians think and possibly explains why there may be so many libertarians on the net http://ivo.co.za/2007/08/09/libertarian-iq/ TLDR Version: Libertarians tend to think more like programmers I find the article to be true in my case as I'm a libertarian and I love to simulate the effects of a given policy in any system, which is why I chose Econ as my major and CS as my minor. Good article and a very interesting observation. When I think about it, most of the people I know who are programmers and were exposed to Austrian economy turned Libertarian instantly, while the others had much more trouble understanding it properly. | ||
|
Subversive
Australia2229 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11350 Posts
But really all these labels are less then helpful given the variety of countries that are weighing in. The labels are so context specific. | ||
|
Aim Here
Scotland672 Posts
The only real difference is property rights and what constitutes aggression... Well in today's world, a difference in views on property rights is a massive and crucial one. Don't be so butthurt as to disconsider anarcho-capitalist as an oppressive ideology just cuz it acknowledges people can and should have the exclusive control over their homesteaded property... But 'their homesteaded property' here means that someone is in possession of some property and then uses it him- or herself (and there's no government about). That's not anarcho-capitalism, that's anarcho-individualism, which still fits happily inside the socialist camp. It's when someone claims ownership more property than they are physically able to use themselves, and then uses their control over that property to extract wage labour from others , then that becomes capitalism. It's not that someone happens to 'own' some stuff that Anarchists object to, it's when they use that stuff to exploit others. In fact, the first modern anarchist work, 'What is Property?' by Proudhon differentiates between 'property' (stuff that is owned whose use necessarily affects or exploits other people, like a factory or a large plantation) and 'possessions' (things you can use without exploiting someone else, like this hypothetical homestead of yours), before going on to show that 'Property' is theft. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On January 30 2010 20:56 Aim Here wrote: Well in today's world, a difference in views on property rights is a massive and crucial one. But 'their homesteaded property' here means that someone is in possession of some property and then uses it him- or herself (and there's no government about). That's not anarcho-capitalism, that's anarcho-individualism, which still fits happily inside the socialist camp. It's when someone claims ownership more property than they are physically able to use themselves, and then uses their control over that property to extract wage labour from others , then that becomes capitalism. It's not that someone happens to 'own' some stuff that Anarchists object to, it's when they use that stuff to exploit others. In fact, the first modern anarchist work, 'What is Property?' by Proudhon differentiates between 'property' (stuff that is owned whose use necessarily affects or exploits other people, like a factory or a large plantation) and 'possessions' (things you can use without exploiting someone else, like this hypothetical homestead of yours), before going on to show that 'Property' is theft. Cool, it looks like your conception of property is not as different as mine, because just as much as I could live in your imaginary world, you could live in my imaginary world, and we could be imaginary friends!   Could I sell the land I've built on to someone else in anarcho-individualism? Example, maybe I get to be a builder, and the person I sell it to becomes a real-estate agent. Can specialization of labor then escalate in that way, so the world eventually organizes in a similar fashion to what we have today? (minus the coercive state) If yes, why is that not anarcho-capitalism? | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On January 29 2010 15:39 StorkHwaiting wrote: I can't speak for L, but I'm guessing he means enlightened despotism. One ruler, who is a perfect being, that makes decisions for everyone else. I could be way wrong though. That's just my guess. Nope. Although that's one of the possible expressions of Rational absolutism. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On January 30 2010 09:28 Yurebis wrote: The only real difference is property rights and what constitutes aggression... think about it. anacho-socialists or anarcho-syndicalists see the claim to private property as aggression too. You can't own shit. You can only use shit. There may be personal items you can have, idk, don't know them philosophies too well, but beyond a certain point, you can't own anything, and all claims to the control of property have to do with their use, and not who owns them. Property: Use <------------------> ownership Anarcho-: socialism <----------> capitalism with some degrees inbetween. Imo, owning things, even land, isn't a problem at all if you got a good claim for it. It can't be so extreme in that you can own a piece of land in perpetuity (there has to be some arbitrary criteria for abandonment) and it can't be so easy to claim that which you didn't use (homesteading or some similar concept could be seen as legit) Don't be so butthurt as to disconsider anarcho-capitalist as an oppressive ideology just cuz it acknowledges people can and should have the exclusive control over their homesteaded property... The idea is that its aggression because a right of ownership is nothing more than the right of use combined with the coercive right to prevent others from using. The reason why Anarcho socialism can't logically uphold a connection to private property while espousing no 'common power' is because without the common power to hold them in awe, there would be no rights beyond the subjective interpretations of those involved in a dispute. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On January 31 2010 05:36 L wrote: The idea is that its aggression because a right of ownership is nothing more than the right of use combined with the coercive right to prevent others from using. The reason why Anarcho socialism can't logically uphold a connection to private property while espousing no 'common power' is because without the common power to hold them in awe, there would be no rights beyond the subjective interpretations of those involved in a dispute. Thats not a problem for those who know subjective interpretations are a given in any anarchy... the difference of anacap and acancom being what they think it ought to be and what will they consider aggression or not. You see, I don't think there's any "rights" in the first place. People just indeed have different value judgements for everything and that includes morals. I happen to think *my* morals would be the best for my ends (perhaps happines or idk what it is LOL) and am trying to "sell" it for people. For moral objectivists however... that is tricky since they "reserve the right" to impose their morals onto others... I don't know if that could ever work. On a small note, it would even be possible for an anacap see the state as it can be found today legitimate, if he were to propose that the state has the best claim to all land, but it would be really hard to convince people of that, since no title was ever transfered to, no land ever homesteaded by, the people from washington d.c. So idk, it would sound like a fraud. When you claim to be the owner of something, there's got to be some reason for it, don't you think? Not just, "land mine, me take tax from you, you peasant, me boss". The claim will have to be arbitrary someway, but I find the homesteading principles to be the best that I've found so far. | ||
|
liosama
Australia843 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
You see, I don't think there's any "rights" in the first place. People just indeed have different value judgements for everything and that includes morals. Self-contradiction. Not believing in there being a right excludes the conclusion that people have different views on what is right. Absolute subjectivism is merely the negation of thinking. Such a conclusion, far from liberating people from ideology, enslave people to thoughtlessness. Belief in some kind of truth is the necessary prerequisite for all thinking, even for the thought that there is no truth. | ||
| ||
