On August 20 2009 12:42 Mindcrime wrote: And they both staunchly oppose concentrations of power. So yeah, it is pretty simple; they belong on the far left.
So you are telling me liberals oppose concentrations of power? Are you saying this with a straight face?
modern liberals? no
At best, they have left wing goals and right wing methods.
I'm curious then, where would you place Libertarians such as Ayn Rand (Objectivism is a part of Libertarianism), Milton Friedman, and Murry Rothbard on the traditional view of Right/Left politics? They don't fit in anywhere in there because they are an amalgamation of both right and left. Therefore, you can't use the traditional spectrum. That is why the only spectrum which places all political views in their proper place is the one I showed.
Please, do try and fit the Libertarians aforementioned into your Right/Left view. I want to hear this.
Again, I generally agree with the view of left and right expressed by Karl Hess:
My own notion of politics is that it follows a straight line rather than a circle. The straight line stretches from the far right where (historically) we find monarchy, absolute dictatorships, and other forms of absolutely authoritarian rule. On the far right, law and order means the law of the ruler and the order that serves the interest of that ruler, usually the orderliness of drone workers, submissive students, elders either totally cowed into loyalty or totally indoctrinated and trained into that loyalty. Both Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler operated right-wing regimes, politically, despite the trappings of socialism with which both adorned their regimes....
The far left, as far as you can get away from the right, would logically represent the opposite tendency and, in fact, has done just that throughout history. The left has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands.
On August 20 2009 12:42 Mindcrime wrote: And they both staunchly oppose concentrations of power. So yeah, it is pretty simple; they belong on the far left.
So you are telling me liberals oppose concentrations of power? Are you saying this with a straight face?
modern liberals? no
At best, they have left wing goals and right wing methods.
I'm curious then, where would you place Libertarians such as Ayn Rand (Objectivism is a part of Libertarianism), Milton Friedman, and Murry Rothbard on the traditional view of Right/Left politics? They don't fit in anywhere in there because they are an amalgamation of both right and left. Therefore, you can't use the traditional spectrum. That is why the only spectrum which places all political views in their proper place is the one I showed.
Please, do try and fit the Libertarians aforementioned into your Right/Left view. I want to hear this.
Again, I generally agree with the view of left and right expressed by Karl Hess:
My own notion of politics is that it follows a straight line rather than a circle. The straight line stretches from the far right where (historically) we find monarchy, absolute dictatorships, and other forms of absolutely authoritarian rule. On the far right, law and order means the law of the ruler and the order that serves the interest of that ruler, usually the orderliness of drone workers, submissive students, elders either totally cowed into loyalty or totally indoctrinated and trained into that loyalty. Both Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler operated right-wing regimes, politically, despite the trappings of socialism with which both adorned their regimes....
The far left, as far as you can get away from the right, would logically represent the opposite tendency and, in fact, has done just that throughout history. The left has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands.
He basically reversed my right and left. My right is his left, and his right is my left. It is pretty much the same.
I'm definitely interested in the Rothbard piece so I'll read it and report back. Let me just preface, I'm no Anarcho-Capitalist. There is a Government role, and that is to be decided by local, representative democracy (Anti-Federalism), with a head of state for Foreign policy and CIC. The only role I believe the Federal Government should have is in regard to the establishment of Foreign Policy, Ensuring Free Trade, and keeping a standing military, or militia. Preferrably I would have each State have their own militias and when called upon in times of war transferred to the control of the Federal Government, much like early America. This also serves as a bulwark to any attempt at tyranny because the citizens of the country would be heavily armed. Local Government or State Government role would be adjudicating dispute, ensuring contractual obligations, and a few other various powers. We would be precisely a free Laissez-Faire Economy with decentralized banking and competing currencies all backed by the Gold Standard.
Not sure why I said the above, but perhaps for people to get a better view of my ideology. (Not like thats needed anyways I suppose lol)
Basically an Anti-Federalist Constitutional Representative Laissez-Faire Republic. A mouthful, eh?
On August 20 2009 14:06 D10 wrote: Aegraen what do you think of the New World Order proposed by the illuminati?
I don't believe in that. Why do people think Libertarians = Conspiracists? If it makes you feel any better by purposefully ignoring history about how the banking institutionists cemented permanent authority and control over America, by dismissing it because of some stupid New World Order bull crap, well I suppose you reap what you sow. Indifference and belittlement is a virtue leading down the path of destruction. Choose wisely.
On August 20 2009 10:15 Mindcrime wrote: Calling for someone's death for wanting to discuss an issue gets more attention than calling for someone's death for starting a war.
go figure
Both a war and health policy are political stances.
EDIT: But I guess if you figure that statistically speaking a lot of media reporters probably think he knew about or planned 9/11 it would make sense that they would treat the 2 circumstances differently.
EDIT2: In case you can't tell, that first edit is humor
how did 9/11 come into the conversation?
What i think you need to remember is the complex nature of the interconnected events in question. In the late 1800's, there the Carp of London's Thames river decided they had had enough of the English shitting all over their society, and so they moved to America. It was here, that they found out how to create gold tablets from swimming in a certain pattern just over the base of the river beds. This, in fact, was how the Mormon tablets were created.
Despite all this, there was ONE thing they despised more than pompous English shit, it was crappy imported American Tea; and so one fateful day, when tons and tons of tea was dumped into their lives, they got pissed. They vowed revenge. And so they planed an intricate plan to create a political party to oppose whoever did it. They called this party The Democrats. However this was not enough, and some Carp were more hot blooded than others, and decided to hijack a planes and fly them into buildings at random. This, gentlemen, is what you know as 9/11.
However this did not stop the stupid Americans from dumping tea! They had to do something! And so they decided they would take over government and abolish it! To do this, they used all the shit they had accumulated from the British, and formed it into a human being, who they called Obama. Then, they wrote that into the gold tablets too; this, however, was mistaken for Rick Astley, who subsequently became uber famous.
Thwarted once again; the Carp knew they had to do something! The only other way they knew of how to get Obama elected, would be to over take the media! And so, chipping away bit by bit, they overtook the media, and corrupted enough peoples minds to get him elected!
I suppose if I point out the simple fact that most anarchists and libertarians throughout history have been broadly socialist some people here are going to burst a blood vessel.
I am pretty sure Bakunin would fall over laughing if he ever saw that diagram showing anarchism on the extreme right of the political spectrum.
It's funny, because in most European countries 'Liberals' are actually liberal, in contrast to what Americans see as 'Liberals'.
Aegrean's spectrum is unapplicable, because there's at least 2 measures you can judge a political viewpoint by: socially Conservative vs Liberal, and economically Left-wing vs Right-wing.
In America, you lump the liberals all in one bunch, on the left-wing economical spectrum. In Europe liberals are generally socially Liberal and economically Right-Wing. Socialists are socially conservative and economically left-wing. Left-Liberal parties as known in Europe are generally environment-friendly and socially very liberal.
Please stop using the word liberal when you mean Socialist or Communist, because it's not correct at all.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: The quaint notion of the orthodox view of right and left in politics today is inherently deceiving and a false representation.
The more apt and truistic political spectrum is indeed from the right to the left, however on the right in the beginning of the spectrum is Anarchism, while on the far Left is Totalitarian.
Aegrean, your political spectrum is hugely skewed. You group the left on the Totalitarian side as if it consists of simply one ideology, while you spread your right wing ideas all over. Ever considered that not all left-wing ideologies are far-left? That there might be left-wing idelogies that are totally against totalitarianism? Learn more about these kind of things before making your own political spectrums.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: The orthodox view makes it stupid because you can't have a notion of right or left or center for Anarchists like Anarcho-Capitalists, or people who advocate Anarcho-Capitalistic approach however with an extremely limited form of Government, which most Libertarians are. It also doesn't take into account the Economic side of the delimma. Economics and Politics go hand in hand.
There are more left-wing anarchist ideologies than right-wing. Being left-wing economically does not make an ideology totalitarian. This is a big fault in your reasoning.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: So for example the accurate approach is something that looks like this:
Totalitarian - Corporate Statist, Fascist, Communist, Socialist, etc.
This approach will get you nowhere. Your definition of Totalitarian clearly encompasses alot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism This kind of proves you wrong, am I right? You can't line up all ideologies and say it is so.
If you replace Libertarian with Anarchy and you might have a decent measure of how a state functions, but you can't use it to describe ideologies.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: On this line here is our current geopolitical US position along with the world view.
----|-------|-----|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------| World--Dem--GOP-----------------Independants---------------------Constitutionalist----Libertarian P.
Holy shit. You really think the rest of the world has totalitarian ideologies? I'll tell you something. You can pull alot more shit in Europe then you can in the US. Europe does not check every single person who flies into the country. Europe did not imprison people without trial because they had a beard and were called Muhammad.
Looking at this shit again, it looks as if you call 'World' a political party or ideology. I don't think you should try to act like you know anything about geopolitical positions.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: Within each of the sects is a clear Economic approach. You cannot seperate Economic Freedom from Political Freedom, they are one and the same and both lead down the Totalitarian path.
That is the only accurate way to approach. So, on this view you can see the world and the US is overwhelming Leftist because they both seek to deny you rights through the Government. You are less free when both the GOP and DEM are in control you only have the facade of choice. America is a one party political system as I suspect most the world is.
I agree that Economic freedom and Political freedom are related. I don't agree that all left-wing policies deny Economic or Political freedom. Leftist policy does not mean it is totalitarian communist policy. Read up on this, a very common political ideology in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism . You could call me a supporter of this.
I agree that there is little to no choice between the GOP and Democrats, but not because they are both too left-wing. Most democrats would be considered right-wing in Europe. The two parties look alike because of the huge influence of the neoliberal, conservative/corporate system in America, which denys people rights and favors big corporations. I'll give you this, Aegrean - Big government right wing scares me more than your liberal right wing ideologies.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: The quaint notion of the orthodox view of right and left in politics today is inherently deceiving and a false representation.
The more apt and truistic political spectrum is indeed from the right to the left, however on the right in the beginning of the spectrum is Anarchism, while on the far Left is Totalitarian.
Aegrean, your political spectrum is hugely skewed. You group the left on the Totalitarian side as if it consists of simply one ideology, while you spread your right wing ideas all over. Ever considered that not all left-wing ideologies are far-left? That there might be left-wing idelogies that are totally against totalitarianism? Learn more about these kind of things before making your own political spectrums.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: The orthodox view makes it stupid because you can't have a notion of right or left or center for Anarchists like Anarcho-Capitalists, or people who advocate Anarcho-Capitalistic approach however with an extremely limited form of Government, which most Libertarians are. It also doesn't take into account the Economic side of the delimma. Economics and Politics go hand in hand.
There are more left-wing anarchist ideologies than right-wing. Being left-wing economically does not make an ideology totalitarian. This is a big fault in your reasoning.
Totalitarian - Corporate Statist, Fascist, Communist, Socialist, etc.
This approach will get you nowhere. Your definition of Totalitarian clearly encompasses alot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism This kind of proves you wrong, am I right? You can't line up all ideologies and say it is so.
If you replace Libertarian with Anarchy and you might have a decent measure of how a state functions, but you can't use it to describe ideologies.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: On this line here is our current geopolitical US position along with the world view.
----|-------|-----|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------| World--Dem--GOP-----------------Independants---------------------Constitutionalist----Libertarian P.
Holy shit. You really think the rest of the world has totalitarian ideologies? I'll tell you something. You can pull alot more shit in Europe then you can in the US. Europe does not check every single person who flies into the country. Europe did not imprison people without trial because they had a beard and were called Muhammad.
Looking at this shit again, it looks as if you call 'World' a political party or ideology. I don't think you should try to act like you know anything about geopolitical positions.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: Within each of the sects is a clear Economic approach. You cannot seperate Economic Freedom from Political Freedom, they are one and the same and both lead down the Totalitarian path.
That is the only accurate way to approach. So, on this view you can see the world and the US is overwhelming Leftist because they both seek to deny you rights through the Government. You are less free when both the GOP and DEM are in control you only have the facade of choice. America is a one party political system as I suspect most the world is.
I agree that Economic freedom and Political freedom are related. I don't agree that all left-wing policies deny Economic or Political freedom. Leftist policy does not mean it is totalitarian communist policy. Read up on this, a very common political ideology in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism . You could call me a supporter of this.
I agree that there is little to no choice between the GOP and Democrats, but not because they are both too left-wing. Most democrats would be considered right-wing in Europe. The two parties look alike because of the huge influence of the neoliberal, conservative/corporate system in America, which denys people rights and favors big corporations. I'll give you this, Aegrean - Big government right wing scares me more than your liberal right wing ideologies.
EDIT: 'spectrums' screwing around
Libertarianism draws more on Classical Liberalism than anything else. So, in essence the transient meaning of the word which you have replaced within "Social Liberalism" is actually not, liberalism, just like in America liberalism has replaced what it originally meant, so has it in Europe. Western Europe especially is the haven of the aggrandizing big government politicians. The borgeouis political elite there to dileneate whats best to the proleteriat like it has been for many years. The only country in Western Europe that really has a Classical Liberal history, Ireland has all but abandoned its traditions. It has thrown in pretty much with the homogenous governments of Western Europe. Eastern Europe however, went another way. They are vastly more Lassiez-Faire while not being wholly, they are vastly more Lassiez-Faire than pretty much everywhere else save for Hong Kong and Singapore.
You wonder why the countries who promote less Government intervention, free-market Laissez-Faire approach have tremendous Economic growth while countries who favor the opposite have stagnation and inflationary problems? This even goes further than merely Government intervention, but the fact that most of the world has adopted Keynesian Economics as the orthodox view, which has been crashing tremendously lately as was prophesied, by the Austrian School.
What I am trying to say is that using Government to steal from one sect of people to give to another is not liberalism. It is totalitarianism and expressly why I put that thought of Economics (Keynesian) on that side of the spectrum. It is essentially, Corporate Statism.
I'm curious, do you have anyone in Europe or any parties that resemble the American Libertarian Party? Do you ever wonder why the Austrian School left Europe? Do you have any Bobb Barr's, Ron Pauls, etc.? Do you have anyone like the Old Right, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwaters, etc. in Europe? Anarcho-Capitalism has very little to nothing in common with pretty much every other sect of Anarchy. It is pretty much the only individualistic-capitalist anarchy or derivation thereof. Why? Because it holds the individual as the sovereign authority.
I'm curious. In what way can you rationalize taking someones money to give to another yet at the same time be against corporatism; that is subsidies, corporate welfare, etc. which is expressly the form of taking anothers money and giving to another. They are one and the same! Yet, you espouse one and denounce the other. It makes no sense. I guess in your notion of "empathy" you rationalize its perfectly ok to steal from another. If thats not abridgement of rights I don't know what is. Mutual voluntary contracts is the only form known to man to benefit both sides. Due to scarcity of resources it is impossible under any economic or political system for there to ever be no poor, no uneducated, etc. You are chasing a fallacious utopia that does not exist.
Instead you should be supporting letting people choose where to trade, who to trade with, what services to produce, which goods to produce, letting those who make bad decisions fail, letting entreprenuers create business unfettered. It is a weird dichotomy in Europe that people seek to help the poor by subsidary, yet don't realize (That is the general populace), that you are creating a class of state slaves. How is that help? Essentially you are doing this; handing the poor a fish, instead of a fishing rod. You are not teaching them how to produce, incentivizing to work, to create wealth and goods and services to voluntarily exchange their production with others for Economic growth. This is why Europe does not grow, at least Western Europe.
Hopefully everyone looks a little deeper into their ideologies. The reasoning, logic, theories, etc. Trust me, it took me down a winding road to end up where I am today. I think if the American population ever educated themselves we would see a Revolution to return to our founding and even beyond that to a more Anti-Federalist true Laissez-Faire approach because we have history to teach us the failures of the past.
On August 20 2009 19:26 Aegraen wrote: Libertarianism draws more on Classical Liberalism than anything else. So, in essence the transient meaning of the word which you have replaced within "Social Liberalism" is actually not, liberalism, just like in America liberalism has replaced what it originally meant, so has it in Europe. Western Europe especially is the haven of the aggrandizing big government politicians. The borgeouis political elite there to dileneate whats best to the proleteriat like it has been for many years. The only country in Western Europe that really has a Classical Liberal history, Ireland has all but abandoned its traditions. It has thrown in pretty much with the homogenous governments of Western Europe. Eastern Europe however, went another way. They are vastly more Lassiez-Faire while not being wholly, they are vastly more Lassiez-Faire than pretty much everywhere else save for Hong Kong and Singapore.
You wonder why the countries who promote less Government intervention, free-market Laissez-Faire approach have tremendous Economic growth while countries who favor the opposite have stagnation and inflationary problems? This even goes further than merely Government intervention, but the fact that most of the world has adopted Keynesian Economics as the orthodox view, which has been crashing tremendously lately as was prophesied, by the Austrian School.
What I am trying to say is that using Government to steal from one sect of people to give to another is not liberalism. It is totalitarianism and expressly why I put that thought of Economics (Keynesian) on that side of the spectrum. It is essentially, Corporate Statism.
I'm curious, do you have anyone in Europe or any parties that resemble the American Libertarian Party? Do you ever wonder why the Austrian School left Europe? Do you have any Bobb Barr's, Ron Pauls, etc.? Do you have anyone like the Old Right, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwaters, etc. in Europe? Anarcho-Capitalism has very little to nothing in common with pretty much every other sect of Anarchy. It is pretty much the only individualistic-capitalist anarchy or derivation thereof. Why? Because it holds the individual as the sovereign authority.
I'm curious. In what way can you rationalize taking someones money to give to another yet at the same time be against corporatism; that is subsidies, corporate welfare, etc. which is expressly the form of taking anothers money and giving to another. They are one and the same! Yet, you espouse one and denounce the other. It makes no sense. I guess in your notion of "empathy" you rationalize its perfectly ok to steal from another. If thats not abridgement of rights I don't know what is. Mutual voluntary contracts is the only form known to man to benefit both sides. Due to scarcity of resources it is impossible under any economic or political system for there to ever be no poor, no uneducated, etc. You are chasing a fallacious utopia that does not exist.
Instead you should be supporting letting people choose where to trade, who to trade with, what services to produce, which goods to produce, letting those who make bad decisions fail, letting entreprenuers create business unfettered. It is a weird dichotomy in Europe that people seek to help the poor by subsidary, yet don't realize (That is the general populace), that you are creating a class of state slaves. How is that help? Essentially you are doing this; handing the poor a fish, instead of a fishing rod. You are not teaching them how to produce, incentivizing to work, to create wealth and goods and services to voluntarily exchange their production with others for Economic growth. This is why Europe does not grow, at least Western Europe.
Hopefully everyone looks a little deeper into their ideologies. The reasoning, logic, theories, etc. Trust me, it took me down a winding road to end up where I am today. I think if the American population ever educated themselves we would see a Revolution to return to our founding and even beyond that to a more Anti-Federalist true Laissez-Faire approach because we have history to teach us the failures of the past.
Aegrean you absolutely ignored most of the points I made. Instead you ranted on about taxes being stealing. I'm not going into serious debate with you anymore, because you clearly cannot agree with 99% of educated mankind that taxation is a necessity. Letting everyone go their own goddamn way might work if we didn't need other people around us for happiness, wellbeing and health. Your ultimate goal of a taxless, absent-government society isn't going to work, ever. People can do alot of good things if you give them the opportunity. By making a society that is based on people only looking out for themselves you put us back a few thousand years in human social evolution.
Education. Infrastructure. Healthcare. Law and Order (No, not your shotgun). Standard of living. Freedom.
Your post is full of so much bullsh*t. You say other kinds of liberalism don't count because they were there later and don't adhere to Classical Liberalism. Guess what, Anarcho-Capitalism was there later than classical Anarchy, so should I give a sh*t? Of course, I don't discredit your ideas because they aren't 'classical'.
Homogenous governments of Western Europe? Do you even know which parties govern in each country? I bet you don't. Look it up. There's right wing, left wing. Just because they both support taxation doesn't mean they're homogenous. Get out.
Tremendous economic growth in Eastern Europe? That's in part because they have cheaper labor and European subsidies. Sure laissez-faire helps, but I don't see the standard of living in Eastern Europe close to European/American levels. Laissez-faire economic policy helps up till a certain level, after that improving the standard of living is achieved with better health, education and government programs.
Left-liberals promote economic freedom, and by that I mean freedom to invest, spend, and trade. I read an article in the Economist that said that Denmark had better economic freedom than the US, Hong Kong and other countries with much less taxation. Taxation isn't the biggest barrier to enterprise. Government intervention, trade barriers and a badly educated workforce (with guns to boot!!) are much more detrimental. This is what Left-liberals focus on.
I don't understand your definitions of corporatism and corporate statism and what they have to do with an ideology that promotes economic and personal freedom. Once again; taxation =/= robbing people of freedom. If you really think that mutual voluntary contracts are the only way to do buisness, you really need to look at the many successful government/buisness cooperations in Europe, especially in Green energy and Healthcare.
I am not chasing an utopia. I'm trying to find real solutions to problems, instead of your batshit insane Corporate anarchism. If there ever was a fallacious idea, it would be that. This idea of yours is never going to happen. People will not stand for a dog eat dog society, even if the people who want it carry guns because its their right (wacked idea, why is the murder rate so high in America? huh?).
Once again, Left-liberalism promotes economic freedom and self-help. It helps people do this, instead of leaving them to themselves. If you can't get a job, you can pursue education or get state employment. You will get tools to save yourself. Anarcho-Capitalism, who helps you? Better hope you got a rich daddy. Europe's growth rates mean nothing to me. Economic growth is moot when it is uneven. The middle class keeps getting poorer and has been accumulating a shitload of debt in America. There's runaway capitalism for you. Now ask yourself, do you want runaway anarchist capitalism?
On August 19 2009 16:33 Aegraen wrote: A true patriot.
It would be funny if it were not so frightening.
Does that really scare you? I mean honestly.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
On August 20 2009 19:26 Aegraen wrote: Libertarianism draws more on Classical Liberalism than anything else. So, in essence the transient meaning of the word which you have replaced within "Social Liberalism" is actually not, liberalism, just like in America liberalism has replaced what it originally meant, so has it in Europe. Western Europe especially is the haven of the aggrandizing big government politicians. The borgeouis political elite there to dileneate whats best to the proleteriat like it has been for many years. The only country in Western Europe that really has a Classical Liberal history, Ireland has all but abandoned its traditions. It has thrown in pretty much with the homogenous governments of Western Europe. Eastern Europe however, went another way. They are vastly more Lassiez-Faire while not being wholly, they are vastly more Lassiez-Faire than pretty much everywhere else save for Hong Kong and Singapore.
You wonder why the countries who promote less Government intervention, free-market Laissez-Faire approach have tremendous Economic growth while countries who favor the opposite have stagnation and inflationary problems? This even goes further than merely Government intervention, but the fact that most of the world has adopted Keynesian Economics as the orthodox view, which has been crashing tremendously lately as was prophesied, by the Austrian School.
What I am trying to say is that using Government to steal from one sect of people to give to another is not liberalism. It is totalitarianism and expressly why I put that thought of Economics (Keynesian) on that side of the spectrum. It is essentially, Corporate Statism.
I'm curious, do you have anyone in Europe or any parties that resemble the American Libertarian Party? Do you ever wonder why the Austrian School left Europe? Do you have any Bobb Barr's, Ron Pauls, etc.? Do you have anyone like the Old Right, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwaters, etc. in Europe? Anarcho-Capitalism has very little to nothing in common with pretty much every other sect of Anarchy. It is pretty much the only individualistic-capitalist anarchy or derivation thereof. Why? Because it holds the individual as the sovereign authority.
I'm curious. In what way can you rationalize taking someones money to give to another yet at the same time be against corporatism; that is subsidies, corporate welfare, etc. which is expressly the form of taking anothers money and giving to another. They are one and the same! Yet, you espouse one and denounce the other. It makes no sense. I guess in your notion of "empathy" you rationalize its perfectly ok to steal from another. If thats not abridgement of rights I don't know what is. Mutual voluntary contracts is the only form known to man to benefit both sides. Due to scarcity of resources it is impossible under any economic or political system for there to ever be no poor, no uneducated, etc. You are chasing a fallacious utopia that does not exist.
Instead you should be supporting letting people choose where to trade, who to trade with, what services to produce, which goods to produce, letting those who make bad decisions fail, letting entreprenuers create business unfettered. It is a weird dichotomy in Europe that people seek to help the poor by subsidary, yet don't realize (That is the general populace), that you are creating a class of state slaves. How is that help? Essentially you are doing this; handing the poor a fish, instead of a fishing rod. You are not teaching them how to produce, incentivizing to work, to create wealth and goods and services to voluntarily exchange their production with others for Economic growth. This is why Europe does not grow, at least Western Europe.
Hopefully everyone looks a little deeper into their ideologies. The reasoning, logic, theories, etc. Trust me, it took me down a winding road to end up where I am today. I think if the American population ever educated themselves we would see a Revolution to return to our founding and even beyond that to a more Anti-Federalist true Laissez-Faire approach because we have history to teach us the failures of the past.
Aegrean you absolutely ignored most of the points I made. Instead you ranted on about taxes being stealing. I'm not going into serious debate with you anymore, because you clearly cannot agree with 99% of educated mankind that taxation is a necessity. Letting everyone go their own goddamn way might work if we didn't need other people around us for happiness, wellbeing and health. Your ultimate goal of a taxless, absent-government society isn't going to work, ever. People can do alot of good things if you give them the opportunity. By making a society that is based on people only looking out for themselves you put us back a few thousand years in human social evolution.
Education. Infrastructure. Healthcare. Law and Order (No, not your shotgun). Standard of living. Freedom.
Your post is full of so much bullsh*t. You say other kinds of liberalism don't count because they were there later and don't adhere to Classical Liberalism. Guess what, Anarcho-Capitalism was there later than classical Anarchy, so should I give a sh*t? Of course, I don't discredit your ideas because they aren't 'classical'.
Homogenous governments of Western Europe? Do you even know which parties govern in each country? I bet you don't. Look it up. There's right wing, left wing. Just because they both support taxation doesn't mean they're homogenous. Get out.
Tremendous economic growth in Eastern Europe? That's in part because they have cheaper labor and European subsidies. Sure laissez-faire helps, but I don't see the standard of living in Eastern Europe close to European/American levels. Laissez-faire economic policy helps up till a certain level, after that improving the standard of living is achieved with better health, education and government programs.
Left-liberals promote economic freedom, and by that I mean freedom to invest, spend, and trade. I read an article in the Economist that said that Denmark had better economic freedom than the US, Hong Kong and other countries with much less taxation. Taxation isn't the biggest barrier to enterprise. Government intervention, trade barriers and a badly educated workforce (with guns to boot!!) are much more detrimental. This is what Left-liberals focus on.
I don't understand your definitions of corporatism and corporate statism and what they have to do with an ideology that promotes economic and personal freedom. Once again; taxation =/= robbing people of freedom. If you really think that mutual voluntary contracts are the only way to do buisness, you really need to look at the many successful government/buisness cooperations in Europe, especially in Green energy and Healthcare.
I am not chasing an utopia. I'm trying to find real solutions to problems, instead of your batshit insane Corporate anarchism. If there ever was a fallacious idea, it would be that. This idea of yours is never going to happen. People will not stand for a dog eat dog society, even if the people who want it carry guns because its their right (wacked idea, why is the murder rate so high in America? huh?).
Once again, Left-liberalism promotes economic freedom and self-help. It helps people do this, instead of leaving them to themselves. If you can't get a job, you can pursue education or get state employment. You will get tools to save yourself. Anarcho-Capitalism, who helps you? Better hope you got a rich daddy. Europe's growth rates mean nothing to me. Economic growth is moot when it is uneven. The middle class keeps getting poorer and has been accumulating a shitload of debt in America. There's runaway capitalism for you. Now ask yourself, do you want runaway anarchist capitalism?
One America is really a Corporate Statist country. It is not capitalistic in any sense in the Laissez-Faire approach. Government basically runs the private sector by rules, regulations, monopoly, etc. You want an example? How about Richard Nixon in early 70's creating a price and wage freeze for 90 days and then extending that for months on end in various sectors. How is that capitalism? When Government basically controls the means of production not by actually owning, but by setting the rules and governance how is that capitalism? Seems to remind me awfully lot of Corporate Statism/Socialism.
How about JFK sending FBI agents out in the middle of the night to steel executives and forcing them to raise prices of their goods because of Government monetary policy, aka FED.
So, we basically have a quasi-government agency in the FED that can create money out of thin air, a Government in which it subsidizes its favored and lobbied Corporate entities to cut out competition and create Government sanctioned monopolies, and then we have price and wage controls. If that is capitalism to you, then that is a bastardization in which only in your mind you call it Capitalism.
Lastly, I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist. I understand there has to be some modicum of Government. How many times do I have to say this? Five? Ten? Look at the last few posts in this thread and others of mine and you will see where I think Government should be involved and its specific enumerated powers.
Taxation is theft. What else is it if it is not theft? I'm also not a proponent of a virtual voluntary system, because that implies Anarcho-Capitalism. You have to have a tax if you are going to have any Government. My proposal has been this, fixed national sales tax of 4% only on end production goods. This means basically the finality of a good (Not raw material) at the end of its production. Ipod, Computer, House, not food, steel, plastic, etc. Abolish 16th amendment, abolish all property taxation (The state can only tax it if it is the lord. If you truly had private property then no one could tell you what to do with it, unless you created an externality with which you had to compensate those you have effected)
Left-Liberals do not promote economic freedom. How the hell can you call 40%+ taxes, and all other sorts of taxes, etc. freedom?! What a juxtaposition of ideas that is.
Despite recent marginal decreases, government spending is 51.5 percent of GDP.
Liberalism is about small government, limited government. How you claim this I do not know. I will commend Denmark on the easiness of starting a business (Why you need a license is a mystery, oh no its not, its to stifle competition.). Employee cost is pretty low, and firing an employee is relatively easy, so I give credit where it is due.
I'm also not sure that you understand that hand outs do not create an incentive to improve. The truism of the fish analogy is prescient.
In France Aegraen would be a liberal and Savio too ( but more liberal conservative ). The perception of the "liberal" word is mostly economic ( and it is used for people who dislike government intervention, taxes etc ... ).
But there are almost no real liberal conservatives.
The right of the socialist party is actually way more liberal ( economic ) than the conservatives of the right lol ( protectionists )
On August 20 2009 20:49 Boblion wrote: In France Aegraen would be a liberal and Savio too ( but more liberal conservative ). The perception of the "liberal" word is mostly economic ( and it is used for people who dislike government intervention, taxes etc ... ).
So you call Libertarians liberals in Europe? I suppose this isn't too much a far cry as Libertarianism is heavily influenced by Classical Liberalism. However, Libertarianism in America has as its Economic philosophy Austrian Economics. Do liberals in Europe have any affinity towards Austrian Economics?
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
It is not flawed whatsoever. What would be the motivation for one individual to try and rob another individual of his production (That is, money and or goods in his possession), when the risk is that you run the high probability of becoming killed in the act? Does that not create a scenario in which the incentive to rob is diminished? Why do you think the criminal and specifically violent crimes are much higher in places where civilians are not armed? Do you think you can have a cop besides you at all times, or that you can rely on cops to prevent a crime? By becoming armed you do this.
Now, you say since everyone is armed they have some weird motivation to start shooting each other? What makes you believe this happens? Did this happen in the west in the 1800s? No. Exactly the opposite happened.
Want a prescient analogy, one that is still very fresh?
Cold War. Both countries essentially stockpiled weapons, both knowing of the doctrine of M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. This created what is known as Detente. Neither side had any incentive whatsoever to be the aggressor, because both knew that it would lead to death. Now, imagine now that one side had access to weapons and arms and stockpiles and the other did not. What would have been the scenario in that case?
On August 20 2009 20:49 Boblion wrote: In France Aegraen would be a liberal and Savio too ( but more liberal conservative ). The perception of the "liberal" word is mostly economic ( and it is used for people who dislike government intervention, taxes etc ... ).
So you call Libertarians liberals in Europe?
In France at least yes.
On August 20 2009 20:51 Aegraen wrote: I suppose this isn't too much a far cry as Libertarianism is heavily influenced by Classical Liberalism. However, Libertarianism in America has as its Economic philosophy Austrian Economics. Do liberals in Europe have any affinity towards Austrian Economics?
Well real libertarians ( what we call ultraliberals ) are almost inexistent ( 1% maybe ? ) although there are some micro parties like Alternative Libérale.
However the two biggest parties ( socialist party and the UMP of Sarkozy ) and even "the green party" have their own liberal ( economic ) wings ( but they are 1000x softer than Alternative Libérale and libertarians.
Also the word liberal has a somewhat bad connotation because of relocations and things like that. :p
Edit: the word liberal isn't used as much for "manners", people will use "progressist" or something like that.
EPT
