Noam Chomsky is a libertarian socialist. True. Recently the term libertarian set some Necters off the rails...I suspect most haven’t bothered to understand what libertarianism actually A little Wikipedia (yeah I know, Wikipedia...)
There is contention about whether left and right libertarianism "represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme".[31] All libertarians begin with a conception of personal autonomy from which they argue in favor of civil liberties and a reduction or elimination of the state.
Right-libertarianism[32] developed in the United States in the mid-20th century and is the most popular conception of libertarianism in that region.[33] It is commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism.[34][35] Right-libertarians value the social institutions that enforce conditions of capitalism, while rejecting institutions that function in opposition to these institutions. Anarcho-capitalists[36][37] seek complete elimination of the state in favor of privately funded security services while minarchistsdefend "night-watchman states", which maintain only those functions of government necessary to maintain conditions of capitalism.
Critics such as Corey Robin describe right-libertarianism as fundamentally a reactionaryconservative ideology, united with more traditional conservative thought and goals by a desire to enforce hierarchical power and social relations:[38]
Conservatism, then, is not a commitment to limited government and liberty—or a wariness of change, a belief in evolutionary reform, or a politics of virtue. These may be the byproducts of conservatism, one or more of its historically specific and ever-changing modes of expression. But they are not its animating purpose. Neither is conservatism a makeshift fusion of capitalists, Christians, and warriors, for that fusion is impelled by a more elemental force—the opposition to the liberation of men and women from the fetters of their superiors, particularly in the private sphere. Such a view might seem miles away from the libertarian defense of the free market, with its celebration of the atomistic and autonomous individual. But it is not. When the libertarian looks out upon society, he does not see isolated individuals; he sees private, often hierarchical, groups, where a father governs his family and an owner his employees.
Anarchism envisages freedom as a form of autonomy,[39] which Paul Goodman describes as "the ability to initiate a task and do it one's own way, without orders from authorities who do not know the actual problem and the available means".[40] All anarchists oppose political and legal authority, but collectivist strains also oppose the economic authority of private property.[41] These social anarchists emphasize mutual aid, whereas individualist anarchists extoll individual sovereignty.[42]
Libertarians have been advocates and activists of civil liberties, including free love and free thought.[45][46] Advocates of free love viewed sexual freedom as a clear, direct expression of individual sovereignty and they particularly stressed women's rights as most sexual laws discriminated against women: for example, marriage laws and anti-birth control measures.[47]
Free love appeared alongside anarcha-feminism and advocacy of LGBT rights. Anarcha-feminism developed as a synthesis of radical feminism and anarchism and views patriarchy as a fundamental manifestation of compulsory government. It was inspired by the late-19th-century writings of early feminist anarchists such as Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman, Voltairine de Cleyre and Virginia Bolten. Anarcha-feminists, like other radical feminists, criticise and advocate the abolition of traditional conceptions of family, education and gender roles. Free Society (1895–1897 as The Firebrand, 1897–1904 as Free Society) was an anarchist newspaper in the United States that staunchly advocated free love and women's rights, while criticizing "comstockery", the censorship of sexual information.[48] In recent times, anarchism has also voiced opinions and taken action around certain sex-related subjects such as pornography,[49]BDSM[50] and the sex industry.[50]
Free thought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic and reason in contrast with authority, tradition or other dogmas.[51][52] In the United States, free thought was an anti-Christian, anti-clerical movement whose purpose was to make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide on religious matters. A number of contributors to Libertywere prominent figures in both free thought and anarchism. In 1901, Catalan anarchist and free-thinker Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia established "modern" or progressive schools in Barcelona in defiance of an educational system controlled by the Catholic Church.[53] Fiercely anti-clerical, Ferrer believed in "freedom in education", i.e. education free from the authority of the church and state.[54] The schools' stated goal was to "educate the working class in a rational, secular and non-coercive setting". Later in the 20th century, Austrian Freudo-MarxistWilhelm Reichbecame a consistent propagandist for sexual freedom going as far as opening free sex-counselling clinics in Vienna for working-class patients[55] as well as coining the phrase "sexual revolution" in one of his books from the 1940s.[56] During the early 1970s, the English anarchist and pacifist Alex Comfort achieved international celebrity for writing the sex manuals The Joy of Sex and More Joy of Sex.
Most left-libertarians are anarchists and believe the state inherently violates personal autonomy: "As Robert Paul Wolff has argued, since 'the state is authority, the right to rule', anarchism which rejects the State is the only political doctrine consistent with autonomy in which the individual alone is the judge of his moral constraints".[41] Social anarchists believe the state defends private property, which they view as intrinsically harmful, while market-oriented left-libertarians argue that so-called free markets actually consist of economic privileges granted by the state. These latter libertarians advocate instead for freed markets, which are freed from these privileges.[57]
There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate: while anarcho-capitalists advocate its abolition, minarchists support minimal states, often referred to as night-watchman states. Libertarians take a skeptical view of government authority.[58][unreliable source?]Minarchists maintain that the state is necessary for the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police and courts, though some expand this list to include fire departments, prisons and the executive and legislative branches.[59] They justify the state on the grounds that it is the logical consequenceof adhering to the non-aggression principle and argue that anarchism is immoral because it implies that the non-aggression principle is optional, that the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition.[citation needed]Another common justification is that private defense agencies and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[60]
Anarcho-capitalists argue that the state violates the Non-Aggression Principle by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen or vandalized private property, assaulted anyone or committed fraud.[61][62]Linda & Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can not desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.[63]
Left-libertarians believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights[64][65] and maintain that natural resources ought to be held in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[66]
Right-libertarians maintain that unowned natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes his labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them". They believe that natural resources are originally unowned and therefore private parties may appropriate them at will without the consent of, or owing to, others.[67]
Left-libertarians (social and individualist anarchists, libertarian Marxists and left-wing market anarchists) argue in favor of socialist theories such as communism, syndicalism and mutualism (anarchist economics). Daniel Guérin writes that "anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State".[68]
Wage labour has long been compared by socialists and anarcho-syndicalists to slavery.[70][71][72][73] As a result, the term "wage slavery" is often utilised as a pejorative for wage labor.[74] Advocates of slavery looked upon the "comparative evils of Slave Society and of Free Society, of slavery to human Masters and slavery to Capital"[75] and proceeded to argue that wage slavery was actually worse than chattel slavery.[76] Slavery apologists like George Fitzhugh contended that workers only accepted wage labour with the passage of time, as they became "familiarized and inattentive to the infected social atmosphere they continually inhale[d]".[75]
According to Noam Chomsky, analysis of the psychological implications of wage slavery goes back to the Enlightenment era. In his 1791 book On the Limits of State Action, classical liberal thinker Wilhelm von Humboldt explained how "whatever does not spring from a man's free choice, or is only the result of instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very nature; he does not perform it with truly human energies, but merely with mechanical exactness" and so when the labourer works under external control "we may admire what he does, but we despise what he is".[77] For Marxists, labour-as-commodity, which is how they regard wage labour,[78] provides an absolutely fundamental point of attack against capitalism.[79] "It can be persuasively argued", noted philosopher John Nelson, "that the conception of the worker's labour as a commodity confirms Marx's stigmatization of the wage system of private capitalism as 'wage-slavery;' that is, as an instrument of the capitalist's for reducing the worker's condition to that of a slave, if not below it".[80] That this objection is fundamental follows immediately from Marx's conclusion that wage labour is the very foundation of capitalism: "Without a class dependent on wages, the moment individuals confront each other as free persons, there can be no production of surplus value; without the production of surplus-value there can be no capitalist production, and hence no capital and no capitalist!".[81]
jla-x: Your erroneous belief of how things work is based on avoiding observation and analysis in favor of ideological propaganda created specifically to manipulate you.
"Big government" is not the problem. Government that works exclusively for someone else (the 0.1%) is. If government worked for you instead of for them you would be happy to pay taxes.
You'd be happy to pay taxes if health care was a right instead of a privilege and you could go to any doctor without worrying about whether or not you were going to lose your house. You'd be happy to pay your taxes if they went to repairing and maintaining infrastructure instead of wars and lining the pockets of the already waaaaay too rich.
The entire economic system is a sham designed to enslave you. Money is not a limited physical resource - it is an artificial construct that is created with a keystroke. The government is not a household with income and expenses. When you create currency you can never run out.
Proof #1: Where did all the money come from to bail out the banks that broke the economy? Remember, the US had a $10 trillion deficit at that time.
Proof #2: "They" never have a problem affording money for their benefactors and donors (corporate military, financial, pharma, energy, communications, etc.) but "we" can't afford money for basic social services.
Proof #3: The proposed minting of trillion-dollar coins to be deposited in the Federal Reserve to eliminate the debt. This was rejected because it would prove once and for all that the entire system is a sham. If they can print money to fix he debt why can't they print money to fix health care?
The government isn't the power. The power is the private interests controlling the government for their own gain.
Problem nowadays is that people are too entrenched in their political identity...to the point where a different view becomes an attack on their identity...that really needs to change...first we need to realize that the divisions in this country are manufactured by shitty power hungry politicians who lack a real message...
You lost my support as soon as you mentioned Noam Chomsky.
I’m a socialist! Capitalism is evil! Excuse me as I count my millions in one of my mansions.
Mar 20, 18 10:58 am ·
·
x-jla
I’m not a socialist, or a follower of Noam...just pointing out the diversity of the term libertarian which often gets conflated with those old tea party people circa 2010...
Mar 20, 18 11:01 am ·
·
archi_dude
I know but I saw the name and was like AH! Ha ha
Mar 20, 18 11:05 am ·
·
x-jla
Lol
Mar 20, 18 11:08 am ·
·
tduds
The argument that one cannot be a Socialist while also being wealthy is an absurd ad hominem to distract from the actual philosophy.
Also, a lot of people confuse libertarianism with Lack of compassion...there really is no reason why a free market libertarian society cannot also have things like universal basic income, universal healthcare, etc....so long as ones liberty to be richer if they choose isn’t infringged on. The lie is that we can’t have both. Actually, I don’t see how something like a universal basic income can be avoided with the coming automation of most labor...it’s probably inevitable...food for thought...
Mar 20, 18 1:01 pm ·
·
JLC-1
ones liberty to be richer is in direct opposition of a universal basic income - where will you get the money for such income? from my own liberty to be richer, aka taxes I don't want to pay, ever.....
Mar 20, 18 1:17 pm ·
·
x-jla
Zero taxes. Print the money. It’s all fiat anyway. I mean, wouldn’t work if humans were in charge, but if the currency was cryptic...and the govt was automated...just brainstorming...
Mar 20, 18 1:22 pm ·
·
JLC-1
I get your point, but how do you prevent me from becoming richer and richer, would you infringe on my liberty? - you're describing "Brave New World",
worth reading it again....
Mar 20, 18 1:26 pm ·
·
x-jla
No. Do whatever you want.
Mar 20, 18 1:32 pm ·
·
JLC-1
yeah, tduds is right, this is silly - you might be right that money can be printed ad infinitum , but the resources to live - air,food, water - are not, hence somebody richer and richer will accumulate these by taking them out of the market from others that are not so rich, this is how it is today, and this idea of yours is no different.
Mar 20, 18 1:43 pm ·
·
x-jla
A universal income doesn’t necessarily stop bill gates from being bill gates...just because some dude sits at home and paint unicorns all day...Only if the false dichotomy that we have to take and redistribute is true...why would we? The money isn’t based on any tangible thing like a gold standard anyway...it’s all made up... What I’m saying is, rather printing money and distributing from the centralized banks...distribute from the bottom up via basic income generated via automated algorithms that adjust for inflation etc.... We could get rid of all welfare programs, the irs, etc. in theory, the govt could fit in your pocket.
Mar 20, 18 1:53 pm ·
·
x-jla
So, you are correct that resources are finite, but the free market would still be in play...the only difference would be that everyone gets a seat in the casino with some complimentary chips. You still have the ability to win it all...and lose it all...
Mar 20, 18 2:01 pm ·
·
tduds
What you're suggesting is - basically - Democratic Socialism. You just want to call it Libertarianism so you can call yourself Libertarian?
Mar 20, 18 2:04 pm ·
·
JLC-1
and who would stop the bad guys with guns? or put out the fires? or keep your potholes healthy? you know, all those tasks that are not really free marketable - individualism to the extreme is what puts us in this moment, I don't believe it will save us. thanks for your ideas though.
Mar 20, 18 2:06 pm ·
·
x-jla
Democratic socialism relies on a centralized big govt. that’s one difference.
Mar 20, 18 2:13 pm ·
·
x-jla
JLC, a “night watchman state” essentially means that the govt is limited to those basic functions.
Mar 20, 18 2:15 pm ·
·
tduds
How do you ensure the fair distribution of resources and/or the means of collective production without a robust central infrastructure that commands the collective trust necessary to keep peace?
Mar 20, 18 2:26 pm ·
·
x-jla
There is no reason to be a fundamentalist...I’m definitely not defending a fundamentalist approach...more an amalgam that works well while also ensuring maximum individual autonomy...so no things like dumping toxic waste in streams is not a “liberty” that would be smart to protect. And who says flora and fauna are not deserving of “life and liberty.” I’m just brainstorming guys/gals. Not running for office..:)
Mar 20, 18 2:27 pm ·
·
x-jla
tduds, I don’t...Like I said, free market + basic income.
Mar 20, 18 2:47 pm ·
·
x-jla
Once you get that base safety net you are on your own. Can be automatically generated and distributed via some crazy algorithms...written by Patrick Schumacher...joking joking about the last part lol.
If you make your tent too large you end up with a cross section of opinions that will include those abhorrent to you. Libertarians don't like that their tent is so large that, by necessity, some shitty people legitimately get to call themselves libertarians.
Sorry, not the internationally recognized government of Somalia, but rather the large majority of physical space within Somalia where that government has no control.
Mar 20, 18 2:00 pm ·
·
randomised
Also that part is controlled by Islamists, sharia etc...
Mar 20, 18 2:09 pm ·
·
tduds
Nature abhors a vacuum.
Mar 20, 18 2:26 pm ·
·
x-jla
The closest thing to total Anarchy is probably Monrovia. Again though...tyranny doesn’t require an organized state...people living under tyrannical tribes and gangs or even corporations can experience tyranny...I get that.
Jeff Bezos Clint Eastwood Ron Paul Rand Paul Glenn Beck the Koch borthers Rupert Murdoch ...
Case closed.
Mar 20, 18 2:08 pm ·
·
x-jla
Jeff Bezos, I love Amazon. It’s a good system...where would I be able to order a product at 3am with guaranteed 2 day shipping if it weren’t for people like Jeff Bezos
Mar 20, 18 2:18 pm ·
·
x-jla
Do you deny the idea that Noam Chomsky calls himself a libertarian?
Amazon is the Walmart of the internet, and is in fact severely damaging Walmart's business, which is closing stores. Abused and underpaid independent contractors (not employees, and no benefits), market power that dictates prices to suppliers, tax avoidance, yeah, that's the libertarian dream.
Miles, do you recall this? I have a slight memory. But the documentary on Netflix, wow! I had a lot of feels at the end.
Mar 20, 18 2:24 pm ·
·
JLC-1
osho, of course, with his 30 rolls royce's marching out with his 20 teenage brides. that's a true libertarian.
Mar 20, 18 2:32 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Libertarian Leftist.
Mar 20, 18 2:40 pm ·
·
x-jla
Oh come on. Lol. That dude is a cult leader...a true libertarian does not believe in such a power structure over people. That’s totally not libertarian...libertarianism is about free thought...a cult is the opposite... “ Free thought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic and reason in contrast with authority, tradition or other dogmas.[51][52] In the United States, free thought was an anti-Christian, anti-clerical movement whose purpose was to make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide on religious matters. A number of contributors to Libertywere prominent figures in both free thought and anarchism. In 1901, Catalan anarchist and free-thinker Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia established "modern" or progressive schools in Barcelona in defiance of an educational system controlled by the Catholic Church.[53] Fiercely anti-clerical, Ferrer believed in "freedom in education", i.e. education free from the authority of the church and state.[54] The schools' stated goal was to "educate the working class in a rational, secular and non-coercive setting".
I never get answers when I ask "how much authority are you willing to accept to establish a more equitable society?" If people are gripping about the ills of capitalism, patriarchy, and too much liberty...How much gov't force do you allow to correct these ills (whatever they may be)? And most importantly, who do we grant that power to? Trump? Well hes the one that's there now yikes...The next super liberal prez who wants to ban words?...you may like that....And then what will you say when Trump jr wins after that? Still like them with all that power??? This is the problem...Humans should not be trusted with power over other humans...hence libertarianism...
Mar 20, 18 3:41 pm ·
·
x-jla
I don't understand how big you guys want the govt to be? How high you want taxes? How much police power you want the state to have?
Mar 20, 18 3:47 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Much, much higher.
Mar 20, 18 3:48 pm ·
·
JLC-1
certainly not what an algorithm would recommend
Mar 20, 18 3:50 pm ·
·
x-jla
how high?
Mar 20, 18 3:54 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
High enough so we can stop having bake sales to build fucking public schools. Or doing gofundme's for kidney transplants. That high.
Mar 20, 18 3:56 pm ·
·
x-jla
100% what would be the point of doing anything? 90%? that means that an architect billing at 100 an hour is making 10$ an hour after a certain point...why take liability risk for that?
Mar 20, 18 3:57 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
If I recall, the Dutch are doing really well with their high taxes.
yeah, but the world wars kinda had a huge effect on that...
Mar 20, 18 4:04 pm ·
·
JLC-1
so, jla-x, what do you think of the tax rates in the us before reaganomics?
Mar 20, 18 4:05 pm ·
·
x-jla
too high...and it fed the war machine.
Mar 20, 18 4:09 pm ·
·
tduds
The big trend in the US over the past 40 years has been to consistently lower taxes while consistently increasing Military spending. So idk what you're on about.
Mar 20, 18 4:11 pm ·
·
JLC-1
it fed the war machine? you mean iran contras, or operation desert storm, or irak, or afghanistan, or siria or yemen or libia?
Mar 20, 18 4:15 pm ·
·
JLC-1
your grandparents came out of a shitty period in world history and re-built everything with those taxes, your parents were assholes that thought they needed more toys and fuck thy neighbors, who's too high now?
Mar 20, 18 4:17 pm ·
·
x-jla
oh, I agree...it still very much does feed the machine despite the lower taxes...but the post war era was a very specific set of circumstances...we pretty much had a monopoly on the world at the time...
Mar 20, 18 4:26 pm ·
·
x-jla
I cant imagine such high rates working now, especially when businesses can so easily uproot and move. the world is much more connected and international...then you need protectionism, tariffs, trumpism essentially...
Mar 20, 18 4:29 pm ·
·
randomised
"If I recall, the Dutch are doing really well with their high taxes."
Yep, affordable healthcare, education and social housing, decent public transport, great cheese, plenty of paid holidays, paid maternity leave, no mass school shootings or major drug epidemic oh and a monarchy.
no, you never had a monopoly in the world, you set out to be the world's police and installed corrupt govts all over, guided by united fruit co. and the kind, armed with the ax that is the imf and the world bank, only it backfired - and opened the door for the mediocre banksters to take over and annihilate what was left of american exceptionalism - you see, all these visions of liberty without government are just illusions, because all of what america has been, it was because of strong governments.
Mar 20, 18 4:42 pm ·
·
x-jla
Because of a gov't that was set up with checks and balances...yes...the entire American government is checked by the branches, and the constitution...true...Never said that I want to completely eliminate govt...that is anarchism, and I understand where that will go wrong...but a limited government, by the people, where the people have autonomy, is the main reason why the US has sustained and tend towards more liberty for more people (still not perfect but overall), and the reason why the public, through free association, free speech, assembly, etc have been able to call out the govt and correct it accordingly...like womens right to vote, etc...You cant have a civil rights movement without those basic liberties. We absolutely need a govt that protects our individual liberty...or else we will just fall victim to mob tyranny, tribalism, tyranny of the majority, etc...I understand that...which is why I said that I don't support any fundamentalist system...
Hey what if we took all the good parts of the Progressive movement and Socialist Democracies and pretended they weren't the product of massive collective human effort, so we can just hand-wave at some algorithms that don't exist and act like all these things and more can come from a stateless technocratic utopia?
This thread is still silly.
Mar 20, 18 4:08 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
It's free.
Mar 20, 18 4:14 pm ·
·
x-jla
maybe, maybe not...I think that its undeniable that something major will have to change to adjust for the automation of labor. This is happening everyday, its not science fiction. In the next 50 years we will see an enormous amount of work become automated. Unemployment will soar to unsustainable levels...We are just on the cusp of this stuff. We have to start coming to reality and thinking about what direction to go in...we can decentralize or centralize further...I would say both have some undesirable consequences...But one, the big centralized state model, is imo more likely to devolve into Tyranny under these stresses...left or right...fascism or communism...depending who has the reigns...I don't want either. A decentralized gov't, one that seeks to maximize autonomy, and also creates a basic safety net, is a much more palatable option...Imagine a future where 80-90% of labor has become automated? Do have any idea what kind of corrections will be needed to deal with that kind of imbalance?
Mar 20, 18 4:23 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
UBI
Mar 20, 18 4:24 pm ·
·
x-jla
Agree 100% b3. I think UBI is a very humane and non-stigmatizing way to provide a safety net. One of my main problems with welfare, is that it makes people feel like shit. If everyone received a basic income that was enough to live a healthy life on it would be much simpler and in many ways require less beurocracy.
"the big centralized state model, is imo more likely to devolve into Tyranny under these stresses"
Why?
"A decentralized gov't, one that seeks to maximize autonomy, and also creates a basic safety net, is a much more palatable option"
What do you mean by 'decentralized'? How can one create a basic (which would imply 'universal', which almost necessitates some level of centrality) safety net without at least some point of common agreement & oversight?
Now we're getting somewhere interesting.
Mar 20, 18 4:29 pm ·
·
x-jla
like I said, a universal income, that is crypto (maybe), algorithmically/computer generated, self correcting to adjust for inflation, and calibrated to provide a livable wage, could in theory create a viable base safety net without requiring a monstrosity of a government. It would also allow the individual the autonomy to get more through the free market through traditional means of commerce for goods and services...The govt would still exist to provide other basic infrastructure...but not have control over the means of production, or the fruits of labor...just an idea.
Mar 20, 18 4:39 pm ·
·
x-jla
"the big centralized state model, is imo more likely to devolve into Tyranny under these stresses"
Why?
Because "absolute power corrupts absolutely" And such a scenario would require near absolute power...
Mar 20, 18 4:44 pm ·
·
JLC-1
I think all your issues with government arise from the fact you don't think you are part of it, Of course if you leave a bunch of people with a lot of power without checks they will become corrupt, but it's also your responsibility as a citizen to keep their feet to the fire. Where are these "governement" people born? in lab tubes?
Mar 20, 18 4:48 pm ·
·
tduds
JLC++
Mar 20, 18 4:56 pm ·
·
tduds
"Crypo" is a buzzword that, without more elaboration, is essentially meaningless. I could assume you mean "blockchain" but that's basically a distributed Excel spreadsheet.
Mar 20, 18 5:11 pm ·
·
x-jla
call it money...doesn't matter...you get the idea.
Mar 20, 18 5:13 pm ·
·
tduds
God damnit I typed up a whole reply and it got deleted. I'm jumping out of threads for future replies.
Mar 20, 18 5:18 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
tduds, do what I do; type in the normal comment area, then cut and paste.
jla-x: Your erroneous belief of how things work is based on avoiding observation and analysis in favor of ideological propaganda created specifically to manipulate you.
"Big government" is not the problem. Government that works exclusively for someone else (the 0.1%) is. If government worked for you instead of for them you would be happy to pay taxes.
You'd be happy to pay taxes if health care was a right instead of a privilege and you could go to any doctor without worrying about whether or not you were going to lose your house. You'd be happy to pay your taxes if they went to repairing and maintaining infrastructure instead of wars and lining the pockets of the already waaaaay too rich.
The entire economic system is a sham designed to enslave you. Money is not a limited physical resource - it is an artificial construct that is created with a keystroke. The government is not a household with income and expenses. When you create currency you can never run out.
Proof #1: Where did all the money come from to bail out the banks that broke the economy? Remember, the US had a $10 trillion deficit at that time.
Proof #2: "They" never have a problem affording money for their benefactors and donors (corporate military, financial, pharma, energy, communications, etc.) but "we" can't afford money for basic social services.
Proof #3: The proposed minting of trillion-dollar coins to be deposited in the Federal Reserve to eliminate the debt. This was rejected because it would prove once and for all that the entire system is a sham. If they can print money to fix he debt why can't they print money to fix health care?
The government isn't the power. The power is the private interests controlling the government for their own gain.
"The government isn't the power. The power is the private interests controlling the government for their own gain."
I think that you just proved my point that it is a partnership and not a real freed market. They are both propping each other up. ex: big agriculture.
Mar 20, 18 5:07 pm ·
·
JLC-1
+++ end citizens united!
Mar 20, 18 5:08 pm ·
·
x-jla
Who created citizens united? A big fat govt...scratching the backs of business and vica-versa..
Mar 20, 18 5:09 pm ·
·
JLC-1
no, that organization wasn't created by the government, it was created in 1988, and David Bossie has been its president since 2000. In 2016 he took a leave of absence to be deputy campaign manager of Donald Trump's campaign.
Mar 20, 18 5:16 pm ·
·
x-jla
Oh, thought trump was part of govt and was elected by people.
Mar 20, 18 5:31 pm ·
·
x-jla
acknowledging that the govt is that easily corruptible is evidence that it shouldn’t get too big and can’t be trusted.
Mar 20, 18 5:34 pm ·
·
JLC-1
you're just being **** at this point, good night and good dreams
Non sequitur. (No, not you, Non.) As if a smaller government wouldn't be easier (cheaper) to corrupt?
You need to put some more thought into this. A lot more. Maybe start with how to prevent corruption regardless of size, because size is irrelevant.
Mar 20, 18 5:42 pm ·
·
tduds
The opposite of "bad" is not "no"
Mar 20, 18 5:43 pm ·
·
tduds
There is no such thing as an uncorruptable system. Once you understand that, the goal of trying to create one becomes laughable. What we should be aiming for is - 1) How do we minimize co
rruption? or 2) How do we minimize the cumulative negative impact done to the system by it's inherent errors. A system that can be exploited by a handful of the poorest to the tune of a few million so they can eat slightly better is - in my opinion - a better system than one that can be exploited by a handful of the richest to the tune of a few trillion so they can buy more private islands.
a universal income, that is crypto (maybe), algorithmically/computer generated, self correcting to adjust for inflation, and calibrated to provide a livable wage,
Who writes the algorithms? Who decides what fairness is? How do you ensure that the crafters of the system don't exploit it for their own gain? What is a "livable wage"? How do you agree on the amount of inflation? How do you correct for inevitable oversights and mistakes over time?
These aren't rhetorical questions. They have answers. My point all along is: who answers these questions?
could in theory create a viable base safety net without requiring a monstrosity of a government.
I'm not sure why you keep appealing to this "monstrosity", as if Socialism is a faceless army of Kafkaesque bureaucratic paper pushers, and Libertarianism is the same thing done with a computer? It seems to me like you're ignoring the massive amounts of tangible collective effort to put these systems in place, and the checks & balances that need to be agreed upon by human beings to ensure their continued usefulness as the world changes... and just assuming all this will take care of itself through the magic of The Algorithms.
It would also allow the individual the autonomy to get more through the free market through traditional means of commerce for goods and services...
How?
The govt would still exist to provide other basic infrastructure...but not have control over the means of production, or the fruits of labor
Then where does the money for UBI come from?
...just an idea.
One that continues to be rife with internal contradictions and inconsistency. As Miles sort of pointed out... you're comparing the failed history of one system against the theoretical philosophy of another, while ignoring the theoretical possibilities and historical failures of each, respectively. And then you're treating any criticism of this inconsistency as a defense of the status quo that -as far as I can tell - no one in this thread is advocating for.
Mar 20, 18 5:35 pm ·
·
x-jla
Libertarianism, or classical libertarianism has been part of the US. It’s not theoretical. It’s just been a more moderate form...as it should be.
Mar 20, 18 5:58 pm ·
·
x-jla
Communism and socialism have failed time and time again.
Mar 20, 18 5:58 pm ·
·
tduds
Again you're cherry picking a version of American Right Libertarianism that bears little, if any, similarity to what you're espousing throughout this thread, as well as a version of "Communism" and "Socialism" (actually Stalinism and Sino-Soviet State Capitalism) that bears little similarity to the other side of this debate.
Mar 20, 18 6:02 pm ·
·
tduds
If you don't understand the difference between Stalinist Collectivism and Nordic Democratic Socialism, or Chomsky style anarcho-communism and Randian anarcho-capitalism - either historically or philosophically - then I don't know why we're even having this conversation.
Mar 20, 18 6:04 pm ·
·
x-jla
Who writes the algorithms? Who decides what fairness is? How do you ensure that the crafters of the system don't exploit it for their own gain? What is a "livable wage"? How do you agree on the amount of inflation? How do you correct for inevitable oversights and mistakes over time? All those questions can be asked about the federal reserve as well.
Mar 20, 18 6:08 pm ·
·
x-jla
they print money and control the rates.
Mar 20, 18 6:10 pm ·
·
tduds
Again you're invoking the status quo as if its at all relevant to anything I've said.
Mar 20, 18 6:16 pm ·
·
x-jla
It is relevant. You are evoking doubts, based on bad human nature, without acknowledging that those same behaviors, and corrupt actors, can negatively affect either system. Essentially you are saying that libertarianism is easily corrupted...but so is anything else...so moot point...further, you ignore that centralized power, when corrupted poses a greater danger, as history has shown. Nordic democratic socialism works well until it doesn’t. And with the right mix of stressors, the state will exert power to keep power.
Mar 20, 18 6:22 pm ·
·
x-jla
And the reason it works, is because of a dedicated conscience effort towards a balance between individual liberty and state power. So you are arguing a hybrid systems success without acknowledging the importance of its parts...one being liberalism.
Mar 20, 18 6:25 pm ·
·
x-jla
Hope that makes more sense?
Mar 20, 18 6:26 pm ·
·
tduds
I addressed this above: "There is no such thing as an uncorruptable system. Once you understand that, the goal of trying to create one becomes laughable. What we should be aiming for is - 1) How do we minimize corruption? or 2) How do we minimize the cumulative negative impact done to the system by it's inherent errors. A system that can be exploited by a handful of the poorest to the tune of a few million so they can eat slightly better is - in my opinion - a better system than one that can be exploited by a handful of the richest to the tune of a few trillion so they can buy more private islands."
Mar 20, 18 6:29 pm ·
·
tduds
More and more it seems like we're talking about the same thing and you're just insisting that it be called Libertarianism, which it isn't.
Mar 20, 18 6:30 pm ·
·
tduds
& mostly this appears to stem from a rather arbitrary definition of "The State" to include the things you're against but not the things you like, as if (like JLC pointed out earlier) it's some external system imposed upon you that you aren't a part of.
Mar 20, 18 6:32 pm ·
·
x-jla
I wouldn’t say that it’s the same thing, but it’s not as different as it’s being made out to be. Noam Chomsky himself (not that I follow his school of though) refers to his philosophy as ”libertarianism socialism”. I think you are maybe missing the central thesis or libertarianism...it’s not a contradiction to socialism, communism, or capitalism...Those are economic systems ...libertarianism is organizational...and exists as a philosophy on its own. The premise is all about individual autonomy and limited centralized government. I think most of us would at least agree that some individual autonomy is a good thing. The degree of autonomy vs state authority / police powers is where the debate is. So...all western democracy has a degree of libertarianism, or classical liberalism embedded in it. It’s the philosophical root of individual rights and liberties. A libertarian is not always an anarchist...but always favors, when at all possible, minimalist state power and maximum individual sovereignty. Can UBI be implemented in a way that doesn’t bloat the state? I think so...maybe not. But it’s an idea worth exploring.
Communism and socialism have failed time and time again.
Many people in the new capitalist Russia long for the days of the old Soviet Union and the social services it provided.
Socialism is alive and well and living in Northern Europe, in countries where people are rated as being the happiest on earth.
Stop repeating the lies you've been told and swallowed without question. And wake up to the fact that social services you use (roads, police, fire, schools, etc.) are being gutted by the very libertarians that you adore.
Mar 20, 18 7:25 pm ·
·
x-jla
Communist Russia was not a good time. I don’t know what alternative history you are reading.
Mar 20, 18 8:16 pm ·
·
x-jla
Somewhere between 10-50 million killed or starved to death. Yeah
Mar 20, 18 8:18 pm ·
·
x-jla
There are literally zero successful communist states...and the socialist ones that exist are not purely socialist. Northern Europe has capitalism as well.
Mar 20, 18 8:22 pm ·
·
x-jla
Early communism had some good intentions...and the wolves waited for the “useful idiots” to consolidate power.
I wasn't so much "evoking doubts" with those questions as pointing out that they absolutely need to arise out of a system of common trust - AKA A Government. Libertarianism, by & large, rejects this idea in favor of either collective or individual anarchy.
You seem to be more in favor of anarcho-communism, but to me that system seems weakly balanced on tacit agreements and a lack of infrastructural checks on power. I fail to see how it doesn't easily collapse into fascism or anarcho-capitalism. Obviously that's an extreme, so you have to introduce some level of State control. I think a Democratic Republican system is the best infrastructure to resist the knee-jerk reactionary impulses of pure democracy *and* the rapacious kleptocratic tendencies of the minority that could easily seize a weaker Libertarian system.
Personally I think the United States has a hugely lopsided balance of power that leans heavily toward the Executive. Ideally I'd favor a more parliamentary system, or if we must keep our present structure, a weaker Executive and stronger Legislative with expanded layers of representation between the individual, local, state, and federal.
Hot takes: Repeal the 17th Amendment. Remove laws that bind electoral college votes. Institute Term Limits for more elected officials. Amend the constitution to address campaign finance. Enact ranked voting.
The goal is to move towards a more collective State, but that's still A State. It'd bring back a feeling among the people (I think?) that the government is part of the people.
Mar 20, 18 6:47 pm ·
·
x-jla
No, I’m not in favor of anarcho communism...more in favor of a hybrid economic system with a libertarian base a “night watchman” state with some basic safetynets like UBI. I do want mostly capitalism, but capitalism with no special favors from the state.
The goal of capitalism is to maximize profit. Period. Nothing else matters: health, safety, environment, quality of life, etc. are all irrelevent except to the extent that they can be commoditized for profit.
Mar 20, 18 7:33 pm ·
·
tduds
To clarify: the "Libertarian" piece of your hybrid system is more closely aligned with anarcho-communism than anarcho-capitalism. UBI is a form of collectivism. You're just pitching a middle ground.
Mar 20, 18 7:34 pm ·
·
x-jla
And not that those are good things...not everyone engaged in capitalism isn’t operating at those extremes either...but to rid the world of capitalism has implications that are not desirable and requires police powers to stop people from engaging in free trade. It’s also imo the best driving force of innovation that we know of...
Mar 20, 18 7:45 pm ·
·
x-jla
Tduds, sort of...but property rights are a big part of it too...and I also see a middle ground with that...while I agree with private property...and want it protected...I think that some public owned land should be actually free to use by the public. For instance, public streets...vendors should be able to use them freely without permits and permission. Homeless people (if UBI doesn’t fully eliminate the problem which it probably wouldn’t) should be allowed to set up camps on public lands and public parks. The “public” space we have isn’t really very public. The state limits its use greatly.
"Innovation" is finding ways to increase profit. Does anyone need self-driving cars? Nope. We need cheap reliable mass transit. But there is no profit in that. So much for "innovation".
Mar 20, 18 7:53 pm ·
·
x-jla
Who would maintain the infrastructure...?
Mar 20, 18 7:58 pm ·
·
x-jla
Who would maintain the infrastructure...?
Mar 20, 18 7:58 pm ·
·
x-jla
I guess the state would have that role...and so of course some basic rules would have to be kept so that people don’t totally trash everything...Anyone remember Canal st in the 1980s? It was pretty freely used for commerce, performance, etc. The tide of change in the name of “safety” has really destroyed the freedom to use public space...and if you are black...well then you are subject to stop and frisk...loitering laws...etc. that’s not freedom.
Mar 20, 18 8:02 pm ·
·
x-jla
And it’s the State curtailing it...like at the request of big business moving in...eminent domain...blight studies...too much to talk about. Lol
J-lax, you are attempting to explain economics to architects. People known for their complete lack of knowledge of fundamental business concepts, personal finance and finance in general. Why are you even attempting?
How can anyone with a complete lack of knowledge of fundamental business concepts, personal finance and finance in general explain them to anyone?
Mar 20, 18 9:21 pm ·
·
archi_dude
God dammit Miles you win again, Ha ha!
Mar 20, 18 9:22 pm ·
·
x-jla
Miles, do you benefit from capitalism? You own a business I believe...does that not give you some freedom and autonomy that you benefit from?
Mar 20, 18 9:24 pm ·
·
x-jla
archi-dude, that I do not know...day off and bored I guess. Lol
Mar 20, 18 9:26 pm ·
·
x-jla
touche, miles, touche. Lol
Mar 20, 18 9:31 pm ·
·
archi_dude
Just saying, this is what I hear in my office all day everyday. “Developers are greedy and evil, Capitalism is the devil, I believe in business for benefit of society not profit...” 5 mins later....”Why aren’t we paid more!” I don’t even bother.
Mar 20, 18 9:33 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
We're not paid more BECAUSE capitalism. That, and George HW Bush Administration.
Mar 20, 18 9:57 pm ·
·
archi_dude
You are absolutely right sutures. No one gets paid more because of capitalism. But if you want to get paid more you can figure out how. Oh wait, you’re referring to how the markets don’t allocate resources to the design and art of shelters because it’s profit driven. Which socialistic society allocated more resources to the arts than needs based services again? It was a sickle and hammer not a paintbrush and easle right?
Mar 20, 18 10:56 pm ·
·
x-jla
+archi-dude
Mar 20, 18 11:00 pm ·
·
x-jla
To add, what communist state allocated $ to the arts without extreme censorship and limits on speech. Would the government pay for a movie like JFK, Full Metal Jacket, etc..?
Mar 20, 18 11:07 pm ·
·
x-jla
Ai Wei Wei
still facing resistance...
Mar 20, 18 11:18 pm ·
·
x-jla
Look man, poverty is a terrible thing, and it’s very sad to see people fall through the cracks in capitalism, but overall it’s a less threatening system. The environment and food industry are probably the areas where capitalism has posed the most threat. I get that.
In response to the architect magazine which is the only relevant topic to the current debate, “in summary we need to redefine our business and financial model if we want to figure out how to value and charge for our services.” Sutures, you read that whole article or are you agreeing with us?
Mar 21, 18 12:13 am ·
·
archi_dude
I’ll explain that a little further. Instead of whining and complaining and trying to price fix and lobby the system, you have the ability to reavaluate your business model to provide a better income for you and your employees. Are you selling art? Well you are in an oversaturated market and if you aren’t selling the best art you’ll cut your fees to still be in the game. Or are you selling services that positively impact a clients budget and schedule and deliver it in a manner that reduces construction headaches? If so, your fee is much more quantifiable and justified.
Mar 21, 18 12:34 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Yeah, I read what Peggy Deamer said; Rather than being paid for expertise, as some doctors or lawyers are, Deamer says architects are paid for an object. “We don’t know what fiscal model to follow: Are we a trade? An art? A service? Because we don’t know the financial model that we fit into, we adopt the worst of all of them.”
Peggy Deamer, of Arch Lobby, the union organization.
Mar 21, 18 12:38 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
im oot.
Mar 21, 18 12:54 am ·
·
randomised
You're back?
Mar 21, 18 3:46 am ·
·
SneakyPete
Nope. Not ok.
Mar 21, 18 10:00 am ·
·
randomised
Let's not not talk about it...
Mar 21, 18 10:14 am ·
·
SneakyPete
When you blame everyone else, the problem is often you.
Mar 21, 18 4:14 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
You realize that you win against straw men because they're the only people you argue with that can't speak, right? Misandry isn't a thing. If a man calls a woman a misandrist it's because he's a men's rights buffoon and feels hurt because the conversation isn't all about him.
Mar 21, 18 4:46 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Poof, he's gone. Now I seem like I'm shouting at the sky. *shakes fist at a tree*
Mar 21, 18 8:44 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Misandry! It's reeeeeeeaaaaaallllll!
Mar 21, 18 8:53 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
So if he blocks me I can't see his posts? That's odd. This forum is odd.
Mar 21, 18 8:55 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
He didn't block you. He's just through with being a libertarian.
Everyone talks about taxes as if they are Nobel...they are literally forcing people to pay money to fund things that are usually unethical (like war) with the threat of violence and prison. “Give us money or we lock you in a little fucking cage.” That’s some really barbaric shit.
Mar 20, 18 11:03 pm ·
·
x-jla
It’s not the same as say a consumption tax...Don’t know if the numbers would work...but that’s a less barbaric system. Agree?
Mar 20, 18 11:04 pm ·
·
randomised
Those barbaric things like affordable healthcare, education, clean drinking water, social housing, and infrastructure that keeps you safe? Yes barbaric shit....quelle horreur!
Mar 21, 18 3:45 am ·
·
x-jla
Do the ends justify the means?
Mar 21, 18 10:21 am ·
·
x-jla
What about when the ends are unjust?
Mar 21, 18 10:31 am ·
·
randomised
What's unjust about affordable healthcare or clean drinking water?
Mar 21, 18 10:34 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
The only unjust thing is the $14 I need to pay for parking at the hospital... Oh wait, that's all that it costs me? Hot damn, what a bargain. Too bad for those silly Americans.
Mar 21, 18 10:37 am ·
·
x-jla
I said “when” like silly walls, wars, and nukes?
Mar 21, 18 10:38 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
and silly gun-rights protectionist policies? sure, toss those in there too.
Mar 21, 18 10:43 am ·
·
x-jla
There is no reason why we can’t have free healthcare and small government. Actually, if the govt was smaller and less militaristic we would be able to focus on such things. Someone’s ability to get health care doesn’t impact my liberties in any way so long as the government doesn’t force me to fund it under the threat of violence and prison. Maybe a small flat tax + a national consumption tax wouldn’t work to support the monster we have now...but it could if it was much much leaner.
Mar 21, 18 10:46 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
How can you be threatened to fund universal healthcare?
Mar 21, 18 10:53 am ·
·
x-jla
All I’m saying is that there are ways do things (I dont pretend to know all of them but worth thinking about) without giving up autonomy to the state. It’s a lie that libertarianism cannot exist along side healthcare, UBI, etc. It likely can’t under the current system of big govt and a federal reserve bank that controls the currency, but it could be designed. Thinking like Miles that big state communism/socialism is a better answer, when history has proven otherwise many times over, is not productive and not progressive.
Mar 21, 18 10:57 am ·
·
x-jla
Non, if you refuse to pay taxes, guys with guns come to your house, and lock you in a cage for a couple years. What gives the state the right to use violence/aggression towards a non violent act? The same logic applies to crime that doesn’t harm others like possessing drugs, loitering in public space, etc.
Mar 21, 18 11:15 am ·
·
x-jla
And like I’ve said already, it’s a matter of degree. Canada has enough individual liberty to work as does Northern Europe...but the trend and willingness to surrender this liberty will end badly once that scale is tilted to far.
Mar 21, 18 11:18 am ·
·
randomised
You don't need to refuse to pay taxes, all you need is enough deductibles and write off's...
"Thinking like Miles that big state communism/socialism is a better answer, when history has proven otherwise many times over, is not productive and not progressive."
Stop attributing statements to me that I did not make, pretending to know what I think, and misrepresenting what I've written (which is there in black and white). When I want you to know what I think I will tell you.
While you're at it please provide "many times over" proof of your asinine conjecture.
"It’s a lie that libertarianism cannot exist along side healthcare"
Please demonstrate when and where in reality this fantasy of your exists. If you can't then stop stating your idiotic opinion as if it were fact. Which it may be for you, but for the rest of us it is the demonstration of something else entirely.
"the trend and willingness to surrender this liberty will end badly once that scale is tilted to far."
Aside from the fact that this is simply another baseless conjecture - like pretty much everything that dribbles out of your piehole - are you so completely stupid that you don't see how libertarian capitalism has largely dismantled constitutional protections in the US? Privacy is non-existent, speech goes to the highest bidder, police have been militarized, etc. Canada has more privacy, freer speech, better health care, etc., etc., etc.
The nonsensical crap you're spewing makes almost Balkins look rational.
"Stop attributing statements to me that I did not make, pretending to know what I think, and misrepresenting what I've written (which is there in black and white). When I want you to know what I think I will tell you."
You have implied it. By constantly rejecting capitalism, you imply that you support socialism or communism. By rejecting small government you imply that you prefer big government. Logical reasoning: big state + communism or socialism = "big state communism/socialism." You leave no choice but to make assumptions, because you consistently play an immature game where you make a vague statement, never state a position, spew an insult or a general complaint, and then dismount from the conversation once a challenging counter point is made like when I asked "what communist state allocated $ to the arts without extreme censorship and limits on speech. Would the government pay for a movie like JFK, Full Metal Jacket, etc..?." You have an arrogance that you are above the debate, but please, if you have this wisdom that you are holding back share it with us because to me it seems like you are being intentionally elusive.
"Please demonstrate when and where in reality this fantasy of your exists. If you can't then stop stating your idiotic opinion as if it were fact. Which it may be for you, but for the rest of us it is the demonstration of something else entirely."
Principles of Classical liberalism, and libertarianism are already affecting Western democracies. You, or someone has pointed out some examples of successful modern Democratic socialist nations, without acknowledging the fact that they benefit from deeply infused libertarian and/or classically liberal principles that have to do with individual liberty and sovereignty. If you are asking me to show an example of a completely libertarian state I can not, because libertarianism is not anarchism or totalitarianism, and is a matter of degree rather than an absolute. So I can show nations that are more or less libertarian, in one regard or another, but not completely libertarian. By someone saying that they are libertarian, it means that they want to maximize personal autonomy and minimize state authority when and wherever possible. So, I can’t argue with you unless you accept that principles of libertarianism is already engrained in the architecture of most societies... Anarcho-capitalists, or Anarcho-communists want to completely get rid of the state. That’s not a good idea for obvious reasons.
“Aside from the fact that this is simply another baseless conjecture - like pretty much everything that dribbles out of your piehole - are you so completely stupid that you don't see how libertarian capitalism has largely dismantled constitutional protections in the US? Privacy is non-existent, speech goes to the highest bidder, police have been militarized, etc. Canada has more privacy, freer speech, better health care, etc., etc., etc.”
No I have not, and the erosion of these constitutional liberties is in direct opposition to libertarian philosophy, and the fact that it can be eroded illustrates the fact that the state is too powerful in the first place and too susceptive to corporatism, fascism, and oligarchy…We are living in a very rigged market, not a free market. Can corporations become tyrannical, yes, but only (probably) with the backing of the state. Subsidised agriculture and Pharma is an example of the BIG STATE propping up BIG BUSINESS and giving them the tools to get BIGGER. This is not libertarianism, you are confusing the libertarianism with corporatism. The NSA is big gov remember. The dark sites and dark courts are all manifestations of a BIG STATE that we lost control of.
"the trend and willingness to surrender this liberty will end badly once that scale is tilted to far."
There is a trend that is becoming very clear in Academia and in media to limit speech, silence dissent, and curtail civil/individual liberties in the name of equity and feelings. This is a very well known and well debated trend, and if you don’t see it, maybe you are the one not looking hard enough. Its not just the younger generation either, and while its mostly social, its starting to effect policy. There are limits on academic speech, mandated gender neutral terminology, etc…Laws against hate speech (who defines that? If trump were in charge that could mean speech against him), laws against wearing certain religious garb in Europe, etc… This is a very very slippery slope towards something that can and has happened-authoritarianism. Libertarianism is a counter balance to that.
Mar 21, 18 4:24 pm ·
·
x-jla
Let me ask you to that last point, when hasn't curtailing individual liberty ended badly? Key word "individual liberty"...
I've taken that quiz on the internets that plots you on this map. I fall just to the left and down from "Reasonable for the real world", near "best" and "chill". Where else would anyone want to be? :) Didn't read any of this thread by the way. You guys are really duking it out.
Mar 21, 18 7:10 pm ·
·
x-jla
I’m somewhere between “probably does drugs” and “well meaning rightist” lol.
Mar 21, 18 7:22 pm ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
Where's Noam Chmsky?
Mar 22, 18 12:45 am ·
·
x-jla
Bottom left corner somewhere.
Mar 22, 18 12:52 am ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
-8, -7?
Mar 22, 18 12:53 am ·
·
randomised
Was that test from politicalcompass.org? Tried that one, but there's never an option to answer Neutral/I don't care/Whatever.
Mar 22, 18 3:49 am ·
·
x-jla
Its just a general spectrum used widely, but yeah its the same one from that site. I don't really think the methods/questions on that site are all that accurate. Interesting, I've been reading and apparently UBI is a pretty widely supported idea among Libertarian leaning people left/right. Even Milton Friedman was a supporter of a UBI as a way to replace welfare.
Mar 22, 18 4:29 pm ·
·
x-jla
Tinbeary There there, not sure exactly, but like probably right in the bottom left corner (-9,-9) he's pretty far out there.
Mar 22, 18 4:31 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
The two Hitler references made we laugh. I've taken a test a while back and it plotted me between "best countries" and "chili mothafucker"
Mar 22, 18 4:37 pm ·
·
x-jla
Yeah, I’m like 2 boxes above “well meaning rightist” ....just about on the center line...ha.
Mar 22, 18 5:04 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I remember scoring higher than Gandhi.
Mar 22, 18 5:08 pm ·
·
randomised
Ghandi was a racist asshole, so good for you!
Mar 23, 18 7:00 am ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
What does "Have a chance of winning *At this line or above" mean?
Mar 23, 18 10:41 am ·
·
x-jla
Pretty much all mainstream American and European politicians (Obama, Clinton, Trump) are around the middle of blue box...people like Jill Stein, Ron Paul, etc are below that line. Politicians have an interest to be Authoritarian, and Authoritarian people seek power positions and are usually more aggressive at getting there...the rest of us (most people are below the line I would bet... which is kinda my point of trolling y’all with this thread) are too logical and humble to think that we should rule over other people and control their lives, thoughts, words, and personal choices. :) I would bet that the silent majority of the population leans more towards libertarianism they they realize...I was kinda trying to get people to admit that libertarianism is the antithesis of Stalinism or Fascism. Top left corner would be Stalin, top right Pinochet, top middle Hitler. All really bad dudes. All really bad dudes in politics chill up there. The left/right debate is everywhere....but it’s a false debate, because without a debate on Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism it means nothing. The fringes of European and American politics, like the Nationalists in Europe, the Alt-right in the US, the American nationalist racists, and the SJW left in American media and academia, are Authoritarian leaning and are a loud minority (I hope they stay/are a minority). The politicians are already 2/3s towards really bad shit. Just highlighting that creeping up there is a dangerous trend. The devil lives at the top.
Mar 23, 18 12:52 pm ·
·
x-jla
Just cautioning people to chill out with the authoritarian rhetoric. On the left it manifests in identity politics, social justice culture (not that social justice itself is a bad thing), and political correctness policing. On the right it manifests in nationalism, ethno-nationalism, xenophobia, etc. The trends on both sides are starting to worry me.
Mar 23, 18 1:07 pm ·
·
randomised
I hate people that use authoritarian rhetoric, off with their heads!
Mar 24, 18 5:15 am ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
The graphic stopped the talk about taxes and kook brothers.
Mar 24, 18 9:39 am ·
·
x-jla
Ah random, great point, and that’s why authoritarianism is where the natural tide of mankind pushes us...it’s in our blood...we are a tribal species...we’ve evolved from a war like, tribal, brutal species (chimpanzees). We have to understand the role of our nature. This is why I deeply reject the idea that everything is a social construct. Well duh, but those constructs are being compelled by deeply evolved tendencies. Most libertarians and anarchists think/say that anarchy/libertarianism is “natural”. I don’t buy that at all. We have always had power hierarchies, even way before we evolved into humans. It’s in our DNA. The libertarian and anarchist is fooling themselves and doing themselves a disservice if they believe that we are destined to be autonomous individuals. We are tribal...and we are aggressive in the conquest of other tribes. libertarianism comes from the enlightenment period for a reason...it requires introspection....imo, it’s about realizing and transgressing our biological tendencies...because at a certain point...our technology makes that nature far too dangerous...and threatens our existence. The behavior that was designed to give us a one up on survival flips its role and becomes a threat to our survival. That’s the paradox of progress. We’ve progressed technologically, but still act like crazy fucking apes. We use missiles the same as we once used spears....with far greater devastation and reach. Now angry Tyrants can literally press buttons and evaporate life on earth in 30-40 minutes. Think about how crazy that is...imagine the man power, energy, and time it would take, not to long ago, for someone like Ghengis Kahn to destroy a whole city. Now one skinny guy or gal with a button can do it. And don’t tell me that there are “good tribes” or “peaceful tribes” that’s a huge myth...”tribes”, at their best, are in a temporary state of relative comfort. Disrupt that, and they will quickly revert to killing and conquering. See Europes reaction to migration for example. A perceived threat comes in...they revert to tribalism...manifesting itself as ethno-nationalism. I don’t see anarchism and libertarianism as a “solution” or a political system, but rather an unattainable ideal. The role of the libertarian or anarchist, is not to achieve anarchy, it is to fight the tide of tribalism with an emphasis on individual autonomy. It’s a survival mechanism for modern man. My take anyway...Make sense?
“The role of the libertarian or anarchist, is not to achieve anarchy, it is to fight the tide of tribalism with an emphasis on individual autonomy. It’s a survival mechanism for modern man.“. My quote from above
All of the things that you are complaining about, some rightfully so, cane from the state. Slavery, Jim Crow, etc. all state backed creations. All things that go against the libertarian NAP and anarchist ideology.
Nov 10, 20 1:26 pm ·
·
x-jla
Non, how so? Libertarianism is about individual autonomy. If decentralized “tribes” form it’s because of voluntary associations
Nov 10, 20 1:28 pm ·
·
tduds
Inevitably one of those tribes will either start a government, or conquer another tribe, or both, yadda yadda yadda Peace of Westphalia 2.0 and we're back to where we were.
Nov 10, 20 3:21 pm ·
·
tduds
"Voluntary Association" is just unrestricted immigration. Discuss.
(For the record I am for unrestricted immigration)
Yes. Ideally we would have unrestricted immigration. I’m for unrestricted immigration.
Nov 10, 20 3:42 pm ·
·
x-jla
Tduds, you are mistaken for anarchy...in a libertarian society the govts function is basic infrastructure and protection of individual liberties, so tribes cannot conquer anyone. You are free to do as you please so long as you don’t violate the liberty of another.
Since the thread is bumped it seems like a good place to post a great article about what happens when you try to not have a government (Spoiler: you attract the type of people who don't want a government, but not for the reasons you'd hope)
"Grappling with what to do about the bears, the Graftonites also wrestled with the arguments of certain libertarians who questioned whether they should do anything at all—especially since several of the town residents had taken to feeding the bears, more or less just because they could."
There's your "utopia" in a nutshell
Nov 10, 20 2:09 pm ·
·
square.
libertarianism = occupying a nebulous center that allows you to avoid taking concrete positions on anything, living in a land of fantasy abstraction and always conveniently, but stupidly, playing both sides off each other on architecture forums but never accepting any self criticism because you actually don't have real position to critique...
Libertarianism is not in the center. It’s literally on a different axis. We can debate left libertarianism vs right libertarianism. The two really only differ in 2 ways, property ownership, and emphasis on individualism vs communitarianism.
Nov 10, 20 3:49 pm ·
·
x-jla
In US we have libertarian party which is right libertarian, and Green Party which is sort of left libertarian.
concerning that someone who practices "architecture" doesn't understand that just because something is on a different axis doesn't mean there can't also be a center on that other axis.
also, the center is a rhetorical center.
Nov 10, 20 3:58 pm ·
·
x-jla
I understand it, you obviously don’t
Nov 10, 20 3:59 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Libertarians give new life to the tired epithet 'libtard'.
The article is completely dumb. libertarianism is an idea, and the ideas were the basis of civil rights. The party wasn’t founded until 1971.
Nov 10, 20 6:33 pm ·
·
x-jla
Laozi (571 BCE – 471 BCE): Chinese philosopher and writer, who is considered the first anarchist and libertarian, given his contempt for those in power and so for the state.
John Ball (1338–1381): English priest whose preachings against bondship and serfdom helped start the Peasants' Revolt.
Étienne de La Boétie (1530–1563): French judge, writer and a founder of modern political philosophy in France.
William Godwin (1756-1836): English journalist, political philosopher and novelist. He is considered one of the first exponents of utilitarianism and the first modern proponent of anarchism.
Brah, all you got is that in 1979 reason magazine had an article that was allegedly denying the holocaust and that makes libertarianism wrong. Good Reasoning.
I think it’s cute that people think a country population of over 300 million can survive in this geopolitical climate without a strong federal government.
We’ve been deluged in recent years with research on the psychology (and brain structure) of liberals and conservatives. But very little is known about libertarians — an extremely important group in American politics that is not at home in either political party.
At YourMorals.org we have now addressed the gap. Unlike most surveys, which force everyone to place themselves on a Left-Right scale, we have always allowed our visitors to choose “libertarian” as an option. Given our unique web platform, where people register and then take multiple surveys, we have amassed what we believe is the largest and most detailed dataset in the world on the personality traits of libertarians (as well as of liberals and conservatives).
In a project led by Ravi Iyer, we analyzed data from nearly twelve thousand self-described libertarians, and compared their responses to those of 21,000 conservatives and 97,000 liberals. The paper was just published last week in PLoS ONE. The findings largely confirm what libertarians have long said about themselves, but they also shed light on why some people and not others end up finding libertarian ideas appealing. Here are three of the major findings:
1) On moral values: Libertarians match liberals in placing a relatively low value on the moral foundations of loyalty, authority, and sanctity (e.g., they’re not so concerned about sexual issues and flag burning), but they join conservatives in scoring lower than liberals on the care and fairness foundations (where fairness is mostly equality, not proportionality; e.g., they don’t want a welfare state and heavy handed measures to enforce equality). This is why libertarians can’t be placed on the spectrum from left to right: they have a unique pattern that is in no sense just somewhere in the middle. They really do put liberty above all other values.
2) On reasoning and emotions: Libertarians have the most “masculine” style, liberals the most “feminine.” We used Simon Baron-Cohen’s measures of “empathizing” (on which women tend to score higher) and “systemizing”, which refers to “the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system.” Men tend to score higher on this variable. Libertarians score the lowest of the three groups on empathizing, and highest of the three groups on systemizing. (Note that we did this and all other analyses for males and females separately.) On this and other measures, libertarians consistently come out as the most cerebral, most rational, and least emotional. On a very crude problem solving measure related to IQ, they score the highest. Libertarians, more than liberals or conservatives, have the capacity to reason their way to their ideology.
3) On relationships: Libertarians are the most individualistic; they report the weakest ties to other people. They score lowest of the three groups on many traits related to sociability, including extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. They have a morality that matches their sociability – one that emphasizes independence, rather than altruism or patriotism.
In other words: Libertarians, liberals, and conservatives all differ from each on dozens of psychological traits, which help to explain why people – even siblings in the same family — gravitate to different ideological positions as they grow up. Understanding these psychological differences will be crucial for politicians and political movements that want to appeal to libertarians, who are often left out as so much attention is lavished on liberals and conservatives.”
Libertarianism
Noam Chomsky is a libertarian socialist. True. Recently the term libertarian set some Necters off the rails...I suspect most haven’t bothered to understand what libertarianism actually A little Wikipedia (yeah I know, Wikipedia...)
Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment.[2][3][4]Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions.[5]
Left-libertarians, seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.[6][7][8][9] In contrast, modern right-libertarian ideologies, such as minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, instead advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights,[10] such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.
There is contention about whether left and right libertarianism "represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme".[31] All libertarians begin with a conception of personal autonomy from which they argue in favor of civil liberties and a reduction or elimination of the state.
Left-libertarianism encompasses those libertarian beliefs that claim the Earth's natural resources belong to everyone in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Contemporary left-libertarians such as Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne, Philippe Van Parijs, Michael Otsuka and David Ellerman believe the appropriation of land must leave "enough and as good" for others or be taxed by society to compensate for the exclusionary effects of private property. Libertarian socialists (socialand individualist anarchists, libertarian Marxists, council communists, Luxemburgists and DeLeonists) promote usufruct and socialisteconomic theories, including communism, collectivism, syndicalism and mutualism. They criticize the state for being the defender of private property and believe capitalism entails wage slavery.
Right-libertarianism[32] developed in the United States in the mid-20th century and is the most popular conception of libertarianism in that region.[33] It is commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism.[34][35] Right-libertarians value the social institutions that enforce conditions of capitalism, while rejecting institutions that function in opposition to these institutions. Anarcho-capitalists[36][37] seek complete elimination of the state in favor of privately funded security services while minarchistsdefend "night-watchman states", which maintain only those functions of government necessary to maintain conditions of capitalism.
Critics such as Corey Robin describe right-libertarianism as fundamentally a reactionaryconservative ideology, united with more traditional conservative thought and goals by a desire to enforce hierarchical power and social relations:[38]
Conservatism, then, is not a commitment to limited government and liberty—or a wariness of change, a belief in evolutionary reform, or a politics of virtue. These may be the byproducts of conservatism, one or more of its historically specific and ever-changing modes of expression. But they are not its animating purpose. Neither is conservatism a makeshift fusion of capitalists, Christians, and warriors, for that fusion is impelled by a more elemental force—the opposition to the liberation of men and women from the fetters of their superiors, particularly in the private sphere. Such a view might seem miles away from the libertarian defense of the free market, with its celebration of the atomistic and autonomous individual. But it is not. When the libertarian looks out upon society, he does not see isolated individuals; he sees private, often hierarchical, groups, where a father governs his family and an owner his employees.
Personal autonomyEdit
Anarchism envisages freedom as a form of autonomy,[39] which Paul Goodman describes as "the ability to initiate a task and do it one's own way, without orders from authorities who do not know the actual problem and the available means".[40] All anarchists oppose political and legal authority, but collectivist strains also oppose the economic authority of private property.[41] These social anarchists emphasize mutual aid, whereas individualist anarchists extoll individual sovereignty.[42]
Some right-libertarians consider the non-aggression principle (NAP) to be a core part of their beliefs.[43][44]
Civil libertiesEdit
Libertarians have been advocates and activists of civil liberties, including free love and free thought.[45][46] Advocates of free love viewed sexual freedom as a clear, direct expression of individual sovereignty and they particularly stressed women's rights as most sexual laws discriminated against women: for example, marriage laws and anti-birth control measures.[47]
Free love appeared alongside anarcha-feminism and advocacy of LGBT rights. Anarcha-feminism developed as a synthesis of radical feminism and anarchism and views patriarchy as a fundamental manifestation of compulsory government. It was inspired by the late-19th-century writings of early feminist anarchists such as Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman, Voltairine de Cleyre and Virginia Bolten. Anarcha-feminists, like other radical feminists, criticise and advocate the abolition of traditional conceptions of family, education and gender roles. Free Society (1895–1897 as The Firebrand, 1897–1904 as Free Society) was an anarchist newspaper in the United States that staunchly advocated free love and women's rights, while criticizing "comstockery", the censorship of sexual information.[48] In recent times, anarchism has also voiced opinions and taken action around certain sex-related subjects such as pornography,[49] BDSM[50] and the sex industry.[50]
Free thought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic and reason in contrast with authority, tradition or other dogmas.[51][52] In the United States, free thought was an anti-Christian, anti-clerical movement whose purpose was to make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide on religious matters. A number of contributors to Libertywere prominent figures in both free thought and anarchism. In 1901, Catalan anarchist and free-thinker Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia established "modern" or progressive schools in Barcelona in defiance of an educational system controlled by the Catholic Church.[53] Fiercely anti-clerical, Ferrer believed in "freedom in education", i.e. education free from the authority of the church and state.[54] The schools' stated goal was to "educate the working class in a rational, secular and non-coercive setting". Later in the 20th century, Austrian Freudo-Marxist Wilhelm Reichbecame a consistent propagandist for sexual freedom going as far as opening free sex-counselling clinics in Vienna for working-class patients[55] as well as coining the phrase "sexual revolution" in one of his books from the 1940s.[56] During the early 1970s, the English anarchist and pacifist Alex Comfort achieved international celebrity for writing the sex manuals The Joy of Sex and More Joy of Sex.
StateEdit
Most left-libertarians are anarchists and believe the state inherently violates personal autonomy: "As Robert Paul Wolff has argued, since 'the state is authority, the right to rule', anarchism which rejects the State is the only political doctrine consistent with autonomy in which the individual alone is the judge of his moral constraints".[41] Social anarchists believe the state defends private property, which they view as intrinsically harmful, while market-oriented left-libertarians argue that so-called free markets actually consist of economic privileges granted by the state. These latter libertarians advocate instead for freed markets, which are freed from these privileges.[57]
There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate: while anarcho-capitalists advocate its abolition, minarchists support minimal states, often referred to as night-watchman states. Libertarians take a skeptical view of government authority.[58][unreliable source?]Minarchists maintain that the state is necessary for the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police and courts, though some expand this list to include fire departments, prisons and the executive and legislative branches.[59] They justify the state on the grounds that it is the logical consequenceof adhering to the non-aggression principle and argue that anarchism is immoral because it implies that the non-aggression principle is optional, that the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition.[citation needed]Another common justification is that private defense agencies and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[60]
Anarcho-capitalists argue that the state violates the Non-Aggression Principle by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen or vandalized private property, assaulted anyone or committed fraud.[61][62] Linda & Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can not desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.[63]
Property rightsEdit
Left-libertarians believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights[64][65] and maintain that natural resources ought to be held in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[66]
Right-libertarians maintain that unowned natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes his labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them". They believe that natural resources are originally unowned and therefore private parties may appropriate them at will without the consent of, or owing to, others.[67]
EconomicsEdit
Left-libertarians (social and individualist anarchists, libertarian Marxists and left-wing market anarchists) argue in favor of socialist theories such as communism, syndicalism and mutualism (anarchist economics). Daniel Guérin writes that "anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State".[68]
Right-libertarians are economic liberals of either the Austrian School or Chicago school and support laissez-faire capitalism.[69]
Wage labourEdit
Wage labour has long been compared by socialists and anarcho-syndicalists to slavery.[70][71][72][73] As a result, the term "wage slavery" is often utilised as a pejorative for wage labor.[74] Advocates of slavery looked upon the "comparative evils of Slave Society and of Free Society, of slavery to human Masters and slavery to Capital"[75] and proceeded to argue that wage slavery was actually worse than chattel slavery.[76] Slavery apologists like George Fitzhugh contended that workers only accepted wage labour with the passage of time, as they became "familiarized and inattentive to the infected social atmosphere they continually inhale[d]".[75]
According to Noam Chomsky, analysis of the psychological implications of wage slavery goes back to the Enlightenment era. In his 1791 book On the Limits of State Action, classical liberal thinker Wilhelm von Humboldt explained how "whatever does not spring from a man's free choice, or is only the result of instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very nature; he does not perform it with truly human energies, but merely with mechanical exactness" and so when the labourer works under external control "we may admire what he does, but we despise what he is".[77] For Marxists, labour-as-commodity, which is how they regard wage labour,[78] provides an absolutely fundamental point of attack against capitalism.[79] "It can be persuasively argued", noted philosopher John Nelson, "that the conception of the worker's labour as a commodity confirms Marx's stigmatization of the wage system of private capitalism as 'wage-slavery;' that is, as an instrument of the capitalist's for reducing the worker's condition to that of a slave, if not below it".[80] That this objection is fundamental follows immediately from Marx's conclusion that wage labour is the very foundation of capitalism: "Without a class dependent on wages, the moment individuals confront each other as free persons, there can be no production of surplus value; without the production of surplus-value there can be no capitalist production, and hence no capital and no capitalist!".[81]
5 Featured Comments
My personal definition of Libertarian:
What Republicans call themselves to dodge responsibility for their more onerous beliefs.
Think I figured it out:
Libertarians:
Ayn Rand
Jeff Bezos
Clint Eastwood
Ron Paul
Rand Paul
Glenn Beck
the Koch borthers
Rupert Murdoch
...
Case closed.
jla-x: Your erroneous belief of how things work is based on avoiding observation and analysis in favor of ideological propaganda created specifically to manipulate you.
"Big government" is not the problem. Government that works exclusively for someone else (the 0.1%) is. If government worked for you instead of for them you would be happy to pay taxes.
You'd be happy to pay taxes if health care was a right instead of a privilege and you could go to any doctor without worrying about whether or not you were going to lose your house. You'd be happy to pay your taxes if they went to repairing and maintaining infrastructure instead of wars and lining the pockets of the already waaaaay too rich.
The entire economic system is a sham designed to enslave you. Money is not a limited physical resource - it is an artificial construct that is created with a keystroke. The government is not a household with income and expenses. When you create currency you can never run out.
Proof #1: Where did all the money come from to bail out the banks that broke the economy? Remember, the US had a $10 trillion deficit at that time.
Proof #2: "They" never have a problem affording money for their benefactors and donors (corporate military, financial, pharma, energy, communications, etc.) but "we" can't afford money for basic social services.
Proof #3: The proposed minting of trillion-dollar coins to be deposited in the Federal Reserve to eliminate the debt. This was rejected because it would prove once and for all that the entire system is a sham. If they can print money to fix he debt why can't they print money to fix health care?
The government isn't the power. The power is the private interests controlling the government for their own gain.
Libertarianism is a cult. Stop drinking the KookAid.
All 34 Comments
sorry for the shit cut and paste job...
You should be.
Problem nowadays is that people are too entrenched in their political identity...to the point where a different view becomes an attack on their identity...that really needs to change...first we need to realize that the divisions in this country are manufactured by shitty power hungry politicians who lack a real message...
You lost my support as soon as you mentioned Noam Chomsky.
I’m a socialist! Capitalism is evil! Excuse me as I count my millions in one of my mansions.
I’m not a socialist, or a follower of Noam...just pointing out the diversity of the term libertarian which often gets conflated with those old tea party people circa 2010...
I know but I saw the name and was like AH! Ha ha
Lol
The argument that one cannot be a Socialist while also being wealthy is an absurd ad hominem to distract from the actual philosophy.
Also, a lot of people confuse libertarianism with Lack of compassion...there really is no reason why a free market libertarian society cannot also have things like universal basic income, universal healthcare, etc....so long as ones liberty to be richer if they choose isn’t infringged on. The lie is that we can’t have both. Actually, I don’t see how something like a universal basic income can be avoided with the coming automation of most labor...it’s probably inevitable...food for thought...
ones liberty to be richer is in direct opposition of a universal basic income - where will you get the money for such income? from my own liberty to be richer, aka taxes I don't want to pay, ever.....
Zero taxes. Print the money. It’s all fiat anyway. I mean, wouldn’t work if humans were in charge, but if the currency was cryptic...and the govt was automated...just brainstorming...
I get your point, but how do you prevent me from becoming richer and richer, would you infringe on my liberty? - you're describing "Brave New World", worth reading it again....
No. Do whatever you want.
yeah, tduds is right, this is silly - you might be right that money can be printed ad infinitum , but the resources to live - air,food, water - are not, hence somebody richer and richer will accumulate these by taking them out of the market from others that are not so rich, this is how it is today, and this idea of yours is no different.
A universal income doesn’t necessarily stop bill gates from being bill gates...just because some dude sits at home and paint unicorns all day...Only if the false dichotomy that we have to take and redistribute is true...why would we? The money isn’t based on any tangible thing like a gold standard anyway...it’s all made up... What I’m saying is, rather printing money and distributing from the centralized banks...distribute from the bottom up via basic income generated via automated algorithms that adjust for inflation etc.... We could get rid of all welfare programs, the irs, etc. in theory, the govt could fit in your pocket.
So, you are correct that resources are finite, but the free market would still be in play...the only difference would be that everyone gets a seat in the casino with some complimentary chips. You still have the ability to win it all...and lose it all...
What you're suggesting is - basically - Democratic Socialism. You just want to call it Libertarianism so you can call yourself Libertarian?
and who would stop the bad guys with guns? or put out the fires? or keep your potholes healthy? you know, all those tasks that are not really free marketable - individualism to the extreme is what puts us in this moment, I don't believe it will save us. thanks for your ideas though.
Democratic socialism relies on a centralized big govt. that’s one difference.
JLC, a “night watchman state” essentially means that the govt is limited to those basic functions.
How do you ensure the fair distribution of resources and/or the means of collective production without a robust central infrastructure that commands the collective trust necessary to keep peace?
There is no reason to be a fundamentalist...I’m definitely not defending a fundamentalist approach...more an amalgam that works well while also ensuring maximum individual autonomy...so no things like dumping toxic waste in streams is not a “liberty” that would be smart to protect. And who says flora and fauna are not deserving of “life and liberty.” I’m just brainstorming guys/gals. Not running for office..:)
tduds, I don’t...Like I said, free market + basic income.
Once you get that base safety net you are on your own. Can be automatically generated and distributed via some crazy algorithms...written by Patrick Schumacher...joking joking about the last part lol.
Oh, "algorithms" okay.
Yes.
My personal definition of Libertarian:
What Republicans call themselves to dodge responsibility for their more onerous beliefs.
Onerous and odeous.
Obnoxious
"What if we just called everything Libertarianism so my personal brand of Libertarianism seems less odious?"
This thread is silly.
Only insofar as silly is a ehphenism for retarded.
Yeah I try not to use shitty words.
Just putting ideas out there...
Just pointing out that they aren't good ideas.
why silly?
The replies above went from "Actually Socialism is very libertarian" to "Taxes are theft!" In literally 3 posts. That's why this thread is silly.
If you make your tent too large you end up with a cross section of opinions that will include those abhorrent to you. Libertarians don't like that their tent is so large that, by necessity, some shitty people legitimately get to call themselves libertarians.
Has libertarianism ever been tested in reality?
I don’t think so. Maybe in sim city...
Libertarians are wrestling for control of the US government and are well on the way to eliminating financial regulation and social services.
The wrestling act is necessary though wouldn’t you say? One side Keeps the other from going too far...
Somalia?
Isn't that an Islamic dictatorship?
Sorry, not the internationally recognized government of Somalia, but rather the large majority of physical space within Somalia where that government has no control.
Also that part is controlled by Islamists, sharia etc...
Nature abhors a vacuum.
The closest thing to total Anarchy is probably Monrovia. Again though...tyranny doesn’t require an organized state...people living under tyrannical tribes and gangs or even corporations can experience tyranny...I get that.
Think I figured it out:
Not yet anyway...
Birth control and children are all too frequently overlooked externalities.
Most dream of, but never really the rhythm of the thing.
Libertarians:
Ayn Rand
Jeff Bezos
Clint Eastwood
Ron Paul
Rand Paul
Glenn Beck
the Koch borthers
Rupert Murdoch
...
Case closed.
Jeff Bezos, I love Amazon. It’s a good system...where would I be able to order a product at 3am with guaranteed 2 day shipping if it weren’t for people like Jeff Bezos
Do you deny the idea that Noam Chomsky calls himself a libertarian?
Amazon is the Walmart of the internet, and is in fact severely damaging Walmart's business, which is closing stores. Abused and underpaid independent contractors (not employees, and no benefits), market power that dictates prices to suppliers, tax avoidance, yeah, that's the libertarian dream.
Fuck Walmart.
The tax dodging and special treatment is a symptom of a rigged market, by govt, not a free market...as was “too big to fail.”
Should say by govt+business jerking each other off.
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
Miles, do you recall this? I have a slight memory. But the documentary on Netflix, wow! I had a lot of feels at the end.
osho, of course, with his 30 rolls royce's marching out with his 20 teenage brides. that's a true libertarian.
Libertarian Leftist.
Oh come on. Lol. That dude is a cult leader...a true libertarian does not believe in such a power structure over people. That’s totally not libertarian...libertarianism is about free thought...a cult is the opposite... “ Free thought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic and reason in contrast with authority, tradition or other dogmas.[51][52] In the United States, free thought was an anti-Christian, anti-clerical movement whose purpose was to make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide on religious matters. A number of contributors to Libertywere prominent figures in both free thought and anarchism. In 1901, Catalan anarchist and free-thinker Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia established "modern" or progressive schools in Barcelona in defiance of an educational system controlled by the Catholic Church.[53] Fiercely anti-clerical, Ferrer believed in "freedom in education", i.e. education free from the authority of the church and state.[54] The schools' stated goal was to "educate the working class in a rational, secular and non-coercive setting".
what was leftist about it?
Really?
Libertarian socialism also rejects the state itself,[4] is close to and overlaps with left-libertarianism[5][6] and criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace,[7] instead emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace[4] and decentralized structures of political organization.[8][9][10] It asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[11] Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralizedstructures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions and workers' councils.[12][13]
All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[14][15] and voluntary human relationships[16] through the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] As such, libertarian socialism seeks to distinguish itself from both Leninism/Bolshevism and social democracy.[25][26]
Past and present political philosophies and movements commonly described as libertarian socialist include anarchism, as well as autonomism, communalism, participism, guild socialism,[27]revolutionary syndicalism and libertarian Marxist[28] philosophies such as council communism[29] and Luxemburgism,[30] as well as some versions of "utopian socialism"[31] and individualist anarchism.[32][33][34][35]
A cult is a cult. Nothing left or right about it...Scientology just started a tv network...hear about that?
Libertarianism is a cult. Stop drinking the KookAid.
One can say the same of any “ism.”
Miles, spot on. Bhagwan was a great man.
This forum is libertarian.
I'm a lazy Marxist.
#noTrueLibertarian.
I never get answers when I ask "how much authority are you willing to accept to establish a more equitable society?" If people are gripping about the ills of capitalism, patriarchy, and too much liberty...How much gov't force do you allow to correct these ills (whatever they may be)? And most importantly, who do we grant that power to? Trump? Well hes the one that's there now yikes...The next super liberal prez who wants to ban words?...you may like that....And then what will you say when Trump jr wins after that? Still like them with all that power??? This is the problem...Humans should not be trusted with power over other humans...hence libertarianism...
I don't understand how big you guys want the govt to be? How high you want taxes? How much police power you want the state to have?
Much, much higher.
certainly not what an algorithm would recommend
how high?
High enough so we can stop having bake sales to build fucking public schools. Or doing gofundme's for kidney transplants. That high.
100% what would be the point of doing anything? 90%? that means that an architect billing at 100 an hour is making 10$ an hour after a certain point...why take liability risk for that?
If I recall, the Dutch are doing really well with their high taxes.
http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/l/45/1960
I just picked a random year when this country was really great
And they build dikes.
what's their rate?
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx
36% and up, to 72%.
yeah, but the world wars kinda had a huge effect on that...
so, jla-x, what do you think of the tax rates in the us before reaganomics?
too high...and it fed the war machine.
The big trend in the US over the past 40 years has been to consistently lower taxes while consistently increasing Military spending. So idk what you're on about.
it fed the war machine? you mean iran contras, or operation desert storm, or irak, or afghanistan, or siria or yemen or libia?
your grandparents came out of a shitty period in world history and re-built everything with those taxes, your parents were assholes that thought they needed more toys and fuck thy neighbors, who's too high now?
oh, I agree...it still very much does feed the machine despite the lower taxes...but the post war era was a very specific set of circumstances...we pretty much had a monopoly on the world at the time...
I cant imagine such high rates working now, especially when businesses can so easily uproot and move. the world is much more connected and international...then you need protectionism, tariffs, trumpism essentially...
"If I recall, the Dutch are doing really well with their high taxes."
Yep, affordable healthcare, education and social housing, decent public transport, great cheese, plenty of paid holidays, paid maternity leave, no mass school shootings or major drug epidemic oh and a monarchy.
no, you never had a monopoly in the world, you set out to be the world's police and installed corrupt govts all over, guided by united fruit co. and the kind, armed with the ax that is the imf and the world bank, only it backfired - and opened the door for the mediocre banksters to take over and annihilate what was left of american exceptionalism - you see, all these visions of liberty without government are just illusions, because all of what america has been, it was because of strong governments.
Because of a gov't that was set up with checks and balances...yes...the entire American government is checked by the branches, and the constitution...true...Never said that I want to completely eliminate govt...that is anarchism, and I understand where that will go wrong...but a limited government, by the people, where the people have autonomy, is the main reason why the US has sustained and tend towards more liberty for more people (still not perfect but overall), and the reason why the public, through free association, free speech, assembly, etc have been able to call out the govt and correct it accordingly...like womens right to vote, etc...You cant have a civil rights movement without those basic liberties. We absolutely need a govt that protects our individual liberty...or else we will just fall victim to mob tyranny, tribalism, tyranny of the majority, etc...I understand that...which is why I said that I don't support any fundamentalist system...
"Monarchy". My Oma loved the queen to her death.
Post ww2. We had a monopoly mostly.
It seems we have a stand-in for Balkins.
<sigh>
unprovoked and untrue
Hey what if we took all the good parts of the Progressive movement and Socialist Democracies and pretended they weren't the product of massive collective human effort, so we can just hand-wave at some algorithms that don't exist and act like all these things and more can come from a stateless technocratic utopia?
This thread is still silly.
It's free.
maybe, maybe not...I think that its undeniable that something major will have to change to adjust for the automation of labor. This is happening everyday, its not science fiction. In the next 50 years we will see an enormous amount of work become automated. Unemployment will soar to unsustainable levels...We are just on the cusp of this stuff. We have to start coming to reality and thinking about what direction to go in...we can decentralize or centralize further...I would say both have some undesirable consequences...But one, the big centralized state model, is imo more likely to devolve into Tyranny under these stresses...left or right...fascism or communism...depending who has the reigns...I don't want either. A decentralized gov't, one that seeks to maximize autonomy, and also creates a basic safety net, is a much more palatable option...Imagine a future where 80-90% of labor has become automated? Do have any idea what kind of corrections will be needed to deal with that kind of imbalance?
UBI
Agree 100% b3. I think UBI is a very humane and non-stigmatizing way to provide a safety net. One of my main problems with welfare, is that it makes people feel like shit. If everyone received a basic income that was enough to live a healthy life on it would be much simpler and in many ways require less beurocracy.
"the big centralized state model, is imo more likely to devolve into Tyranny under these stresses"
Why?
"A decentralized gov't, one that seeks to maximize autonomy, and also creates a basic safety net, is a much more palatable option"
What do you mean by 'decentralized'? How can one create a basic (which would imply 'universal', which almost necessitates some level of centrality) safety net without at least some point of common agreement & oversight?
Now we're getting somewhere interesting.
like I said, a universal income, that is crypto (maybe), algorithmically/computer generated, self correcting to adjust for inflation, and calibrated to provide a livable wage, could in theory create a viable base safety net without requiring a monstrosity of a government. It would also allow the individual the autonomy to get more through the free market through traditional means of commerce for goods and services...The govt would still exist to provide other basic infrastructure...but not have control over the means of production, or the fruits of labor...just an idea.
"the big centralized state model, is imo more likely to devolve into Tyranny under these stresses"
Why?
Because "absolute power corrupts absolutely" And such a scenario would require near absolute power...
I think all your issues with government arise from the fact you don't think you are part of it, Of course if you leave a bunch of people with a lot of power without checks they will become corrupt, but it's also your responsibility as a citizen to keep their feet to the fire. Where are these "governement" people born? in lab tubes?
JLC++
"Crypo" is a buzzword that, without more elaboration, is essentially meaningless. I could assume you mean "blockchain" but that's basically a distributed Excel spreadsheet.
call it money...doesn't matter...you get the idea.
God damnit I typed up a whole reply and it got deleted. I'm jumping out of threads for future replies.
tduds, do what I do; type in the normal comment area, then cut and paste.
Will do.
jla-x: Your erroneous belief of how things work is based on avoiding observation and analysis in favor of ideological propaganda created specifically to manipulate you.
"Big government" is not the problem. Government that works exclusively for someone else (the 0.1%) is. If government worked for you instead of for them you would be happy to pay taxes.
You'd be happy to pay taxes if health care was a right instead of a privilege and you could go to any doctor without worrying about whether or not you were going to lose your house. You'd be happy to pay your taxes if they went to repairing and maintaining infrastructure instead of wars and lining the pockets of the already waaaaay too rich.
The entire economic system is a sham designed to enslave you. Money is not a limited physical resource - it is an artificial construct that is created with a keystroke. The government is not a household with income and expenses. When you create currency you can never run out.
Proof #1: Where did all the money come from to bail out the banks that broke the economy? Remember, the US had a $10 trillion deficit at that time.
Proof #2: "They" never have a problem affording money for their benefactors and donors (corporate military, financial, pharma, energy, communications, etc.) but "we" can't afford money for basic social services.
Proof #3: The proposed minting of trillion-dollar coins to be deposited in the Federal Reserve to eliminate the debt. This was rejected because it would prove once and for all that the entire system is a sham. If they can print money to fix he debt why can't they print money to fix health care?
The government isn't the power. The power is the private interests controlling the government for their own gain.
"The government isn't the power. The power is the private interests controlling the government for their own gain."
I think that you just proved my point that it is a partnership and not a real freed market. They are both propping each other up. ex: big agriculture.
+++ end citizens united!
Who created citizens united? A big fat govt...scratching the backs of business and vica-versa..
no, that organization wasn't created by the government, it was created in 1988, and David Bossie has been its president since 2000. In 2016 he took a leave of absence to be deputy campaign manager of Donald Trump's campaign.
Oh, thought trump was part of govt and was elected by people.
acknowledging that the govt is that easily corruptible is evidence that it shouldn’t get too big and can’t be trusted.
you're just being **** at this point, good night and good dreams
Non sequitur. (No, not you, Non.) As if a smaller government wouldn't be easier (cheaper) to corrupt?
You need to put some more thought into this. A lot more. Maybe start with how to prevent corruption regardless of size, because size is irrelevant.
The opposite of "bad" is not "no"
There is no such thing as an uncorruptable system. Once you understand that, the goal of trying to create one becomes laughable. What we should be aiming for is - 1) How do we minimize co rruption? or 2) How do we minimize the cumulative negative impact done to the system by it's inherent errors. A system that can be exploited by a handful of the poorest to the tune of a few million so they can eat slightly better is - in my opinion - a better system than one that can be exploited by a handful of the richest to the tune of a few trillion so they can buy more private islands.
How then Miles?
a universal income, that is crypto (maybe), algorithmically/computer generated, self correcting to adjust for inflation, and calibrated to provide a livable wage,
Who writes the algorithms? Who decides what fairness is? How do you ensure that the crafters of the system don't exploit it for their own gain? What is a "livable wage"? How do you agree on the amount of inflation? How do you correct for inevitable oversights and mistakes over time?
These aren't rhetorical questions. They have answers. My point all along is: who answers these questions?
could in theory create a viable base safety net without requiring a monstrosity of a government.
I'm not sure why you keep appealing to this "monstrosity", as if Socialism is a faceless army of Kafkaesque bureaucratic paper pushers, and Libertarianism is the same thing done with a computer? It seems to me like you're ignoring the massive amounts of tangible collective effort to put these systems in place, and the checks & balances that need to be agreed upon by human beings to ensure their continued usefulness as the world changes... and just assuming all this will take care of itself through the magic of The Algorithms.
It would also allow the individual the autonomy to get more through the free market through traditional means of commerce for goods and services...
How?
The govt would still exist to provide other basic infrastructure...but not have control over the means of production, or the fruits of labor
Then where does the money for UBI come from?
...just an idea.
One that continues to be rife with internal contradictions and inconsistency. As Miles sort of pointed out... you're comparing the failed history of one system against the theoretical philosophy of another, while ignoring the theoretical possibilities and historical failures of each, respectively. And then you're treating any criticism of this inconsistency as a defense of the status quo that -as far as I can tell - no one in this thread is advocating for.
Libertarianism, or classical libertarianism has been part of the US. It’s not theoretical. It’s just been a more moderate form...as it should be.
Communism and socialism have failed time and time again.
Again you're cherry picking a version of American Right Libertarianism that bears little, if any, similarity to what you're espousing throughout this thread, as well as a version of "Communism" and "Socialism" (actually Stalinism and Sino-Soviet State Capitalism) that bears little similarity to the other side of this debate.
If you don't understand the difference between Stalinist Collectivism and Nordic Democratic Socialism, or Chomsky style anarcho-communism and Randian anarcho-capitalism - either historically or philosophically - then I don't know why we're even having this conversation.
Who writes the algorithms? Who decides what fairness is? How do you ensure that the crafters of the system don't exploit it for their own gain? What is a "livable wage"? How do you agree on the amount of inflation? How do you correct for inevitable oversights and mistakes over time? All those questions can be asked about the federal reserve as well.
they print money and control the rates.
Again you're invoking the status quo as if its at all relevant to anything I've said.
It is relevant. You are evoking doubts, based on bad human nature, without acknowledging that those same behaviors, and corrupt actors, can negatively affect either system. Essentially you are saying that libertarianism is easily corrupted...but so is anything else...so moot point...further, you ignore that centralized power, when corrupted poses a greater danger, as history has shown. Nordic democratic socialism works well until it doesn’t. And with the right mix of stressors, the state will exert power to keep power.
And the reason it works, is because of a dedicated conscience effort towards a balance between individual liberty and state power. So you are arguing a hybrid systems success without acknowledging the importance of its parts...one being liberalism.
Hope that makes more sense?
I addressed this above: "There is no such thing as an uncorruptable system. Once you understand that, the goal of trying to create one becomes laughable. What we should be aiming for is - 1) How do we minimize corruption? or 2) How do we minimize the cumulative negative impact done to the system by it's inherent errors. A system that can be exploited by a handful of the poorest to the tune of a few million so they can eat slightly better is - in my opinion - a better system than one that can be exploited by a handful of the richest to the tune of a few trillion so they can buy more private islands."
More and more it seems like we're talking about the same thing and you're just insisting that it be called Libertarianism, which it isn't.
& mostly this appears to stem from a rather arbitrary definition of "The State" to include the things you're against but not the things you like, as if (like JLC pointed out earlier) it's some external system imposed upon you that you aren't a part of.
I wouldn’t say that it’s the same thing, but it’s not as different as it’s being made out to be. Noam Chomsky himself (not that I follow his school of though) refers to his philosophy as ”libertarianism socialism”. I think you are maybe missing the central thesis or libertarianism...it’s not a contradiction to socialism, communism, or capitalism...Those are economic systems ...libertarianism is organizational...and exists as a philosophy on its own. The premise is all about individual autonomy and limited centralized government. I think most of us would at least agree that some individual autonomy is a good thing. The degree of autonomy vs state authority / police powers is where the debate is. So...all western democracy has a degree of libertarianism, or classical liberalism embedded in it. It’s the philosophical root of individual rights and liberties. A libertarian is not always an anarchist...but always favors, when at all possible, minimalist state power and maximum individual sovereignty. Can UBI be implemented in a way that doesn’t bloat the state? I think so...maybe not. But it’s an idea worth exploring.
Communism and socialism have failed time and time again.
Many people in the new capitalist Russia long for the days of the old Soviet Union and the social services it provided. Socialism is alive and well and living in Northern Europe, in countries where people are rated as being the happiest on earth.
Stop repeating the lies you've been told and swallowed without question. And wake up to the fact that social services you use (roads, police, fire, schools, etc.) are being gutted by the very libertarians that you adore.
Communist Russia was not a good time. I don’t know what alternative history you are reading.
Somewhere between 10-50 million killed or starved to death. Yeah
There are literally zero successful communist states...and the socialist ones that exist are not purely socialist. Northern Europe has capitalism as well.
Early communism had some good intentions...and the wolves waited for the “useful idiots” to consolidate power.
I wasn't so much "evoking doubts" with those questions as pointing out that they absolutely need to arise out of a system of common trust - AKA A Government. Libertarianism, by & large, rejects this idea in favor of either collective or individual anarchy.
You seem to be more in favor of anarcho-communism, but to me that system seems weakly balanced on tacit agreements and a lack of infrastructural checks on power. I fail to see how it doesn't easily collapse into fascism or anarcho-capitalism. Obviously that's an extreme, so you have to introduce some level of State control. I think a Democratic Republican system is the best infrastructure to resist the knee-jerk reactionary impulses of pure democracy *and* the rapacious kleptocratic tendencies of the minority that could easily seize a weaker Libertarian system.
Personally I think the United States has a hugely lopsided balance of power that leans heavily toward the Executive. Ideally I'd favor a more parliamentary system, or if we must keep our present structure, a weaker Executive and stronger Legislative with expanded layers of representation between the individual, local, state, and federal.
Hot takes: Repeal the 17th Amendment. Remove laws that bind electoral college votes. Institute Term Limits for more elected officials. Amend the constitution to address campaign finance. Enact ranked voting.
The goal is to move towards a more collective State, but that's still A State. It'd bring back a feeling among the people (I think?) that the government is part of the people.
No, I’m not in favor of anarcho communism...more in favor of a hybrid economic system with a libertarian base a “night watchman” state with some basic safetynets like UBI. I do want mostly capitalism, but capitalism with no special favors from the state.
The goal of capitalism is to maximize profit. Period. Nothing else matters: health, safety, environment, quality of life, etc. are all irrelevent except to the extent that they can be commoditized for profit.
To clarify: the "Libertarian" piece of your hybrid system is more closely aligned with anarcho-communism than anarcho-capitalism. UBI is a form of collectivism. You're just pitching a middle ground.
And not that those are good things...not everyone engaged in capitalism isn’t operating at those extremes either...but to rid the world of capitalism has implications that are not desirable and requires police powers to stop people from engaging in free trade. It’s also imo the best driving force of innovation that we know of...
Tduds, sort of...but property rights are a big part of it too...and I also see a middle ground with that...while I agree with private property...and want it protected...I think that some public owned land should be actually free to use by the public. For instance, public streets...vendors should be able to use them freely without permits and permission. Homeless people (if UBI doesn’t fully eliminate the problem which it probably wouldn’t) should be allowed to set up camps on public lands and public parks. The “public” space we have isn’t really very public. The state limits its use greatly.
"Innovation" is finding ways to increase profit. Does anyone need self-driving cars? Nope. We need cheap reliable mass transit. But there is no profit in that. So much for "innovation".
Who would maintain the infrastructure...?
Who would maintain the infrastructure...?
I guess the state would have that role...and so of course some basic rules would have to be kept so that people don’t totally trash everything...Anyone remember Canal st in the 1980s? It was pretty freely used for commerce, performance, etc. The tide of change in the name of “safety” has really destroyed the freedom to use public space...and if you are black...well then you are subject to stop and frisk...loitering laws...etc. that’s not freedom.
And it’s the State curtailing it...like at the request of big business moving in...eminent domain...blight studies...too much to talk about. Lol
*Likely at the request..
Yeah this is something I think about a lot.
J-lax, you are attempting to explain economics to architects. People known for their complete lack of knowledge of fundamental business concepts, personal finance and finance in general. Why are you even attempting?
How can anyone with a complete lack of knowledge of fundamental business concepts, personal finance and finance in general explain them to anyone?
God dammit Miles you win again, Ha ha!
Miles, do you benefit from capitalism? You own a business I believe...does that not give you some freedom and autonomy that you benefit from?
archi-dude, that I do not know...day off and bored I guess. Lol
touche, miles, touche. Lol
Just saying, this is what I hear in my office all day everyday. “Developers are greedy and evil, Capitalism is the devil, I believe in business for benefit of society not profit...” 5 mins later....”Why aren’t we paid more!” I don’t even bother.
We're not paid more BECAUSE capitalism. That, and George HW Bush Administration.
You are absolutely right sutures. No one gets paid more because of capitalism. But if you want to get paid more you can figure out how. Oh wait, you’re referring to how the markets don’t allocate resources to the design and art of shelters because it’s profit driven. Which socialistic society allocated more resources to the arts than needs based services again? It was a sickle and hammer not a paintbrush and easle right?
+archi-dude
To add, what communist state allocated $ to the arts without extreme censorship and limits on speech. Would the government pay for a movie like JFK, Full Metal Jacket, etc..?
Ai Wei Wei
still facing resistance...
Look man, poverty is a terrible thing, and it’s very sad to see people fall through the cracks in capitalism, but overall it’s a less threatening system. The environment and food industry are probably the areas where capitalism has posed the most threat. I get that.
http://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/a-better-value_o
http://socialistreview.org.uk/376/marx-freedom-press
http://theconversation.com/is-the-cuban-healthcare-system-really-as-great-as-people-claim-69526
In response to the architect magazine which is the only relevant topic to the current debate, “in summary we need to redefine our business and financial model if we want to figure out how to value and charge for our services.” Sutures, you read that whole article or are you agreeing with us?
I’ll explain that a little further. Instead of whining and complaining and trying to price fix and lobby the system, you have the ability to reavaluate your business model to provide a better income for you and your employees. Are you selling art? Well you are in an oversaturated market and if you aren’t selling the best art you’ll cut your fees to still be in the game. Or are you selling services that positively impact a clients budget and schedule and deliver it in a manner that reduces construction headaches? If so, your fee is much more quantifiable and justified.
Yeah, I read what Peggy Deamer said; Rather than being paid for expertise, as some doctors or lawyers are, Deamer says architects are paid for an object. “We don’t know what fiscal model to follow: Are we a trade? An art? A service? Because we don’t know the financial model that we fit into, we adopt the worst of all of them.”
Peggy Deamer, of Arch Lobby, the union organization.
im oot.
You're back?
Nope. Not ok.
Let's not not talk about it...
When you blame everyone else, the problem is often you.
You realize that you win against straw men because they're the only people you argue with that can't speak, right? Misandry isn't a thing. If a man calls a woman a misandrist it's because he's a men's rights buffoon and feels hurt because the conversation isn't all about him.
Poof, he's gone. Now I seem like I'm shouting at the sky. *shakes fist at a tree*
Misandry! It's reeeeeeeaaaaaallllll!
So if he blocks me I can't see his posts? That's odd. This forum is odd.
He didn't block you. He's just through with being a libertarian.
Everyone talks about taxes as if they are Nobel...they are literally forcing people to pay money to fund things that are usually unethical (like war) with the threat of violence and prison. “Give us money or we lock you in a little fucking cage.” That’s some really barbaric shit.
It’s not the same as say a consumption tax...Don’t know if the numbers would work...but that’s a less barbaric system. Agree?
Those barbaric things like affordable healthcare, education, clean drinking water, social housing, and infrastructure that keeps you safe? Yes barbaric shit....quelle horreur!
Do the ends justify the means?
What about when the ends are unjust?
What's unjust about affordable healthcare or clean drinking water?
The only unjust thing is the $14 I need to pay for parking at the hospital... Oh wait, that's all that it costs me? Hot damn, what a bargain. Too bad for those silly Americans.
I said “when” like silly walls, wars, and nukes?
and silly gun-rights protectionist policies? sure, toss those in there too.
There is no reason why we can’t have free healthcare and small government. Actually, if the govt was smaller and less militaristic we would be able to focus on such things. Someone’s ability to get health care doesn’t impact my liberties in any way so long as the government doesn’t force me to fund it under the threat of violence and prison. Maybe a small flat tax + a national consumption tax wouldn’t work to support the monster we have now...but it could if it was much much leaner.
How can you be threatened to fund universal healthcare?
All I’m saying is that there are ways do things (I dont pretend to know all of them but worth thinking about) without giving up autonomy to the state. It’s a lie that libertarianism cannot exist along side healthcare, UBI, etc. It likely can’t under the current system of big govt and a federal reserve bank that controls the currency, but it could be designed. Thinking like Miles that big state communism/socialism is a better answer, when history has proven otherwise many times over, is not productive and not progressive.
Non, if you refuse to pay taxes, guys with guns come to your house, and lock you in a cage for a couple years. What gives the state the right to use violence/aggression towards a non violent act? The same logic applies to crime that doesn’t harm others like possessing drugs, loitering in public space, etc.
And like I’ve said already, it’s a matter of degree. Canada has enough individual liberty to work as does Northern Europe...but the trend and willingness to surrender this liberty will end badly once that scale is tilted to far.
You don't need to refuse to pay taxes, all you need is enough deductibles and write off's...
@ jla-x
"Thinking like Miles that big state communism/socialism is a better answer, when history has proven otherwise many times over, is not productive and not progressive."
Stop attributing statements to me that I did not make, pretending to know what I think, and misrepresenting what I've written (which is there in black and white). When I want you to know what I think I will tell you.
While you're at it please provide "many times over" proof of your asinine conjecture.
"It’s a lie that libertarianism cannot exist along side healthcare"
Please demonstrate when and where in reality this fantasy of your exists. If you can't then stop stating your idiotic opinion as if it were fact. Which it may be for you, but for the rest of us it is the demonstration of something else entirely.
"the trend and willingness to surrender this liberty will end badly once that scale is tilted to far."
Aside from the fact that this is simply another baseless conjecture - like pretty much everything that dribbles out of your piehole - are you so completely stupid that you don't see how libertarian capitalism has largely dismantled constitutional protections in the US? Privacy is non-existent, speech goes to the highest bidder, police have been militarized, etc. Canada has more privacy, freer speech, better health care, etc., etc., etc.
The nonsensical crap you're spewing makes almost Balkins look rational.
"Stop attributing statements to me that I did not make, pretending to know what I think, and misrepresenting what I've written (which is there in black and white). When I want you to know what I think I will tell you."
You have implied it. By constantly rejecting capitalism, you imply that you support socialism or communism. By rejecting small government you imply that you prefer big government. Logical reasoning: big state + communism or socialism = "big state communism/socialism." You leave no choice but to make assumptions, because you consistently play an immature game where you make a vague statement, never state a position, spew an insult or a general complaint, and then dismount from the conversation once a challenging counter point is made like when I asked "what communist state allocated $ to the arts without extreme censorship and limits on speech. Would the government pay for a movie like JFK, Full Metal Jacket, etc..?." You have an arrogance that you are above the debate, but please, if you have this wisdom that you are holding back share it with us because to me it seems like you are being intentionally elusive.
"Please demonstrate when and where in reality this fantasy of your exists. If you can't then stop stating your idiotic opinion as if it were fact. Which it may be for you, but for the rest of us it is the demonstration of something else entirely."
Principles of Classical liberalism, and libertarianism are already affecting Western democracies. You, or someone has pointed out some examples of successful modern Democratic socialist nations, without acknowledging the fact that they benefit from deeply infused libertarian and/or classically liberal principles that have to do with individual liberty and sovereignty. If you are asking me to show an example of a completely libertarian state I can not, because libertarianism is not anarchism or totalitarianism, and is a matter of degree rather than an absolute. So I can show nations that are more or less libertarian, in one regard or another, but not completely libertarian. By someone saying that they are libertarian, it means that they want to maximize personal autonomy and minimize state authority when and wherever possible. So, I can’t argue with you unless you accept that principles of libertarianism is already engrained in the architecture of most societies... Anarcho-capitalists, or Anarcho-communists want to completely get rid of the state. That’s not a good idea for obvious reasons.
“Aside from the fact that this is simply another baseless conjecture - like pretty much everything that dribbles out of your piehole - are you so completely stupid that you don't see how libertarian capitalism has largely dismantled constitutional protections in the US? Privacy is non-existent, speech goes to the highest bidder, police have been militarized, etc. Canada has more privacy, freer speech, better health care, etc., etc., etc.”
No I have not, and the erosion of these constitutional liberties is in direct opposition to libertarian philosophy, and the fact that it can be eroded illustrates the fact that the state is too powerful in the first place and too susceptive to corporatism, fascism, and oligarchy…We are living in a very rigged market, not a free market. Can corporations become tyrannical, yes, but only (probably) with the backing of the state. Subsidised agriculture and Pharma is an example of the BIG STATE propping up BIG BUSINESS and giving them the tools to get BIGGER. This is not libertarianism, you are confusing the libertarianism with corporatism. The NSA is big gov remember. The dark sites and dark courts are all manifestations of a BIG STATE that we lost control of.
"the trend and willingness to surrender this liberty will end badly once that scale is tilted to far."
There is a trend that is becoming very clear in Academia and in media to limit speech, silence dissent, and curtail civil/individual liberties in the name of equity and feelings. This is a very well known and well debated trend, and if you don’t see it, maybe you are the one not looking hard enough. Its not just the younger generation either, and while its mostly social, its starting to effect policy. There are limits on academic speech, mandated gender neutral terminology, etc…Laws against hate speech (who defines that? If trump were in charge that could mean speech against him), laws against wearing certain religious garb in Europe, etc… This is a very very slippery slope towards something that can and has happened-authoritarianism. Libertarianism is a counter balance to that.
Let me ask you to that last point, when hasn't curtailing individual liberty ended badly? Key word "individual liberty"...
here
Oops tried to post political spectrum image...
.
Haha
I've taken that quiz on the internets that plots you on this map. I fall just to the left and down from "Reasonable for the real world", near "best" and "chill". Where else would anyone want to be? :) Didn't read any of this thread by the way. You guys are really duking it out.
I’m somewhere between “probably does drugs” and “well meaning rightist” lol.
Where's Noam Chmsky?
Bottom left corner somewhere.
-8, -7?
Was that test from politicalcompass.org? Tried that one, but there's never an option to answer Neutral/I don't care/Whatever.
Its just a general spectrum used widely, but yeah its the same one from that site. I don't really think the methods/questions on that site are all that accurate. Interesting, I've been reading and apparently UBI is a pretty widely supported idea among Libertarian leaning people left/right. Even Milton Friedman was a supporter of a UBI as a way to replace welfare.
Tinbeary There there, not sure exactly, but like probably right in the bottom left corner (-9,-9) he's pretty far out there.
The two Hitler references made we laugh. I've taken a test a while back and it plotted me between "best countries" and "chili mothafucker"
Yeah, I’m like 2 boxes above “well meaning rightist” ....just about on the center line...ha.
I remember scoring higher than Gandhi.
Ghandi was a racist asshole, so good for you!
What does "Have a chance of winning *At this line or above" mean?
Pretty much all mainstream American and European politicians (Obama, Clinton, Trump) are around the middle of blue box...people like Jill Stein, Ron Paul, etc are below that line. Politicians have an interest to be Authoritarian, and Authoritarian people seek power positions and are usually more aggressive at getting there...the rest of us (most people are below the line I would bet... which is kinda my point of trolling y’all with this thread) are too logical and humble to think that we should rule over other people and control their lives, thoughts, words, and personal choices. :) I would bet that the silent majority of the population leans more towards libertarianism they they realize...I was kinda trying to get people to admit that libertarianism is the antithesis of Stalinism or Fascism. Top left corner would be Stalin, top right Pinochet, top middle Hitler. All really bad dudes. All really bad dudes in politics chill up there. The left/right debate is everywhere....but it’s a false debate, because without a debate on Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism it means nothing. The fringes of European and American politics, like the Nationalists in Europe, the Alt-right in the US, the American nationalist racists, and the SJW left in American media and academia, are Authoritarian leaning and are a loud minority (I hope they stay/are a minority). The politicians are already 2/3s towards really bad shit. Just highlighting that creeping up there is a dangerous trend. The devil lives at the top.
Just cautioning people to chill out with the authoritarian rhetoric. On the left it manifests in identity politics, social justice culture (not that social justice itself is a bad thing), and political correctness policing. On the right it manifests in nationalism, ethno-nationalism, xenophobia, etc. The trends on both sides are starting to worry me.
I hate people that use authoritarian rhetoric, off with their heads!
The graphic stopped the talk about taxes and kook brothers.
Ah random, great point, and that’s why authoritarianism is where the natural tide of mankind pushes us...it’s in our blood...we are a tribal species...we’ve evolved from a war like, tribal, brutal species (chimpanzees). We have to understand the role of our nature. This is why I deeply reject the idea that everything is a social construct. Well duh, but those constructs are being compelled by deeply evolved tendencies. Most libertarians and anarchists think/say that anarchy/libertarianism is “natural”. I don’t buy that at all. We have always had power hierarchies, even way before we evolved into humans. It’s in our DNA. The libertarian and anarchist is fooling themselves and doing themselves a disservice if they believe that we are destined to be autonomous individuals. We are tribal...and we are aggressive in the conquest of other tribes. libertarianism comes from the enlightenment period for a reason...it requires introspection....imo, it’s about realizing and transgressing our biological tendencies...because at a certain point...our technology makes that nature far too dangerous...and threatens our existence. The behavior that was designed to give us a one up on survival flips its role and becomes a threat to our survival. That’s the paradox of progress. We’ve progressed technologically, but still act like crazy fucking apes. We use missiles the same as we once used spears....with far greater devastation and reach. Now angry Tyrants can literally press buttons and evaporate life on earth in 30-40 minutes. Think about how crazy that is...imagine the man power, energy, and time it would take, not to long ago, for someone like Ghengis Kahn to destroy a whole city. Now one skinny guy or gal with a button can do it. And don’t tell me that there are “good tribes” or “peaceful tribes” that’s a huge myth...”tribes”, at their best, are in a temporary state of relative comfort. Disrupt that, and they will quickly revert to killing and conquering. See Europes reaction to migration for example. A perceived threat comes in...they revert to tribalism...manifesting itself as ethno-nationalism. I don’t see anarchism and libertarianism as a “solution” or a political system, but rather an unattainable ideal. The role of the libertarian or anarchist, is not to achieve anarchy, it is to fight the tide of tribalism with an emphasis on individual autonomy. It’s a survival mechanism for modern man. My take anyway...Make sense?
where Libertarians roam
This was/is a fun thread. Thanks for digging it up.
“The role of the libertarian or anarchist, is not to achieve anarchy, it is to fight the tide of tribalism with an emphasis on individual autonomy. It’s a survival mechanism for modern man.“. My quote from above
but libertarian is also tribalistic.
All of the things that you are complaining about, some rightfully so, cane from the state. Slavery, Jim Crow, etc. all state backed creations. All things that go against the libertarian NAP and anarchist ideology.
Non, how so? Libertarianism is about individual autonomy. If decentralized “tribes” form it’s because of voluntary associations
Inevitably one of those tribes will either start a government, or conquer another tribe, or both, yadda yadda yadda Peace of Westphalia 2.0 and we're back to where we were.
"Voluntary Association" is just unrestricted immigration. Discuss.
(For the record I am for unrestricted immigration)
Yes. Ideally we would have unrestricted immigration. I’m for unrestricted immigration.
Tduds, you are mistaken for anarchy...in a libertarian society the govts function is basic infrastructure and protection of individual liberties, so tribes cannot conquer anyone. You are free to do as you please so long as you don’t violate the liberty of another.
LOLbertarianism.
Since the thread is bumped it seems like a good place to post a great article about what happens when you try to not have a government (Spoiler: you attract the type of people who don't want a government, but not for the reasons you'd hope)
https://newrepublic.com/articl...
"Grappling with what to do about the bears, the Graftonites also wrestled with the arguments of certain libertarians who questioned whether they should do anything at all—especially since several of the town residents had taken to feeding the bears, more or less just because they could."
There's your "utopia" in a nutshell
libertarianism = occupying a nebulous center that allows you to avoid taking concrete positions on anything, living in a land of fantasy abstraction and always conveniently, but stupidly, playing both sides off each other on architecture forums but never accepting any self criticism because you actually don't have real position to critique...
ok too specific but the beginning is valid.
Libertarianism is not in the center. It’s literally on a different axis. We can debate left libertarianism vs right libertarianism. The two really only differ in 2 ways, property ownership, and emphasis on individualism vs communitarianism.
In US we have libertarian party which is right libertarian, and Green Party which is sort of left libertarian.
.
I don't get the 12.
concerning that someone who practices "architecture" doesn't understand that just because something is on a different axis doesn't mean there can't also be a center on that other axis.
also, the center is a rhetorical center.
I understand it, you obviously don’t
Libertarians give new life to the tired epithet 'libtard'.
Non - it's a long-running joke on the internet that certain right-libertarians are a little *too* vocal about age of consent laws.
^Oh, for fuck 's sake, I get it now.
https://altrightorigins.com/2017/10/05/libertarians-civil-rights/
The article is completely dumb. libertarianism is an idea, and the ideas were the basis of civil rights. The party wasn’t founded until 1971.
Laozi (571 BCE – 471 BCE): Chinese philosopher and writer, who is considered the first anarchist and libertarian, given his contempt for those in power and so for the state.
John Ball (1338–1381): English priest whose preachings against bondship and serfdom helped start the Peasants' Revolt.
Étienne de La Boétie (1530–1563): French judge, writer and a founder of modern political philosophy in France.
William Godwin (1756-1836): English journalist, political philosopher and novelist. He is considered one of the first exponents of utilitarianism and the first modern proponent of anarchism.
^from Wikipedia, do your own research...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
you're THE example of how more research doesn't make you more correct.
What am I incorrect about?
Yeah, thanks but no.
Holocaust Denial and Libertarians
Commies eat people
Brah, all you got is that in 1979 reason magazine had an article that was allegedly denying the holocaust and that makes libertarianism wrong. Good Reasoning.
Carl Marx was racist. FYI
Very antisemitic too.
reminds me of someone
i prefer karl, his cousin carl was an asshole
I think it’s cute that people think a country population of over 300 million can survive in this geopolitical climate without a strong federal government.
Stockholm syndrome.
Irony.
“The Largest Study Ever of Libertarian Psychology
Posted by Jonathan Haidt in Moral Foundations in Action, Politics, Videos
We’ve been deluged in recent years with research on the psychology (and brain structure) of liberals and conservatives. But very little is known about libertarians — an extremely important group in American politics that is not at home in either political party.
At YourMorals.org we have now addressed the gap. Unlike most surveys, which force everyone to place themselves on a Left-Right scale, we have always allowed our visitors to choose “libertarian” as an option. Given our unique web platform, where people register and then take multiple surveys, we have amassed what we believe is the largest and most detailed dataset in the world on the personality traits of libertarians (as well as of liberals and conservatives).
In a project led by Ravi Iyer, we analyzed data from nearly twelve thousand self-described libertarians, and compared their responses to those of 21,000 conservatives and 97,000 liberals. The paper was just published last week in PLoS ONE. The findings largely confirm what libertarians have long said about themselves, but they also shed light on why some people and not others end up finding libertarian ideas appealing. Here are three of the major findings:
1) On moral values: Libertarians match liberals in placing a relatively low value on the moral foundations of loyalty, authority, and sanctity (e.g., they’re not so concerned about sexual issues and flag burning), but they join conservatives in scoring lower than liberals on the care and fairness foundations (where fairness is mostly equality, not proportionality; e.g., they don’t want a welfare state and heavy handed measures to enforce equality). This is why libertarians can’t be placed on the spectrum from left to right: they have a unique pattern that is in no sense just somewhere in the middle. They really do put liberty above all other values.
2) On reasoning and emotions: Libertarians have the most “masculine” style, liberals the most “feminine.” We used Simon Baron-Cohen’s measures of “empathizing” (on which women tend to score higher) and “systemizing”, which refers to “the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system.” Men tend to score higher on this variable. Libertarians score the lowest of the three groups on empathizing, and highest of the three groups on systemizing. (Note that we did this and all other analyses for males and females separately.) On this and other measures, libertarians consistently come out as the most cerebral, most rational, and least emotional. On a very crude problem solving measure related to IQ, they score the highest. Libertarians, more than liberals or conservatives, have the capacity to reason their way to their ideology.
3) On relationships: Libertarians are the most individualistic; they report the weakest ties to other people. They score lowest of the three groups on many traits related to sociability, including extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. They have a morality that matches their sociability – one that emphasizes independence, rather than altruism or patriotism.
In other words: Libertarians, liberals, and conservatives all differ from each on dozens of psychological traits, which help to explain why people – even siblings in the same family — gravitate to different ideological positions as they grow up. Understanding these psychological differences will be crucial for politicians and political movements that want to appeal to libertarians, who are often left out as so much attention is lavished on liberals and conservatives.”
Unlike most surveys, which force everyone to place themselves on a Left-Right scale, we have always allowed our visitors to COP OUT as an option.
Fixed it for you.
No, you didn’t, still don’t understand the concept.
There is no concept, just a con.
Concept is that the antonym of authoritarianism is libertarianism.
"This is my speech about libertarianism. The dictionary defines libertarian as..."
the antonym of libertarianism is substance
This resurrection deserves a soundtrack:
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.