User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 102

  1. #21
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by booyalab View Post
    does liberty mean something different from freedom now?
    Um...what? Stop trying to argue that Lat's concept of economic freedom is truer than mine with these subtle ruses. It's annoying and at least he has the aptitude to openly proclaim it.

    As I've said before, "wage slavery" and "blacklisting" which are products of unhindered capitalism, do not exactly provide any freedom to the individual. Hence a degree of regulation of the market is a necessity for protecting individual liberty (and safety I might add). So appropriately used socialism also aims to protect individual freedom and liberty or however you want to spin it.

    Capitalism and Socialism are economic philosophies that approach protecting individual liberty from different directions, but both have their conception of how individuals can be economically free. Capitalism does so by asserting property and Socialism does so by asserting possession.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  2. #22
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Moved from here.

  3. #23
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    I attended the Future of Freedom Foundation's big 2008 conference this past weekend, and I was mightily impressed by the speakers there. I would have liked to have seen a little more talk about taxation/spending and the Drug War, but the focus was on the loss of civil liberties due to war. Some particular highlights were Justin Raimondo (from antiwar.com) and Bruce Fein, who may just be the only government lawyer I don't want to defenestrate the moment I see him/her. He REALLY took the Bush Administration to task for their willful flouting of constitutional law and legal precedent following 9/11. In the future, I hope that more libertarians make similar arguments. I am sick of hearing the "libertarians are corporate apologists" and "they're Republicans who smoke pot" nonsense arguments. We are amongst the most active fighters for civil liberties in the country, but some people look at us as if were a bunch of Snidely Whiplashs.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #24
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    If there is no property then there is no liberty.

    The institution of property provides a system of rules to regulate resource use peaceably. For example, Bob owns a car and Eric does not. Bob wants to use his car to drive to and from work each day, whereas Eric wants to use Bob's car to take a road trip. However, Bob is the owner of the car, which is simply to say that Bob's decision to use it to drive to and from work each day trumps Eric's decision to use it for a road trip, and so Eric would be breaking the rules by ignoring Bob's decision and taking the car without permission. In other words, to say that Bob owns his car is simply to say that he is rightful decision-maker with regard to what use his car will be put, whereas Eric is not.

    The role of property in society is extremely important. In a society where property rights are not respected or enforced conflict arises as multiple people claim the same resource, and with no system of property rights to regulate the conflict peaceably, fueds and violence follow. Moreover, the incentive to be productive and create wealth is significantly reduced, since much of the productivity and wealth will not be enjoyed by those who create it. For example, unless Bob can trust that his property will be protected from Eric, Bob is unlikely to ever invest the time and effort necessary to afford a car in the first place.

    Finally, liberty is inseperable from property because liberty is, at a minimum, the ownership of the self i.e. the right to be the decision-maker with regard to the use of your mind and body. It is no coincidence that those societies which abolish property also abolish liberty.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  5. #25
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    If there is no property then there is no liberty.
    Until an elite manages to gather most of the property through social engineering the masses via the media and using that propagandized influence to build a powerful military industrial complex which rapes the rest of the world through brute force and supporting the ruthless dictators who protect the elite's corporate interests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  6. #26
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Until an elite manages to gather most of the property through social engineering the masses via the media and using that propagandized influence to build a powerful military industrial complex which rapes the rest of the world through brute force and supporting the ruthless dictators who protect the elite's corporate interests.
    Huh? The word 'until' is inappropriate in this context. If there is no property then there is no liberty and if there is no liberty then there is no property. The one cannot exist without the other, and so the abolishment of either abolishes both. It is quite simple.

    The tragedy of democracy is that the electorate vote for policies which grant politicians more control over the resources in society. Thus, the value of property is eroded as the decisions of bureaucrats trump the decisions of individuals owners. In effect, everything comes to be part-owned by the state, as the range of uses to which an owner is permitted to put a resource is reduced. Therefore, politicians incrementally establish temporary ownership of a great portion of the resources in society, and use this power to strike bargains with sections of the electorate with the goal of maintaining power. In short, a successful politician auctions the freedoms of various groups to the highest bidder, and the highest bidders frequently come from the wealthiest groups in society. In other words, the electorate vote to politicians more and more powers, which makes politicians extremely valuable individuals, and the wealthy exploit this centralised power for their own ends. In consequence, the institutions of property and liberty are eroded and the resources of society, including individuals, are auctioned off by politicians to whoever promises to help keep them in power. The politician, meanwhile, keeps assuring the people that granting more power to the state is for their own good, and is the only way to prevent the evil capitalists from exploiting them further.

    The irony is that those who are called 'capitalists' are rarely supporters of capitalism. For example, according to a dictionary definition, a capitalist can be a supporter of capitalism, a person engaged in private ownership of business, a person who is the owner of much wealth used in business, or a person of great wealth. However, an individual who fits one of the latter three definitions of a 'capitalist', will rarely be 'a supporter of capitalism'. In fact, many of the most effective opponents of capitalism are people 'engaged in the private ownership of business', who own 'much wealth used in business', or are otherwise people 'of great wealth'. Big businesses fear individual decision-making, because people might decide to stop buying their products. If the millions of individual decisions can be transferred to a relatively small collection of politicians and bureaucrats, then big business can solve its problem by corrupting the system with big business' big money. In other words, "persuading" politicians and bureaucrats, who are now making decisions on behalf of millions of individuals, and control a vast quantity of the resources in society, to decide in favour of big businesses. Therefore, what is good for capitalism is not necessarily good for the wealthy, especially big businesses, who are therefore often hostile to capitalism, and seek to woo politicians who, given the power to make decisions on behalf of millions of individuals, can prevent competition from eating into to their profits--millions of individual decision-makers are far less pliable.

    The adept politician is one who can simultaneously play every side, who can deliver an entire speech without saying anything meaningful, who can work toward the alleviation of any social problem while also supporting the policies which help to cause it, who can shift allegience whenever it will bring political gain, and who can deliver benfits, privileges and goodies to those who help keep them them in power. It is the erosion of property rights which brings about the nightmare you describe, not the establishment of property rights.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  7. #27
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Liberty is lost the moment property is capitalized by a small minority. Then society is structured into a small ruling class and a large poor class. This is made possible because the ruling class gains control over the media via ownership and control of the government through lobbying and endorsing politicians. The ruling class then hijacks democracy by utilizing ownership of the media to manufacture consent among public opinion by inspiring fear in the public for the purpose of promoting the interest of "national defense". They do so in order to build a large military industrial complex which is then utilized to obtain foreign resources through brute force and subjugate any domestic dissenters.

    That is the current state of the United States, and the reason why it is bullshit to make an ideological claim that, "if there is no property then there is no liberty." While property can be a good thing, it is not essential to liberty, in reality, it is often a danger to it. The free market theory is nothing but a hoax perpetrated by the ruling class to secure their interests through a double standard whereby they argue that natural competition will cause the best products and the best prices to prevail for the betterment of all, but in reality they manipulate the government and media to secure their own interests.

    So instead of preaching your ideology, perhaps you could open up your eyes to reality and see how the world is truly working in the here and now. "Free market", "Capitalism", "Property", are all wonderful ideas, especially when utilized correctly, but when a layman can observe in the real world how they are being utilized to strip us of our liberty and to commit horrible atrocities overseas, then you are just trying to convince us to piss into the wind.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  8. #28
    Circus Maximus Sarcasticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    meh
    Posts
    1,037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Liberty is lost the moment property is capitalized by a small minority. Then society is structured into a small ruling class and a large poor class. This is made possible because the ruling class gains control over the media via ownership and control of the government through lobbying and endorsing politicians. The ruling class then hijacks democracy by utilizing ownership of the media to manufacture consent among public opinion by inspiring fear in the public for the purpose of promoting the interest of "national defense". They do so in order to build a large military industrial complex which is then utilized to obtain foreign resources through brute force and subjugate any domestic dissenters.

    That is the current state of the United States, and the reason why it is bullshit to make an ideological claim that, "if there is no property then there is no liberty." While property can be a good thing, it is not essential to liberty, in reality, it is often a danger to it. The free market theory is nothing but a hoax perpetrated by the ruling class to secure their interests through a double standard whereby they argue that natural competition will cause the best products and the best prices to prevail for the betterment of all, but in reality they manipulate the government and media to secure their own interests.

    So instead of preaching your ideology, perhaps you could open up your eyes to reality and see how the world is truly working in the here and now. "Free market", "Capitalism", "Property", are all wonderful ideas, especially when utilized correctly, but when a layman can observe in the real world how they are being utilized to strip us of our liberty and to commit horrible atrocities overseas, then you are just trying to convince us to piss into the wind.
    Well put. I was gonna jump in here, but this pretty much sums it up.

  9. #29
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Kiddo,

    The claim 'if there is no property then there is no liberty' is not bullshit, and neither have you explained how liberty can be had without property: if we do not own ourselves then in what way can liberty prevail?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo
    The free market theory is nothing but a hoax perpetrated by the ruling class to secure their interests through a double standard whereby they argue that natural competition will cause the best products and the best prices to prevail for the betterment of all, but in reality they manipulate the government and media to secure their own interests.
    It is quite incredible that you think that 'free market theory is nothing but a hoax perpetuated by the ruling class to secure their interests'. The underlying point of my last post was that the principles of capitalism, liberty and property, when understood and applied are incompatible with the interests of those you refer to as 'the ruling class'. I understand that the rhetoric of free markets is often used as a smokescreen for policies which promote a closed market, illiberal legislation and the erosion of property, but it is a leap of the most bizarre kind to then blame the theory and principles of the free market, liberty and property for the hypocrisy of politicians. In other words, if property rights were actually enforced then what you blame on property rights could not occur, since what you describe is the gradual elimination of property rights and liberty.

    This naive idea seems to come from the convention I mentioned previously of calling anybody of wealth or involved in business a 'capitalist', even though the majority are generally opposed to the principles of capitalism. The equivocation leads people to then believe that anybody who is in favour of capitalism must also be in favour of 'capitalists'; that is, people of wealth or involved in business. That suggestion is absurd, and you only have to spend 10 minutes reading the work of those who have supported capitalism to note that they have no love, and are often extremely critical, of corporations, businesses and the wealthy. The solution preferred by the likes of Bastiat, Hayek, Friedman and many others is to restrict the discretionary power of politicians, since it is only because they have such powers that lobbyists court them in the first place. If it were not for the power and wealth centralised in Washington, the there would be little or nothing to gain from lobbying, and special interest groups and corporations would have to behave civilly (God forbid!), instead of uncivilly via the hand of government.

    The idea that the erosion of property rights/liberty can be blamed on the principle of property/liberty is just mind-numbingly dumb.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  10. #30
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Liberty is lost the moment property is capitalized by a small minority. Then society is structured into a small ruling class and a large poor class. This is made possible because the ruling class gains control over the media via ownership and control of the government through lobbying and endorsing politicians. The ruling class then hijacks democracy by utilizing ownership of the media to manufacture consent among public opinion by inspiring fear in the public for the purpose of promoting the interest of "national defense". They do so in order to build a large military industrial complex which is then utilized to obtain foreign resources through brute force and subjugate any domestic dissenters.
    You know? I find it really impressive how you have escaped the maufacturing of consent. You must be a really independent and transcendent thinker. Not like every other gullible fool.

    The ironic thing is that I see your views expressed in the media, online and in books all of the time, so the 'ruling class' seems to be doing a shitty job of manufacturing consent, and so perhaps we are fortunate that our fellow human beings are not the dumb sheep which you depict them like. Here's something to think about. If a New York Times bestseller expresses views just like yours, then the likelyhood is that your views are actually somewhat mainstream and there are many people who think just like you.

    In fact, I think the anti-capitalist views which you espouse are are a hoax perpetrated by the ruling class to secure their interests. It is clear that the principles of capitalism are incompatible with the corporatism, fascism, socialism, or whatever, which the 'ruling class' would prefer. Therefore, I think that you ought to open your eyes and recognise how you are being used and manipulated by these powerful elites to undermine the capitalism which they abhor. If you think that you are fighting against their interests by opposing capitalism then you are labouring under a fatal delusion.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] Sensory stuff you find oddly enjoyable
    By Wolf in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 03-29-2010, 12:41 AM
  2. Yet and Even More 9-11 Conspiracy Stuff On teh Intertubes
    By Abhaya in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-30-2008, 03:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO