NationStates Jolt Archive

anyone remember this thing?
http://www.freestateproject.org/
...bunch of right-libertarians packing up and moving to new hampshire.

now as i recall, they originally intended to call it quits if the didn't have 20,000 people signed up in 5 years. otherwise known as last september. i stopped by their website today - they've gotten all the way up to 7,636 people. since they hit 5,000 back in 2003, we can safely say that they have gotten essentially all the libertarians in the country, and possibly the world, that are willing to suffer the terrible hardship of moving to new hampshire in the furtherance of the cause of cappie-style freedom. truly a dedicated bunch.

so my question to you all is this; what could the liberts do to make themselves into an even bigger irrelevant joke than they already are?

May I ask what is wrong with libertarianism as opposed to:

"...the business of the [politician] is not merely to see that the persons and property of the people are secure from attack, but that he ought to be a jack-of-all-trades--architect, engineer, school-master, merchant, theologian, a Lady Bountiful in every parish, a Paul Pry in every house, spying, eavesdropping, relieving, admonishing, spending our money for us, and choosing our opinions for us. His principle is, if we understand it rightly, that no man can do anything as well for himself as his rulers, be they who they may, can do it for him, and that a government approaches nearer and nearer to perfection in proportion as it interferes more and more with the habits and notions of individuals."

May I ask what is wrong with libertarianism

for starters, it is not libertarian, moral, or effective.

anyone remember this thing?
http://www.freestateproject.org/
...bunch of right-libertarians packing up and moving to new hampshire.

now as i recall, they originally intended to call it quits if the didn't have 20,000 people signed up in 5 years. otherwise known as last september. i stopped by their website today - they've gotten all the way up to 7,636 people. since they hit 5,000 back in 2003, we can safely say that they have gotten essentially all the libertarians in the country, and possibly the world, that are willing to suffer the terrible hardship of moving to new hampshire in the furtherance of the cause of cappie-style freedom. truly a dedicated bunch.

so my question to you all is this; what could the liberts do to make themselves into an even bigger irrelevant joke than they already are?

Keep making South Park more and more preachy.

anyone remember this thing?
http://www.freestateproject.org/
...bunch of right-libertarians packing up and moving to new hampshire.

now as i recall, they originally intended to call it quits if the didn't have 20,000 people signed up in 5 years. otherwise known as last september. i stopped by their website today - they've gotten all the way up to 7,636 people. since they hit 5,000 back in 2003, we can safely say that they have gotten essentially all the libertarians in the country, and possibly the world, that are willing to suffer the terrible hardship of moving to new hampshire in the furtherance of the cause of cappie-style freedom. truly a dedicated bunch.

so my question to you all is this; what could the liberts do to make themselves into an even bigger irrelevant joke than they already are?

Appoint a horse as their leader.

so my question to you all is this; what could the liberts do to make themselves into an even bigger irrelevant joke than they already are?
See, the thing is that most libertarians I met are people who believe in freedom on a level above activism or political action.

They don't strive to control the state, they strive to become as independent from it as possible. Every dollar that leaves the United States and goes to Bermuda or the Cayman Islands is a statement of that.

If you want to call $1.4 trillion in assets in Bermuda alone "irrelevant", go ahead. You can have your ski masks and anti-globalisation protests in the vain hope that somehow the world will suddenly start caring what some activist thinks. The libertarian will instead work to improve his own lot, and eventually buy a house in Newport, RI. :p

See, the thing is that most libertarians I met are people who believe in freedom on a level above activism or political action.

They don't strive to control the state, they strive to become as independent from it as possible. Every dollar that leaves the United States and goes to Bermuda or the Cayman Islands is a statement of that.

If you want to call $1.4 trillion in assets in Bermuda alone "irrelevant", go ahead. You can have your ski masks and anti-globalisation protests in the vain hope that somehow the world will suddenly start caring what some activist thinks. The libertarian will instead work to improve his own lot, and eventually buy a house in Newport, RI. :p

that ain't libertarianism, that's plain old money grubbing. well, in effect it is libertarianism, but it ain't about loving liberty.

which is why we're taking our word back. the liberts can call themselves captains of the freedom ship (http://www.freedomship.com/) if they want.

Appoint a horse as their leader.Such hippocracy.

Well, that all seems a little ridiculous to me. I am libertarian, as far as I understand the definition. To me, it's a belief in and desire for freedom down in your very soul. This includes not wanting to interfere with others business, just as you don't want them interfering with your own. It is a desire to do whatever the hell you damn well want, just so long as you're not interfering with anyone elses right to do the same. It is an understanding that some government is necessary in the same way death is: Both are necessary evils. I say evil because when you start telling other people what do, and will back this up with force, if necessary... Well it looks like a form of slavery to me. I want to be free to smoke in a bar, drink beer, smoke some pot, go to the shooting range or just out in the woods to try my new gun, to keep my own money I worked so hard for (I don't want to do all of these on the same day, of course. That's so irresposible it's unreal And, for the record, I don't smoke pot).

Once again, I am disappointed by other people screwing up such a beautiful and simple idea. Just look at our own Constitution for God's sake! I think that those brave, intelligent men who crafted our Constitution and indeed our very country, the Founding Fathers would agree with me on this one. Or rather, it's that I agree with them. I too want a fair say. I too want representative taxation (I'm not on welfare, I don't care about drugs, guns, or diversity, and I don't want to have MY money spent on legislation for those "Issues").

Really, I think those people out there today need to take a good, hard look at THEMSELVES. The need to have everyone agree with them, live their lives the way THEY want them too, obey all the laws THEY think are necessary, all of that... Well, it smacks of insecurity and a lack of any self-confidence, maturity or intestinal fortitude (i.e. the ability to stand up straight and proud in the world without Daddy Government there to protect them should they fall and scrape their knee.) Maybe some therapy, or world-travel, or a motorcycle is in order.

I suppose I could be wrong though. This is just one man's opinion. I hope you all can respect my right to have one, just as I treasure the fact that you get to have one too.

Once again, I am disappointed by other people screwing up such a beautiful and simple idea.

who is screwing it up? and how?

hmmm it would be cool to see how this worked out if they had 20 000 people. i expect that if they do that there would be way less, 3000 or something, that actually move. that being said it would be cool to see what would happen. i kind of like the idea even though i don't really agree with them.
and at least they are doing something. i find that far more respectable than people with ideas closer to mine who just complain about the status quo and say they can't do anything because they are being opressed by the state. :rolleyes:

Taking back your word?! Libertarians stand for a smaller state, less regulation, more freedom. Socialism can only lead to a huge, omnipresent, corrupt state with a mega-monopoly and that ends up paying for every social program by pinching every last penny before it gets to the pockets of the individuals. Don't believe me? Show me one socialist nation that didn't quickly become the super-state I speak of.

Libertarians are independants, are all about personal liberty. Socialists demand the sacrifice of individual freedoms and property in the name of the community and the state.

You're an embarassment to humanity, Free Soviets. You and those like you act more like ants or termites than the humans.

Why is it libertarians tend to spoil any threads about them?

Taking back your word?! Libertarians stand for a smaller state, less regulation, more freedom. Socialism can only lead to a huge, omnipresent, corrupt state with a mega-monopoly and that ends up paying for every social program by pinching every last penny before it gets to the pockets of the individuals. Don't believe me? Show me one socialist nation that didn't quickly become the super-state I speak of.

Sweden

You're an embarassment to humanity, Free Soviets. You and those like you act more like ants or termites than the humans.

If making sure everyone has a full belly and education is not human then “we are the Borg”

For some reason I thought the title was Librarian activism.

Meh. I tend to tune out the liberts as the ones I personally met are well assholes.

I am sure there are decent types out there. I just have a knack for finding the jackasses.

Taking back your word?! Libertarians stand for a smaller state, less regulation, more freedom. Socialism can only lead to a huge, omnipresent, corrupt state with a mega-monopoly and that ends up paying for every social program by pinching every last penny before it gets to the pockets of the individuals. Don't believe me? Show me one socialist nation that didn't quickly become the super-state I speak of.

Libertarians are independants, are all about personal liberty. Socialists demand the sacrifice of individual freedoms and property in the name of the community and the state.

You're an embarassment to humanity, Free Soviets. You and those like you act more like ants or termites than the humans.

so you've signed up to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous new hampshire for the cause of freedom, yes?

If making sure everyone has a full belly and education is not human then “we are the Borg”
No...you're more like Heinlein's arachnids.

Does half the Minnesota state budget need to go to public education? They spend more on TV ads and lobbying than any other group in the state. And the metro schools are still failing. How much more needs to be spent, nay sacrificed before people realize that you can't just take money from the pockets of the people to throw at your problems, that it's more important how you spend it than how much you have.

Sweden

You win...

And I've a feeling he was confusing Socialism with Stalinism. I mean, Tony Blair is technically a socialist ffs...

Not that he's very good at being one though.

Don't know. EM seems like a decent enough sort, but then, I guess he's closer to the genuine article than those guys.

What I wanted to say though: I always wanted to be an army ant! How the hell did you guess Dosuun?

... Or maybe you're just full of it.

Taking back your word?! Libertarians stand for a smaller state, less regulation, more freedom.
Depends on the definition of freedom. For the most part, though, it's just bogus. Take roads, or railways. I only have one train line through my town, and only one road running to my door. Regardless of whether they were owned by the government or owned by a private corporation, I have to use them, and couldn't choose to use an alternative. As such, if they are private owned, I have no gain in freedom at all.

Socialism can only lead to a huge, omnipresent, corrupt state with a mega-monopoly and that ends up paying for every social program
Good lord. The government paying for its social programmes. How I never.:rolleyes:

by pinching every last penny before it gets to the pockets of the individuals. Don't believe me? Show me one socialist nation that didn't quickly become the super-state I speak of.
Oh come on. Capitalist states can be/are just as corrupt as any other, just as private corporations are and can be.

Libertarians are independants, are all about personal liberty. Socialists demand the sacrifice of individual freedoms and property in the name of the community and the state.
And?

You're an embarassment to humanity, Free Soviets. You and those like you act more like ants or termites than the humans.
*Yawn*

Yet ants and termites can build, for their size, huge structures using mere mud and water. If you want to find a pseudo-strawman for socialism, ants and termites are quite poor.

No...you're more like Heinlein's arachnids.

Does half the Minnesota state budget need to go to public education? They spend more on TV ads and lobbying than any other group in the state. And the metro schools are still failing. How much more needs to be spent, nay sacrificed before people realize that you can't just take money from the pockets of the people to throw at your problems, that it's more important how you spend it than how much you have.
So then, you actually don't have a problem with government taxation and expenditure then?

No...you're more like Heinlein's arachnids.

…so what your saying is I go about working for a boss only now this boss makes sure everyone gets there basic needs

Or does any degree of social policy turn me into a mindless drone because…um…look behind you commies!!!1

How much more needs to be spent, nay sacrificed before people realize that you can't just take money from the pockets of the people to throw at your problems, that it's more important how you spend it than how much you have.

Well lets look at the fact that universal healthcare saves tremendous amounts of money as does most welfare

...

seriously, we'll face down riot cops and soldiers, you guys won't move to new hampshire. wtf?

seriously, we'll face down riot cops and soldiers, you guys won't move to new hampshire. wtf?
The only reason those riot cops are called in is because you raid nearby stores and set trash cans on fire.

I like life in the midwest. I might end up going to SD if the Euphorians in Minnesota keep growing in number and generally make life a living hell in the state where nothing is allowed.

I don't smoke, it's not healthy, but it also is the right of everyone to choose how they kill themselves. Libertarians understand and agree with this, socialists don't. If you don't like smoking then don't. If you don't want to go into a bar that allows smoking then don't. Set up one next to it that's non-smoking and drive the smoking bar out of business.

I don't carry a gun, just a knife. It's my choice to carry a weapon. I'm not going to be caught off guard, I choose to not be a burden to those around me. Libertarians understand and agree with this, socialists don't. If you don't like guns then don't carry one. No one forces you to.

I perform a service for money and believe that it is my right to keep that money and choose how I spend it. Libertarians understand and agree with this, socialists don't. If you think the state isn't getting enough of your money then send it a check. I'm pretty sure they'll be happy to take your donations.

an anarchist calling libertarian ideology pathetic? that's a laugh.

an anarchist calling libertarian ideology pathetic? that's a laugh.

its what gets the two groups off I guess…

Kind of how politics works:

President of the Y movement: “X policies are stupid”

President of the X movement: “your momma”

an anarchist calling libertarian ideology pathetic? that's a laugh.

A true anarchist is going to have serious qualms with anarcho-capitalism, which is by and large what libertarianism stands for.

A true anarchist is going to have serious qualms with anarcho-capitalism, which is by and large what libertarianism stands for.

No "true" anarchist, of course.

*Yawn*

Yet ants and termites can build, for their size, huge structures using mere mud and water. If you want to find a pseudo-strawman for socialism, ants and termites are quite poor.

A hive mind is hardly conducive to a free society. I think that's what the point was...too bad you missed it.

anyone remember this thing?
http://www.freestateproject.org/
...bunch of right-libertarians packing up and moving to new hampshire.

now as i recall, they originally intended to call it quits if the didn't have 20,000 people signed up in 5 years. otherwise known as last september. i stopped by their website today - they've gotten all the way up to 7,636 people. since they hit 5,000 back in 2003, we can safely say that they have gotten essentially all the libertarians in the country, and possibly the world, that are willing to suffer the terrible hardship of moving to new hampshire in the furtherance of the cause of cappie-style freedom. truly a dedicated bunch.

so my question to you all is this; what could the liberts do to make themselves into an even bigger irrelevant joke than they already are?
Can I ask why it makes a person a joke if they refuse to use the gun of government to rape and steal from the population (in the name of the greater good of course) like the thieving socialist dogs?

A hive mind is hardly conducive to a free society. I think that's what the point was...too bad you missed it.

ants and termites don't have a hive mind...

Can I ask why it makes a person a joke if they refuse to use the gun of government to rape and steal from the population (in the name of the greater good of course) like the thieving socialist dogs?

It’s a joke because the economic polices tend to be bunk as do the concepts that if the rich get richer the poor will be better off

Course I would guess you don’t give a rats arse about the poor

Yet ants and termites can build, for their size, huge structures using mere mud and water. If you want to find a pseudo-strawman for socialism, ants and termites are quite poor.

Ants and termites do not have bureaucrat ants that tell the other ants what they should do and how and when they should do it. Ants and termites do not tax other ants for the greater good of the colony. Ants and termites work together in voluntary mutual relationship that benefits themselves first thereby benefiting the entire colony. If anything ants and termites are Anarcho Capitalists.

It’s a joke because the economic polices tend to be bunk as do the concepts that if the rich get richer the poor will be better off

Course I would guess you don’t give a rats arse about the poorIf you cared you would not offer people government solutions. Everything the government does it does horribly.

Course I would guess you don't give a rats arse about the people who were in Katrina.

I hate libertarians.

Ants and termites do not have bureaucrat ants that tell the other ants what they should do and how and when they should do it.

technically they do there are numerous cases of this occurring though its far more common in bees (due to the nest being full of fertile females brimming with eggs they can’t lay)

At the very least Ants in particular have glands that usually perform this task humans don’t though both creatures make use of elders orders

Ants and termites do not tax other ants for the greater good of the colony.

Wrong even bats use a form of welfare

Ants and termites work together in voluntary mutual relationship that benefits themselves first thereby benefiting the entire colony.

Not producing offspring and dieing for the colony isn’t of benefit to themselves and it certainly isn’t voluntary

If anything ants and termites are Anarcho Capitalists.

No monarchist extremists

please take a biology class

Well lets look at the fact that universal healthcare saves tremendous amounts of money as does most welfare

If by "fact" you mean "utter bullshit"...

Everything the government does it does horribly.

That it may be but it still works unlike the policies if pre 1930 that just made the rich richer and usually the poor poorer

Also your using absolutes which is the way of the Sith *nods*

Course I would guess you don't give a rats arse about the people who were in Katrina.

So how much aid did you give to the Pakistan Earthquake? Or do you only care when its cool?

Ants and termites aren't exactly conscious beings, so they are not moral agents. A discussion of them hardly has relevance to a discussion of human government, then.

Call to power: You would do well to learn the basic rules of English orthography.

It’s a joke because the economic polices tend to be bunk as do the concepts that if the rich get richer the poor will be better off
Except that practical experience has demonstrated otherwise.

Of course, not that it matters. Economics is NOT political philosophy. Economics is a descriptive field, not a normative one. Its job is to (a) explain why and how things happen, and (b) predict what will happen as a result of a given action. It cannot tell you whether or not a given end is "good" or not. For that you need philosophy.

Course I would guess you don’t give a rats arse about the poor
Really, it's not about one's personal attitudes towards poor people--it's about what he's prepared to endorse the use of physical force against others for.

If by "fact" you mean "utter bullshit"...

yes European democracies (in particular Nordic nations) are crumbling under are silly socialist ways oh how silly…wait what’s this its working and America is backwards in this respect by Joe it must be Jesus at work!

If by "fact" you mean "utter bullshit"...

Not to mention that both the examples he gave are morally bankrupt, which when politics is concerned is infinitely more important than economic efficiency.

The individual is, properly, an end in himself. He exists solely for his own sake, to serve his own rational self-interest. When he deals with others, it should be based on whatever terms those actually involved can agree on, without outside interference. I will decide what is and is not acceptable for me, and others will do the same for themselves. When our interests coincide, we have a deal; when they don't, we don't. I am a man--a heroic being, a rational agent--not a slave to the collective.

yes European democracies (in particular Nordic nations) are crumbling under are silly socialist ways
Yeah, actually, they are.
oh how silly…wait what’s this its working and America is backwards in this respect

Not really.

First, it's absurd to say something either "works" or "doesn't work" in the abstract. Something can only work or not work AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING A PARTICULAR GOAL. So unless we share the same goals, there's no point in talking about what "works" or not.

And we don't.

I, being a human being, value liberty.
You, being a coward, value security.

yes European democracies (in particular Nordic nations) are crumbling under are silly socialist ways oh how silly…

Given that our economy is kicking your economies' asses, yeah, it's silly.

Course I would guess you don’t give a rats arse about the poor
Actually I hate the rich because they rarely choose to make personal sacrifices. They'll tell the rest of us how to live but refuse to follow their own advice.

That doesn't mean that all the poor are shining examples of how we should act. There are some who simply leech off the system intentionally. I'm not saying they're the majority but they do exist.

technically they do there are numerous cases of this occurring though its far more common in bees (due to the nest being full of fertile females brimming with eggs they can’t lay)

At the very least Ants in particular have glands that usually perform this task humans don’t though both creatures make use of elders orders



Wrong even bats use a form of welfare



Not producing offspring and dieing for the colony isn’t of benefit to themselves and it certainly isn’t voluntary



No monarchist extremists

please take a biology class
Please show a me a website that proves ants force other ants to do their tasks. Show me a picture of a bureaucratic ant. Ants are not monarchist extremist the queen does not rule the ant colony she only lays the eggs.

yes European democracies (in particular Nordic nations) are crumbling under are silly socialist ways oh how silly…wait what’s this its working and America is backwards in this respect by Joe it must be Jesus at work!
It can work to some extent, but it depends on people agreeing to the framework. And that's the important thing: almost anything can work if people are willing.

But you have to have people who are going to tolerate 50%+ tax burdens. In 2001 (not sure about current figures), the US collected about 32% of GDP in taxes. Sweden collected 57%, Denmark 63%.

Believe it or not, but that might be a difference to people. If they're fine with it, then it can work reasonably well. But you can't introduce that sort of thing if people aren't keen on paying the extra taxes, no matter where else it might have worked.

Ants and termites aren't exactly conscious beings, so they are not moral agents. A discussion of them hardly has relevance to a discussion of human government, then.

yep its just more fun to tear Dosuun's argument to pieces

Call to power: You would do well to learn the basic rules of English orthography.

you will have to forgive me on this its always been a problem :(

Except that practical experience has demonstrated otherwise.

yeah the 20th century sure showed that :rolleyes:

SNIP

Well this thread is filled with arguments that Socialism is economically unsound I’m merely pointing that a dash Socialism can do wonders for the economy which is what I see as a key flaw in libertarian thinking

Really, it's not about one's personal attitudes towards poor people--it's about what he's prepared to endorse the use of physical force against others for.

That is more or less where these usually end up but I’ll be darned if I’m going to miss a debate because of it

I, being a human being, value liberty.
You, being a coward, value security.

PWNED!!!

Also your using absolutes which is the way of the Sith *nods* Yesssssss



So how much aid did you give to the Pakistan Earthquake? Or do you only care when its cool?I do not give money to corrupt governments so they can further enslave the population.

PWNED!!!
I think that's the first time I've seen that word on NS:G in anything other than parody.

Can I ask why it makes a person a joke if they refuse to use the gun of government to rape and steal from the population (in the name of the greater good of course) like the thieving socialist dogs?

what? i think you misunderstand the point.

Not to mention that both the examples he gave are morally bankrupt, which when politics is concerned is infinitely more important than economic efficiency.

well if you want me to put morale reasons forward I will but really when we get to morals it becomes a shouting contest

Yeah, actually, they are.

Proof?

First, it's absurd to say something either "works" or "doesn't work" in the abstract

Please show me how this doesn’t work beyond a morale sense (which even then is flimsy)

I, being a human being, value liberty.
You, being a coward, value security.

1) I value my liberty as much as yours fortunately I realise there is a right to the basic necessities of life

2) I really don’t care if you think of me as a coward I don’t like it when people in the first world freeze to death because someone doesn’t care

Given that our economy is kicking your economies' asses, yeah, it's silly.

Newsflash: its not

Actually I hate the rich because they rarely choose to make personal sacrifices. They'll tell the rest of us how to live but refuse to follow their own advice.

*nods* when a rich man loses his wealth we soon find him in the benefit line

That doesn't mean that all the poor are shining examples of how we should act. There are some who simply leech off the system intentionally. I'm not saying they're the majority but they do exist.

That they do but I’d call it a necessary evil

Please show a me a website that proves ants force other ants to do their tasks. Show me a picture of a bureaucratic ant.

I never said there where bureaucratic ants but please read these so you stop making a fool of yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant

http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/workerpolicing.html

Ants are not monarchist extremist the queen does not rule the ant colony she only lays the eggs.

Yeah Queens give off complex hormones for shits and giggles

Believe it or not, but that might be a difference to people. If they're fine with it, then it can work reasonably well. But you can't introduce that sort of thing if people aren't keen on paying the extra taxes, no matter where else it might have worked.

I have to agree but the important thing is here that not allot of people do know that it can work and I think its important to dispel beliefs of the backwards socialism

edit: my internet tube broke :mad:

Yesssssss

:eek:

I do not give money to corrupt governments so they can further enslave the population.

*hands tinfoil hat*

What about self-responsibility? What does a democratic society gain when the government takes on the role of doing what people should be doing for themselves?

Personally, I say that it creates a society of willing slaves who would do anything for the sake of the state, continuously voting in people who would continue said practices, tarring-and-feathering (metaphorically speaking) anyone who would try to end those practices, while the state reminds the people that if x is not done (be it a war, suspension of a right, etc.), they will lose their welfare. And the rich? The rich would love such a state! They would be able to exist independently of the system while using welfare as the pacifier of the people, a carrot and stick in of itself, while they do whatever they wanted. And this goes even for mixed-market economies.

And I will not stand for any system that enslaves my countrymen. What you foreigners do is none of my care, so long as you leave my country alone.

1) I value my liberty as much as yours fortunately I realise there is a right to the basic necessities of life

Rights are something that exist in nature in the absence of civilization, society and government. In such a state, we would all have the right to worship as we please, say what we want, work how we want, live how we want, etc. However,we would not have the right to food , shelter, medical coverage or whatever it is you want to add. If we wanted shelter, we would either have to find it or make it. If we wanted food, we would have to grow it, find it or hunt for it. If any of those were rights, every day would be like when God caused vines to shelter Jonah after he had preached to Nineveh (not important if you believe or not, simply being used to illustrate a point).

At most, welfare is a privilege.

yeah the 20th century sure showed that :rolleyes:

Yeah, it did.

The economic history of the last quarter of the 20th century has been a consistent lessening of economic collectivization.

Really, you should read F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"

I have to agree but the important thing is here that not allot of people do know that it can work and I think its important to dispel beliefs of the backwards socialism
Well, there is the backwards "let's nationalise stuff" socialism, and there's the more up-to-date "let's develop innovative ways to subsidise and sponsor good decisions" "socialism".

...


Except that practical experience has demonstrated otherwise.

Of course, not that it matters. Economics is NOT political philosophy. Economics is a descriptive field, not a normative one. Its job is to (a) explain why and how things happen, and (b) predict what will happen as a result of a given action. It cannot tell you whether or not a given end is "good" or not. For that you need philosophy.


Really, it's not about one's personal attitudes towards poor people--it's about what he's prepared to endorse the use of physical force against others for.

Ah yes, good ol' 19th century. Which was your favorite part: the starving children being mauled in machinery; the refuse in the food; the mass poverty; the workers who complained being murdered by their bosses henchmen; or what?

You do realize that any job you hold is a form of socialism, don't you? Every cent you earn goes to your bosses, who then give you a very small percent of that, and if you're lucky they pay you even less but you get health insurance cheaper. Not to mention they control what you can say, or do, or wear. If you feel that someone can just quit their job, think about: someone who makes that little money can't just quit, and expect to find a job that's any different if they find one at all. If you're financially stable enough to do something like that, then you're the same class of person who could afford to up and move to a different country if you don't like a little of your money going to prevent kids from growing up to be uneducated criminals who'll stab you to death for your pocket change, because it means the difference between living and dying for them.

well if you want me to put morale reasons forward I will but really when we get to morals it becomes a shouting contest
There are none, because there is no virtue in a system that enslaves man to his fellow man.

Proof?
The collapse of the USSR and Nazi Germany. The liberalization of China. America's brief experiment with collectivism that was quickly ended. The boom in the former Warsaw Pact countries. The UK's privatization program under Thatcher.

Etc., etc., etc.

Please show me how this doesn’t work beyond a morale sense (which even then is flimsy)
If you had bothered to read my post, you would understand what exactly it was saying.

Here's a post I made on my blog a week or so ago that explains it in more detail: http://blog.outwardhosting.com/?p=13

1) I value my liberty as much as yours fortunately I realise there is a right to the basic necessities of life
Except there is no such right.

Why?

Because these "necessities" don't come out of thin air. They have to be produced. And if you hold that someone is ENTITLED to them, then that implies an obligation on the part of someone else to PRODUCE them--in other words, slavery.

2) I really don’t care if you think of me as a coward I don’t like it when people in the first world freeze to death because someone doesn’t care
The problem is that you seek to use the state as an instrument of bullying, to compel others to act as you wish them to. In other words, you are a megalomaniacal thug.

I like life in the midwest. I might end up going to SD if the Euphorians in Minnesota keep growing in number and generally make life a living hell in the state where nothing is allowed.

now that is utter dedication to the cause

The difference is that libertarians believe that they are no better than anyone else, socialists believe they are.

However, unlike any other animal, humans are hyper-sympathetic. When we see someone in pain, it's our instinct to help. The best way to show this is how you feel when you see a beggar stretching out their hand. We instinctively want to help, regardless of whether conditioning has made us walk past, we can't help but notice. We're human. Any other animal would not care at all and most animals will simply abandon or kill weaker members of society.

Anthropologists are still trying to figure out what it is in humans that make them thus.

Most people are good people, it's the socialists who have disdain for the abilities of the average person to do good by themselves. The talk of liberating the masses yet actually they seek to control them.

The difference is that libertarians believe that they are no better than anyone else, socialists believe they are.

wtf?

Feel free to refute that:

Tell me why you think there's a need to 'force' people to help through taxes, it's because you don't believe people will do it by themselves. Yet actually, people instinctively help. You must feel superior to other people as I assume you're helping people all the time.

Feel free to refute that

for why?

The difference is that libertarians believe that they are no better than anyone else, socialists believe they are.

However, unlike any other animal, humans are hyper-sympathetic. When we see someone in pain, it's our instinct to help. The best way to show this is how you feel when you see a beggar stretching out their hand. We instinctively want to help, regardless of whether conditioning has made us walk past, we can't help but notice. We're human. Any other animal would not care at all and most animals will simply abandon or kill weaker members of society.

Anthropologists are still trying to figure out what it is in humans that make them thus.

Most people are good people, it's the socialists who have disdain for the abilities of the average person to do good by themselves. The talk of liberating the masses yet actually they seek to control them.

There's no instinct that tells you to help someone, it's a cultural aquisition, just as being cold, greedy, and ruthless is.

Under pure capitalism, the only ones who have the resources to help others on a mass scale are more concerned with the size of their next yacht than how many starve or die of exposure or disease. Sure you get a few Fords and Carnegies, but most are Rockefellers.

Of course, as I said before, if you remove government control on business that just means your boss can do whatever he likes. He can cut your wages, limit your freedom, make you work 14 hours a day, rape your wife, and if you protest, he just has "bob in human resources" smash your head in with a tire iron.

I'm not sure you saw my edit - apologies for adding after:

There's no instinct that tells you to help someone, it's a cultural aquisition, just as being cold, greedy, and ruthless is.

both of those behavior complexes are way too universal to be entirely without genetic basis

Yeah, it did.

The economic history of the last quarter of the 20th century has been a consistent lessening of economic collectivization.

Really, you should read F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"

True, but the economic history of the whole 20th century has been one of increased economic collectivization.

True, but the economic history of the whole 20th century has been one of increased economic collectivization.
Let's all say: the first half was, the second half went back the other way.

I recommend "Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy" to everyone. Really good series.

so my question to you all is this; what could the liberts do to make themselves into an even bigger irrelevant joke than they already are?

They could make large paper mache puppets and perform street theater to protest globalization.

Let's all say: the first half was, the second half went back the other way.

I recommend "Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy" to everyone. Really good series.

It took until around the late 70s and early 80s for the decollectivization to begin.

Uh, that politcal quiz said I'm a Libertarian leaning Centrist.

They could make large paper mache puppets and perform street theater to protest globalization.

yeah, that could work. goddamn puppeteers. but it also would probably result in them getting more press than they do now.

When people say that socialism always requires a large, omnipresent government in order for it to work, they negelect all the grassroots organisations throughout history composed of people who believe in free, egalitarian societies that are truly opposed to opportunistic leaders and numbing bureaucrats.

Consider the Zapatistas, for example. Better yet, consider Anton Pannekoek's book "Worker's Councils" which proposes a society that is more or less grassroots politics and shop-floor democracy. Essentially societies of, by, and for the people in ways that a representative republic cannot be.

When people say that socialism always requires a large, omnipresent government in order for it to work, they negelect all the grassroots organisations throughout history composed of people who believe in free, egalitarian societies that are truly opposed to opportunistic leaders and numbing bureaucrats.

Consider the Zapatistas, for example. Better yet, consider Anton Pannekoek's book "Worker's Councils" which proposes a society that is more or less grassroots politics and shop-floor democracy. Essentially societies of, by, and for the people in ways that a representative republic cannot be.

True, but this is on the edge of what we generally call socialism - local community based welfare is prefectly in line with libertarianism. I suppose part of the issue is that we define socialism/libertarianism by the extremes of what they are - which is helpful, it defines the debate - but we're all individuals at heart and we all want to help others at heart - it's how.

resist....using....fluffles

True, but this is on the edge of what we generally call socialism - local community based welfare is prefectly in line with libertarianism.

Not if it ignores private property "rights."

Okaaay - is it not better to allow someone to own his own property and do what s/he likes there as well as allow communities to share property for those who want that?

Is choice not better than no choice?

Okaaay - is it not better to allow someone to own his own property and do what s/he likes there as well as allow communities to share property for those who want that?

To the (right-wing) libertarian, this choice is the individual's, not the community's.

To the left-wing anarchist (most of us, anyway), this choice is the community's, not the individual's.

See the incompatibility?

Ignoring your definitions and assumptions...

All communities have hierarchies, this is unavoidable, put 3 people in a room and you'll have arguments at some point, naturally 2 will form against the 3rd. A leader, one who is happy to be led and then one who simply doesn't want to be led. What becomes of that 3rd? S/he's outvoted on all issues. Yet you want to force that person to be in the community of 3 rather allow them to go off by themselves.

Ideally we'd love everyone to get along, but we don't, that's simply the way it is. That's the problem with socialism, it wants ideals not realities.

All communities have hierarchies, this is unavoidable,

But there are better and worse ways to reduce the level of hierarchy.

put 3 people in a room and you'll have arguments at some point, naturally 2 will form against the 3rd.

Unlikely.

More probably, there will be no constant majority-minority contrast - certainly when the group is not three but several hundred. People have different interests from one another.

A leader, one who is happy to be led and then one who simply doesn't want to be led.

Why wouldn't the "one who is happy to be led" ever listen to the "one who simply doesn't want to be led"?

Yet you want to force that person to be in the community of 3 rather allow them to go off by themselves.

Actually, we don't.

True on your first point, and it's up to debate.

Two's company, 3's a crowd has some basis. Most likely it will not be constant shifting, it's simply human nature.

Because his/her comfort in life depends on following the leader, listening to the 3rd is not in their interest

Granted, but with only community property - where do they go?

Most likely it will not be constant shifting, it's simply human nature.

Human political nature tends to involve conflicting interests - and not just between groups, but between individuals.

When you don't need large systems of organization to get political positions out there (because we're using decentralized direct democracy), this effect is maximized.

Because his/her comfort in life depends on following the leader, listening to the 3rd is not in their interest

And why is there only one "leader"?

Granted, but with only community property - where do they go?

To another community? And who said that everything would be owned by communities?

No, it tends to be leaders of one point of view against leaders of another point of view with the mass in the middle choosing to follow

...because we're a hierarchical species, all life is, from the food pyramid and expand as you like

...because you don't want private property

Feel free to refute that:

Tell me why you think there's a need to 'force' people to help through taxes, it's because you don't believe people will do it by themselves. Yet actually, people instinctively help. You must feel superior to other people as I assume you're helping people all the time.

Eh, people help others under two circumstances, for the most part(From my experience):

1)When it directly helps themselves.
2)When it the person whom they help known directly by the person.

Rarely, very rarely, will someone help a random joe or jane. People really are quite apathetic to the plights of others, especially when they themselves are in no way affected by it.

I would rather have myself taxed to hell than let someone starve and freeze to death, which happens all to often in this country. One of the main problems is getting the help to where it is needed: Individuals have a great deal of difficulty in this, the government not so much. Unfortunately, the government has to deal with a great deal waste when doing so.

So thus, we have two options:

Most people being apathetic to the cause, or being unable to get resources where needed, and the government wasting a great deal of money on the cause that could go elsewhere.

A rock and a hard place, really.

And Dosunn, you would rather live in South Dakota? Jesus man, Minnesota is getting bad(But ND is far worse still :D), but come on. That is a bit extreme. We haven't reached the point of no return yet, really.

No, it tends to be leaders of one point of view against leaders of another point of view with the mass in the middle choosing to follow

This is indeed an aspect of statist political systems.

Why is it inevitable?

...because we're a hierarchical species

Actually, we aren't.

Plenty of societies have had very egalitarian social relations for thousands of years.

...because you don't want private property

Which does not mean that I necessarily support public property over everything, either.

Actually, we aren't.

Plenty of societies had very egalitarian social relations for thousands of years.




Indeed true. However, this largely is dependent on resource availability than anything. Where resources(Especially animals) are tight, egalitarianism is moreso present due to the nature of the problem: If one person has more wealth(Resources) than another, the group as a whole is weakened, so you share among your neighbors to ensure everyone eats. Where resources are plentiful, hording isn't as much a problem, and thus those with more wealth(Resources) will gain a higher respect, more or less, among their communities. This likely led to hierarchical systems, and some such.

It would be hilariously funny if someone saw this thread and signed up for the FSP.

~~Allanea the FSP member.

This likely led to hierarchical systems, and some such.

Perhaps. But it does not follow that it is necessary that increased wealth lead to hierarchy.

What we know is that human society can function effectively when organized along egalitarian lines. And that's sufficient to dispute the characterization of human social relations as necessarily hierarchical.

Which does not mean that I necessarily support public property over everything, either.

Your first post was about property rights, hence the direction of my points. We're talking about political philosophies here not your personal opinions, nor mine...I hope :)

Perhaps not inevitable, but certainly the reality today - that's why I say socialists talk of ideals not reality.

Seangoli - I understand from your experience but I've a previous post providing basis, humans, more than any other species are inclined to be charitable to each other, to help the sick and needy. In fact the conditioning in society is to halt that. There's a Nissan campaign to drop car keys with a message on them saying 'don't return as Nissan don't need keys' - the effect is to dupe people over their natural instinct to pick up the keys and find an owner. We talk of beggars who actually have great lives and it's a scam, these stories condition us not to help beggars, over-riding our natural instincts.

It would be hilariously funny if someone saw this thread and signed up for the FSP.

~~Allanea the FSP member.

actually that would be excellent. certainly preferable to what i've seen so far. i was actually really interested in the fsp way back in 2001. firstly as an experiment in social influence, but also because i'd always wondered what it would look like if liberts ever tried to do any legitimate organizing and politicing. turns out that by and large, they just ain't interested. which more or less confirms the stereotype of 'em.

Indeed true. However, this largely is dependent on resource availability than anything. Where resources(Especially animals) are tight, egalitarianism is moreso present due to the nature of the problem: If one person has more wealth(Resources) than another, the group as a whole is weakened, so you share among your neighbors to ensure everyone eats. Where resources are plentiful, hording isn't as much a problem, and thus those with more wealth(Resources) will gain a higher respect, more or less, among their communities. This likely led to hierarchical systems, and some such.

Hierarchical systems are to our benefit, in times of crisis it means decisions can be made quickly and effectively to avert that crisis. Humans naturally turn to a 'strong leader'. Rapid response and flexibilty are great aids to survival. It's no surprise that scavengers, which let's face it, humans are, are the most intelligent and among the most succesful among all living groups.

Hierarchical systems are to our benefit, in times of crisis it means decisions can be made quickly and effectively to avert that crisis. Humans naturally turn to a 'strong leader'. Rapid response and flexibilty are great aids to survival. It's no surprise that scavengers, which let's face it, humans are, are the most intelligent and among the most succesful among all living groups.

Actually, that's not true at all. We have noted complete egalitarian societies, with no system of hierarchy at all, that work perfectly fine, and hierarchical societies that have failed miserably.

Really, naturally, we lead more towards egalitarianism and communal societies than anything. The most "primitive" societies actually had(and have) no system of hierarchy at all. It's no surprise that these societies have been remarkably stable for thousands of years. Not to pull a classic anthropological stunt, but take the !Kung for example(Damn, this tribe of people are good for everything, really). No leaders(Infact, they actively discourage hierarchical systems), complete egalitarianism among sexes(Due largely to resources available for gathering, leading to females having a larger role), and a great deal of sharing of wealth(Food). This has lead to a society which has remained completely stable, and incredibly productive(With a great deal of leisure time, and a higher than average quality of life compared to similar groups) for thousands of years. All without any actually hierarchy. Who woulda thunk it? Honestly, "hierarchy as our natural state" is complete bull-infact any first year anthropology student could tell you this. Let alone a major in it*cough**cough*.

actually that would be excellent. certainly preferable to what i've seen so far. i was actually really interested in the fsp way back in 2001. firstly as an experiment in social influence, but also because i'd always wondered what it would look like if liberts ever tried to do any legitimate organizing and politicing. turns out that by and large, they just ain't interested. which more or less confirms the stereotype of 'em.

20,000 is Overkill!

~~ Allanea, Who Is Part Of the First 1,000.

Perhaps. But it does not follow that it is necessary that increased wealth lead to hierarchy.

What we know is that human society can function effectively when organized along egalitarian lines. And that's sufficient to dispute the characterization of human social relations as necessarily hierarchical.

Indeed it is. I was just pointing out, however, that hierarchical societies tend to spring up where resources are plentiful(And by that, I mean more than just subsistence). Not a hard and fast rule, mind you, but just a generalization.

20,000 is Overkill!

not according to their math (which is based on something of a sketchy premise, but anyway...)

I actually agree with this guy. (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=10146.0)

Look at what the 400 people who are already there are doing - there's a TV show, all sorts of protests they help organize (with native New Hampshirites in tow), and such stuff.

I am imagining that by the time I land there's going be way more of this stuff - and I get to have the coolest neighbors ever.

I hate libertarians.
Too bad that the feelings aren't even mutual. Not even dislike. Just utter indifference on my part.



so my question to you all is this; what could the liberts do to make themselves into an even bigger irrelevant joke than they already are?
Ignoring some of the nonsense posted in the OP, there is something they could do - elect Tom Palmer as leader of the LP.

Don't know. EM seems like a decent enough sort, but then, I guess he's closer to the genuine article than those guys.
I am. So are Vittos, Neu Leonstein and Greill and several others on the boards, to my knowledge.

Actually, that's not true at all. We have noted complete egalitarian societies, with no system of hierarchy at all, that work perfectly fine, and hierarchical societies that have failed miserably.

Really, naturally, we lead more towards egalitarianism and communal societies than anything. The most "primitive" societies actually had(and have) no system of hierarchy at all. It's no surprise that these societies have been remarkably stable for thousands of years. Not to pull a classic anthropological stunt, but take the !Kung for example(Damn, this tribe of people are good for everything, really). No leaders(Infact, they actively discourage hierarchical systems), complete egalitarianism among sexes(Due largely to resources available for gathering, leading to females having a larger role), and a great deal of sharing of wealth(Food). This has lead to a society which has remained completely stable, and incredibly productive(With a great deal of leisure time, and a higher than average quality of life compared to similar groups) for thousands of years. All without any actually hierarchy. Who woulda thunk it? Honestly, "hierarchy as our natural state" is complete bull-infact any first year anthropology student could tell you this. Let alone a major in it*cough**cough*.

That's the exception not the rule - please name me 1 mammal group that doesn't have a dominant male/female in their society

That's the exception not the rule - please name me 1 mammal group that doesn't have a dominant male/female in their society

You just made the BIG mistake-One cannot compare different species of animals when trying to assert a point about another. Why, you might ask?

The answer is so incredibly simple, so insanely easy, that I shouldn't even have to answer this: All animal communities work differently. It's that simple. No two animals societies work similarily. Some have strong social bonds, some don't. Some have hierarchal systems, some don't. However, one cannot compare the structure of one species with another, as no two societies work similarily among different animal species. Damn dude, come on. This is basic stuff, here.

But you have to have people who are going to tolerate 50%+ tax burdens. In 2001 (not sure about current figures), the US collected about 32% of GDP in taxes. Sweden collected 57%, Denmark 63%.
Not only that, but the long-term economic performance of these countries is in question. Their systems depend on large-scale immigration, which in turn leads to a higher immigration burden on the system, which in turn requires more immigration to finance this and so on. Their PPP/capita is just above the EU average nowadays, and countries such as Australia and Ireland do just as well as them on various indices. So I still fail to see how these countries are in any way special. Sweden even had a change of government recently towards the right. The only country that is enjoying some deal of prosperity is Norway, mostly due to its oil. Yet even there, it seems the police (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1661877.ece) cannot be relied on.

You just made the BIG mistake-One cannot compare different species of animals when trying to assert a point about another. Why, you might ask?

The answer is so incredibly simple, so insanely easy, that I shouldn't even have to answer this: All animal communities work differently. It's that simple. No two animals societies work similarily. Some have strong social bonds, some don't. Some have hierarchal systems, some don't. However, one cannot compare the structure of one species with another, as no two societies work similarily among different animal species. Damn dude, come on. This is basic stuff, here.

No - they may be different in many many ways but the common theme is the dominant male/female. Name me one without.

No - they may be different in many many ways but the common theme is the dominant male/female. Name me one without.

Common themes are not hard and fast rules in biology. Just general ideas. Here's a tip: Biology loves to break the "rules"(Which really, there aren't many as such).

Anyway, Tigers live mostly solitary lives, as well as bears.

Woo! I win.

Woo! I win.
But then they are an asocial species. I believe Barringtonia was referring to ones with a social organization.

But then they are an asocial species. I believe Barringtonia was referring to ones with a social organization.

He specified only "mammal".

But, fine... since apparently the !Kung aren't mammals, somehow...

To my knowledge, there is no hierarchy in mouse society(To my knowledge-I'm not well versed in... mouseology or what have you).

He specified only "mammal".

But, fine... since apparently the !Kung aren't mammals, somehow...

To my knowledge, there is no hierarchy in mouse society(To my knowledge-I'm not well versed in... mouseology or what have you).

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h035032811323p71/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h035032811323p71/
I didn't use this one in a while, but that deserved it!

http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

I didn't use this one in a while, but that deserved it!

http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

Enjoy this as well :)

The !Kung originally had no permanent settlements, but built simple windbreaks of saplings in a semicircle, tied together at the top and covered with grass. They practiced no agriculture and the only domestic animal was an occasional dog. Their hunting and gathering life has suffered continual encroachment. Some have entered the settled life to work on farms and in recent years have even begun cultivating and herding cattle. Some !Kung have goats.

The majority of marriages are monogamous, normally arranged by senior members of the kinship group. It is preferred to marry cousins, but there is a complicating generational naming system which can limit cousin choices by naming cousins as siblings in certain cases. Children are actively socialized with teaching. Ridicule is used for discipline as well as corporal punishment. The !Kung no longer practice male circumcision as initiation to adulthood. Girls still have a brief initiation among the Zhu/oasi group but female circumcision is not practiced. Important events in the family or community are celebrated by the exchange of ritual gifts.

There are hereditary leaders, sometimes considered chiefs, but they have limited authority. Traditionally social order was enforced by ridicule, dispersal (forced separation) and sometimes even execution. Infractions are now handled through district councils or government courts. There was no formal military system. The San peoples were generally pacifist, though minor skirmishes might occur.

http://cesa.imb.org/peoplegroups/!kung.htm

I'll also bet that there's 1 person who is more respected than the rest even though the tradition is consensual governance.

Also...

Traditionally social order was enforced by ridicule, dispersal (forced separation) and sometimes even execution

Our poor 3rd person

No - they may be different in many many ways but the common theme is the dominant male/female. Name me one without.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

Please read your own cites

The bonding between females allows them to dominate Bonobo society

While social hierarchies do exist, rank does not play as prominent a role as it does in other primate societies.

"The majority of marriages are monogamous, normally arranged by senior members of the kinship group."

so?

There are hereditary leaders, sometimes considered chiefs, but they have limited authority. Traditionally social order was enforced by ridicule, dispersal (forced separation) and sometimes even execution.

the hereditary headman has no power at all (well, had, the forced removals and settlings of recent decades and the imposition of new laws on them has changed this somewhat). think queen of england, but without the pomp, circumstance, or ceremonial significance.

and what of it?

I'll also bet that there's 1 person who is more respected than the rest even though the tradition is consensual governance

so?

[QUOTE=some christian missionary article;12485302]

"The majority of marriages are monogamous, normally arranged by senior members of the kinship group."

so?



the hereditary headman has no power at all (well, had, the forced removals and settlings of recent decades and the imposition of new laws on them has changed this somewhat). think queen of england, but without the pomp, circumstance, or ceremonial significance.

and what of it?



so?

Indeed. None of these directly implies a hierarchy of any kind, really. An administrator really isn't of a "higher class" than a worker, just assigned a different task to do. The same goes, more or less, for "chiefs" of the !Kung.

What is FSP?

The problem with statism in the past was the way the hierachy was involved in superiority; they were regarded more as rulers in the the theme of nobility than just as administrators or specialists of the state.

What is FSP?

the free state project, mentioned in the original post. it's an idea that technically might have worked, if only there were a real number of actual libertarian activists in existence.

Indeed. None of these directly implies a hierarchy of any kind, really. An administrator really isn't of a "higher class" than a worker, just assigned a different task to do. The same goes, more or less, for "chiefs" of the !Kung.

they don't even have administration power, really. they are required to not speak first a band meetings, and they have extra obligations to give stuff away all the time. iirc, their main ceremonial role in most bands was to remind people it was time to move camp and suggest a direction.

Though I find the Libertarian Party to be ideologically extreme, I nonetheless plan on moving to New Hampshire when the lease on my apartment expires. I'm getting a bit sick of the People's Soviet Socialist Republic of California.

The laws here are so restrictive that Everclear has to dilute their product from 180-proof to 151-proof. Because, you know, the 180 shit will ruin your liver, but the 151 won't... :rolleyes:

The difference is that libertarians believe that they are no better than anyone else, socialists believe they are.

However, unlike any other animal, humans are hyper-sympathetic. When we see someone in pain, it's our instinct to help. The best way to show this is how you feel when you see a beggar stretching out their hand. We instinctively want to help, regardless of whether conditioning has made us walk past, we can't help but notice. We're human. Any other animal would not care at all and most animals will simply abandon or kill weaker members of society.


Hmm? What about the apes? For example, why would a male chimp "adopt" two youngsters that were not his own?


Anthropologists are still trying to figure out what it is in humans that make them thus.


I'm not following you.

Most people are good people, it's the socialists who have disdain for the abilities of the average person to do good by themselves. The talk of liberating the masses yet actually they seek to control them.

Hmm? Isn't that a rather broad claim?

I find the Libertarian Party to be ideologically extreme

what does this phrase mean to you?

the free state project, mentioned in the original post. it's an idea that technically might have worked, if only there were a real number of actual libertarian activists in existence.

Ahh, k.

Still don't like libertarianism.

Please read your own cites

The bonding between females allows them to dominate Bonobo society

While social hierarchies do exist, rank does not play as prominent a role as it does in other primate societies.

:confused:

I thought you asked for one that didn't have an alpha?

Still don't like libertarianism.

that's ok - neither do libertarians, apparently

that's ok - neither do libertarians, apparently

They're not even Libertarians! They're free marketeers. I can see this fad dying out relatively soon, whereas true libertarianism will live forever.

http://www.orwell.ru/a_life/Spanish_War/slogans/pts/s1.jpg

what does this phrase mean to you?

They're too minarchist. They don't acknowledge the necessity of economic regulation and certain public services.

that's ok - neither do libertarians, apparently

There may well be many, many more libertarians than we know of that don't support the views of the people who want to set up FSP.

I think that there are many more libertarians but they would most likely be outweighed by the amount of anarchists.

Libertarians would be alot more tolerable if the vocal ones weren't so self-righteous and less right-wing than they are now.

They're not even Libertarians! They're free marketeers. I can see this fad dying out relatively soon, whereas true libertarianism will live forever.

they're a special sort of free marketeers, too. short bus special.

There may well be many, many more libertarians than we know of that don't support the views of the people who want to set up FSP.

what views? the view that liberts are politically irrelevant in the united states? or the view that they could up their relevance by concentrating their numbers and efforts in a particular state with conditions that already (allegedly) incline towards freedom shipping? those are the views in question, and they seem trivially true to me.

they're a special sort of free marketeers, too. short bus special.

Free Soviets, with this old skool flavour you are really spoling us.

Well I can imagine it going like this.

Let's say there was a completely Libertarian type of America out there somewhere that just starts up out of nowhere, and is like America in every way, except it's Libertarian.

Imagine a man, sitting in his home that he recently bought, going through his bills, reading the paper, and thinking to himself "Hey I'm going to give some of my paycheck to my son's school, they're almost entirely underfunded. Let's say, fifty cents a paycheck. If everyone else did the same, the school could afford quite a bit, and would be able to pay their teachers the amount they deserve, and give them the equipment they need."

A year later.

"Man, I've been giving up fifty cents per paycheck, and for what? Nobody else is giving anything! There should be some kind of a law that you have to contribute to your community at least somewhat, and maybe some set minimum that would be automatically taken out of your check - y'know, so society can function correctly. Maybe fix those potholes, as well.

Something like, I dunno, a central legislative body. Maybe we can elect members of such a body in intervals, where people can decide, based on the stances the people have on certain issues, who's to be part of it. Then this central elected body of legislation could pass that law I was thinking about, and collect all the money automatically taken from each paycheck into one collective amount, and call it something - I dunno, taxes maybe.

And they could use these "taxes", as elected officials, to vote on what it could be used for - a certain amount to be divided among schools, an amount for transportation, and other stuff that I can't fix or maintain by myself. I'm a salesman, I have no idea how much should go into the country's education - these elected officials should have a much better idea than I do.

In general I have no idea how to control or create a budget, as well as simply not having the time or will to do so, regardless of how it's needed by the country. These officials should take this heavy burden off the shoulder of the people, and be educated in the situations we need them to be educated in.

Us people really have no idea what we're doing or what we need to be doing with such responsibilities.

Why the heck doesn't the government step in and do something, instead?!"

And why the fuck am I a cabbage patch girl?!

Well I can imagine it going like this.

Let's say there was a completely Libertarian type of America out there somewhere that just starts up out of nowhere, and is like America in every way, except it's Libertarian.

Imagine a man, sitting in his home that he recently bought, going through his bills, reading the paper, and thinking to himself "Hey I'm going to give some of my paycheck to my son's school, they're almost entirely underfunded. Let's say, fifty cents a paycheck. If everyone else did the same, the school could afford quite a bit, and would be able to pay their teachers the amount they deserve, and give them the equipment they need."
...

oh come on - surely you've heard liberts explain where the money comes from and who administers it.

Free Soviets, with this old skool flavour you are really spoling us.

http://sixshoota.blogspot.com/flava%20flav.jpg

libertarians are not anarchists.
we acknowledge that government is necessary for certain functions.

The difference being that libertarians think very few things are best handled by the government.

Lets take the examples of schools - why should I have to pay hundreds of dollars a year to a government monopoly when I don't even have children?

The libertarian solution is that the government has no right to appropriate my money to give to someone else for the substandard education of their offspring. People are free to educate their children any way they want, but it is not my responsibility to pay for their children. They can home-school the children, hire a private teacher, or pay tuition at a private school. If you are feeling generous, parents and alumni can donate money to their school to help out of their own free will. You will be hard pressed to argue that nobody will donate money to schools as alumni donations are a huge part of the budget for most private universities.

Once again, I can choose to donate money to a school if I have some spare cash and make that choice to do so - I should not be forced under the threat of imprisonment to sacrifice resources I need to support a bloated government bureaucracy with the vague intention of 'educating' someone else's children.

...

are you moving to new hampshire?

libertarians are not anarchists.

Many are. Myself included.

Libertarians would be alot more tolerable if the vocal ones weren't so self-righteous and less right-wing than they are now.
Name examples. The abundance of vocal, self-righteous individuals in politics is no surprise though - libertarianism certainly has no monopoly on these. And if by too right-wing you mean we should become more centrist, then you can forget it. If you mean too many alliances with parties like the Republicans, then perhaps I can agree.

:confused:

I thought you asked for one that didn't have an alpha?

I'm guessing his definition of a hierarchy is so extremely broad that it is entirely impossible to find any example, anywhere, where a specific specimen would not fit within his bounds of hierarchy.

Of course, that's why we don't like to rely on such broad terminology, but hey. That's the most of the world for ya.

so my question to you all is this; what could the liberts do to make themselves into an even bigger irrelevant joke than they already are?

Succeed?

Please read your own cites

The bonding between females allows them to dominate Bonobo society

While social hierarchies do exist, rank does not play as prominent a role as it does in other primate societies.You didn't ask for a group of social mammals without social hierarchy, you asked for a group of social mammals without a dominant individual.

I'm guessing his definition of a hierarchy is so extremely broad that it is entirely impossible to find any example, anywhere, where a specific specimen would not fit within his bounds of hierarchy.

Of course, that's why we don't like to rely on such broad terminology, but hey. That's the most of the world for ya.

Why wouldn't we rely on broad terminology - the world is a broad place.

Hierarchy means there's dominant members in society (as per Kung San, Bonobo's, and yes, bears as well - have you see bears fighting? Is it for dominance or because they discovered Starcraft), and one is more dominant than others. In some that dominance is outright, in some it's slight. In some animals are mostly solitary, in some they form a tight unit.

Think of your group of friends - in fact, just think of reality. The world is not equal.

Libertarians don't believe in no government, they believe in the right to choose for themselves. That shows respect for others. Socialists believe choices should be made for people, that shows disrespect for others.

It's easy to be a socialist when you're not faced with reality - hence the phrase: If you're not a communist at 20 you have no heart, if you not a capitalist at 40 you have no brain.

I suspect we've reached an impasse

It's been emotional

are you moving to new hampshire?

It's his choice not to, that's the point.

Hmm? What about the apes? For example, why would a male chimp "adopt" two youngsters that were not his own?

These traits characterizing interactions between adult non-kin seem particularly well developed in humans relative to any other mammal and are probably ultimately based in evolved psychological mechanisms unique to our species.

http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/henrich/gamesvol/hill/hill.doc

It's his choice not to, that's the point.

you can't be this dumb

Hierarchy means there's dominant members in society (as per Kung San, Bonobo's, and yes, bears as well - have you see bears fighting? Is it for dominance or because they discovered Starcraft), and one is more dominant than others.

if what exists in egalitarian societies like the san is 'hierarchy' for you, then your usage is idiosyncratic and wrong in this context

It's easy to be a socialist when you're not faced with reality - hence the phrase: If you're not a communist at 20 you have no heart, if you not a capitalist at 40 you have no brain.

Actually, the quote is more like "To be young and liberal shows that you have a heart. To be old and conservative shows that you have a brain"

It is attributed to Winston Churchill, but he never actually said it.

you can't be this dumb

Please explain?

Your implication was that if the poster was a libertarian he should move to New Hampshire - or was I wrong on that assumption?

G-Max - Aristide Briande

G-Max - Aristide Briande

Bah weep granah weep ninny bon.

Please explain?

Your implication was that if the poster was a libertarian he should move to New Hampshire - or was I wrong on that assumption?

my whole point in this thread is that liberts like to talk a big game and pretend to be captains of the freedom ship and all, but they seem awfully disinclined to actually do anything about it - even a relatively easy and actually plausible sounding plan of concentrating their activities better in a single place. nobody has even come out with the remotely plausible excuse that they feel they can do their best work for the cause of liberty where they are right now, rather than joining up with the fspers. in fact, nobody seems to give much thought to the cause of liberty at all...

reminds me of all those college republicans who loves thems some imperial adventures, provided they get to stay home and 'support' it from behind their keyboards. but even worse - moving to new hampshire ain't exactly a huge personal hardship fraught with death and destruction.

For what it's worth, I plan on moving to New Hampshire when the lease on my apartment expires.

I understand.

I believe there's examples in Australia and off the coast of the UK where people have succesfully formed their own country (in the UK, the guy actually fired on a British Naval Ship and succesfully turned them away). I think the Australian example is based on libertarian grounds although the guy may not help me by calling himself the Grand Emperor or somesuch.

New Hampshire is, I suppose, another example.

Yet most of us make the difference by who we vote for and how we conduct our personal lives, and I suppose in our debates.

G-max, didn't mean to be snarky, it was simply for the record, please send us a postcard when you get there :)

These traits characterizing interactions between adult non-kin seem particularly well developed in humans relative to any other mammal and are probably ultimately based in evolved psychological mechanisms unique to our species.

http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/henrich/gamesvol/hill/hill.doc

Ok. This is hardly damning proof to your earlier claim. That is a claim of the author without comparisons to the apes. In particular pan troglodyte and pan paniscus.

Yet most of us make the difference by who we vote for and how we conduct our personal lives, and I suppose in our debates.

and how is that working out for you?

Pretty good thanks, but then I'm fortunate to live in a country with 15% flat income tax.

Do you pay taxes? Want to pay more? I do hope, as a socialist, you contribute even more than you're asked from your country.

You just made the BIG mistake-One cannot compare different species of animals when trying to assert a point about another. Why, you might ask?

The answer is so incredibly simple, so insanely easy, that I shouldn't even have to answer this: All animal communities work differently. It's that simple. No two animals societies work similarily. Some have strong social bonds, some don't. Some have hierarchal systems, some don't. However, one cannot compare the structure of one species with another, as no two societies work similarily among different animal species. Damn dude, come on. This is basic stuff, here.

I also find it rather amusing that we've found just 2 debateable examples, given this post - fair enough FS, it wasn't your post, apparently it's an anthropologist no less

Ok. This is hardly damning proof to your earlier claim. That is a claim of the author without comparisons to the apes. In particular pan troglodyte and pan paniscus.

Oh man, 'particularly well-developed in humans relative to any other mammal', 'unique to our species' - ask our anthropologist friend for more cites as I really can't be bothered

Do you pay taxes? Want to pay more? I do hope, as a socialist, you contribute even more than you're asked from your country.

why would i, as an anarchist, want to pay for the fascist war machine?

Truly I do not know - why, as an anarchist, are you against small government?

its funny - in answering this and similar questions we often get alternately accused of supporting the expansion of government immensely and of seeking to destroy it utterly, both with some degree of reasonableness. it's probably best to not talk in terms of government, but of the state and similar forms of political organization.

and the answer is that we can do better.

my whole point in this thread is that liberts like to talk a big game and pretend to be captains of the freedom ship and all
And what have you accomplished/sacrificed to further your ends? Anarchists have been around for about a century now, and your greatest claim to fame is knocking off a few early-20th Century politicians.

And what have you accomplished/sacrificed to further your ends? Anarchists have been around for about a century now, and your greatest claim to fame is knocking off a few early-20th Century politicians.

hey, we also lost a couple civil wars.

we may fail, but at least we try in the process.

hey, we also lost a couple civil wars.

we may fail, but at least we try in the process.


Always remember Kronstadt.

Trotsky: Kronstadt sailors, you are the heroes of the revolution.

*has them lined up and shot*

A chicken in every pot, an icepick in every trot.

Oh man, 'particularly well-developed in humans relative to any other mammal', 'unique to our species' - ask our anthropologist friend for more cites as I really can't be bothered

Ok. Then it's nothing more the a claim.

My study is primates. The story of Goliath was just an offer that our actions are not all as unique as you think.

I believe there's examples in Australia and off the coast of the UK where people have succesfully formed their own country (in the UK, the guy actually fired on a British Naval Ship and succesfully turned them away). I think the Australian example is based on libertarian grounds although the guy may not help me by calling himself the Grand Emperor or somesuch.


As far as I know there have been no proper secessions from Australia (may be something on the council level and even then I doubt it) and if which british guy are you talking about? AFAIK the only notable thing I have found is that 'sealand' guy who is on an abandoned sea platform and did not shoot at royal navy vessels (if he did he would have been 'invaded' and arrested.

Name examples. The abundance of vocal, self-righteous individuals in politics is no surprise though - libertarianism certainly has no monopoly on these. And if by too right-wing you mean we should become more centrist, then you can forget it. If you mean too many alliances with parties like the Republicans, then perhaps I can agree.

I was talking more along the lines of the libertarian party in the U.S.A. Since they seem to be the only easily viewable libertarian lot they don't lend the libertarian cause a good name.

There is such a thing as libertarian socialism you know. Probably a centrist libertarian lot as well (as well as being the group that would be most likely to achieve their goal).

There is such a thing as libertarian socialism you know. Probably a centrist libertarian lot as well (as well as being the group that would be most likely to achieve their goal).
I am well aware. Oh, and yes, there is a centrist libertarian group, primarily led by Tom Palmer and CATO. They might as well drop the 'libertarian' tag though, because they have little at all to do with it.

I am well aware. Oh, and yes, there is a centrist libertarian group, primarily led by Tom Palmer and CATO. They might as well drop the 'libertarian' tag though, because they have little at all to do with it.

Well,you seem up with the times then. What exactly makes them non libert?

Well,you seem up with the times then. What exactly makes them non libert?
Their ultimate goal is not to limit the government in size, curb interventionism abroad or anything of the sort. They want to achieve "moderate" change. They even end up glorifying the government half the time (which is why some refer to CATO as STATO). And then there is the fact that Palmer spends half his time smearing and attacking every actual libertarian out there. At best they are a moderate sort of conservative who favour a degree of economic and social liberties.

Taking back your word?! Libertarians stand for a smaller state, less regulation, more freedom. Socialism can only lead to a huge, omnipresent, corrupt state with a mega-monopoly and that ends up paying for every social program by pinching every last penny before it gets to the pockets of the individuals. Don't believe me? Show me one socialist nation that didn't quickly become the super-state I speak of.

Libertarians are independants, are all about personal liberty. Socialists demand the sacrifice of individual freedoms and property in the name of the community and the state.

You're an embarassment to humanity, Free Soviets. You and those like you act more like ants or termites than the humans.

You're a hypocrite. You denounce socialism but quote a democratic socialist in your signature.

The Libertarian movement has attracted so many "protect my capitalism" types that it now caters to it.

There is still a contingency of libertarians who despise the present embodiment of capitalism, and some who despise political efforts altogether.

It is important to note that any recognition of the illegitimacy of government is a positive one, so I don't think you should be too harsh on the movement.

As far as I know there have been no proper secessions from Australia (may be something on the council level and even then I doubt it) and if which british guy are you talking about? AFAIK the only notable thing I have found is that 'sealand' guy who is on an abandoned sea platform and did not shoot at royal navy vessels (if he did he would have been 'invaded' and arrested.

If you type in 'sealand shots fired at Royal Navy' on Google, it's surprising what turns up...

Initial Challenge to Sealand's Sovereignty

By late 1968, the British navy had become aware of the new situation off
the coast of England. They were interested in terminating the state of
affairs brought about by an error committed by the most senior military
authorities without causing too much uproar.

Units of the navy entered the territorial waters claimed by Roy of
Sealand. As he was aware of his sovereignty, Roy of Sealand threatened
the navy by undertaking defensive activity. Shots were fired from
Sealand in warning.

He was summoned to court and won the case as he is in international waters.

For Australia - the Hutt River Principality?

If you type in 'sealand shots fired at Royal Navy' on Google, it's surprising what turns up...

Initial Challenge to Sealand's Sovereignty

By late 1968, the British navy had become aware of the new situation off
the coast of England. They were interested in terminating the state of
affairs brought about by an error committed by the most senior military
authorities without causing too much uproar.

Units of the navy entered the territorial waters claimed by Roy of
Sealand. As he was aware of his sovereignty, Roy of Sealand threatened
the navy by undertaking defensive activity. Shots were fired from
Sealand in warning.

He was summoned to court and won the case as he is in international waters.

For Australia - the Hutt River Principality?


Neither of those are actually recognised by any other states. There are a few other small areas who declare themselves independent of Australia but forthe most part they are ignored (so as to avoid a messy legal situation I guess)

At least that has more validity than the sealand lot. Their 'island' is an artificial construct so it is not recognised as land, just property. They are also in the territorial waters of Britain after britain extended their territorial waters to 12 (nautical) miles (which they were allowed to do under international law). Add that to the fact that they kept their british residency.

They were summoned to court over the shooting at the ship and all the courts confirmed was thathe was in international waters at that time.

Neither of those are actually recognised by any other states.

Taiwan is not recognised as a separate state from China by most countries - is it?

Taiwan is not recognised as a separate state from China by most countries - is it?

It was and in many ways is still considered a defacto independent state. The main point of mine was that it is not recognised as a state by any other states.