angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 The other thing you said that was quite interesting to me was that colonial times would seem like relative anarchy compared to now. I see your point, the federal or colonial government would have little influence on or power over people in 18th century America. But at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution, most people's lives, and the course of their lives, were far more prescribed than our lives today. Most people did what their parents did. The church had more control over their lives. Communities were smaller and closer, people were shamed out of bad behavior and encouraged into good behavior. We have much more freedom to choose our direction in our jobs, relationships, where we live, etc., because many social controls are modified or non-existent. Our freedom to choose a career is a double edged sword as well, since we are also free to fail. In 18th century America, the prodigal son would return and the community would pick him up. 20-21st century prodigal son may have no one or where to return to. We have welfare of course, but libertarians want to abolish it, even though its predecesor no longer exists and its successor is not apparent. To summarize, we live in a fundamentally different world than 18th century Europeans and Americans. Indeed, the opening of the 20th century was a sea change from the end of the 18th. What is freedom and what is not freedom has changed, it is never universal, and never as simple as you seem to make it out to be. i think the concept of freedom under natural rights theory has always been universal and always will be. for instance, i dont think people could ever think human chattel slavery was 'freedom.' yet when people are chained to the state, they think this is freedom. i think your first paragraph up there addresses a key point. hobbes vs locke. if humans are free, do they have to rely on themselves and communities? or when humans are free, do they kill each for looking at one another cross ways? the very heart of the debate is...is liberty the mother of order or the daughter? im thoroughly convinced liberty is the MOTHER of order, not the other way around. given that all state invervention has unintended consquences, i think its quite clear the state creates many more problems than it solves. in refererence to welfare you cannot negate the fact that the state has replaced the family and the community in these areas. i think you realized this but didnt really blame the government for taking away the community/family aspects of the sitaution you talked about above. if the state no longer acted as the 'safety net' people would be forced to rely on themselves. its in effect a moral hazard. you tend to act differently if you have something to fall back on. if you have 5 million in cash sitting in a bank account, you probably dont really care if you boss at your job fires you all that much. if you have nothing to fall back on at all, you might really try to do your best at your job and do as much as you can to excel, get promoted, open your own business, etc. but if you have a high social safety net, it creates a moral hazard type situation, not unlike the bail outs. people take risks, and do stupid things, knowing full well they have the government to fall back on. which is why we have this new phenomenon among hipsters and im sure familiar to many on this board....leaving your job, getting unemployment and traveling for a year while collecting a check. or college kids with parents paying 30K a year for school, on food stamps shopping at the farmers market. i also think the 'inflexibility' of a particular philosophy is a good thing, especially when used for the 'right' purpose. of course, i would of liked hitler to be a bit more 'flexible' instead of instituting the 'final solution...' but i digress if you believe that you own your self, you are necessarily against slavery in all its forms. any power over you that you did not consent to is illegitimate. in the the same way you cant just be 'a little bit pregnant...' you are either free or your arent. to me there is nothing capable of 'flexing' on that. you are either enslaved or you are free and any arbitrary power over you is necessarily evil, unless you consent to it. now, the situations in which you may live might not be stalinist russia, just like there probably were some well treated slaves on certain plantations, but the fact remains you are still a slave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Considering America is a society that is resposible for eachother's wellfare through the state, wouldnt that be a rejection of society? Senior services, public roads, public schools, fire departments, etc. By not paying for those what is your stance on society? this is akin to saying you are against slaves if you dont praise the slave owner. after all the slave owner is responsible for the slaves welfare. by not supporting the slave owner, you are 'rejecting' the slaves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Or maybe im misunderstanding what you're trying to say. If you were to not partake in anything related to the state: I.E. not pay taxes, not vote, only use private schools, private libraries, private zoos, private roads, private soup kitchens, products from private companies who've never taken advantage of public loans, never pay into or take out of social security, never purchase property within the state, never use a public fire department or call the police.... if you had no part in any of that, what's left for you to connect to your fellow americans with? WOW. by not calling the police or using a government loan, you cannot connect to your fellow americans? GOT DAMN, public schools brain washed the F out of you. just sayin, that is probably the siliiest thing you have EVER written. What do you think about 12 year old Middle Americans allowed to plow fields for $2 under minimum wage? That currently exists. so what you are saying is someone is breaking the current law, so another law will fix this. got ya. makes perfect sense. those stupid murderers dont pay attention to murder laws, so now we gotta lock up peaceful gun owners who have aggressed against no one, because its possible to use a gun to kill someone when a deranged murderous criminal gets a hold of one. joel salatin, a well known person in the 'food' culture today, who is a hero of the left if there ever was one, has a great theory that says the reason why we have roving teenage gangs today is because the things kids used to do to wear them out, where they went to bed at 8pm is now illegal. what about parents? where are the parents in these situations? something is telling me that we dont have millionaires sending their kids off to 'plow fields' (what are these 12 year old kids operating 100K tractors all by themselves?) making 2$ an hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Dude, austrian economists aren't the only people who are academics in the field of Economics. There are plenty of economists that instruct on the college level that are Keynesian, Austrian, Marxian, Syndicalist, etc. The only people who say shit like "if you ain't da free market, you don't know da economics" are fucktards that live on the Ludwig von Mises institute and haven't gone on in economics past their undergrad. keynesianism, marxian, and obviously 'syndicalist' have been completely discredited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 It amazes me how narrow minded AOD is for his own point of view. It seems that he thinks he has all the answers and if we just went along with his thought process, we will be living in utopia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 i thought i had a more complete response about a social contract until this society v state element came up. yes, i am framing them as one thing, i don't know how american society could exist without the constitution or the government that is loosely guided by it. google defines society: 1.The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. 2. The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations. both of those require some sort of agreement by a majority or a leader (government or state) as to what is beneficial to the group. yes? i'll let the person this was addressed to respond fully, but... i dont think 'order' requires a state or government at all. nor to customs, etc need to be given to people from down on high. i see individuals not groups. if people want to voluntarily interact, that is their choice. i dont think a monopoly on force with official sanction to use legal violence against people who have aggressed against no one, is needed to tell individuals what to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 keynesianism, marxian, and obviously 'syndicalist' have been completely discredited. links or it didn't happen. Why don't you refute the libertarian critique (from an anarchist perspective) in the other thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 check out and discuss: The Myths of "Libertarian" Economics i'd rather run by nuts over a cheese grater, but i'll say this and move on: the marxist labor theory of value is completely false, and the subjective theory of value is correct, because your thread has absolutely no value to me. if LTV is correct, i would have to agree it has value. consumers wants and needs are subjective. period. if you dont believe that, try telling your boss that you think digging a foundation for a house with a teaspoon is just as effective and valuable as me using a back hoe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Is this thread even about ronnie paulie anymore? Or is it about the AOD and Aussie Francis make believe world? Even their so-called Libertarian thoughts are diverging from Ron Pauls. Also, I find if very hypocritical that AOD does not even vote, yet he has such a large opinion about politics. When was the last time any of you have discussed how he is doing on his campaign or anything else related to it?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 i think we decided a while ago that it made just as much sense to discuss/debate libertarian theory in the ron paul thread, instead of starting a new thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 But is it really libertarian theory that is being discussed? It seems to be a blend of a few different viewpoints. Is there a name for a viewpoint that is only about the selfish wants of individuals who deny reality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 haha so you think white guys do white guy stuff and Mexicans do Mexican stuff and that's what constitutes pluralism? How simplistic. Anyway I should have known better than to bother engaging with our local npr podcast expert. Of course you're right dude, you are always right! Right? I don't know what white guy stuff is, but I definitely don't only speak spanish, work for $4/hr and stand on the side of the road waiting for someone to give me unskilled manual labor. "Pluralistic Society A society comprised of people from numerous different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Although some integration and acculturation is only natural, a pluralistic society is one that acknowledges and allows for the cultural diversity of its citizens." While you're at it, why not expound on whether a "brick wall" really can't "talk back." And what's with the constant name changes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 It amazes me how narrow minded AOD is for his own point of view. It seems that he thinks he has all the answers and if we just went along with his thought process, we will be living in utopia. No, just no. In fact if you read Libertarian philosophy you would realize the argument against this "utopia" that people like you attempt to create. There is no utopia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 You assume a positive utopia is what I am talking about. I am talking about the 1800s hard labor in the field utopia that you idiots idealize. All of you make it seem that if you are not breaking your back, you are not suppose to get paid a decent wage. Your "no utopia" statement backs this up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Breaking your back? What are you talking about? Wages? All I was saying is, Libertarian philosophy acknowledges that a utopia is not obtainable. So attempting to do such with legislation, and expanding government is just not going to solve the problem at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Also to associate Libertarian philosophy with some kind of Amish lifestyle is comical. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Ok, so a utopia is not attainable. Lets all just work in factories and fields for less then minimum wage, because that is what our labor is worth comparatively. You truly are learning disabled, aren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 i thought i had a more complete response about a social contract until this society v state element came up. yes, i am framing them as one thing, i don't know how american society could exist without the constitution or the government that is loosely guided by it. google defines society: 1.The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. 2. The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations. both of those require some sort of agreement by a majority or a leader (government or state) as to what is beneficial to the group. yes? "American society". Case in point. I think it is quite a complex topic though. I think this definition is fairly satisfactory, although I do not accept laws, in the positive sense, to be a key characteristic of a society. I would more so accept 'living laws', as an outcome of shared customs, to be an contributor to society. So, premised by saying positive laws are not an intrinsic aspect of society, how can you say fundamentally that what goes on within the borders of the USA is American society? Why is society attributable to a national base unit? On a larger scale, is the West also a society? Or on a smaller scale, do cities or neighbourhoods have societies? Why does a society depend on being homogeneous within a geographical area? Perhaps do societies exist as intersecting networks? Are graffiti writers, for example, members of a society that cycling enthusiasts are not? As per my post earlier, I see society to be a multiplicity of forms. There is no one society, but many, that people intersect with often at the same time. As the state is virtually all pervasive, it influences many of these multiple forms, yet at no point does it fundamentally define them. Even if society was to be attributed to the social interactions born of national institutions and forms of order it would not solely be a characterised by the state, but also of the social norms belonging to those who interact with these institutions and forms of order. In this way even a 'national' society is one that is larger that the state. In accordance with this characterisation the state perhaps enables, yet exists within, society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I don't know what white guy stuff is, but I definitely don't only speak spanish, work for $4/hr and stand on the side of the road waiting for someone to give me unskilled manual labor. "Pluralistic Society A society comprised of people from numerous different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Although some integration and acculturation is only natural, a pluralistic society is one that acknowledges and allows for the cultural diversity of its citizens." While you're at it, why not expound on whether a "brick wall" really can't "talk back." And what's with the constant name changes? This definition just points to the inadequacies of classical pluralist theory. Assuming that you find society to be a property of state institutions then historically there have only ever been a small fraction of states who have not been pluralistic in some way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Ok, so a utopia is not attainable. Lets all just work in factories and fields for less then minimum wage, because that is what our labor is worth comparatively. You truly are learning disabled, aren't you? What? Who even said this? It is ultimately up to yourself to get educated and get out in society to be productive, you determine your own self worth. If you do nothing to raise the value of your contribution to society why should you have status over someone who has? Why do you assume that in a society structured in the way that I see it should be structured you assume a backwards transition back to the middle ages?? Or whatever time period you feel is more accurate. I see no reason for this connection. Yeah, I have multiple learning disabilities. One of them includes discussing things of this nature over the internet with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 This definition just points to the inadequacies of classical pluralist theory. Assuming that you find society to be a property of state institutions then historically there have only ever been a small fraction of states who have not been pluralistic in some way. At this point It's not theory. It's a word with a definition. Maybe it was theory 2000 years ago when people actually talked like you but since then we've got the word "pluralism" written down in dictionaries. Society isnt property of the state. "The State" as in Public Wellfare, Public Education, Public roads, public utilities, public services, and public institutions is the commonwealth of society. Do you actually have a grasp on libertarianism (or the english language) or are you going to continue to sink this conversation into the abstract with rhetoric and philosophy? Rhetoric and philosophy are pretty cool in a conversation about rhetoric or philosophy, now they're used by pseudo intellectuals who dont actually have a grasp on the conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 What? Who even said this? It is ultimately up to yourself to get educated and get out in society to be productive, you determine your own self worth. If you do nothing to raise the value of your contribution to society why should you have status over someone who has? Why do you assume that in a society structured in the way that I see it should be structured you assume a backwards transition back to the middle ages?? Or whatever time period you feel is more accurate. I see no reason for this connection. Yeah, I have multiple learning disabilities. One of them includes discussing things of this nature over the internet with you. The way you see things only applies to small towns and simple labor trade arrangements. It does not apply to multi-national corporations and financial markets that do not involve labor, which are the cause of the financial failures we currently are having and the libertarian nonsense does not include in their viewpoints. You seem pretty naive and are willing to disregard the realities of todays global markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Cilone really? Lotsbrains says utopia doesnt exist and HE's naive about the realities of global markets? Cmon now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 joel salatin, a well known person in the 'food' culture today, who is a hero of the left if there ever was one, has a great theory that says the reason why we have roving teenage gangs today is because the things kids used to do to wear them out, where they went to bed at 8pm is now illegal. what about parents? where are the parents in these situations? something is telling me that we dont have millionaires sending their kids off to 'plow fields' (what are these 12 year old kids operating 100K tractors all by themselves?) making 2$ an hour. I think if you can pay a bunch of 12 year olds $3/hr BELOW min wage then you dont have to shell out 100k for a tractor, but I could be wrong. Cheap manual labor is at least why there's hardly a machine in the factories where apple products are made (which is also where the highest suicide rates are in china). Anyway 12 year old labor is an existing reality in the mid-west. Children are allowed to plow fields on non-school hours if they're 12 or older, and by law they're payed below min wage because they are minors. Everywhere else the minimum working age is 16 and paid minimum. I dont limit the "gang" phenomena to out of work kids. I think adults partake in gang activities as well. Most crime happens in blue collar areas where the antisocial unskilled uneducated laborer can make a living by lifting heavy things and using their body. And during the era when blue collar work fueled most of small-town america, nightly barfights was just part of the culture. What you see happening in gentrified areas is a reduction in crime, because people who make a living by being social, mild mannered, and educated generally dont partake in any of the same barfighting activities. Overall crime in America is on the decline. I see that being in conjunction with an increasing demand for white collar work, and blue collar work drying up. I agree that kids need to have chores and develop positive activities and hobbies, but child labor laws are there to protect kids from being sold by their parents/orfanages into indentured servitude as was popular in the 17-1800's in america, and still popular in developing countries. Right now kids who drop out of highschool and start working have 20% unemployment. College grads float around 2%. Imagine the unemployment rate if Jr high kids were allowed to drop out and perform work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 At this point It's not theory. It's a word with a definition. Maybe it was theory 2000 years ago when people actually talked like you but since then we've got the word "pluralism" written down in dictionaries. Society isnt property of the state. "The State" as in Public Wellfare, Public Education, Public roads, public utilities, public services, and public institutions is the commonwealth of society. Do you actually have a grasp on libertarianism (or the english language) or are you going to continue to sink this conversation into the abstract with rhetoric and philosophy? Rhetoric and philosophy are pretty cool in a conversation about rhetoric or philosophy, now they're used by pseudo intellectuals who dont actually have a grasp on the conversation. haha of course it is theoretical! Pluralism, like all concepts of the social sciences, doesn't exist in an objective sense, it is a theory or analytical tool to explain certain social phenomena. Anyway, we've had similar conversations in the past and given how shit seems to spark between us I'm not that keen to repeat them. The scope of politics, or the focus of certain social disciplines spring to mind. You will say 'check the dictionary brotard' and I say 'the dictionary is not always that precise cornball', or something like that. Can we not and say we did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.