| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 11:38 AM
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | Most socialists, however, whether libertarian or authoritarian, do make a distinction between "private property" and "personal property". Personal property would be your car, your house, your PS3, your personal checking account, etc. Private property would be private ownership of the means of production. |
They're creating a false dichotomy. There is absolutely no such distinction in reality.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 11:38 AM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | The problem with a more capitalistic approach to libertarianism however is often those who gain access to higher levels of power will use it to repress information and access, which is against the libertarian concept. Libertarian socialism is supposed to be about fighting oppression. |
| Gettin' In Tune wrote: | | Asymmetric Information may occur in a capitalistic economy. There are ways to mitigate it; signaling, screening, and keeping the internet from regulation. |
It's called "reality". No two people have the same information. There's no harm in it unless fraud is involved.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7220
Local time: 9:38 AM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: | | IE: you say your "libertarian", but use the word "some" to qualify a thing like market competition. |
That only makes sense if you-- |
--don't combine the concept with another incompatible concept, as you are about to do.
| Quote: | | regard "libertarian" strictly as an ideology, |
It's an IDEA. A very simple idea.
| Quote: | | not a general adjective. When I mean to describe the ideology that roughly corresponds to that of the Libertarian Party, I capitalize the L. I believe in a non-authoritarian form of socialism, if that clarfies matters. |
It sure does. It clearly illustrates how your totally confused. How does a "non-authoritarian" form of socialism work? By eternal happy accident, or something more plausible, such as magic?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | You say your "socialist" but you reject drug prohibition. |
Yeah, so? Just because YOU think being a socialist means being some Leninist who wants to regulate an individual's personal choices, doesn't mean I have to fit into your narrow ideoligical box drawn by dichotomous thinking. |
Hold that thought...
| Quote: | | Quote: | | In other words, you mix two totally different, incompatible concepts of what authority other people do, and do not have the right to apply over your life. Your a libertarian if the liberties YOU want are protected, and a socialist if YOUR favorite causes are supported. You don't have the guts to except that being a libertarian means giving up power over other people, and you don't have the brains to realise that being socialist means giving up power over yourself. You want a mixture-- your particular mixture. Your no more revolutionary than some auto worker who will vote for which ever politician makes the most sincere sounding promises to protect manufacturing jobs. |
See above.
|
See below.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | I've been reading your posts since you arrived. |
Pity you are incapable of comprehending them then. "Grrrr. Socialism BAD! Take away freedom! Mao! Stalin! Free-market capitalism or authoritarian communism only two choices! Cheapsurprise smash!" |
Remember when I told you to hold that thought? Check this out:
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | Just because YOU think being a socialist means being some Leninist who wants to regulate an individual's personal choices |
Now check this out:
| Quote: | | I can envision a society where your next-door neighbor might have a nicer car because he works harder or smarter, but you wouldn't have guys like Warren Buffett living like kings while others are living in tenements and shacks. I know that some people would argue that a truly free-market system would actually reduce such glaring disparities of wealth and power, but I just don't buy it-- |
So how are you going to prevent people from earning billions of dollars? How are you going to prevent people from liveing in shacks?
Hypnotism?
Your confusion is underlined as you continue below:
| Quote: | | in capitalism ever increasing capital conglomeration and disparties of wealth are not just an inevitable result, but the engine of the system itself. |
Are you one of those Keynesian retards who thinks that economies are sustained by spending?
The engine of the "system" is the STAR that we orbit. Your "capital conglomeration" and "disparities of wealth" are just your loaded terms for natural, and completely unpreventable side effects of multiple people being alive at the same time.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7220
Local time: 9:38 AM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | Moloth wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | Only on AF a thread entitled, UK Police to learn Quran and sharia, can become a battleground on Libertarianism...  |
and only you would complain about it...
this thing is almost 20 pages long. conversations are organic and flow. |
If people are interested in debating Libertarianism, I have no problem. A mod (like Ivan who is fucking sleeping at the wheel) could easily split the thread... This is not rocket science... |
It's not the space program either. Have you got this in perspective now? You should be kissing Ivan's ass, not accusing him of negligence. He's not your janitor, he's your advocate. Without mods like him in the tower, to argue the case for tolerance, fuckheads like you would be banned for "trolling".
Count your blessings, dip-shit.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3881
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | The economic superstructure, employment and property relations would be the "socialist" part. All forms of socialism ultimately seek an economic system which is designed to limit large conglomerations of capital (and thus power), democratizes the workplace, and limits large disparities of wealth and power. |
And how are you gong to achieve all this without authoritarian institutions, or infringing on people's property?
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3881
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | Personal property would be your car, your house, your PS3, your personal checking account, etc. Private property would be private ownership of the means of production. |
So I wouldn't own my body, my garage and my tools, my computer, my kitchen and all it's accessories... they're all means of production you know.
And how exactly did you fit my car into personal property? What if I want to start a transportation service?
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gettin' In Tune
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 2445
Local time: 12:38 PM
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | Godless Red Scum wrote: | | Personal property would be your car, your house, your PS3, your personal checking account, etc. Private property would be private ownership of the means of production. |
So I wouldn't own my body, |
You just fucking tossed a dart. Nice Bullseye!
We have the right to our bodies and to our creative capacities. This is a cornerstone of libertarianism or what I rather rightfully claim as Liberalism. Socialists rather ignore this fact and sugar coat it with a sweet, but disillusioned utopia of equality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2295
Local time: 12:38 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gettin' In Tune wrote: |
A libertarian socialist is an oxymoron. A libertarian values the individual, while socialism values the collective.
|
Not so, you can value both.
| Gettin' In Tune wrote: |
Economic disparities are not necessary a bad thing. Disparities spring up via hard work and natural skill. If people are living in shacks in this country, then I lay the blame on them more than I would capitalism. The US is not a perfectly free market, but people can put themselves ahead via hard work, skill, and the occasional luck. |
This may be more the case in the U.S. than in other countries, but it's not completely true. There are disparities due to other factors besides personal motivation or dedication. Racial, ethnic, and sexual discrimination still exists in the country despite what some people may think. Slavery was institutionalized less than 200 years ago. Women didn't even get the right to vote until 1920.
| Gettin' In Tune wrote: |
Taking away people's voluntary agreement is restricting. Labor Unions are coercive in nature. Labor unions form a barrier to entry to employ your labor. Labor unions create unemployment and also distort the market price. Worker collectives on the hand are slightly different. People have the right to form into voluntary collectives and own a business. When these collectives are founded on voluntary agreements, usually fare well. |
Historically, labor unions have most often been at the receiving end of violence from management. I think you have it a bit backwards as to who is more coercive. Luckily in the United States workers have the right to join a union, or you would see a helluva lot worse working conditions. The recent collapses of Mr. Murray's mines and his anti-union stance are a case in point as to how unions are still relevant to worker rights and safety in the U.S.. Look at statistics as to how the wealth in the United States has become much less distributed, the smallest .01 of the population has had near a 500% increase in wealth while the rest of the population's wages have remained stagnant. How then are Labor Unions responsible for unemployment when corporate profits are at record levels? CEOs receiving millions of dollars in severance packages while their lending companies collapse due to bad loans, and labor unions are responsible? Unprecedented tax cuts for the wealthiest in society, and labor unions are responsible for budget shortfalls? I don't see the logic behind that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gettin' In Tune
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 2445
Local time: 12:38 PM
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Not so, you can value both. |
I like babies. They are tasty. I like shrimp. They are cute. I can value both, but baby shrimp is an oxymoron just like libertarian socialist. What do you value? The individual or the collective? It cannot be combine, but just perverted.
| Quote: | | This may be more the case in the U.S. than in other countries, but it's not completely true. There are disparities due to other factors besides personal motivation or dedication. Racial, ethnic, and sexual discrimination still exists in the country despite what some people may think. Slavery was institutionalized less than 200 years ago. Women didn't even get the right to vote until 1920. |
And your point is?
| Quote: | | Historically, labor unions have most often been at the receiving end of violence from management. I think you have it a bit backwards as to who is more coercive. |
I will admit that labor unions served their purpose in the history of the US. Working conditions during the Industrial Revolution were horrendous. If people's rights are being violated, then they have the right to organized. If you want to argue that grocery workers need an union, then I will debate.
| Quote: | | Luckily in the United States workers have the right to join a union, or you would see a helluva lot worse working conditions. |
Is this why guilds repressed Britain's economic growth?
| Quote: | | The recent collapses of Mr. Murray's mines and his anti-union stance are a case in point as to how unions are still relevant to worker rights and safety in the U.S.. |
Jesus Fucking Christ. Mining is one of the most dangerous jobs. Unions won't change this fact.
| Quote: | | Look at statistics as to how the wealth in the United States has become much less distributed, the smallest .01 of the population has had near a 500% increase in wealth while the rest of the population's wages have remained stagnant. |
Fallacious logic.
| Quote: | | How then are Labor Unions responsible for unemployment when corporate profits are at record levels? |
If unions increase the wage, then they enact a wage floor. I will argue that this wage floor is above the equilibrium wage, thus causing unemployment. Unions only exist in trades, which is a historical extension of Britain's guild.
If I were you, I would be arguing for unions in the retail industry. Why isn't your Marxist ass fighting for retail unions?
| Quote: | | CEOs receiving millions of dollars in severance packages while their lending companies collapse due to bad loans, and labor unions are responsible? Unprecedented tax cuts for the wealthiest in society, and labor unions are responsible for budget shortfalls? I don't see the logic behind that. |
Non=sequiter. I don't see your logic.
Last edited by Gettin' In Tune on Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:27 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3881
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gettin' In Tune wrote: | | floor ceiling |
You mean a price floor (or a wage floor in this case).
You can either have a price/wage floor or a price/wage ceiling.
What the hell is a floor ceiling? 
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gettin' In Tune
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 2445
Local time: 12:38 PM
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | Gettin' In Tune wrote: | | floor ceiling |
You mean a price floor (or a wage floor in this case). |
Lol at my dumbass for that. A floor ceiling...oops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3881
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Historically, labor unions have most often been at the receiving end of violence from management. |
For most of the time of their existence they've had the backing of government guns, so historically your argument fails.
I'd also like to discuss a specific example of said violence against labor unions, because truth be told something stinks about this claim.
| Quote: | | I think you have it a bit backwards as to who is more coercive. Luckily in the United States workers have the right to join a union, or you would see a helluva lot worse working conditions. |
Oh horseshit.
The conditions and wages were constantly improving before unions were involved in anything.
| Quote: | | Look at statistics as to how the wealth in the United States has become much less distributed, the smallest .01 of the population has had near a 500% increase in wealth while the rest of the population's wages have remained stagnant. |
It has to do with the monetary system. Inflation robs the poor and the middle class while benefiting the rich.
But if you don't agree, can you explain how is it that unions managed to improve workers' conditions a century ago, even tough they were violently opposed, but seem to be unable to do shit today, even tough they have unprecedented legal privileges?
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 12:38 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Moloth wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Only on AF a thread entitled, UK Police to learn Quran and sharia, can become a battleground on Libertarianism... |
and only you would complain about it...
this thing is almost 20 pages long. conversations are organic and flow. |
If people are interested in debating Libertarianism, I have no problem. A mod (like Ivan who is fucking sleeping at the wheel) could easily split the thread... This is not rocket science... |
It's not the space program either. Have you got this in perspective now? You should be kissing Ivan's ass, not accusing him of negligence. He's not your janitor, he's your advocate. Without mods like him in the tower, to argue the case for tolerance, fuckheads like you would be banned for "trolling".
Count your blessings, dip-shit. |
Fuck off you stupid asshole. Ivan split the thread AFTER my complaint. Otherwise this debate would still be part of UK Police to learn Quran and sharia.
And you're a Mod, what a fucking screwed up place this is...
BTW, ban me, I couldn't care less... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gettin' In Tune
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 2445
Local time: 12:38 PM
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joe,
I like you and respect you. I think you are more of a physicist than a political economist. Lately, you have only been complaining about the political debates and not adding to them. What is up with that? I really do not know where you stand on the issues besides your dissents. The mods here are very limited. I can recommend other sites where the mods have more power and you have less individual freedom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 12:38 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gettin' In Tune wrote: | Joe,
I like you and respect you. I think you are more of a physicist than a political economist. Lately, you have only been complaining about the political debates and not adding to them. What is up with that? I really do not know where you stand on the issues besides your dissents. The mods here are very limited. I can recommend other sites where the mods have more power and you have less individual freedom. |
Have you followed the sequence of events? This thread was initially about UK Police to learn Quran and sharia. It became a debate about Libertarianism, which I complained. Was I wrong? Then, someone, I presume Ivan, splitted the thread, which became this one Libertarian Socialism, which was okay. Then cheap comes in with this low underhanded post. Was I supposed to ignore it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
