It's All Over Folks

[Canna Sylvan]

You confuse Big Government as automatically being left wing its just not the case at all, this is part of the republican propaganda.

No I don't. My problem with socialist libertarianism is the consensus and group think requirement. That get's rid of the individual rights requirement. Democracy, no matter how well intentioned, will always trample individuals.

My second problem with socialist libertarianism is the experiment requirement. The whole agrees with what will be "best" for the whole. Since only the individual knows what the individual wants, the socialist libertarian is continually "perfecting" SOCIETY.
So pretty much socialist libertarians are liberals who want the same feel warm and fuzzy, but at the same time have a mechanism to fix what their group think always fucks up.

Individual libertarianism with property rights doesn't mean capitalism with a price system. If you get rid of the price system, it doesn't mean automatically you need to sing kumbaya and no one has personal property anymore, or we must share, or individuals MUST automatically own their own labor or any other feel good bullshit.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

You also confuse technocracy with this:

"Some uses of the word technocracy refer to a form of meritocracy, a system where the "most qualified" and those who decide the validity of qualifications are the same people."
Technocracy is actually the most libertarian philosophy. Only those most qualified make decisions. Ron Paul would know how to deliver a baby, but does he know about packet theory? So why should he or any other politician make rules or regulations which can potentially harm the efficiency or work around those requirements because some dipshit politician isn't a network engineer and only has feelings how the internet must be?

 

[abandonconflict]

Do I really gotta break out our graph for you? Libertarian/Anarchy includes both left and right TECHNICALLY

While technically - there is such a thing as a right libertarian - TECHNICALLY - there really is no ideology or philosophy that is a right libertarian, MOST libertarian and anarchist ideologies and philosophies are infact on the left in social liberties, market anarchy and Laissez-faire being the only thing I can think of that's even remotely to the right. A 'Ron Paul' type libertarian would actually be in the center - free market etc...

Find me a right wing libertarian or anarchist in wilkipedia I challenge you lol just look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

You will find that there is practictly no such person/thinker that has ever existed!


You confuse Big Government as automatically being left wing its just not the case at all, this is part of the republican propaganda. This is exactly what the republicans try to get people to think, that they(Republicans) are libertarian. Double fucking whammy because they get to make the liberals think that libertarians are republican...when the fact is EVERYONE is a libertarian to some degree! bingo bango divide and conqueor!

Right here, this guy just laid out the truth for all of you. The world-owners tell you that the lefties want you to share your toothbrush because they know they will lose the monopoly on your testicles.

 

[MellowFarmer]

You confuse Big Government as automatically being left wing its just not the case at all, this is part of the republican propaganda. This is exactly what the republicans try to get people to think, that they(Republicans) are libertarian. Double fucking whammy because they get to make the liberals think that libertarians are republican...when the fact is EVERYONE is a libertarian to some degree! bingo bango divide and conqueor!

Yup. W robbed us blind but all they do is blame the Dems banking on no one looking up from their newest Ipads or Bibles long enough to notice. Not that the Dems aren't guilty by association but in a court of law they are only the accomplice... makes me dizzy.

Do liberals really think of Libertarians as Reps? Sadly, I know very few folks who know the Libertarian party exists, no hate or love for Libertarians, a comment on our collective ignorance. I get dumb stares when I mention Ron Paul, and he's a famous one... just saying.

 

[MellowFarmer]

No I don't. My problem with socialist libertarianism is the consensus and group think requirement. That get's rid of the individual rights requirement. Democracy, no matter how well intentioned, will always trample individuals.

My second problem with socialist libertarianism is the experiment requirement. The whole agrees with what will be "best" for the whole. Since only the individual knows what the individual wants, the socialist libertarian is continually "perfecting" SOCIETY.
So pretty much socialist libertarians are liberals who want the same feel warm and fuzzy, but at the same time have a mechanism to fix what their group think always fucks up.

Individual libertarianism with property rights doesn't mean capitalism with a price system. If you get rid of the price system, it doesn't mean automatically you need to sing kumbaya and no one has personal property anymore, or we must share, or individuals MUST automatically own their own labor or any other feel good bullshit.

Are you an Anarchist then?

 

[deprave]

Do liberals really think of Libertarians as Reps? Sadly, I know very few folks who know the Libertarian party exists, no hate or love for Libertarians, a comment on our collective ignorance. I get dumb stares when I mention Ron Paul, and he's a famous one... just saying.

no they don't usually and thats basically my point, they think a libertarian is a Republican ala "Racist Tea Partier" is their vision...

 

[deprave]

No I don't.

Yea, You do....Clearly illustrated by what you said following this lol

 

[MellowFarmer]

no they don't usually and thats basically my point, they think a libertarian is a Republican ala "Racist Tea Partier" is their vision...

Not to nick pic, but most tea baggers are at the very least closet racists. I was based out of Georgia during the late Clinton, then W years

I won't ever forget this bizarro world (too me) work lunch (all locals) conversation and check out Alexandria Pelosi's documentaries that just aired on Real Time for some real life horror however I digress... this is fairly word for word

I'm not racist but...All those ignorant blank do is breed. They just keep popping them out. It's scary but soon 'we' will be the minority. They wlll vote one of them into office and makes us slaves because they cannot get over something that did not even happen to them. It happened to their ancestors and no one understands they had it better then. Much Better. They just use it as an excuse to not work and do drugs and spend our hard earned tax dollars

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Are you an Anarchist then?

No I'm a libertarian technocrat. Capitalism as we know it isn't the answer. Technology has prevented enough people to be hired with the possible output we can do, but because of profit refuse to do. That doesn't mean we need to get rid of property and employ collective behavor. On the contrary, technology will allow people to do whatever we want. Rather than toil with manual labor, we can spend our time improving what we have. Those ideas then have worth. Our basic needs would already be taken care of. Where technocracy differs from socialism, it allows those who try harder to gain more. Unlike capitalism, technocracy is a merit system. Different jobs have different weighted values. It's not based on who can artificially create scarcities, gain money, and then use money alone to protect that market.

"A new system based upon recognition and an understanding of our available energy must be devised. That is the problem before the people. It can be done. Are we going to set about it before it is too late?"

http://www.technocracy.org/technical-alliancetn/howard-scott/217-societyscott

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Yea, You do....Clearly illustrated by what you said following this lol

No I don't. Life isn't as simple as:

Communism & fascism
Democracy & Republicism
Government & anarchism
Collectivism & individualism
Communism & capitalism
Money & bartering
voting & monarchy

I've written much on my way, but it's too complicated for a forum. Refer to my post above for a start. Also look up "gift economies" theory.

Don't assume because I reject what we currently do makes me ignorant.

 

[Moses Mobetta]

Thats interesting I never heard of libertarian technocrat before. I really enjoy John Lockes writings.

 

[MellowFarmer]

No I'm a libertarian technocrat. Capitalism as we know it isn't the answer. Technology has prevented enough people to be hired with the possible output we can do, but because of profit refuse to do. That doesn't mean we need to get rid of property and employ collective behavor. On the contrary, technology will allow people to do whatever we want. Rather than toil with manual labor, we can spend our time improving what we have. Those ideas then have worth. Our basic needs would already be taken care of. Where technocracy differs from socialism, it allows those who try harder to gain more. Unlike capitalism, technocracy is a merit system. Different jobs have different weighted values. It's not based on who can artificially create scarcities, gain money, and then use money alone to protect that market.

"A new system based upon recognition and an understanding of our available energy must be devised. That is the problem before the people. It can be done. Are we going to set about it before it is too late?"

http://www.technocracy.org/technical-alliancetn/howard-scott/217-societyscott

Saw the flick, on board 100% but what happens to all the rest who'd stick us in mental homes for such a belief? Is it not going against thier freedom to burn oil, get paid shitty wages, eat pink slime and die hunched over a Wally World shopping cart because SSI just don't pay the bills? Wouldn't it be collective think? My own Father believes gas prices are only high because Obama pushing solar power, climate change is a myth and that I need to go away somewhere to take care of my maryjane addiction for the year it'll take my mind to heal. I wish his kind were rare but he's not. I guess I just do not understand how this isn't a technology based Socialism ideology?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Thats interesting I never heard of libertarian technocrat before. I really enjoy John Lockes writings.

I don't know if it's a title alone. Sort of like a vegan animal lover. They compliment eachother nicely. You can be a vegan and hate animals. Or be a animal lover and hunt, although I do go wtf on that one. It's same with technocracian and libertarian. You feel me?

 

[Moses Mobetta]

I don't know if it's a title alone. Sort of like a vegan animal lover. They compliment eachother nicely. You can be a vegan and hate animals. Or be a animal lover and hunt, although I do go wtf on that one. It's same with technocracian and libertarian. You feel me?

Yeah, you ever read Locke?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I just do not understand how this isn't a technology based Socialism ideology?

Imagine no hunger or poverty. Now imagine a really rich guy and your 1960s middle class guy. If you want, you can still be Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. There's nothing stopping you. Socialism wants everyone equal and promotes freeloader mentality. Those that do nothing, would be like our current homeless. You can do it, but most would rather not. People would still be able to compete. But unlike now, those who opt out wouldn't be crazy freaks begging you for money. Does a homeless person make a town look good?

Romney uses public roads like all of us. Does that make him socialist.

My way, which is a blending of technocracy, libertarianism, gift economies isn't anything new. It's just not mainstream.

This idea has elements you could say are socialist like or capitalist like. But it's so radically different. If I called it socialist, you could argue my way still has greed and promotes unfair and unequal distribution and how is it not like capitalism under a new name. Same with socialism label.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Yeah, you ever read Locke?

I know who he is and what he believes. I've never read him. Others have used his work, like Voltaire whom I have read.

I think you're talking of this by Locke?

" Limits to accumulation

Labour creates property, but it also does contain limits to its accumulation: man’s capacity to produce and man’s capacity to consume. According to Locke, unused property is waste and an offence against nature.[24] However, with the introduction of “durable” goods, men could exchange their excessive perishable goods for goods that would last longer and thus not offend the natural law. The introduction of money marks the culmination of this process. Money makes possible the unlimited accumulation of property without causing waste through spoilage.[25] He also includes gold or silver as money because they may be “hoarded up without injury to anyone,”[26] since they do not spoil or decay in the hands of the possessor."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

 

[Moses Mobetta]

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Locke/second/second-frame.html

134. THE great end of men's entering into society being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society, the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power, as the first and fundamental natural law which is to govern even the legislative. Itself is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it. This legislative is not only the supreme power of the commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it. Nor can any edict of anybody else, in what form soever conceived, or by what power soever backed, have the force and obligation of a law which has not its sanction from that legislative which the public has chosen and appointed; for without this the law could not have that which is absolutely necessary to its being a law, the consent of the society, over whom nobody can have a power to make laws[SUP]*[/SUP] but by their own consent and by authority received from them; and therefore all the obedience, which by the most solemn ties any one can be obliged to pay, ultimately terminates in this supreme power, and is directed by those laws which it enacts. Nor can any oaths to any foreign power whatsoever, or any domestic subordinate power, discharge any member of the society from his obedience to the legislative, acting pursuant to their trust, nor oblige him to any obedience contrary to the laws so enacted or farther than they do allow, it being ridiculous to imagine one can be tied ultimately to obey any power in the society which is not the supreme

You can find his writings at the link above. Here is a small excerpt from it. But yes it's the same John Locke.

 

[MellowFarmer]

Imagine no hunger or poverty. Now imagine a really rich guy and your 1960s middle class guy. If you want, you can still be Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. There's nothing stopping you. Socialism wants everyone equal and promotes freeloader mentality. Those that do nothing, would be like our current homeless. You can do it, but most would rather not. People would still be able to compete. But unlike now, those who opt out wouldn't be crazy freaks begging you for money. Does a homeless person make a town look good?

Romney uses public roads like all of us. Does that make him socialist.

My way, which is a blending of technocracy, libertarianism, gift economies isn't anything new. It's just not mainstream.

This idea has elements you could say are socialist like or capitalist like. But it's so radically different. If I called it socialist, you could argue my way still has greed and promotes unfair and unequal distribution and how is it not like capitalism under a new name. Same with socialism label.

You ARE saying everyone will be taken care of regardless of wealth because technology will take care of boring work and that progress will come from motivated workers now freed from mundane tasks or so to say?

It is just what you say sounds exactly how I envison a modern free socialist society.... I am missing the greed part somewhere -I thought no monetary system needed?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

You ARE saying everyone will be taken care of regardless of wealth because technology will take care of boring work and that progress will come from motivated workers now freed from mundane tasks or so to say?

It is just what you say sounds exactly how I envison a modern free socialist society.... I am missing the greed part somewhere -I thought no monetary system needed?

What about the researcher who provides the AIDS cure? He has a 10,000 sq foot mansion all to himself with 20 acres of land to run his horses. While the guy who writes funny limericks gets a 400 sq foot studio apartment. Some would consider that unfair. Extra priveledges isn't money.

 

[abandonconflict]

No I'm a libertarian technocrat. Capitalism as we know it isn't the answer. Technology has prevented enough people to be hired with the possible output we can do, but because of profit refuse to do. That doesn't mean we need to get rid of property and employ collective behavor. On the contrary, technology will allow people to do whatever we want. Rather than toil with manual labor, we can spend our time improving what we have. Those ideas then have worth. Our basic needs would already be taken care of. Where technocracy differs from socialism, it allows those who try harder to gain more. Unlike capitalism, technocracy is a merit system. Different jobs have different weighted values. It's not based on who can artificially create scarcities, gain money, and then use money alone to protect that market.

"A new system based upon recognition and an understanding of our available energy must be devised. That is the problem before the people. It can be done. Are we going to set about it before it is too late?"

http://www.technocracy.org/technical-alliancetn/howard-scott/217-societyscott

Fantastic, +rep. When I think of Technocracy I usually think of the movie Idiocracy, but that was pretty cool.