eCONOMIC THEORY
- Thread starter lifegoesonbrah
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No I think that if you want to treat the constitution like it is holy writ, you can't just pick the parts that keep your homies rich. That's why I delight in pointing out the fallacies of "free-market" libertarianism.
Free market libertarianism and Constitutionalism aren't the same thing. Since it is coming from a guy who wants to implement state forced socialism but believes it is anarchist this statement means very little. While I believe a constitutional republic to be as close to ideal as the human race is going to get, I must say that the constitution doesn't go far enough in protecting the rights of the individual from the inevitable snowballing of government. I am not Republican, and if they amended the constitution to outlaw actions I deem responsible and necessary then I would ignore the constitution.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you simply hate the constitution.
equal protection of the law? LOL!
take your money and go risk your life settling the frontier, darky!
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No, I have never said that.
Now you're just hoping Kynes will come in and thread jack by insisting on calling me a Marxist 15 times.
You know that though.
You are losing, so you resort to this crap.
Equal protect of the law has nothing to do with private transactions between two people.
He wouldn't be completely wrong. Your version of socialism is closer to socialism than libertarianism is to constitutionalism. It is what it is.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
according to you, equal protection of the law has nothing to do with the public transportation system either.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Actually, I was the one making the point that what you refer to as libertarianism is not aligned with the constitution, nor is it really libertarianism for that matter. That makes you nothing more than a fascist.
As far as the part I put in bold, yes, I am a socialist, just not the statist variety.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I am more Socialist than Fascist.
When you look up the term Libertarianism in the dictionary you see that it means what I say it means and not what you say it means. If force is required to keep people socialist then it is just regular socialism. You never explained how we could be socialist without a group overseeing it (You know... a government.. union.. workers club.. happy workers association..whatever - same diff.) The reason is that we can't, and so you suppose regular socialism with the utopian goal of not having to force people to be socialist. I am not not against taking care of each other, I am against the coercive nature of forcing others to take care of people.When you look up the Liberty, the root word of Libertarianism, you find this definition which existed previous to Libertarianism itself:
: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
So Libertarianism is the believe in Liberty which is:
: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
This means that Libertarians believe in:
: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
And that you can't be a Libertarian unless you believe in:
: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
This means that Socialism enforced by a state cannot be Libertarian, and that the only path to Libertarian Socialism is Libertarianism in which everyone agrees to be Socialist. IE: Imaginary Rainbow Brite Land.
Your definition of Libertarianism doesn't fit with the root word or even a vague definition of Liberty.
Voice on Radio: All Canadian-American citizens are to report to ne of these death camps right away. Did I say death camps? I meant happy camps, where you will eat the finest meals, have access to the fabulous doctors, and be able to exercise regularly.
See how they called them happy camps but they weren't happy?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Libertarian socialism was the first form of libertarian. The word libertarian was associated with socialism long before Rawn Pawl redefined it. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about because you are still insisting in state controlled means of production as being a part of it, even though THAT IS PRECISELY THE DEFINITION OF STATE SOCIALISM. Libertarian socialism is not state socialism. Libertarian socialism is libertarian socialism. "free-market" libertarianism is a new concept, invented in only the last decade. I know, politics is really hard for you to understand with out spewing someone else's ideas, but try, just for a minute, to understand, I have just defined it for you clearly. You keep describing libertarian socialism as state socialism because you think that socialism intrinsically implies state controlled means of production. Libertarian socialism IS NOT STATE SOCIALISM! You don't have to agree with the philosophy, you just have to understand what it means if you want to debate with out being stupid.
Do you understand that when you debate, you have to use facts and sources and that words have meanings? Do you not understand that a well defined political philosophy, internationally understood for over a century called libertarian socialism is not the same as that other type of socialism? Try to wrap your mind around this so you can debate with adults. I'm not making it up, I promise.
Do you understand that when you debate, you have to use facts and sources and that words have meanings? Do you not understand that a well defined political philosophy, internationally understood for over a century called libertarian socialism is not the same as that other type of socialism? Try to wrap your mind around this so you can debate with adults. I'm not making it up, I promise.
I asked you probing questions to get the gist of what your philosophy is. I will define what I took from our calm conversation:
I understood it to be socialism where there is no government.
I understood it to be socialism that was not forced.
I understood it to be based on the same principles as Libertarianism. IE: The choice of the individual in his association and that the choice of the individual was to be a socialist.
You stated:
Force may need to be used to implement Libertarian Socialism.
Property(means of production) need to be taken from some and shared among others.
Unions/groups would control everything.
Here are the damning problems with your version, I will number them and I would like an actual answer on them.:
1) Please define a union or a group that doesn't fit the definition of 'government'.
2) If there is no state to force people to give up production, then why will they do it?
Using words that have meanings? You mean like.... LIBERTY?
a: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
The very definition of Liberty would demand that the means of production be given up voluntarily. You could rename your belief Happy Funtime Capitalism, it doesn't change what it is in real life. If there is a group controlling everything and forcing people to give up their property to society than it is not Libertarian(the classical definition of the word that predates both of our political beliefs.).
Once again, the definition of Liberty is:
a: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
The definition of Libertarian must be someone who believes in:
a: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
People taking my shit and giving it to others isn't exactly the definition of liberty, which is:
a: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
This argument.
OK, nobody wants to take your shit. Nobody wants you to share your toothbrush. Nobody even wants to take your house, unless you're a family of two on 10k acres. Granted, the line is fuzzy as far as exactly what is considered excessive, but the idea is, liberty is not compatible with feudalism. When there is a small owning class, who owns all the land and means of production and hands it down to their children so your children can work for them, that bloodline is basically noble. That is to be avoided. If you read about libertarian socialism, there is mentioned respect for property, but not private ownership of means of production. Yes, the line is fuzzy, it is up for debate, but the idea driving the debate is clearly defined and democratically administered.
I seriously doubt anyone here is worth more than a few million, so this doesn't affect anyone on this board because none of us have the means to purchase a significant share of means of production of human necessities which would give them power over others. That last phrase there is the key, power over others.
Essentially, we are splitting hairs over what you consider wealth redistribution, but I find it rather telling that you avoid talking about the wealth redistribution that affects all of us and is crashing our economy. That is the 1% continuing to own everything and crush the rest of us.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Even then it isn't calling for out right wealth redistribution from the owning class. We need to be free from laws which bind us to monopolized resources, we ought to be completely free to obviate demand for such things. Also, the workers who are essential to the production ought to own a share in the means (tradeable stock) proportional to their work and that should be hereditary. We want to make the 1% share with us.
The problem with a capitalist model is that innovation is spurred by profits. It just isn't profitable to save the world from man made global warming, it is profitable to publish studies disputing it. Fracking is profitable. Exploiting workers is insanely profitable.
The problem with a capitalist model is that innovation is spurred by profits. It just isn't profitable to save the world from man made global warming, it is profitable to publish studies disputing it. Fracking is profitable. Exploiting workers is insanely profitable.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I know of only two engines that have spurred innovation in human history.
1) Greed for wealth
2) Greed for power
Of the two, #1 is the gentler. Fully expressing #2 leads to wars of conquest and often annihilation.
If you can suggest an engine of innovation that is as robust or more so than the above two, I invite you to say so. Just remember that the test of a country running on that principle is to share borders with two countries that embrace #1 and #2 respectively. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Wealth is a form of power.
Love can spur innovation.
Do not mistake kindness for weakness.
Greed will not guide us from our current course of self destruction.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
To the blue: but has it? How much innovation has been spurred by it, and not greed? Certainly not railways, electrification or even antibiotics.
To the red: I would not. But imo we need to still play by the ground rules of real life. A social system, either mature or just starting out, needs to inform at all times a society capable of defending its borders, both militarily and economically. this has exerted a severe selection upon the forms of society (and the superimposed state) that pass that most basic of tests. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I think that greed has taken us as far as it can. It is time to start focusing our (humanity's) energy on solving problems instead of accumulating wealth and consolidating power. As I said, I just don't see how the current model will fix the problems it has caused, although I do admit it has taken us far and spurred much innovation along with those crises. We are literally at the precipice of population bottleneck.
The current model has only brought innovation insofar as one can profit from it. I'll give a few examples. Grab a coffee and a doobie. I'm sure my writing will be rewarded by Dr Kynes coming along to rudely retort but that is ok, he knows he is a prick.
Let the cars drink what the war is for:
Diesel designed his first internal combustion engine to run on biofuel. It was actually originally designed to be a single purchase that the owner could maintain and fuel himself with peanut oil or likely other biofuels, such as something derived from cannabis. The capital that was required in order to mass produce it came from Morgan who was a friend of Rockefeller, who owned 80%+ market share of a finite fuel that was much more profitable if used in Diesel's engine, so to acquire the capital to mass produce, Diesel was asked to change the design such that it could run on fossil fuel. Now aside from arguments regarding which fuel is superior, the fact is, biofuel is renewable and since biomass must be grown in order to create fuel to burn, there would be a cycle that includes natural oxygen production to counter act the carbon emissions. The biofuels would likely have undergone development as well making them more efficient and cleaner and what not. Instead, we have gone down this road, choosing a finite resource and fighting wars and polluting, because it is profitable for a few. The economic result for the masses is an ever increasing extra expense in the form of obligation to purchase fuel that is controlled by few fought over.
Fuck it, send it to the land fill and buy another one:
Good light bulbs are not profitable. Same goes for cars, computers and a plethora of other products that actually end up consuming the energy which we buy on a monthly basis, further enriching the owners of finite (finite is decidedly not renewable) resources. If all computers were designed with easily upgradable mother boards and a modular component design with recyclable components, how often would you buy a new computer? Maybe once every 20 years. Maybe we are headed that way with computers, maybe that will become profitable. I hope so, electronics make up a huge portion of the material in landfills that is not biodegradable. As for cars, I do love a classic but what if a car could be built that lasted for a century and only cost several thousand dollars in current money? Well, car companies would sell far fewer cars, and banks would process far fewer loans. Both of these are clearly debatable, but the case for light bulbs is clearly planned obsolescence. Another example of planned obsolescence is that technology is released in increments. All of the features of the iphone 5 could have been part of the Iphone 3gs and more. The technology was around then, even the CPU's. It is more profitable to release technology in increments, not only to entice consumers to discard old devices, but to stay a step up over competition with each new design. Efficiency is not profitable.
The police state:
Those fears of surveillance and big brother always watching are born right out of consumer culture. Google knows how often you masturbate. Every piece of data about you has a commercial value. Commercial advertisements are designed to target trends and to shape popular buying habits. This is made possible through Orwell's worst nightmare. Cameras everywhere and data mining technology such as echelon have as much commercial utility as police utility. The intelligence community may not be an apparatus of the same powers as the commercial interests but then again, our worse corporate fascist nightmare may indeed be a reality, they could all be the same people. Then again even if they aren't, I'm still a little scared. But really, where is the line between protecting order and protecting profits drawn?
The military industrial complex:
When we think of the military, there is almost a knee-jerk reaction to "support our troops". After all, they are altruistically sacrificing themselves for our liberties which are under attack from terrorists hell bent on our destruction out of hatred for our freedom and greatness. Such an honorable and noble cause not only keeps us believing and buying but also recruits and works as a vehicle for the very rhetoric that supports it. Now, before I go down the rabbit hole of "that is all bullshit", I'll shift a bit, and leave you to decide for yourself if you think it is bullshit or not. As a recent war veteran, I am among those who feel it is indeed bullshit. I digress, what if the military and it's accompanying industry are actually a bigger threat than the threat they claim they exist to combat? Think of mutually assured destruction. Yeah that's MAD, but that is exactly the policy in the case of conflict with any of our enemies that actually have the capacity to really threaten us. Furthermore we are fighting wars simply to stop the proliferation of technology deemed to be so threatening. This same technology can be used for energy independence which is an economic threat to the very same powers I described in my prior examples. That would make us the aggressors on the world stage (oops, went down the rabbit hole). It would be more effective for our safety and cheaper, if we spent that money on food instead of weapons. War is profitable.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I could distill that long, long post down to "The current model is flawed". However my question or statement, however you wish to see it, has to do not with the shortcomings of right now, but with the proposed solution. If it runs against our basic animal human nature, it won't fly; it won't even launch. Jmo. cn