Layoffs coming...

abandonconflict said:
Utopianism.

This seems to be a word you use to fight the hope of a better human future.
Click to expand...

It's a word I use for every sociopolitical philosophy that relies on people behaving, following their "higher" moral impulses. A nonutopian philosophy admits to humans' full capacity for ugliness ... even otherwise decent humans. cn
 
cannabineer said:
It's a word I use for every sociopolitical philosophy that relies on people behaving, following their "higher" moral impulses. A nonutopian philosophy admits to humans' full capacity for ugliness ... even otherwise decent humans. cn
Click to expand...

You are correct but pessimistic.

IMO, you are following the pattern I will describe in the following statement. Perfection is not possible, therefore since all are flawed, I reject all and embrace (I'm not really sure what you embrace and I have a feeling you don't either).

There is a higher aspiration, progress. In the absence of the possibility of any perfect model, the highest aspiration is continual progress, even infinite progress, forever. The lack of a perfect model does not prevent constant improvement.
 
nontheist said:
One more of Bucky's aspiring examples.

Even though they don't put a gun to your head it's perceived threat. Like all laws work, do it or suffer the severe consequences. How does asking if one's ability to break the law help prove your point that government assistance is a free donated charity?
Click to expand...

thanks for admitting that no one has ever forced you to subject yourself to taxation. choosing to subject yourself to taxation is 100% voluntary.
 
Carthoris said:
How many Republicans are on this site? Just out of curiosity. I always assumed it was probably less than Libertarians and Democrats. I really don't know why you think it has to do with race. I didn't vote for Obama or Romney because, like you appear to from your above statement, I feel they are the same people with the same policy. The differences are so minor that regardless which one wins the end is the same: we take another step towards statism.
Click to expand...

Then you seek the freedom from goverment that only exists in a few countries in the world.
May I suggest a destination. Somalia is your dream state, Low taxes, small goverment and the freedom to rise to your full potential.
 
Carthoris said:
How many Republicans are on this site? Just out of curiosity. I always assumed it was probably less than Libertarians and Democrats. I really don't know why you think it has to do with race. I didn't vote for Obama or Romney because, like you appear to from your above statement, I feel they are the same people with the same policy. The differences are so minor that regardless which one wins the end is the same: we take another step towards statism.
Click to expand...

most of the republicans just call themselves libertarians out of embarrassment. then they argue as to why women shouldn't have the liberty to control their own bodies and why gays shouldn't have the liberty to marry the partner of their choice. these people are morons and, quite often, sock puppets.
 
Carthoris said:
How many Republicans are on this site? Just out of curiosity. I always assumed it was probably less than Libertarians and Democrats. I really don't know why you think it has to do with race. I didn't vote for Obama or Romney because, like you appear to from your above statement, I feel they are the same people with the same policy. The differences are so minor that regardless which one wins the end is the same: we take another step towards statism.
Click to expand...

Libertarianism in America is not what Libertarianism was when the term was coined. The very new movement which is associated with opposition to all things leftist has vigorously attempted to divorce the term from it's original meaning. Libertarian Socialism was around a century and a half ago and was the first form of anti-statism. Quit using our word for your right wing movement. A consistent anarchist opposes not only government but also the power derived from the consolidation of wealth. If you support the private ownership of the means of production of finite resources with private armies controlled by said owners (see anarchocapitalism) you are no anarchist, you simple wish for a new master.

Government is the lesser of two evils. At least government is theoretically supposed to protect the interests of citizenry. The people who would benefit from complete deregulation will destroy the environment and starve you (or replace all the goods in your store with GMO food) for profit.
 
abandonconflict said:
Libertarianism in America is not what Libertarianism was when the term was coined. The very new movement which is associated with opposition to all things leftist has vigorously attempted to divorce the term from it's original meaning. Libertarian Socialism was around a century and a half ago and was the first form of anti-statism. Quit using our word for your right wing movement. A consistent anarchist opposes not only government but also the power derived from the consolidation of wealth. If you support the private ownership of the means of production of finite resources with private armies controlled by said owners (see anarchocapitalism) you are no anarchist, you simple wish for a new master.

Government is the lesser of two evils. At least government is theoretically supposed to protect the interests of citizenry. The people who would benefit from complete deregulation will destroy the environment and starve you (or replace all the goods in your store with GMO food) for profit.
Click to expand...


Wow
I never thought of you as a person who understands what todays libertarians want for their moneyed masters
 
abandonconflict said:
Racist turtle-fucker, friend of Don Black, insider trader of gold investments, supporter of Jim Crow laws, liar and kook, yeah.

*add* I forgot nepotist.
Click to expand...

I have new found respect for you. Still Dont agree with your philosophy until you can provide more details.
Like how something that worked 200 years ago would work now
 
ChesusRice said:
I have new found respect for you. Still Dont agree with your philosophy until you can provide more details.
Like how something that worked 200 years ago would work now
Click to expand...

How could it have worked 2 centuries ago if it wasn't actually attempted? It's evolution as a philosophy was interrupted by religious reformation and world wars followed by massively scaled social indoctrination against any philosophy that didn't embrace unbridled capitalism.

My political philosophy can be summed by one word, progressive.
 
abandonconflict said:
How could it have worked 2 centuries ago if it wasn't actually attempted? It's evolution as a philosophy was interrupted by religious reformation and world wars followed by massively scaled social indoctrination against any philosophy that didn't embrace unbridled capitalism.

My political philosophy can be summed by one word, progressive.
Click to expand...

It didnt need to be "attempted" just the fact that the goverment was weak 200 years ago is how it was. And I never said it worked great either
 
ChesusRice said:
America was a libertarian Utopia at one time

Of course we didn't move forward until the goverment intervened
Click to expand...

I disagree that America has ever been anything other than highly stratified. I agree emphatically with the meaning of the founding documents, but the framers did not apparently, seeing as how they owned slaves and slaughtered native Americans by the millions. They must have thought white people were a different species and that women were inferior.

Now we are arguing semantics, as you are using the terms Libertarian and Utopian both according to current incorrect vernacular and also probably sarcastically.
 
At one time the amount of regulations in the USA were nil. And from this sprung Monopolys, exploited labor and robber barons

Yes it was a Libertarian Utopia

And like I said it wasnt until The goverment intervened that we moved forward
 
ChesusRice said:
At one time the amount of regulations in the USA were nil. And from this sprung Monopolys, exploited labor and robber barons

Yes it was a Libertarian Utopia

And like I said it wasnt until The goverment intervened that we moved forward
Click to expand...

Semantics.

You are stuck on the idea that Ron Paul is a libertarian. What I am saying to you, is that the entire "libertarian" movement currently rising, is not at all libertarian. I am contending, that this movement seeks to divorce the term from it's original meaning.

I actually also argued that it was government that broke monopolies in this thread:

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/562420-how-can-anarchocapitalism-break-monopolies.html
 
abandonconflict said:
You are correct but pessimistic.

IMO, you are following the pattern I will describe in the following statement. Perfection is not possible, therefore since all are flawed, I reject all and embrace (I'm not really sure what you embrace and I have a feeling you don't either).

There is a higher aspiration, progress. In the absence of the possibility of any perfect model, the highest aspiration is continual progress, even infinite progress, forever. The lack of a perfect model does not prevent constant improvement.
Click to expand...

I would truly love to believe in progress. In fact, in my informal history of ideas I think of the 20th as the Century of Progress. Every (approximate) century has had its central idea, its mythos. The 18th embraced Enlightenment. The 19th embraced Romanticism (far from a reaction to Enlightenment per J. Barzun, but rather an effort to complete it) on the academic side and Industrialization on the economic. The 20th saw an aberrant pulse of technical progress that has deeply shaped how we view even nontechnical things, and it is my considered opinion that the concept of human progress is an artifact of these three centuries in succession, but especially the one that took us from horse-carts and the odd balloon to people denying the Moon landings on Youtube.

I have become disabused of the concept of steady or even monotonic human progress. There have been remarkably enlightened societies in the past, but the pattern of decadence, dissolution, replacement by ruder more vigorous sorts ... rinse, repeat ... has not been broken yet. I fear that the Western (and with globalization, the entire industrialized) world is in a condition of increasingly brittle decadence, and when it breaks, the Enlightenment will most likely go the way of republican Rome.
I would not underestimate the sheer destructive power of people looking at a social or economic order and thinking to themselves "how to turn this to my advantage?"

I do not see real human progress in the offing until we have the capacity to change our physical substrate. But just as I see the Century of Progress to be over, with this age's mythos as yet undetermined (from my constrained perspective at its beginning, my best guess is a nostalgic lament for our lost environmental innocence) ... and the promises of Rapid Advances not being fulfilled. We are returning to a more usual rate of technical advancement, even though our ways of life and thought have been deeply shaped by the breakneck speed of improvements in standard of living brought on by almost cost-free petroleum. "It's ovah, Rock; it's ovah." cn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top