[quote]lucasa wrote:
I’ve got a joke for you:
What’s the difference between Libertarian Socialism and the Mafia?[/quote]
No clue.
[quote]orion wrote:
You cannot demand or expect or even hope that people exercise their freedoms if you take away every means to do so.
In fact socialism makes it impossible to exercise any rights.
If I have theoretical rights but do not own the private means to do anything, those political rights do not matter.
No private property => no real “rights” whatsoever.[/quote]
That’s what they would have us believe.
I kid, I kid.
More seriously, you may wanna check this FAQ out. Its comprehensive and answers all of your questions.
[quote]
Is it not enough to be able to vote them out of power?[/quote]
Not for me, it isn’t.
The gap between rich and poor is obscene in most countries.
If you’re not willing to give up all the things that make up the consumerist society, then you’re better off with oligarchy in place. Not that it makes you or the Earth any safer or cleaner, but it works (in a broken kind of way). I’m just too pissed by the excesses, ailments and other dichotomy of modern societies to be satisfied with the current systems.
It’s gonna hit the wall eventually.
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
You cannot demand or expect or even hope that people exercise their freedoms if you take away every means to do so.
In fact socialism makes it impossible to exercise any rights.
If I have theoretical rights but do not own the private means to do anything, those political rights do not matter.
No private property => no real “rights” whatsoever.
That’s what they would have us believe.
I kid, I kid.
More seriously, you may wanna check this FAQ out. Its comprehensive and answers all of your questions.
Is it not enough to be able to vote them out of power?
Not for me, it isn’t.
The gap between rich and poor is obscene in most countries.
If you’re not willing to give up all the things that make up the consumerist society, then you’re better off with oligarchy in place. Not that it makes you or the Earth any safer or cleaner, but it works (in a broken kind of way). I’m just too pissed by the excesses, ailments and other dichotomy of modern societies to be satisfied with the current systems.
It’s gonna hit the wall eventually.[/quote]
Great article on why you can’t really trust an anarchist:
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
You cannot demand or expect or even hope that people exercise their freedoms if you take away every means to do so.
In fact socialism makes it impossible to exercise any rights.
If I have theoretical rights but do not own the private means to do anything, those political rights do not matter.
No private property => no real “rights” whatsoever.
That’s what they would have us believe.
I kid, I kid.
More seriously, you may wanna check this FAQ out. Its comprehensive and answers all of your questions.
Is it not enough to be able to vote them out of power?
Not for me, it isn’t.
The gap between rich and poor is obscene in most countries.
If you’re not willing to give up all the things that make up the consumerist society, then you’re better off with oligarchy in place. Not that it makes you or the Earth any safer or cleaner, but it works (in a broken kind of way). I’m just too pissed by the excesses, ailments and other dichotomy of modern societies to be satisfied with the current systems.
It’s gonna hit the wall eventually.[/quote]
There is no way I can describe how much I disagree with the ideas in that link.
I know several reasons why it would lead
to millions of dead people if that kind of hyperrationalist, constructivist hubris was ever implemented but there are simply to many points to disagree with to even go there.
I sometimes wonder why some people have read all the books on the evils of capitalism and private ownership and not one basic textbook on economy.
The labour theory of value…
Puuuuuu—leeeaaassse!!!
[quote]orion wrote:
…
I sometimes wonder why some people have read all the books on the evils of capitalism and private ownership and not one basic textbook on economy.
[/quote]
Because they are in college.
[quote]lixy wrote:
What’s the difference between Libertarian Socialism and the Mafia?
No clue.[/quote]
Me either!
Lixy quote-“No you didn’t. You let Israel blow them into oblivion. You consider Hezbollah as a terrorist organization (just like the AUC of Mandela back in the days), and the people voted for Hezbollah. Is that your definition of supporting elected governments? For the record, three countries only share the US’ stance on listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization; Canada, Israel, and the Netherlands”
you forgot Australia and the UK
And yeah, the AUC with their burning tire necklaces. Very main stream diplomatic approach.
[quote]rugbyhit wrote:
you forgot Australia and the U[/quote]
Not really. The UK and Australia only considers the “Hezbollah External Security Organization” as terrorists.
???
[quote]orion wrote:
There is no way I can describe how much I disagree with the ideas in that link.[/quote]
I understand. It’s a radically different position from what is usually circulated.
Here’s something I just ran across you might find insightful though.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=10&ItemID=12223
I actually did read early economists. I don’t read what was produced more recently as they seem to me to be just justifying whatever is in the interests of the few.
Here’s something stroke me in “the wealth of nations”;
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
– Adam Smith
[quote]lixy wrote:
rugbyhit wrote:
you forgot Australia and the U
Not really. The UK and Australia only considers the “Hezbollah External Security Organization” as terrorists.
And yeah, the AUC with their burning tire necklaces. Very main stream diplomatic approach.
???[/quote]
In his so-called book,? Long Walk to Freedom?, Mandela says that he ?signed off? on acts of terrorism.
(i e the church street bombings) People should take a look at what Mandela ?signed off? with while he was in prison ? convicted for other acts of terrorism! President P.W. Botha told Mandela way back in 1985, that he could be a free man as long as he did one thing: Publicly renounce violence. Mandela refused. That is why Mandela remained in prison until the appeaser F.W. de Klerk freed him unconditionally. The bottom line is that Nelson Mandela never publicly renounced violence - and we should never forget that.
And its the ANC not the AUC. I should have corrected that in my last post.
There was the practice of “necklacing,” in which a petrol-filled tire is placed around the neck of a victim and set ablaze - an action carried out by Winnie Mandela and her minions.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rugbyhit wrote:
you forgot Australia and the U
Not really. The UK and Australia only considers the “Hezbollah External Security Organization” as terrorists.
And yeah, the AUC with their burning tire necklaces. Very main stream diplomatic approach.
???[/quote]
Yes, I know. They consider the military wing as a terrorist organization. You are splitting hairs in order to keep the list short. The nuts with the guns run the show and to think otherwise is naive.
[quote]lixy wrote:
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
– Adam Smith
[/quote]
Which is probably 100% true, I just do not have a problem with it as long as anyone can become rich.
The labour theorie of value, the basis of the whole argument is BS.
It was allready known to be BS and logically inconsistent when Marx published his version of it.
Profit is not “usury”, semi-clever word plays discering “value” and “prizes” do not a theory make.
Just for shits and giggles:
If 87 workers dig up a hole in the morning and close it again in the afternoon, using equipment that it took 2678 manhours to produce, what is the “value” of the now flat surface?
Do other flat surfaces that were not artificially made by opening and closing a hole have the same value?
I mean, seriously, if the labour theory of value is the heart of your argument, you have none.
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
There is no way I can describe how much I disagree with the ideas in that link.
I understand. It’s a radically different position from what is usually circulated.
Here’s something I just ran across you might find insightful though.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=10&ItemID=12223
[/quote]
They do not like materialism and conumerism?
Who forces them to consume?
But somehow that is not enough for them, oh no, they want taxes and regulations and whatever other means they can think off to alter my behaviour by putting a gun to my head.
That approach is hardly original, and what if they are wrong?
You do not like capitalism because it caters to all aspects of human behaviour and there are certain human behaviours that disgust you.
We may agree on this, but I dislike people who want to force feed me their version of paradise even more.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Here’s something stroke me in “the wealth of nations”;
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
– Adam Smith
[/quote]
I’d say this quote, used the way you’ve used it, is out of context, considering Smith was a libertarian capitalist.
I’m inclined to think the idea struck you and, rather than changing your perspective, was warped to your libertarian socialist perspective. A selective read of early economists can be just as bad as not having read them at all.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
lixy wrote:
Here’s something stroke me in “the wealth of nations”;
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
– Adam Smith
I’d say this quote, used the way you’ve used it, is out of context, considering Smith was a libertarian capitalist.
I’m inclined to think the idea struck you and, rather than changing your perspective, was warped to your libertarian socialist perspective. A selective read of early economists can be just as bad as not having read them at all.[/quote]
The real alternative is a government that passes laws that do not secure or property but institutionalise theft, i.e build a welfare state.
[quote]rugbyhit wrote:
The bottom line is that Nelson Mandela never publicly renounced violence - and we should never forget that.
[/quote]
So you mean to tell me that oppressed people will always strive for freedom even if it requires them to resort to atrocities.
Can’t argue with that!
[quote]rugbyhit wrote:
Yes, I know. They consider the military wing as a terrorist organization. You are splitting hairs in order to keep the list short.[/quote]
You didn’t make that precision in order to lengthen the list.
We’re talking about a couple of hundred countries that don’t label them that way. What difference do two more or less make anyway?
[quote]orion wrote:
The real alternative is a government that passes laws that do not secure or property but institutionalise theft, i.e build a welfare state.[/quote]
No government at all would be better though.
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
The real alternative is a government that passes laws that do not secure or property but institutionalise theft, i.e build a welfare state.
No government at all would be better though.[/quote]
Anarchy?