I thought you were going to post this Ron Paul speech:
“Roe vs. Wade must be reversed”.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Then, I would be curious to know that the US economy is? [/quote]
Easy. Corporatism. I’m pretty sure that’s been mentioned more than a few times to you already.[/quote]
Right, but they fail to offer any compelling reason why it is not capitalist.
Furthermore, if we accept this definition of capitalism, i.e., if it’s not laissez-faire, it’s not actually capitalism, then things don’t get much better for you. Considering the number of free-market proponents that have held sway in American business and government over the years, if we haven’t been able to establish it yet, with the resources of the government and business working to achieve it, the odds are exceedingly slim that it will ever be implemented in a way that will satisfy that definition. In this case, you are stuck advocating an impossible system. I was just trying to interpret things in a way that makes you relevant.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Then, I would be curious to know that the US economy is? [/quote]
Easy. Corporatism. I’m pretty sure that’s been mentioned more than a few times to you already.[/quote]
Right, but they fail to offer any compelling reason why it is not capitalist.
Furthermore, if we accept this definition of capitalism, i.e., if it’s not laissez-faire, it’s not actually capitalism, then things don’t get much better for you. Considering the number of free-market proponents that have held sway in American business and government over the years, if we haven’t been able to establish it yet, with the resources of the government and business working to achieve it, the odds are exceedingly slim that it will ever be implemented in a way that will satisfy that definition. In this case, you are stuck advocating an impossible system. I was just trying to interpret things in a way that makes you relevant.
[/quote]
I’m not arguing that a free-market is possible in a democracy. I’m arguing it’s a far better place to live than a socialist democracy or the current corporatist democracy we currently live in.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Then, I would be curious to know that the US economy is? [/quote]
Easy. Corporatism. I’m pretty sure that’s been mentioned more than a few times to you already.[/quote]
Right, but they fail to offer any compelling reason why it is not capitalist.
Furthermore, if we accept this definition of capitalism, i.e., if it’s not laissez-faire, it’s not actually capitalism, then things don’t get much better for you. Considering the number of free-market proponents that have held sway in American business and government over the years, if we haven’t been able to establish it yet, with the resources of the government and business working to achieve it, the odds are exceedingly slim that it will ever be implemented in a way that will satisfy that definition. In this case, you are stuck advocating an impossible system. I was just trying to interpret things in a way that makes you relevant.
[/quote]
I’m not arguing that a free-market is possible in a democracy. I’m arguing it’s a far better place to live than a socialist democracy or the current corporatist democracy we currently live in.[/quote]
so you want the rule of the few, in your case stupid rich middle aged men aka the capitalist upper class, instead of the rule of the people aka democracy.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I’m not arguing that a free-market is possible in a democracy. I’m arguing it’s a far better place to live than a socialist democracy or the current corporatist democracy we currently live in.[/quote]
Since all you can do is fantasize and rub it out, let me try:
LOOK UPON MY SUPERIOR ECONOMIC THEORY, it’s called…FABULOREGNOCRACY
Essentially, it’s about an ultimate king, straight from a mix of “300”, “Gladiator” and “Conan”, who is superjust and badass.
His T-levels are only reached by his IQ.
His economic decisions are the one truth, and evildoers are put to the sword immediately by either him or an aweswome and obediant elite-guard (think “stormtroopers” meet “terminator” + an unexpected dose of the spanish Inquisition).
So there, phony libertarianism, meek democracy, pathetic fascism!
It would be
I win or what?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I’m not arguing that a free-market is possible in a democracy. I’m arguing it’s a far better place to live than a socialist democracy or the current corporatist democracy we currently live in.[/quote]
Since all you can do is fantasize and rub it out, let me try:
LOOK UPON MY SUPERIOR ECONOMIC THEORY, it’s called…FABULOREGNOCRACY
Essentially, it’s about an ultimate king, straight from a mix of “300”, “Gladiator” and “Conan”, who is superjust and badass.
His T-levels are only reached by his IQ.
His economic decisions are the one truth, and evildoers are put to the sword immediately by either him or an aweswome and obediant elite-guard (think “stormtroopers” meet “terminator” + an unexpected dose of the spanish Inquisition).
So there, phony libertarianism, meek democracy, pathetic fascism!
It would be
I win or what?[/quote]
Its actually a pretty good parody of all statist ideologies.
They all ask the question: “Who should be in power” instead of “Should anybody have this power” and “How do we get rid of those fuckers if they prove to be too corrupt or insane”.
You cannot frame libertarianism or anarcho capitalism as just another one of these fantasies that is basically at the same level, because both ideologies do not look for someone to fix things. They have already found the answer to who should be in charge of an individuals live and all the want is for the massive power structure to shrink at least enough so that you can work around it, even as an average citizen.
The fundanmental difference is whether you trust anyone with coercive power or not. Any attempt “to bring the right people in” or “govern efficiently” is of an entirely different nature than people just wanting to live their own lives without the constant threat of violence if they do not bow to their masters wishes.
That’s why my theory is superior to libertarianism.
Or plainer - that’s why communism is superior to libertarianism:
It has been proven that people can be actually bothered to try it out. Some even beg/fight for another dose, today(!) even though…well, you know the numbers.
Since libertarianism is so happy to produce one part of the perfect equation (no one in charge) but fails to complete it, other theories are better because they fill in blanks, never mind if half of it is missing or blatantly false.
As long as you cannot explain why the “blank spot” (power) isn’t a vaccum that fills itself with frightning speed, your theory is invalid.
[That’s, btw, how I can explain why most libertarians are either cold hearted bastiches (who don’t give a shit) or religious nuts (who can somehow fill the “power vacuum” with god or an afterlife)]
The difference is not wether to give someone the power or not. The power is there to take for a few individuals.
And - People are hardcoded to expect a king/god and to hope he is at least just.
Nobody thinks the system will work “without a boss”.
Or at least, to shoot for a compromise, you guys are at best the neurotic minority.
You can have communism you cannot force it on those of use whom don’t want it.
(I’m not sure I understood your sentence but )
You can certainly force it, and history has proven that.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
(I’m not sure I understood your sentence but )
You can certainly force it, and history has proven that.[/quote]
Well then you have no cause to complain when they ultimately rebel. And they will always rebel.
Frankly, I don’t understand where you’re heading.
Granted, they rebel, and then the crowning ceremony starts anew.
Instead of complaining, why won’t you help me in my quest to spread FABULOREGNOCRACY aka the ultimate economic ideology?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Instead of complaining, why won’t you help me in my quest to spread FABULOREGNOCRACY aka the ultimate economic ideology?
[/quote]
What’s its premise?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Frankly, I don’t understand where you’re heading.
[/quote]
I am saying you or a group of your communitarian friends can do whatever you want so long as you commit no aggression against other people.
If you do prepare to be defended against.
Keep your idea of government away from me and my family.
“one iron fisted badass to rule them all with spectacularly sound economics”, I suppose.
Does it really matter?
One thing matters, however:
It’s more realistic then libertarianism, because people have always fallen for stuff like that.
On the other hand, “no one in charge” has never been implemented for longer then it takes to ready a club for a swing from behind.
Part of me really likes the idea of foolish people distracted by power.
It leaves so many more possibilities for those of us that can see the scam of it all.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[I am saying you or a group of your communitarian friends can do whatever you want so long as you commit no aggression against other people.
If you do prepare to be defended against.
Keep your idea of government away from me and my family.[/quote]
Here’s the catch: People seem to already have caught the good news.
Let’s pretend you’re on an idyllic, peaceful, dilligent libertarian island.
Someday, Kalashnikovs & ammo start to rain from the skies. You could bury a few, or pretend the skies are blue but the metallic monsoon will soon bring another batch of 7.62.
What will happen?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
That’s why my theory is superior to libertarianism.
Or plainer - that’s why communism is superior to libertarianism:
It has been proven that people can be actually bothered to try it out. Some even beg/fight for another dose, today(!) even though…well, you know the numbers.
Since libertarianism is so happy to produce one part of the perfect equation (no one in charge) but fails to complete it, other theories are better because they fill in blanks, never mind if half of it is missing or blatantly false.
As long as you cannot explain why the “blank spot” (power) isn’t a vaccum that fills itself with frightning speed, your theory is invalid.
[That’s, btw, how I can explain why most libertarians are either cold hearted bastiches (who don’t give a shit) or religious nuts (who can somehow fill the “power vacuum” with god or an afterlife)]
The difference is not wether to give someone the power or not. The power is there to take for a few individuals.
And - People are hardcoded to expect a king/god and to hope he is at least just.
Nobody thinks the system will work “without a boss”.
Or at least, to shoot for a compromise, you guys are at best the neurotic minority.
[/quote]
I can only refer you to the studies we pointed Ryan to.
Religious conservatives outspend “liberals” by a fair amount when it comes to charity and those who think that it is not governments job to “redistribute wealth” outspend liberals 4 to 1.
Then, Victorian England and America pre 1866 came pretty close to a libertarian ideal so the idea that nobody tried it and that it would not work is also demonstrably not true. The power vacuum is filled with what we call a “civil society”. I know that this is a novel concept for most Europeans but private charities can and did run health care and food distribution quite efficiently before we turned the state into a golden calf and demanded that everybody bow to it.
Just to throw the last big European liberal illusion in there, more guns in the civilian population vvery likely means less violent crime and never leads to more violence and I can also back that up with studies.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Part of me really likes the idea of foolish people distracted by power.
It leaves so many more possibilities for those of us that can see the scam of it all.[/quote]
I suppose, humour is often some kind of intellectual resort.
It hardly changes anything, however.
On the other hand, raw power, even it the form of a handaxe, is as anti-intellectual and real as it gets.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[I am saying you or a group of your communitarian friends can do whatever you want so long as you commit no aggression against other people.
If you do prepare to be defended against.
Keep your idea of government away from me and my family.[/quote]
Here’s the catch: People seem to already have caught the good news.
Let’s pretend you’re on an idyllic, peaceful, dilligent libertarian island.
Someday, Kalashnikovs & ammo start to rain from the skies. You could bury a few, or pretend the skies are blue but the metallic monsoon will soon bring another batch of 7.62.
What will happen?[/quote]
A very polite and safe society?
At least in the context of a European society that is usually what happens.
Plus, this sounds like Switzerland, and to a lesser degree Austria, to me to be honest so I do not get where the problem is.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
On the other hand, raw power, even it the form of a handaxe, is as anti-intellectual and real as it gets.[/quote]
That isn’t power.
Mere violent delusions.