Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Libertarianism/Anarchism - Page 58







Post#1426 at 09-30-2009 03:12 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-30-2009, 03:12 PM #1426
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
We will have to have a beer when I come to Oregon. Looks like I'll be staying here for a couple of nights.
That's not particularly out of the way (relatively speaking). And worth swinging by in any case -- pass around to Kevin and myself and the rest of the crew at least by pm with any more detail on whens and whatnots.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1427 at 09-30-2009 04:28 PM by haymarket martyr [at joined Sep 2008 #posts 2,547]
---
09-30-2009, 04:28 PM #1427
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
2,547

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
As amusing as the feelings of the uninformed can be, they don't really add anything of value to a reasoned discussion.

.
Justin - there are times when you are either outright a prissy word weasel or are intentionally obtuse to the extreme. Or maybe its just being petty?

When I - or anyone - says "I feel...." and then opines on something currently under discussion, you know goddamn well that they are not expressing an emotional feeling. You know damn well that the words "I feel..." are used interchangeably with "I think" or "I believe" or "I have concluded". But since I wrote them and I am the enemy then it becomes necessary for you to do your thing.







Post#1428 at 09-30-2009 10:35 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
09-30-2009, 10:35 PM #1428
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Right Arrow Verbal Aikido

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket martyr View Post
Justin - there are times when you are either outright a prissy word weasel or are intentionally obtuse to the extreme. Or maybe its just being petty?

When I - or anyone - says "I feel...." and then opines on something currently under discussion, you know goddamn well that they are not expressing an emotional feeling. You know damn well that the words "I feel..." are used interchangeably with "I think" or "I believe" or "I have concluded". But since I wrote them and I am the enemy then it becomes necessary for you to do your thing.
Verbal Aikido techniques?







Post#1429 at 09-30-2009 11:05 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-30-2009, 11:05 PM #1429
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket martyr View Post
Bob has hit upon something here. There is now, and has been for a while, a tendency to focus far more on rights and far less on responsibilities and duties. I distinctly remember taking high school government back in 1966-67 and I had a teacher who stressed both as equal halves of the same coin. I was a rebellious teen who did not want to hear about my duties or responsibilities to society and only wanted to know about my rights, my freedoms, my privileges, me me me me. I would suspect I was not alone given that era and my age.

Hopefully, as we all mature, we put the me me me me behind us and learn to appreciate the balance between rights and responsibilities. It makes for a much healthier individual and in turn a much healthier society.
This seems to be a Boomer and Xer vice, to preach about rights but forget about duties and responsibilities, like spoiled children. What ever happened to republican (little R) virtue?
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1430 at 09-30-2009 11:16 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-30-2009, 11:16 PM #1430
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket martyr View Post
I always find it amusing - not only on this board but on many others - the True Believers have such faith in their beliefs that their ultimate comeback against those who disagree with them is a variation of "you did not read what I wrote", or "you are not listening", or "you are too stupid to understand". The clear implication being that their positions are so righteous, logical and correct that anyone who continues to disagree after they have posted must be blind, deaf or stupid because everybody simply must see it the way that they see things.
Karl Popper often brought up and criticized what he called the concept that "Truth is Manifest", that is, Truth is "self-evident" and if people can't see the truth it's because they are mislead or ignorant. This notion was popular among the Enlightenment philosophers, it is also wrong. And not only is it wrong, it leads to atrocities and totalitarianism ("Re-Education Camps", etc.). It also leads to the "Conspiracy Theory of Society", the notion that the reason that people can't see the ideologues' "self-evident truths" is because the elites are suppressing them. You see this a lot in both Marxist and Libertarian rhetoric.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1431 at 10-01-2009 01:46 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-01-2009, 01:46 AM #1431
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Left Arrow Truth is Manifest?

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Karl Popper often brought up and criticized what he called the concept that "Truth is Manifest", that is, Truth is "self-evident" and if people can't see the truth it's because they are mislead or ignorant. This notion was popular among the Enlightenment philosophers, it is also wrong. And not only is it wrong, it leads to atrocities and totalitarianism ("Re-Education Camps", etc.). It also leads to the "Conspiracy Theory of Society", the notion that the reason that people can't see the ideologues' "self-evident truths" is because the elites are suppressing them. You see this a lot in both Marxist and Libertarian rhetoric.
I wouldn't limit the effect to Marxists and Libertarians. If you had two auditoriums, put Rush Limbaugh and a bunch of his followers in one, and Michael Moore and a bunch of his followers in the other, you could see the effect. Each would preach self evident truths to their particular choirs. Both rooms would be convinced that the folks in the other room are mislead, ignorant, or otherwise divorced from how reality should and does work.

Or you just need one auditorium on two days. Jay Leno invited Limbaugh and Moore on his show last week. Both got enthusiastic applause.







Post#1432 at 10-01-2009 02:07 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-01-2009, 02:07 AM #1432
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Left Arrow Republican (little R) Virtue

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
This seems to be a Boomer and Xer vice, to preach about rights but forget about duties and responsibilities, like spoiled children. What ever happened to republican (little R) virtue?
It might be more turnings related rather than generational. The GIs certainly knew about duty, both in World War II and in their tax and spend willingness to contribute to the big projects for the general good. The boomers of the early blue awakening shared a concern for the good of society. For the boomers it was often less materialistic, but in their own way they gave of themselves to correct what was wrong.

Then came Watergate, the Fall of Saigon, the Oil Crisis, the Hostage Crisis, the resultant National Malaise that lead into Morning in America. By Morning in America we were all in selfish unraveling mode. Working to improve society was just a pain, so everyone partied. The Boomers shifted from agitating for various causes to dancing under disco balls.

Unravelings are supposed to be hedonistic. It's supposed to be centered on the nomads, but the prophets get caught up in it too. Supposedly, come the crisis, the prophets should regain their idealism while the civics are willing to pick up their tools and get at it.

Supposedly...







Post#1433 at 10-01-2009 08:49 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
10-01-2009, 08:49 AM #1433
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
Unravelings are supposed to be hedonistic. It's supposed to be centered on the nomads, but the prophets get caught up in it too. Supposedly, come the crisis, the prophets should regain their idealism while the civics are willing to pick up their tools and get at it.

Supposedly...
Why is it taking so long this time?

I am still not sure we have reached the tipping point or social moment in this Crisis. Some thought it would be the financial meltdown of '08 and Obama's election on top of that, but it seems as if: 1)we've managed to avoid a full-blown depression and simply got a deep recession for our efforts; 2) we're still engaged in 3T bickering between the two major political parties.

If there is another shoe to drop, what will that look like?







Post#1434 at 10-01-2009 09:42 AM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
10-01-2009, 09:42 AM #1434
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
Why is it taking so long this time?

I am still not sure we have reached the tipping point or social moment in this Crisis. Some thought it would be the financial meltdown of '08 and Obama's election on top of that, but it seems as if: 1)we've managed to avoid a full-blown depression and simply got a deep recession for our efforts; 2) we're still engaged in 3T bickering between the two major political parties.

If there is another shoe to drop, what will that look like?
I don't know, Kiff. But I'm afraid to find out .

Then again, it could be that we're simply in for a much milder Crisis era this time around, comparable to the British equivalent of our ACW Crisis.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King







Post#1435 at 10-01-2009 10:04 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-01-2009, 10:04 AM #1435
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Left Arrow Crisis Feeling

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
Why is it taking so long this time?

I am still not sure we have reached the tipping point or social moment in this Crisis. Some thought it would be the financial meltdown of '08 and Obama's election on top of that, but it seems as if: 1)we've managed to avoid a full-blown depression and simply got a deep recession for our efforts; 2) we're still engaged in 3T bickering between the two major political parties.

If there is another shoe to drop, what will that look like?
Look at the severity of the issues. We have wars in progress in Iraq and Afghanistan, but do they begin to match the intensity of the Civil War or World War II?

The political hot issue of the month is health care. How different is the feel of the discussion and debate from the unraveling? I believe Obama is serious in an attempt to do something big for the people and the economy, but so was Clinton 42, the process still reeks of unraveling, and nothing is being asked of the People. We're on the outside watching politicians dither. The result might not be immediately earth shaking when it ends.

The economy isn't at its best, but it isn't the Great Depression, either.

Global Warming is a a possible end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it issue, but the threat is diffused and anything but immediately obvious. There are no smoking guns, and again no obvious threats.

I am also growing more dubious about any notion that the national mood can stay obviously different in an extreme way. We have seen a couple of major emotional catalysts: September 11th and the Housing Bubble collapse of 2008. For a brief time, everyone was emotionally involved. Those moments might have pulled us into some altered state of emotional consciousness that involved blood, toil, sweat and tears.

But neither seems to have sustained. We are accepting the hatred of Al Qaeda. The War on Terror has been going on for years, and will continue indefinitely. We are aware some people are really hurting, and many of us are being less absurd with credit, but that seems more a return to sanity than an cultural transformation.

And I don't think the extreme post major catalyst traumatic feeling does sustain. We who follow the theory might be hoping that at some point everyone's values shift to match one's own and everyone's commitment to said values goes into turbo over drive in order to create Paradise on Earth. Maybe our expectations are a bit high?

This might be it. This might be as much of a crisis as we are going to get. Queen Victoria faced a crisis where the potato crops were failing in Ireland, the land owning House of Lords were keeping food exports out in order to maximize their own profits, while factory living conditions were as per Charles Dickens. This was about the time Marx originally proposed that revolution was inevitable. A good many people thought he might have a point.

Queen Victoria and her allies, while she might properly be remembered as conservative, gave enough ground that the revolution never happened. In Germany, Bismarck did much the same. It is sometimes (always?) in the interests of the elite ruling class to give enough ground to the progressive reformers that they don't actually light torches and form mobs.

That may be where we're at. The Democrats might be trying to secure power by working in the interests of the people, trying to create another long term majority such as followed FDR. The Republicans might be trying to sabotage this while maintaining the influence and financial advantages of the elites as much as they can. It is in the interests of neither party to let everything go over a cliff. However, I don't see us securely on a road to Churchill's "broad sunlit uplands" either.







Post#1436 at 10-01-2009 10:19 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
10-01-2009, 10:19 AM #1436
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

The health insurance issue could be the shoe that drops.

I am hearing stories about premiums doubling within the next 8-10 years. Doubling. My family coverage is in the neighborhood of $14,000 per year at least. I only pay a small percentage of that, but my employer (a governmental entity at that) will not be able to continue to provide the services it does with these kinds of increases.

Appeals to human interest (20,000 per year dying without health insurance), sadly, don't seem to be having an impact on the powers that be. Perhaps we will have to rely on economic interest alone.







Post#1437 at 10-01-2009 12:42 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
10-01-2009, 12:42 PM #1437
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket martyr View Post
So modern Somalia is the shining light in the contemporary world as the anarchist haven?

Nuff said.
Well, I merely said that it was interesting. But things there are certainly better than is portrayed by the MSM, and many of their nation-wide problems stem from harmful American and European intervention.







Post#1438 at 10-01-2009 01:00 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
10-01-2009, 01:00 PM #1438
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
The health insurance issue could be the shoe that drops.

I am hearing stories about premiums doubling within the next 8-10 years. Doubling. My family coverage is in the neighborhood of $14,000 per year at least. I only pay a small percentage of that, but my employer (a governmental entity at that) will not be able to continue to provide the services it does with these kinds of increases.

Appeals to human interest (20,000 per year dying without health insurance), sadly, don't seem to be having an impact on the powers that be. Perhaps we will have to rely on economic interest alone.
The healthcare system that we now have may force people to abandon medical care altogether or go "self-insured". We have the most expensive system in the world -- and it may get spectacular results for people with unlimited funds, but otherwise it will not work for most of us because it will be inaccessible to most of us due to extreme costs. We may end up with the medical situation of the late 19th century, with people buying nostrums that offer relief of pain without explaining why they give relief from pain -- this time black-market concoctions sold by people who offer their wares with such language as "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies!"
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#1439 at 10-01-2009 01:05 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
10-01-2009, 01:05 PM #1439
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
Through my first several years of college, I pursued philosophy rather heavily. I got disappointed when I realized that the premises underlying most philosophical systems were often cultural biases or wishful thinking.
Culture influences thought. I don't see why you would find that to be disappointing. I think it enriches philosophical works.

It is one thing to say there is a right to live without coercion. It is another thing to say that man is a social animal that forms groups, acquires territory, selects leaders, and makes rules. A right to live free of coercion... what evidence does one have to support that it exists? How could one begin to prove such a right in any objective sense?
Rights are both descriptive andnormative, and it seems fair to question how we could possibly be convinced by certain normative claims. But at the same time, I think rights are really quite modest assertions--side-constraints on our actions: "I should promote causes beneficial to humanity so long as they don't violate X." Now, I wouldn't say we have a right to be free of coercion; physical aggression (or the threat of such aggression) seems more appropriate to describe the radical libertarian position if we are referring to common usage.

This cannot be proven in a scientific sense, but we can use some evidence to demonstrate that it's probable that this right does indeed exist. We can speculate as to whether good consequences will follow if the right to not be aggressed against (in all instances) is respected, we can consider if aggressing against certain people might be right in realistic scenarios, we may use other principles to arrive at this conclusion (i.e. initiating force against another person shows little respect for them), and so on. Again, I think the conceptual support is there for the NAP.







Post#1440 at 10-01-2009 01:09 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
10-01-2009, 01:09 PM #1440
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
That professor came a lot closer to convincing me that anarchy is a good thing than any of the high abstract philosophy I've seen on these forums. The problem is how one gets from here to there. How do you get all three groups of statists to just go away?
Most people, I imagine, are convinced by consequentialist arguments over deontological ones. Regardless, I don't think there has been a concentrated effort by any of the anarchists on this thread to go around convincing people.







Post#1441 at 10-01-2009 02:18 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-01-2009, 02:18 PM #1441
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Left Arrow Chaos...

Quote Originally Posted by Matt1989 View Post
Most people, I imagine, are convinced by consequentialist arguments over deontological ones. Regardless, I don't think there has been a concentrated effort by any of the anarchists on this thread to go around convincing people.
What do you think the anarchists are doing here then? I acknowledge that they aren't convincing people, but I thought they were trying.

My current theory is that they are trying to create anarchy.







Post#1442 at 10-01-2009 02:55 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-01-2009, 02:55 PM #1442
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Left Arrow Propaganda

Quote Originally Posted by Matt1989 View Post
Culture influences thought. I don't see why you would find that to be disappointing. I think it enriches philosophical works.
I wanted an approach that might bring closure, where the analysis provided insight into the real world and the possibility of practical application. Philosophy, at least as it was being taught at my university, was focused on ivory tower isolation. The modern readings I was given in class just didn't apply to the controversies I was reading in the popular press.

Quote Originally Posted by Matt1989 View Post
Rights are both descriptive and normative, and it seems fair to question how we could possibly be convinced by certain normative claims. But at the same time, I think rights are really quite modest assertions--side-constraints on our actions: "I should promote causes beneficial to humanity so long as they don't violate X." Now, I wouldn't say we have a right to be free of coercion; physical aggression (or the threat of such aggression) seems more appropriate to describe the radical libertarian position if we are referring to common usage.

This cannot be proven in a scientific sense, but we can use some evidence to demonstrate that it's probable that this right does indeed exist. We can speculate as to whether good consequences will follow if the right to not be aggressed against (in all instances) is respected, we can consider if aggressing against certain people might be right in realistic scenarios, we may use other principles to arrive at this conclusion (i.e. initiating force against another person shows little respect for them), and so on. Again, I think the conceptual support is there for the NAP.
At the moment I perceive rights to be a propaganda tool. They are a way to reveal a problem in a culture in such a way as to encourage solutions to the problem. They are a tool that might be usable to attract votes, inspire revolution, or otherwise alter society. They suggest that something is happening to The People which should not be happening.

To the degree that the new rights being discussed by anarchists can't be applied to solve problems, I don't see the point in playing the word games. A right which nobody particularly wants is at best ahead of its time. A tool which is of no use is of little interest.

I also find myself opening my dictionary window frequently trying to follow the anarchist / libertarian crowd. The ideas are esoteric enough that they seemingly cannot be described in plain english using the common usage of common words. Such ideas aren't much good as propaganda. If one wants to apply ideas, to make them part of the culture, one had best tune one's language and presentation so it is possible for the meme to spread.







Post#1443 at 10-01-2009 03:08 PM by haymarket martyr [at joined Sep 2008 #posts 2,547]
---
10-01-2009, 03:08 PM #1443
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
2,547

from Bob Butler

I also find myself opening my dictionary window frequently trying to follow the anarchist / libertarian crowd. The ideas are esoteric enough that they seemingly cannot be described in plain english using the common usage of common words. Such ideas aren't much good as propaganda. If one wants to apply ideas, to make them part of the culture, one had best tune one's language and presentation so it is possible for the meme to spread.
Amen brother. That is one significant reality. When I was on the debate team in college, they stressed the importance of defining your terms. Even though it was almost forty years ago and there are whole years I no longer remember, I do recall vividly the warning from the prof that beware when somebody has to redefine common terms in a very different way than common usage. That should tip you off that the definitions are purposely and intentionally being constructed to fit what is going to come later.

The libertarian constantly does that. It is like you have to learn to speak a different language to be able to follow all that they preach. I recall getting into a long discussion with a libertarian on another board over the subject of the impact of deregulation on the economic collapse in the USA. Now if you google the word DEREGULATION, you get this huge number of hits. Economists and politicians talk about the subject of deregulation all the time and it has a common usage which is known well.

The libertarian stubbornly clung to the idea that deregulation never happened. The proof is that we still have some government regulations over things having to do with the economy. When it was pointed out by several people that the term DEREGULATION is both a gradual process of incremental steps and also a shorthand way of saying "decreasing government regulation" he became even more entrenched saying over and over again that the existence of one government regulation proves that there is no such thing as DEREGULATION. All of the bad publicity in the world over DEREGULATION means nothing to him and in no way takes away from the libertarian crusade to deregulate all economic controls. Libertarians could still and would still push DEREGULATION as a policy because what everybody else thinks was deregulation just did not happen.

Unless you buy into the self serving libertarian construct, you cannot even have a rational discussion on the subject. Sadly, that happens far too often where the definitions of words are intentionally crafted and outright twisted for political purposes.
Last edited by haymarket martyr; 10-01-2009 at 07:46 PM.







Post#1444 at 10-01-2009 08:44 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
10-01-2009, 08:44 PM #1444
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

HM:

In the interests of clarity, it seems to be a standard free-market purist position that any amount of government intervention in the economy suffices to poison the well. No lessons can be drawn from the effects of reducing regulation, or of removing certain regulations, because if you have any regulation at all (beyond issuing currency, protecting property rights, contract enforcement, and the other regulations that don't count as regulations because they're, you know, "protecting our rights" which is what government is supposed to do), then you don't have a true free-market economy. If it squints and sidles towards being a free-market economy it still ain't the real critter and so no conclusions can be drawn about how a True Free Market Economy (TM) would perform.

It's absurd, agreed, but really not all that hard to understand.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1445 at 10-02-2009 09:21 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-02-2009, 09:21 AM #1445
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Right Arrow Wonderful...

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
HM:

In the interests of clarity, it seems to be a standard free-market purist position that any amount of government intervention in the economy suffices to poison the well. No lessons can be drawn from the effects of reducing regulation, or of removing certain regulations, because if you have any regulation at all (beyond issuing currency, protecting property rights, contract enforcement, and the other regulations that don't count as regulations because they're, you know, "protecting our rights" which is what government is supposed to do), then you don't have a true free-market economy. If it squints and sidles towards being a free-market economy it still ain't the real critter and so no conclusions can be drawn about how a True Free Market Economy (TM) would perform.

It's absurd, agreed, but really not all that hard to understand.
That.... fits. An excuse for not learning from the real world would correspond well with a lack of interest in applying the theories meaningfully to the real world.

I would think that even ivory towers need foundations, though.







Post#1446 at 10-02-2009 09:59 AM by independent [at Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here joined Apr 2008 #posts 1,286]
---
10-02-2009, 09:59 AM #1446
Join Date
Apr 2008
Location
Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here
Posts
1,286

Is there a plan to implement anarchy? Please don't tell me about absurd...

Of course there's no plan. What are we going to do, run for office and force our ideas on everyone? Run propaganda campaigns to convince everyone to think like us?

No. Liberty and anarchy aren't plans or platforms or systems.

They're the natural reaction to illegitimate government. They're an observation about the direction technology and evolution have been driving humans toward. Its an awareness of the shifting political trends and the failure of imperial homogeny. It looks at humanity and says: "I see more good than bad - and most of the bad is seeking power over another's free will."
'82 iNTp
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." -Jefferson







Post#1447 at 10-02-2009 10:12 AM by haymarket martyr [at joined Sep 2008 #posts 2,547]
---
10-02-2009, 10:12 AM #1447
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
2,547

from Independent

They're the natural reaction to illegitimate government.
"illegitimate government".... a perfect and most timely illustration of the over the top hyperbole and meaningless usage of words which are intended to have the same reaction as crying fire in a crowded theater.







Post#1448 at 10-02-2009 10:46 AM by independent [at Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here joined Apr 2008 #posts 1,286]
---
10-02-2009, 10:46 AM #1448
Join Date
Apr 2008
Location
Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here
Posts
1,286

Thumbs down

Hyperbole? Let's take a look at reality. The reality created in our name, with our money, for our "common good."






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCnHgrB-lhA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMyY3_dmrM






This is not an abberation. This is not all Bush's fault.

This is not a legitimate government or the "will of the people." This is how thugs run an empire.

Forget your apologetic delusions. Or keep preaching to your choir - it doesn't really matter because the past has already been written and the future doesn't belong to you.
Last edited by independent; 10-02-2009 at 10:59 AM.
'82 iNTp
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." -Jefferson







Post#1449 at 10-02-2009 11:18 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-02-2009, 11:18 AM #1449
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Left Arrow Preaching to the Mirror?

Quote Originally Posted by independent View Post
This is how thugs run an empire. Forget your apologetic delusions. Or keep preaching to your choir, but the kids ain't buyin' it.
Sure. This isn't the best of all possible worlds. You have a right to cry and whine and throw a tantrum. The question is whether you have a reasonable path to change things for the better.

The answer is apparently no.

I'm not sure why I should pay attention to the tantrum.

The perspective of the Afghan village just wanting the three statist factions to go away was interesting, but will building cell phone towers so they can access libertarian - anarchist propaganda really be helpful if they can't afford cell phones? Still, there is a fraction of a practical policy approach in there. Among the other things Obama has to do if there is to be a statist solution would be to alter doctrine as best as is possible so the villagers do not want the Afghan national force, and to a lesser degree the foreign forces, to go away.

The idea of a right to not be coerced is interesting, and has gone on my list of goals that might be sought after, and as a way of avoiding resistance in going after other goals, but there are enough other issues that are higher priority to the general public that I don't see it as playing a significant role in this crisis. I'm dubious about the next crisis.

I'm trying to listen. One can pick up a few odd pieces of dross here and there from the anarcho libertarians. I am not getting the impression that the libertarian-anarchists are even trying to listen. They have a world view. The victory condition seems to be to not listen, to not be forced to change.

Or maybe it is messier than that. Why are people joining these conversations? Some seem to be focused on personal ego trips, on struggles for dominance. Frequent shifts to ad-hom mode seem to reflect this.

There is an element propagandizing. Some have a world view which they wish to preach. However, in this case, the anarcho libertarians seem unwilling to step far away from their linguistic tautologies to preach effectively. They seem to be more focused on not changing their own minds than stating their ideas in a way that they become acceptable. If they do not care to listen, learn and grow, I wouldn't expect them to become more than the fringe minority they are today.

What I'm not seeing is any desire for synthesis. I'm not seeing folks borrowing from each other's world views in order to create a stronger world view that is better than those that are under discussion. The question ought not to be limited to which of the two obviously flawed and unacceptable as currently implemented world views is better. The question perhaps ought to be how to create and spread a new and acceptable hybrid world view that might solve the problems the world is facing.

I'll note that the above criticisms could hardly be limited only to the anarcho libertarians. The Republican and Democratic partisans aren't all that different. There is all together too much preaching and ad-hominem all around. There is all too little listening.

But this, alas, is all too human.







Post#1450 at 10-02-2009 12:31 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
10-02-2009, 12:31 PM #1450
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by independent View Post
No. Liberty and anarchy aren't plans or platforms or systems.

They're the natural reaction to illegitimate government.
No, the natural reaction to government that we judge to be "illegitimate" (or, more accurately, just plain bad) is to implement better government.

Let me amend that: this is the natural reaction of grown-ups, who are aware that government is needed, equally aware that it can go sour, and thus in conclusion aware that at times matters need to be corrected.

Anarchy may well be a natural reaction among children who haven't learned that lesson yet, or who insist on denying it despite all evidence of reality.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
-----------------------------------------