Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Endorsement from a Libertarian writer

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    > TZM/TVP are both about access to resources, not equal shares.

    First you don't decide what TZM/TVP is about,
    I didn't decide anything; I'm merely pointing out what TZM & TVP have already stated:

    On TVP's website, it's in the very first one here: https://www.thevenusproject.com/faq/...netary-system/

    "It is not money that people need, it is access to resources."

    On TZM's website, its # 4, "Access ofver Property", 3rd paragraph: TZM - FAQ

    "The real issue relevant to meeting human needs is not ownership - it is access."

    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    we the people do, and we the people say equal shares !
    Well I'm part of "we the people", and I never said that.

    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    Otherwise it is no different to the current system where some have more, and some have less.
    It's different in other ways, ways that do matter. Some having more and some having less is not the reason society is having problems. Problems occur when those who need something don't have access to whatever it is. Equal shares is a nonsense "solution" for something that isn't a problem; if I'm wrong, (anyone) please show me how the application of the scientific method for social concern arrived at such a conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    > By giving everyone an equal share of something,
    > no one (except for the person who happens to want
    > exactly the amount provided by an equal share)
    > will get the amount they want or need;

    Give them a resource that is interchangeable with every other resources, like say a currency..
    We already have that now, and the reason we have it is because it's far more efficient to have a medium of exchange than to barter. Either way, it's still trade & what this movement is advocating is to move away from the need for trade.

    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    Then you will reach efficiency, with those having too much for their needs can donate it to to those who want more.
    Some people do donate, and some don't. Some people hoard it and use it for other reasons. What qualifies as too much? Who decides? Sounds subjective to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    Assuming those who want more can provide a good reason / argument why they should have it over anyone else who wants it..
    Who do they need to provide a good reason to or argument, some state official? I think that kind of thing has been shown to not only be inefficient, but it can also be ineffective. What TVP & TZM advocate is a society with no state, no one to go to in order to obtain permission to do something. There is no state if there isn't some official putting a gun to your head to force you to do something & prisons to lock people up for refusing to comply; there is a state if those things do exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    This may well encourage folk to give money to worthy causes and not just to someone who wants their own jet..
    Why would it do that more (or at all) than what we have today? Plenty of people already do give money to worthy causes today.

    Also, are you suggesting that right now everyone only gives money to someone who wants their own jet? Furthermore, is that necessarily a bad thing? For example, what if the purpose of the jet is for a worthy cause, such as for the person or group that wants it - in order to be able to quickly visit place to place with some kind of problem, so they can either solve it or bring needed supplies? Even if it weren't what some would label a "worthy cause", such as someone looking for investments in a business jet to start a company, which will need employees, which in turn means jobs are created, some new good or service becomes available, etc. There happens to be an actual case of someone who did a crowdfunding campaign for a jet; it's for some religious guy with a bunch of followers who are willing to send him their money (unfortunately). Personally I think it's a waste of money and resources, but as a libertarian I also think people ought to be free to do that if they want to, and not have to if they don't want to; as a libertarian who thinks that one's a waste of money and resources, I have chosen not to contribute to that particular crowdfunding campaign.
    Last edited by Neil; 1 Week Ago at 08:58 AM.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Why every time I hear a Libertarian speak, I get this?

    My property, my stuff! Keep your bloody hands off my Money! Dangnabbit !!
    If you're not like that yourself, then you shouldn't mind if I ask you to hand over to me your car, your house, your money, your computer, your smartphone, or anything else you have. If you do mind, then either it's not just Libertarian speak, or you are (by your own argument) a Libertarian yourself. If you do mind, and you are a Libertarian, then I don't think I'd be able to answer your question any better than you can.

    It's not just Libertarian speak, the entire world is based on this sentiment; if the Libertarian is speaking that way, the reason is no different from what the rest of the world's reason is for doing so.

    There's a glaring omission to this; what this doesn't do is speak to who wants to improve things for everyone. At this point I think history has provided us with enough information to know what does and doesn't work to improve things. In a nutshell, to me it's libertarianism that wants to improve things for society, and it's the other end of the spectrum (socialism) that makes things worse; it's that to me because that's what history has shown me. To me, either people are ignoring history, or they're not interested in improving things for everyone, if they want socialism rather than libertarianism; I'm not really trying to push that position per se, just trying to provide a response to you that hopefully will give you some perspective or insight that might satisfy your inquiry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    It seems to me that an ideology that focuses on the MEEE to much.... might run in to a few problems.
    Perhaps people are like that because they've run into problems or know someone who has run into problems. Maybe they've been mugged, conned, or duped. I'd guess that for at least some it's a matter of trusting others too much and having bad experiences doing so. If you're insinuating that they're just a bunch of greedy, selfish, self-centered people, you might be right about some of them, but you're probably projecting or judging people if you're doing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Also the question of are there Poor Libertarians out there is quite revealing, No?
    The question, or the answer to that question? Maybe the answer to that question might be, but why would it? After putting some thought into it, as far as I can tell, a person's wealth might have some, but not that much impact on their ideology; I think we can find rich, poor, and in between for all ideologies. One thing I've found, though, is that far more multi-billionaires tend to be Democrats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    I mean it's obvious why someone of upper-class might be a Libertarian but how about someone in the Lower-Class being a Libertarian?
    I would say that if the upper class (or anyone else for that matter) were libertarian it would seem obvious to me; but why is it that upper class Democrats outnumber upper class Republicans and independents by 3 to 1 each, according to this chart?


    I can also understand the hesitancy for the lower class to be libertarian, given that the day-to-day dilemma they're probably in skews their perception of reality more it does for the middle class and upper class. They're probably too busy working multiple jobs and don't have time to do adequate research, for example; so when a politician comes along and promises to give them stuff when it comes election time, they're probably drawn to them. Of course when the stuff runs out, what does the politician do? Why, they blame the other politicians who don't make such promises & they say they'll raise taxes on "the rich" so they can get more stuff.

    Question is, is that sustainable & what are the side effects? The libertarians seem to be the ones with the best answers to those questions; they seem to be the ones who pay attention to history the most. It's important to pay attention to history, including for science; in essence, the application of the scientific method is about what we've learned from history; a discovery or experiment is a historical event.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Shouldn't as a society we be taking cues from the Lower rungs of the Economic spectrum?
    Yes, but I think society tends to ignore them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Wouldn't what they have to say be more telling on how our Socioeconomic landscape is impacting the whole Class sphere?
    That depends on various circumstances; there is no simple "yes" or "no" answer to this question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    I mean the Upper-Class focus on what they have so we know that.
    Everyone focuses on what they have; but I think those who have very little are far more focused on what they have than a wealthy person who has a practically care-free life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    But the Lower-Class are actually dancing with the game of actual survival so it seems to me they would have the most telling input on our Economic Failures and how to address them...
    Actually everyone is, even the wealthiest folks. They're still susceptible to the ravages of poverty if they lose all their wealth; but for them it would probably be much harder on them to hit the bottom because they'd be falling from much higher than most. The average lower class person, and even from time-to-time probably some middle class folks, who have to strech things to make basic ends meet have some practice doing so; the upper class never have such practice - unless & until it's too late for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    But paradoxically I think there could be poor people who believe in Libertarianism. They might just have some basic understanding of how it affects them like centering on the Freedom or the Limited Gov part. In that case who wouldn't be one right.
    It seems hard to tell; there are complex, dynamic, and chaotic factors involved in trying to pin down some certain answers.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    @ Neil...sorry, Bro, you cannot convince me that there's anything of value within Libertarianism...'Been There, Done That'.....
    That's ok; you're only one person.

    I get we all have our unique life's experiences that cause us to arrive at different conclusions. My main goal and interest is that we all (you, me, and everyone else reading this) continue to explore things to try to understand or learn something new.

    My responses are typically to try to provide an understanding of what I think I've found from my own life's experiences.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    They don't believe in SHARING....and that's my personal 'line in the sand' for any ideology....
    Actually they believe in sharing more than those on the opposite end of the spectrum do; those on the opposite end of the spectrum believe in placing some restrictions and even some bans on sharing.

    What TZM advocates could take us away from a system of sharing, because sharing implies ownership of the resources in question being shared and TZM wants to move away from ownership of resource. When there's access to resources and no trade, no one owns any of it.

    One of my lines in the sand for any ideology has to do with when it's ok to force people to do things they don't want to do or not permitting them to do what they want to do; libertarianism seems to do the best job of keeping its distance from that line while at the same time not coming to close to, or crossing, other lines in the sand.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Seems there's Lots of misunderstanding around Semantics AGAIN! ...a common occurrence between us sometimes, no?
    LOL yeah I suppose you could say that & on that note, perhaps you could explain what exactly you mean by sharing? The word "share" is generally used to refer to an allotment of stocks in the stock market, or essentially things to that effect. I take it that you mean somewhere more along the lines of something to do with being charitable; is this close to the mark? Even then, my hands are tied in making an assessment that might sound like this: when the state is used to forcibly take from some to give it to others, that's not charity; that's more like politicians buying votes in exchange for what they've plundered.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    I've not 'hesitated' on calling out anything, anyone or any ideologies that I'm aware of...(Thought you knew me better).....and I still refuse to accept any infringement on my 'freedom to live the life I choose'.....

    That feeling isn't one just held by Libertarians, ya know?
    Sure; it's not about one or two aspects associated with certain ideologies; it's the ideologies as a whole that matters.

    (I'm running into problems posting my reply - it's forcing me to split it into 2 separate posts.)

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    ....and YES.....I have a strong desire to know 'where' people get their ideas from...so, during most any conversation I don't/won't hesitate to ask someone (s) where, what, and who they are listening to....and will often present another perspective, one not known before...or Not ....I've heard it's called conversation
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    TBH; its the "Labels" themselves that I find obtuse, intrusive and way too often divisive in scope and purpose.... but its also something all humans seem to do.....labeling everything....regardless of the fit
    On one hand we do need labels (if a bottle with a liquid in it has a skull & crossbones label, I know not to drink it), but I agree that they have to be used accurately. It's also important to define what we mean when we use a word & if that's not done then I think people should instead be descriptive, without omitting anything.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,757
    Neil...Sometimes I think you debate just for the sake of debating??????

    I've been around for a while and have never met a generous Libertarian (they've all been greedy and self serving), even when I was attempting to practice its philosophy....

    However, I've also met and known many poor folks who would literally give you the shirt off their back or SHARE their last meal with you.

    TBH; I've found poor folks to be more honest and genuine than the Well Off.....and I'm around both classes quite a bit....

    I've tried repeatedly to explain my views on SHARING (the wealth we allow to be stolen....often by self proclaimed Libertarians)....but so far, you've been 'too busy' to explore them....and have admitted it at least twice that I can remember.....yet you continue to minimize what cannot be understood unless and until that exploration is completed....Thus it remains my opinion; that maybe you really don't want to 'see' something that may challenge your current world view.????

    I think I'll start a new thread about SHARING..(wouldn't be the first one)....those who do, those who don't....why and why not.......Those interested in responding must READ some Henry George First or they will be ignored....


    .....and .....talking about semantics ....or maybe....talking about purposely presenting confusing replies to another's inquiry or questions......is what?


    "Labeling a bottle of poison is NOT the same as labeling humans"
    YouTuber, Ernest and HAL9000 like this.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Neil...Sometimes I think you debate just for the sake of debating??????
    Ok, but you freely chose to chime in on this thread & I'm just responding to it. Now you want to complain about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    I've been around for a while and have never met a generous Libertarian (they've all been greedy and self serving), even when I was attempting to practice its philosophy....

    However, I've also met and known many poor folks who would literally give you the shirt off their back or SHARE their last meal with you.

    TBH; I've found poor folks to be more honest and genuine than the Well Off.....and I'm around both classes quite a bit....
    Even if I were to concede that libertarians aren't generous & they're greed and self serving (not only will I not concede anything like that, but I also think it applies more to those on the opposite end of the spectrum from libertarians), what's the relevance of that to this thread? This thread isn't about claiming that libertarians are generous. Seems to me you're just trying to create a diversion or engage in some appeal to emotion.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    I've tried repeatedly to explain my views on SHARING (the wealth we allow to be stolen....often by self proclaimed Libertarians)....but so far, you've been 'too busy' to explore them....and have admitted it at least twice that I can remember.....yet you continue to minimize what cannot be understood unless and until that exploration is completed....Thus it remains my opinion; that maybe you really don't want to 'see' something that may challenge your current world view.????
    I think I know what you're talking about, but I don't agree with how you're trying to portray those situations. It sounds to me like you're trying to rehash something that I've already explained or rebutted; but if I did miss something or never got around to following up on it, let me know and I'll check it out & respond to it. Sometimes days or weeks go by and I don't respond to some things, and they end up getting buried in the forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    I think I'll start a new thread about SHARING..(wouldn't be the first one)....those who do, those who don't....why and why not.......Those interested in responding must READ some Henry George First or they will be ignored....
    Maybe they'll be ignored by you, but how are you going to force all other readers to ignore it? Anyways, if you do create a thread, be sure to explain what its relevance is to TZM, or I'll ignore it.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    .....and .....talking about semantics ....or maybe....talking about purposely presenting confusing replies to another's inquiry or questions......is what?
    If you find something I wrote confusing, say so & I'll try to clarify. From what I recall, there have been times I'd try to ask you to answer a question or explain something, yet you were unwilling to do so; that doesn't help.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    "Labeling a bottle of poison is NOT the same as labeling humans"
    It is if it comes to trusting someone who has a credibility problem or is a known scam artist.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,757
    O Neil....Sorry Man....but....No....its too obvious....you do not know what I'm talking about...it hasn't been explained, nor has it been rebutted.....and its apparent that you don't view it as very important,,,,so....When the subject comes up again I'm just gonna have to refrain from engaging with you further....what a shame....I really thought you may be seeking something besides libertarianism....which has become another beast, far from its origins in recent times....

    I don't care about being ignored dude...if I did...I would have left this place long ago......

    Who's the scam artist? The one playing with a full deck or the the one with missing cards? If ya don't want to understand economics as they relate to libertarianism who am I to convince you?....I really don't care.....but its disingenuous to present something to this forum that doesn't exist....(i.e.) a clear understanding of Henry George, Land, Land Values, economics, taxation, and dare I say Libertarianism...........on and on....

    Less time building robots, more time engaging with humans would help perhaps? I'm trying to be sincere here....trying to understand.....

    Sure wish you would have met me at Harry's in DC...I had two gifts for you....we could have had a much better conversation....perhaps with a LOT more understanding.....

    (I think you're just seeking a fight now, and I'm not interested)
    YouTuber and HAL9000 like this.

  8. #18
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    29
    > Problems occur when those who need something don't have access to whatever it is.

    Perfectly true, though probably not for the reasons you might think. :-)


    Need is often a selfish want thing, portrayed as a need by those wanting resources.

    Now, if you was talking about need for the species, then it wouldn't be a selfish act, if you could figure out what is best for the species and dish out resources on that basis.


    > it's still trade & what this movement is advocating is to move away from the need for trade.

    That is one big error in my book, I reckon we don't need to move away from trade, we need to make it more efficient, and provide more data so people can trade and get more of a fair deal in the process.

    As at the moment, part of the reason profit can be obtained in a trade is because one side has more information than the other on the deal.

    Moving away from trade is one of those things you suggest to your enemy to do to make them weaker. :-)


    > What TVP & TZM advocate is a society with no state,

    This is also one of the things you suggest to your enemy too..

    Sure advocate the smallest state size possible, with the least laws and rules to follow, but to completely abandon it, rather foolish.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    O Neil....Sorry Man....but....No....its too obvious....you do not know what I'm talking about...it hasn't been explained, nor has it been rebutted.....
    First you say that you've tried to explain it repeatedly & I essentially concur with you about that; now you're saying "it hasn't been explained"? Can you see from this that you seem to have issues articulating yourself, which wouldn't be something that's my fault?

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    and its apparent that you don't view it as very important,,,,so....When the subject comes up again I'm just gonna have to refrain from engaging with you further....what a shame....I really thought you may be seeking something besides libertarianism....which has become another beast, far from its origins in recent times....
    I read the synopsis & gave my reason for deciding not to read it, at least not anytime soon. If I didn't consider your reading recommendations important, I wouldn't have bothered to read the associated synopsis or given an explanation for my decision. I don't ready many books; one of the reasons is because it takes me a while to finish them & part of the reason is probably because I have a very limited attention span. I finally finished reading Trump's book & I don't even remember when I started reading it, even though it was a book that managed to hold my interest well enough to actually finish it.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    I don't care about being ignored dude...if I did...I would have left this place long ago......
    That's appeal to pity, for one thing; everyone gets ignored at some level by everyone else. I have shown you plenty of regard by virtue of my discussions with you & it's ok if you don't appreciate it, given that others who read what I wrote still can.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Who's the scam artist? The one playing with a full deck or the the one with missing cards?
    The one with the missing cards is the scam artist & unless you want to argue with me that the one with a full deck is the scam artist, I don't see the relevance of this question.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    If ya don't want to understand economics as they relate to libertarianism who am I to convince you?....I really don't care.....but its disingenuous to present something to this forum that doesn't exist....(i.e.) a clear understanding of Henry George, Land, Land Values, economics, taxation, and dare I say Libertarianism...........on and on....
    LOL It's rather interesting to read you make a comment about presenting something on this forum that doesn't exist, given that this whole movement is about advocating transitioning to something that doesn't exist, yet.

    I think what libertarianism advocates has in fact existed, over time it's getting eroded by more laws & restrictions, and it's making society worse - not better - than it could've been.

    Do you think it's ok to use the state to put guns to people's heads to either force them to do something they don't want to do, or to prohibit them from being able to do something they want to do (provided there's no victim as a result of what someone else wants to do or doesn't want to do)?

    When I lived on Oahu as a child in the mid 80's, my family used to go to Hanauma Bay; some who are familiar with it might be aware of a spot called the Toilet Bowl: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGrfW0nsakw

    I went into it a few times when we would visit Hanauma Bay, and it was one of the funnest spots on Oahu. Fast forward to today, the information age; one of the things I looked up not long ago was Hanauma Bay's Toilet Bowl, and I was a bit disappointed (to say the least) to find out that Hawaii closed it to the public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWfPZuQv6m4

    Libertarianism wants to let people be free to do things such as enjoy nature's playgrounds; ideologies at the opposite end of the spectrum (socialism, authoritarianism, whatever you want to call them) want to put up walls to keep its citizens - strike that - its slaves away from what they want, such as the fence in that video.

    The world's an inherently a dangerous place; being alive is inherently dangerous. I think it's ridiculous that they fenced off the Toilet Bowl. The state can place everyone under house arrest, take away all the sharp tools and objects in our kitchens & garages, shut off the electricity, and do many other things to "protect" us. There's no end to what the state can do to try to "protect" everyone; no matter what, it'll never be enough.

    "Papers, please?" ("please" - yeah right)

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Less time building robots, more time engaging with humans would help perhaps? I'm trying to be sincere here....trying to understand.....
    No way, Jose! I ain't gonna stop my effort to transition to an "RBE" or post-scarcity society. LMAO

    Actually, at the moment I've been working on trying to develop a gardening tool; it happens to be an idea I came up with when we were trying to clear some of the area where we had our apiary up in the Loudoun county mountains, so we could plant a bunch of flowers for the bees.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Sure wish you would have met me at Harry's in DC...I had two gifts for you....we could have had a much better conversation....perhaps with a LOT more understanding.....
    I agree; let me know next time you're in town & I'll be sure to make arrangements to meet you wherever you're staying.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    (I think you're just seeking a fight now, and I'm not interested)
    LOL I've been fighting to defend what I consider worthy to defend; I'm sure you know that's what being an activist, including being a member of this movement, is about.
    Last edited by Neil; 1 Week Ago at 04:00 AM.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,757
    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    > Problems occur when those who need something don't have access to whatever it is.

    Perfectly true, though probably not for the reasons you might think. :-)


    Need is often a selfish want thing, portrayed as a need by those wanting resources.

    Now, if you was talking about need for the species, then it wouldn't be a selfish act, if you could figure out what is best for the species and dish out resources on that basis.


    > it's still trade & what this movement is advocating is to move away from the need for trade.

    That is one big error in my book, I reckon we don't need to move away from trade, we need to make it more efficient, and provide more data so people can trade and get more of a fair deal in the process.

    As at the moment, part of the reason profit can be obtained in a trade is because one side has more information than the other on the deal.

    Moving away from trade is one of those things you suggest to your enemy to do to make them weaker. :-)


    > What TVP & TZM advocate is a society with no state,

    This is also one of the things you suggest to your enemy too..

    Sure advocate the smallest state size possible, with the least laws and rules to follow, but to completely abandon it, rather foolish.


    We should never confuse NEEDS with WANTS. We NEED air, land, food,...each other? (maybe, maybe not)....everything else is WANTS.....
    Ernest likes this.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1