Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57
Like Tree49Likes

Thread: Endorsement from a Libertarian writer

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    In a "Libertarian World", cronyism would be relatively insignificant because there wouldn't be so many government positions available for politicians to hand out to their friends & family; monopolies wouldn't be a problem where they jack up the prices because government wouldn't be doing things to prevent new businesses that can compete with them from entering the market; corruption would be far more difficult to achieve because politicians only have a tiny fraction of power to corrupt.
    Well I wish it was that easy buuut ......

    It just sounds to me like then Libertarians believe that Cronyism/Monopoly/Corruption are things mostly the Government is involved in or maybe even invented?

    So with a much Smaller Government, other institutions still around with significant power & influence wouldn't involve themselves in these type of activities??

    Man this would be hard to imagine. I mean to me, these behaviors manifest when there are incentives that present themselves that will produce rewards & advantages to those people's Lives and others in their group. If you can honestly say that these type of incentives & motivating factors will no longer be prevalent in the Libertarian World, then what you're saying is more likely to happen. But since we would still be living under a Free Market System, then you start to run into Contradictions here. Because basically when people become involved in these type of behaviors, they are doing it for the sole purposes of Competing & getting ahead in the Market System. This is just another tactic in increasing one's Power & Wealth in Society.

    So how can we expect under a Libertarian Free Market System that these type of things wouldn't continue to exist when like I said, the Rewards & Advantages gained are so enticing to those who are presented with these opportunities?

    Wishful Thinking maybe .....

    Why don't you call it & tell me how you arrived at your conclusion? While you're at it, don't forget to specify what version of capitalism you're talking about: free market or central planning.
    Any type of Capitalism with Scarcity, Competition, Private Ownership, Money etc..

    For me I basically just believe that it had some good intentions but simply it's just not relevant & up-to-date enough now to where we are as a civilization today. I feel this type of Economic structure Needs to Evolve its way into a more conducive stage with our current understandings of all Life sustainabilities.
    Last edited by Ernest; 02-20-2017 at 07:36 PM. Reason: forgot something
    droneBEE, HAL9000 and Phil like this.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    649
    "Libertarian means extreme advocate of total tyranny; according to them power ought to be given into the hands of private unaccountable tyrannies".

    I have zero tolerance for libertarians.

    Ernest, Phil and droneBEE like this.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Would/could Libertarianism exist without capitalism?
    After society has transitioned to a post-scarcity society, it would surpass the minimum requirements to qualify as a libertarian society. So the answer is not only a yes, it's a yes+ or yes and then some.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Libertarians claim that a SHARING Economy wouldn't work.......despite the fact that its not been tried
    Who said it wouldn't work? Show me where libertarians have ever made such a claim.

    A sharing economy is what we have right now & it's what we've had for a long time. Perhaps you ought to explain what you mean by sharing economy; provide me with an external source - and please don't tell me that you've explained it, because you haven't as far as I can tell. If you would just provide me a link to where you explained it, then I'll say "ok, yes, you have indeed explained it".

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Libertarians advocate a version of Libertarianism which is only accessible to those in society who are minimally doing well and then denies its exclusionary precepts ......

    This is what's wrong with simply 'following' ideologies or ideas....or any Leader.... without staying open and aware of the fluidity and complexities of both.

    After a certain point, 'following' always becomes a form of Blind Tribalism......a form of enslavement....
    I genuinely wish I understood where you're getting this from (not to mention - what are you talking about? It doesn't sound like anything resembling or relevant to libertarianism, as far as I know).

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Right, I think that's why it would be awesome if we could Test ideas first and compare them to others so we can actually experience how they would work and affect people's Lives. Instead we just have to accept the ideas of so called "professional leaders" that mostly do more harm and Don't improve most people's Lives.

    So I think our problem lies in not following and using Scientific methods to show us what ideas genuinely work. And this comes back to the Human Condition of too much Ego. People don't want to be wrong. There goes that Fear again ..
    We do! We have! Unfortunately for some reason people come along, run for office, promise "if you vote for me I promise the moon and the stars", they muck a well-tuned, efficient system, make things worse, blame the other guy and repeat the same empty promises. Then it doesn't end there; now people think that before we had the politicians who promised the moon and the stars things didn't work. That's why I agree with JF:


  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Well I wish it was that easy buuut ......

    It just sounds to me like then Libertarians believe that Cronyism/Monopoly/Corruption are things mostly the Government is involved in or maybe even invented?
    Basically, something like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    So with a much Smaller Government, other institutions still around with significant power & influence wouldn't involve themselves in these type of activities??
    How would that be possible? How could some "other institutions" has such authority? Only government can have that kind of authority; if something has such authority it's got to be a government entity; if something is not a goverment entity the it cannot possess such power.

    If the government grants or permits other institutions to have such power, then that would be an example of bigger & more powerful government, such as with Obamacare, where the big US government forces people to buy health insurance, or other forms of fascism. Are health insurance companies an example of what you're referring to as "other institutions"?

    Or, are you perhaps referring to religion? No one is forced to be a member of a religion, unless the state mandates it - again, that means bigger, more powerful government.

    Maybe you're referring to big corporations that sell goods and services? They cannot force you to purchase their products or services, unless government lets them by making it a mandate. Ford cannot force you to buy one of their cars or trucks, Microsoft cannot force you to buy any of their software, Walmart cannot force you to do your shopping in their stores, Fedex cannot force you to use their delivery services - unless government forces us to use them.

    Yes, it's not easy to keep government from always forcing us to pay someone for their goods or services; but if they are it's big, powerful government. If they're not, then it's small government with little power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Man this would be hard to imagine. I mean to me, these behaviors manifest when there are incentives that present themselves that will produce rewards & advantages to those people's Lives and others in their group. If you can honestly say that these type of incentives & motivating factors will no longer be prevalent in the Libertarian World, then what you're saying is more likely to happen. But since we would still be living under a Free Market System, then you start to run into Contradictions here. Because basically when people become involved in these type of behaviors, they are doing it for the sole purposes of Competing & getting ahead in the Market System. This is just another tactic in increasing one's Power & Wealth in Society.
    Yeah, I would agree; that may very well be the problem we're encountering.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    So how can we expect under a Libertarian Free Market System that these type of things wouldn't continue to exist when like I said, the Rewards & Advantages gained are so enticing to those who are presented with these opportunities?

    Wishful Thinking maybe .....
    I would submit that the Internet, as a means of a decentralized system of telecommunication, has helped make a difference and can continue to help. All we have to do is make sure we don't let government regulate or control the Internet or any content on it, and maybe it won't just be wishful thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Any type of Capitalism with Scarcity, Competition, Private Ownership, Money etc..

    For me I basically just believe that it had some good intentions but simply it's just not relevant & up-to-date enough now to where we are as a civilization today. I feel this type of Economic structure Needs to Evolve its way into a more conducive stage with our current understandings of all Life sustainabilities.
    I guess my response to that is we should learn to use it properly and efficiently, just like any other tool such as spoken communication. If spoken communication aren't used properly or efficiently, does it make more sense to stop using it, or does it make more sense to fix the problem with it? If spoken communication is abandoned, then we might blow our chance at advancing towards & developing written communication and the advantages it has to offer.

    It's not as though someone drew up plans for a concept called capitalism, showed it to someone else, and they said "looks good on paper - let's try it & see if it works", then started practicing capitalism. It's something people simply started doing, by approaching their neighboring tribes and trading things rather than killing each other over resources. When people perceive it that way it only means they fail to understand something fundamental and imporant about what it is, what it isn't, and what it'll take to change, improve, or eliminate the need for it.

    Banning capitalism isn't going to work, for example; there are so many fundamental problems with that approach. For example, it will only be driven underground; it requires use of force - and what incentive is there for anyone to participate in using force to keep people from "practicing" capitalism? In other words, you have to pay someone to actually exert that force, but capitalism is banned - how can you make such a thing work?

    Anyways, libertarianism is against banning things; that includes capitalism, and it also includes people being able to invent stuff. When people are permitted to invent stuff, and they invent robots or automation or other advancements in technology that result in an abundance of resources, then people will simply leave capitalism behind & no ban was necessary to achieve that. Libertarians not only don't believe in banning stuff, they also don't believe in forcing anyone to do things such as participate in capitalism (that's exactly what Obamacare is doing when it forces people to buy healthcare insurance). So guess what? In a libertarian society, capitalism is gone; no one is forcing anyone to return to capitalism; capitalism is a thing of the past! Tada! I hope someday people will finally get it.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    "Libertarian means extreme advocate of total tyranny; according to them power ought to be given into the hands of private unaccountable tyrannies".

    I have zero tolerance for libertarians.

    Libertarianism is being confused with authoritarianism, here. Authoritarians are tyrants; libertarianism is on the opposite extreme of authoritarianism. There's no such thing as a libertarian tyrant; that doesn't make sense - it's an oxymoron.

  7. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    276
    > Instead we just have to accept the ideas of so called "professional leaders" that mostly do more harm

    I think that is because they get voted in by a particular group, and they then pander to deliver special extra goodies to that particular group at the expense of other groups.

    As such, I reckon most leaders are just doing the same kind of thing, rather than thinking of everyone.

    But I can understand there is a reasoning to that, in that if they try and appeal to everyone, who is going to vote them in, as then they just annoy every group who wants only special goodies for themselves at the expensive of everyone else !

    Democracy thus seems to have some limitations on how good it is for everyone..

    It more seems to be for the benefit of those who can get into power, whether by the majority vote, then the minority suffer, or by careful manipulation by a minority group to seize power, and then the majority suffer !

    Perhaps there is an as yet undiscovered solution to this issue. (Or there isn't, and we just have to find some more old fashioned solution, perhaps go back to Kings & Queens..)
    Ernest and droneBEE like this.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,059
    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    > Instead we just have to accept the ideas of so called "professional leaders" that mostly do more harm

    I think that is because they get voted in by a particular group, and they then pander to deliver special extra goodies to that particular group at the expense of other groups.

    As such, I reckon most leaders are just doing the same kind of thing, rather than thinking of everyone.

    But I can understand there is a reasoning to that, in that if they try and appeal to everyone, who is going to vote them in, as then they just annoy every group who wants only special goodies for themselves at the expensive of everyone else !

    Democracy thus seems to have some limitations on how good it is for everyone..

    It more seems to be for the benefit of those who can get into power, whether by the majority vote, then the minority suffer, or by careful manipulation by a minority group to seize power, and then the majority suffer !

    Perhaps there is an as yet undiscovered solution to this issue. (Or there isn't, and we just have to find some more old fashioned solution, perhaps go back to Kings & Queens..)
    We still have Kings and Queens.....in fact they've increased their numbers substantially and have created their own private club....One none of us can ever get inside...without FIRST exposing and condemning the theft, murders and mayhem that has occurred....that the people have allowed to occur....

    For the question remains;

    "How does one become a KING without slaughtering or enslaving many?"
    YouTuber, Ernest and Neil like this.

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    We still have Kings and Queens.....in fact they've increased their numbers substantially and have created their own private club....One none of us can ever get inside...without FIRST exposing and condemning the theft, murders and mayhem that has occurred....that the people have allowed to occur....

    For the question remains;

    "How does one become a KING without slaughtering or enslaving many?"
    I never really thought of royalty that way. That's interesting. It makes me dislike the concepts of monarchies & royalty even more than I already do now, and I have been told that one of my more recent ancestors was a Spanish viceroy, and a more distant ancestor was a Spanish knight.
    Last edited by Neil; 03-12-2017 at 11:08 PM.
    Ernest and droneBEE like this.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    784
    This reminds me of Wealth Inheritance and how it contributes to the whole Inequality/Social Stratification. To me this really highlights how our Socioeconomic arrangement has developed into this sort of screwed game where the 'team' you're Lucky to be born in can keep Dominating the game generation after generation with ease. Talk about the Unfairnesses of Life. goddamn!
    HAL9000 and droneBEE like this.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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