Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 278279280281282 294> |
| Author | |||
Equality 7-2521 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
 Posted: April 17 2014 at 13:07 |
||
|
Does he elaborate on that last statement? It seems particularly obtuse.
Here's an article: Michigan Mayor and The First Amendment . I try not to post every article about religion overstepping place in politics (or any article on rawstory), but there's one particularly perplexing thing here.
What is this supposed to mean? And how can someone who would say something so inane possibly be elected? |
|||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|||
 |
|||
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: April 18 2014 at 07:24 |
||
That one?
The wordage used is a little odd I have to say, "private investment strategy" but basically: The policies generally used since WWII to try and "spur" on the private sector to growth will lead to debt financed booms, thus busts and create instability.
I know they claim it'd be better to just provide direct support to the needy, and let things "trickle up" instead of trying to spur on the parts of the private sector already going pretty well.
As for your post, how could they possibly get elected?? Well, I think we ask ourselves that question a lot
 |
|||
|
|||
|
The T
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: May 15 2014 at 13:24 |
||
|
This thread is dead. Can someone start a new one so my name is no perennially linked to it?
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: May 15 2014 at 13:47 |
||
|
Why do you plan on running for office or something?
|
|||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|||
|
|||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: May 15 2014 at 15:34 |
||
 Not really. I just feel this thread was useful but is dead and should be started again by a new and committed libertarian
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: May 17 2014 at 22:13 |
||
|
I was quite peeved you jumped on it so quick, I planned to make the third one and had a title already planned "You're like a Marxist society, no class!"
Well...that almost certainly would not have fit, but still you were quite pleased to grab it, you glory seeking individualist! So, how many statists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 51% How many monetarists does it take? They won't change it, just increase the power supply. How many libertarians does it takes? Why don't you stay the f**k out of my house? (That one mine  )And now for something completely different! Since I was in book review mode, been thinking about Ayn Rand and I have to say...isn't science kind of collectivist? Unless I'm wrong, she put out the notion that without the ability for an individual to reap the rewards of their achievement, science/progress would come to a halt. However, isn't science all about working together? Teamwork, and the team gets the glory, and each team that makes progress is just building off what a previous has done? If she wants to defend the "creators" keeping all their $$ OK but the science thing is shaky to me. Also, I just had a silly idea... a new Atlas Shrugged, but when the elites/smart people go on strike instead of the world grinding to a halt the government just steps in and takes it all over. Ends with John Galt III: "lol oops"
|
|||
|
|||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: May 19 2014 at 17:04 |
||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32476 |
Posted: May 19 2014 at 20:48 |
||
Or another attempt to criticize it for being something other than what its critics think it should be. |
|||
|
|||
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20451 |
Posted: May 19 2014 at 21:48 |
||
|
Just curious...but has there ever been any real 'Libertarianism' anywhere...ever?
 |
|||
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
|||
|
|||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: May 20 2014 at 13:23 |
||
Isn't it what criticism usually is? noun
Anyway, this is not the typical "oh liberatarians are loonies" critique. That's why I said it is reasonable. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: May 20 2014 at 13:24 |
||
Edited by The T - May 20 2014 at 13:31 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32476 |
Posted: May 20 2014 at 22:14 |
||
I did not judge the critique because it was lame. I judged it precisely because it was typical. Like most criticisms that I've seen, it contains a fundamental assumption that is flawed. Libertarianism is an end, not a means. Libertarianism is not "what works" or "what makes sense given what happened last week" or "what makes poor people not be poor anymore." Libertarianism is simple: Coercion is immoral. That means taking money from people to put toward programs is wrong. That means forcing people to buy health insurance is wrong. That means requiring people to go to school is wrong. That means stealing is wrong, whether it is by a lone robber or elected people. Unlike Republicanism or Democratism, Libertarianism is not a political movement. It is a principle. Edited by Epignosis - May 20 2014 at 22:15 |
|||
|
|||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: May 21 2014 at 09:00 |
||
|
That might be true, and it probably is. But libertarianism
as a set of principles and as an end can then have no impact on politics
outside of personal decisions, or it runs the risk of becoming… a political
ideology. Libertarianism deals with the organization of society, even if it’s
just by demanding a minimal government. Then it’s politics. Coercion is
immoral, but that’s not just what defines libertarianism, isn’t it (most people
agree coercion is immoral anyway, they just disagree in what coercion is).
There is even a Libertarian Party, which might or might not really represent or
embody libertarian ideas, but it exists, and it’s a political movement. Here I’m not saying libertarianism is right or wrong. I
just don’t buy the “it’s not a political movement, it’s a principle” part.
Because even when it can be said that is not a cohesive and actually organized
movement, it’s still politics, and the principle applies to politics. It has no
other application. As a philosophical current it has little to no weight. I remember saying a while back that libertarianism was a
set of principles, but it really is more than that. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: May 21 2014 at 09:46 |
||
|
I don't buy it either unless I'm to also agree that Conservativism and Modern Liberalism are also not political movements. Principles geared towards the organization of society are political. The market strategy of Libertarianism may be different and the meanings of Libertarianism may be more diverse, but I would still call them political.
|
|||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|||
|
|||
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: May 21 2014 at 12:17 |
||
Right off the bat the question can't really be answered (unless it's of course just an attempt to get someone to casually "admit" their ideas are unrealistic) by your use of real. Has there ever been "real" capitalism or commiunism or socialism? Or real democracy for that matter... Half the time people can't even agree on what the "real" versions are |
|||
|
|||
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: May 21 2014 at 12:25 |
||
|
In regards to that article, the tea party is dying now. Last few days all I've seen is how the GOP is "stomping out" or "crushing" the tea party and how they are basically fading.
Which I in my mighty glory predicted years ago It was a GREAT tool for Republicans, they milked that cow dry, but in the end (hey whadya know, what everyone with a brain cell has said) the GOP never actually believed in libertarianism, and after they reached their peak power (absolutely refusing to buckle, shut down the gov if need be) people said "this sucks" and Reps now can't throw the tea party under the bus any faster. I do agree with the general sentiment, it goes back to the "real" discussion. I did the exact same thing: "we just need real free markets!" "we need an actually limited gov" and no matter the counter argument I just went farther back in time, and found more distant counter points still. Eventually I decided, hate me all you want for using the R word, but it just is not realistic. To truly get what many libertarians claim to want, you need to not just go back in time but go FAR and often to areas rarely seen on Earth. And leaving as much as possible to the markets (ie people) is problematic. Some areas (ie finance/banking) HAVE to be regulated. Free markets don't work quite as the textbook says, so I see issues with leaving it all to that model. If you wanna go down the "Well we just need a TRUE free market, and get all gov out so it can function" have at it. I feel dizzy from the perpetual circle of it all!
 Edited by JJLehto - May 21 2014 at 12:26 |
|||
|
|||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: May 21 2014 at 12:27 |
||
|
^^Exactly. According to some, the US is fully capitalist. According to others, its capitalism is tainted by government intervention; some even think the US is closer to socialism
 . Imagine trying to find a "real" libertarian example without knowing what "real" is, and as you can see from above, even that hasn't been agreed upon Edited by The T - May 21 2014 at 12:28 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: May 21 2014 at 12:35 |
||
|
Tis true.
Also no doubt there is a very biased view. Capitalism is as little gov as possible, anything more = road to serfdom if not communism already. Any deviation from the ideal is socialism!!! It's just not true. Correct me if I'm wrong but capitalism is just private ownership of property/the means of production. Also supply & demand/the price system running the show. That is the US, and most countries. Sure, the state owns some things, there are taxes and regulations, welfare, but none of that has drifted from capitalism. Nutty thing is I want gov restrained much as we can, and markets to run the show and all, most people do. Libertarians just take it soooooo far. Farther than they may realize just to stick by their point. I'll end with: Friedman beamed about how the dropping of central planning caused economies all over the world to flourish post WWII. Well post WWII was also even more "big gov" than today soooooo conflict here?
Edited by JJLehto - May 21 2014 at 12:37 |
|||
|
|||
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011 Location: internet Status: Online Points: 2549 |
Posted: May 22 2014 at 00:46 |
||
Rothbard gives the example of medieval Ireland (before the British conquest) in For a New Liberty; for centuries, Ireland was an anarcho-monarchist society, populated by clans that gave military protection to their members. Despite the presence of quasi-governments, there was no state as we think of it today; membership in a clan (can't remember the specific historical name of the groups) was completely voluntary and you could join (with the consent of the other members) or leave one at any time. Here is a list of some historical libertarian societies. |
|||
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|||
|
|||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: May 22 2014 at 08:28 |
||
|
^If I recall it was referred to as Brehon laws and the collection of freemen were called the tuatha.
|
|||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 278279280281282 294> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
"Freedom" thread or something
Topic Options
“I emphasize one thing,” he added. “The government cannot restrict an
individual’s freedom of speech, but an individual cannot restrict the
government’s freedom of speech.”