Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 218219220221222 284>
Author
Message
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Online
Posts: 31649
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
    Posted: July 28 2013 at 15:47
Awesome video.  I love Wal-Mart and will continue to shop there.  I love that video even more because it throws out the silly "These six people control more wealth than the bottom 30% of the US." 

Well, of course they do.  If you have $10 in your pocket and no debt, then you are wealthier than 25% of the US.  LOL

Talking in a funny voice isn't an argument against Libertarianism.  Neither are statistics that actually demonstrate (in a roundabout way) what we're saying here.  Remember, we're not Republicans.

Do you know who else qualifies for welfare?  Full time public school workersWink

Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8329
Post Options Post Options   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2013 at 16:43
So if America before Walmart was this mythical faerieland of high wages, mom and pop store and plenty of jobs, how did Wal mart find workers to accept their horribly low wages so that they could charge low prices so that they could drive everybody else out of business and ruin America? Why didn't people just keep working at those amazing Mom and Pop stores that were making everybody rich? And why is "Made in China" a bad thing? Don't Chinese people deserve jobs too, or do we just want all of them to starve?

Rob, that anthology looks awesome. I am glad it has Herman Melville in it. He is my favorite American novelist.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Online
Posts: 31649
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2013 at 16:49
Originally posted by thellama73



Rob, that anthology looks awesome. I am glad it has Herman Melville in it. He is my favorite American novelist.


A professor once asked me to read Moby Dick.

I replied, "I would prefer not to."

(I did indeed abandon Moby Dick and still got an A in the course).

Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8329
Post Options Post Options   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2013 at 16:53
Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by thellama73



Rob, that anthology looks awesome. I am glad it has Herman Melville in it. He is my favorite American novelist.


A professor once asked me to read Moby Dick.

I replied, "I would prefer not to."

(I did indeed abandon Moby Dick and still got an A in the course).



Classic. Clap

I love the book though.
Back to Top
Argonaught View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 04 2012
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 399
Post Options Post Options   Quote Argonaught Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 28 2013 at 22:18
Originally posted by thellama73

So if America before Walmart was this mythical faerieland of high wages, mom and pop store and plenty of jobs, how did Wal mart find workers to accept their horribly low wages so that they could charge low prices so that they could drive everybody else out of business and ruin America? Why didn't people just keep working at those amazing Mom and Pop stores that were making everybody rich? 

 


 




Edited by Argonaught - July 29 2013 at 06:52
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 05:14
Originally posted by Epignosis

Awesome video.  I love Wal-Mart and will continue to shop there.  I love that video even more because it throws out the silly "These six people control more wealth than the bottom 30% of the US." 

Well, of course they do.  If you have $10 in your pocket and no debt, then you are wealthier than 25% of the US.  LOL

Talking in a funny voice isn't an argument against Libertarianism.  Neither are statistics that actually demonstrate (in a roundabout way) what we're saying here.  Remember, we're not Republicans.

Do you know who else qualifies for welfare?  Full time public school workersWink


Since you're so smart, why don't you answer the problem I pointed out in the article that you guys refuse to read because it's so threatening to you: how, exactly, would slavery have stopped if the federal government hadn't finally done its job and stepped in, "tyrannically", and taken away the states' rights for human beings to own other human beings?  American WAS founded on Libertarian ideas.  And that's what allowed slavery to exist for as long as it did.  It wasn't until the time-bomb that was laid into the constitution went off and the federal government finally assumed the control it had under that document that slavery was finally abolished.  You live in a fantasy world where anything that can be called Libertarian and didn't actually work is not really Libertarian, because that's the only way to protect your already fully formed viewpoint that doesn't match up to reality.
Back to Top
Argonaught View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 04 2012
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 399
Post Options Post Options   Quote Argonaught Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 06:51
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

 
Since you're so smart, why don't you answer the problem I pointed out in the article that you guys refuse to read because it's so threatening to you: how, exactly, would slavery have stopped if the federal government hadn't finally done its job and stepped in, "tyrannically", and taken away the states' rights for human beings to own other human beings?  American WAS founded on Libertarian ideas.  And that's what allowed slavery to exist for as long as it did.  It wasn't until the time-bomb that was laid into the constitution went off and the federal government finally assumed the control it had under that document that slavery was finally abolished.  


Slavery/serfdom is a part of the feudal economic system, which is woefully inefficient.

As we know from history, feudalism in a given country would either be rendered obsolete by industrialization, or hindered industrialization for as long as it could. Which, in turn, would make the feudal slave/serf-owning society progressively poorer and weaker in comparison to their industrialized neighbors. 

There have been several paths to legally abandoning of slavery/serfdom: from a king's decree to a peasant uprising to a civil war to an occupation by another country to a peaceful transition, but the true driving mechanism is the economical "survival of the fittest". 


Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 07:37
Originally posted by Argonaught

Originally posted by dtguitarfan

 
Since you're so smart, why don't you answer the problem I pointed out in the article that you guys refuse to read because it's so threatening to you: how, exactly, would slavery have stopped if the federal government hadn't finally done its job and stepped in, "tyrannically", and taken away the states' rights for human beings to own other human beings?  American WAS founded on Libertarian ideas.  And that's what allowed slavery to exist for as long as it did.  It wasn't until the time-bomb that was laid into the constitution went off and the federal government finally assumed the control it had under that document that slavery was finally abolished.  


Slavery/serfdom is a part of the feudal economic system, which is woefully inefficient.

As we know from history, feudalism in a given country would either be rendered obsolete by industrialization, or hindered industrialization for as long as it could. Which, in turn, would make the feudal slave/serf-owning society progressively poorer and weaker in comparison to their industrialized neighbors. 

There have been several paths to legally abandoning of slavery/serfdom: from a king's decree to a peasant uprising to a civil war to an occupation by another country to a peaceful transition, but the true driving mechanism is the economical "survival of the fittest". 



So let me rephrase the question then, into two questions:
1) Why is it that Libertarians feel that "letting the free market do its thing" would be a better solution to slavery than an organizational structure stepping in and ruling that it is against the law?
2) Why is it that we don't see, historically speaking, any countries universally giving up slavery voluntarily because they saw the light and realized that it would benefit them economically?  Why is it that it seems to be that everywhere slavery was abolished, it was because of laws?
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3285
Post Options Post Options   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 07:54
I'd even argue that what free market is resulting in in some countries (those where they are not constrained by guvernamental and social forces or they can simply buy them off) is not too far from modern slavery. See many examples of big corporations activities in Africa and Asia.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15394
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 08:18
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by Argonaught

Originally posted by dtguitarfan

 
Since you're so smart, why don't you answer the problem I pointed out in the article that you guys refuse to read because it's so threatening to you: how, exactly, would slavery have stopped if the federal government hadn't finally done its job and stepped in, "tyrannically", and taken away the states' rights for human beings to own other human beings?  American WAS founded on Libertarian ideas.  And that's what allowed slavery to exist for as long as it did.  It wasn't until the time-bomb that was laid into the constitution went off and the federal government finally assumed the control it had under that document that slavery was finally abolished.  


Slavery/serfdom is a part of the feudal economic system, which is woefully inefficient.

As we know from history, feudalism in a given country would either be rendered obsolete by industrialization, or hindered industrialization for as long as it could. Which, in turn, would make the feudal slave/serf-owning society progressively poorer and weaker in comparison to their industrialized neighbors. 

There have been several paths to legally abandoning of slavery/serfdom: from a king's decree to a peasant uprising to a civil war to an occupation by another country to a peaceful transition, but the true driving mechanism is the economical "survival of the fittest". 



So let me rephrase the question then, into two questions:
1) Why is it that Libertarians feel that "letting the free market do its thing" would be a better solution to slavery than an organizational structure stepping in and ruling that it is against the law?
2) Why is it that we don't see, historically speaking, any countries universally giving up slavery voluntarily because they saw the light and realized that it would benefit them economically?  Why is it that it seems to be that everywhere slavery was abolished, it was because of laws?


I think war is a good way to abolish slavery. And I think in the cases where laws have been used instead of war, that the enslaved people have gotten the raw end of the stick while the enslavers pat themselves on the back for their humanity in freeing the slaves after it has become economically and politically neutral/beneficial to do so.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8329
Post Options Post Options   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 08:25
Originally posted by dtguitarfan


So let me rephrase the question then, into two questions:
1) Why is it that Libertarians feel that "letting the free market do its thing" would be a better solution to slavery than an organizational structure stepping in and ruling that it is against the law?
2) Why is it that we don't see, historically speaking, any countries universally giving up slavery voluntarily because they saw the light and realized that it would benefit them economically?  Why is it that it seems to be that everywhere slavery was abolished, it was because of laws?


As I've sad a number of times, libertarians don't oppose laws. You could substtute the word "kidnapping" for slavery in your question and there would be no difference, only it would lack the emotional resonance you're trying to create. I am not a historian or an expert on the on slavery, but have you considered the possibility that slavery only persisted as long as it did because there was a central government structure willing to enforce the "rights" of slave owners?
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 08:37
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521


I think war is a good way to abolish slavery. And I think in the cases where laws have been used instead of war, that the enslaved people have gotten the raw end of the stick while the enslavers pat themselves on the back for their humanity in freeing the slaves after it has become economically and politically neutral/beneficial to do so.

You think so?  Here's the problem with that - I personally know people who still think that the Civil War was not about slavery, it was about "state rights" and the North were the evil aggressors and all they wanted to do was to plunder the south, blah blah blah.  They completely ignore that it was the insistence on state rights and small federal government that kept slavery going for so long, and all they can see is the aggression of the north.  Which proves Gandhi right when he said: "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Online
Posts: 31649
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 08:43
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by Epignosis

Awesome video.  I love Wal-Mart and will continue to shop there.  I love that video even more because it throws out the silly "These six people control more wealth than the bottom 30% of the US." 

Well, of course they do.  If you have $10 in your pocket and no debt, then you are wealthier than 25% of the US.  LOL

Talking in a funny voice isn't an argument against Libertarianism.  Neither are statistics that actually demonstrate (in a roundabout way) what we're saying here.  Remember, we're not Republicans.

Do you know who else qualifies for welfare?  Full time public school workersWink


Since you're so smart, why don't you answer the problem I pointed out in the article that you guys refuse to read because it's so threatening to you: how, exactly, would slavery have stopped if the federal government hadn't finally done its job and stepped in, "tyrannically", and taken away the states' rights for human beings to own other human beings?  American WAS founded on Libertarian ideas.  And that's what allowed slavery to exist for as long as it did.  It wasn't until the time-bomb that was laid into the constitution went off and the federal government finally assumed the control it had under that document that slavery was finally abolished.  You live in a fantasy world where anything that can be called Libertarian and didn't actually work is not really Libertarian, because that's the only way to protect your already fully formed viewpoint that doesn't match up to reality.


Government did not "step in" like some hero in abolishing slavery.  The American government had innumerable laws protecting the horrid institution.  The American colonies were the subject of Great Britain, and as such, imported a large number of their customs and European traditions. 

You mention the US Constitution as though the Thirteenth Amendment existed prior to 1865.  Article 4 of the Constitution contains the fugitive slave clause, and the US government passed the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.  In other words, the US Constitution gave the government the power to enforce and regulate slavery, not abolish it.  Even after 1865, black people still couldn't vote.  You know what prohibited blacks from voting?  Laws passed by government.


That you argue that Libertarianism is compatible with forced servitude is demonstrative of your inability to grasp even the most basic premise of our philosophy. 


Originally posted by dtguitarfan

So let me rephrase the question then, into two questions:
1) Why is it that Libertarians feel that "letting the free market do its thing" would be a better solution to slavery than an organizational structure stepping in and ruling that it is against the law?
2) Why is it that we don't see, historically speaking, any countries universally giving up slavery voluntarily because they saw the light and realized that it would benefit them economically?  Why is it that it seems to be that everywhere slavery was abolished, it was because of laws?


1. Because there would be no legal protection for slave owners from the outset.  Slaves would have no legal obligation to continue in servitude.  If a slave ran away, the government mandated that slaves be returned.  By law.
2. Because slavery is a system of coercion, and so is most government.

Gay marriage is illegal in most states because various governments have declared it so.  Should those same governments get credit when they make gay marriage legal?  LOL

Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15394
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 08:46
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521


I think war is a good way to abolish slavery. And I think in the cases where laws have been used instead of war, that the enslaved people have gotten the raw end of the stick while the enslavers pat themselves on the back for their humanity in freeing the slaves after it has become economically and politically neutral/beneficial to do so.

You think so?  Here's the problem with that - I personally know people who still think that the Civil War was not about slavery, it was about "state rights" and the North were the evil aggressors and all they wanted to do was to plunder the south, blah blah blah.  They completely ignore that it was the insistence on state rights and small federal government that kept slavery going for so long, and all they can see is the aggression of the north.  Which proves Gandhi right when he said: "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."


You haven't pointed out a problem. You've told me a pointless story about your friends and put up a worthless quote.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 09:00
Originally posted by Epignosis


Government did not "step in" like some hero in abolishing slavery.  The American government had innumerable laws protecting the horrid institution.  The American colonies were the subject of Great Britain, and as such, imported a large number of their customs and European traditions. 

Sure, you're correct.  But here's what I'm saying - you seem to think this proves that the answer is "no government".  What I'm saying is that no matter what, if you have a bunch of people organizing together to accomplish some goal (which is a GOOD THING.  GOOD THINGS are accomplished when people organize together to accomplish them.) you will inevitably have a form of government.  Corporations are little mini-governments.  The answer is not "no government" or even "small government".  The answer is "better government".  I understand the sentiment that we have too many laws and it's too complicated and we've made all of our own problems - I do, because I'm a computer programmer.  I write computer code (essentially a structure of laws) all day, and fix bugs, which are essentially problems in the cohesive structures of the laws other people (or often myself) have written.  And I hate when I come in to work on someone else's system to find that they have an overly complex system of code.  I try to write as little code as possible that accomplishes as much as possible - I try to write reusable functions so that I have less lines of code.  But say my boss asks me to fix a bug.  And say I spend a few weeks on it, and report to him that I have reduced the number of lines of code from thousands to hundreds.  And then he finds that the program is still behaving in the same manner - with the same bug it had before he gave me the assignment.  And he wanted to release the fix to the customer two weeks ago.  How do you think this will bode for me?
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 09:01
^Along with that analogy, I'd say it seems like what Libertarians are doing is saying that they're so fed up with the bugs in Windows, that they want everyone to go back to DOS with them.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15394
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 09:03
I run Linux. What are you talking about?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8329
Post Options Post Options   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 09:05
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

^Along with that analogy, I'd say it seems like what Libertarians are doing is saying that they're so fed up with the bugs in Windows, that they want everyone to go back to DOS with them.


If Windows was stealing from me and killing people overseas, and DOS could let me accomplish all I wanted to better and more efficiently without doing those things, I think that would be a wholly reasonable solution.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Online
Posts: 31649
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 09:08
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by Epignosis


Government did not "step in" like some hero in abolishing slavery.  The American government had innumerable laws protecting the horrid institution.  The American colonies were the subject of Great Britain, and as such, imported a large number of their customs and European traditions. 

Sure, you're correct.  But here's what I'm saying - you seem to think this proves that the answer is "no government".  What I'm saying is that no matter what, if you have a bunch of people organizing together to accomplish some goal (which is a GOOD THING.  GOOD THINGS are accomplished when people organize together to accomplish them.) you will inevitably have a form of government.  Corporations are little mini-governments.  The answer is not "no government" or even "small government".  The answer is "better government".  I understand the sentiment that we have too many laws and it's too complicated and we've made all of our own problems


Libertarians have absolutely no problem with people voluntarily organizing together to accomplish goals and setting up by-laws and so forth.


Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8329
Post Options Post Options   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 29 2013 at 09:09
This is you, Geoff: "Big government progressivism is like when you add milk to cereal to make it tasty, but then the cereal gets all soggy and gross, but you keep adding more milk and then it spills on the table and ruins the finish! See what a good argument I have made?"
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 218219220221222 284>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.922 seconds.