It's been a while since I've been logged in. I've been doing a lot of reading while I've been gone. Here's my new show: New Deal Renaissance. Episode 12. We cover Malthusian ideologies from the Population Bomb and Club of Rome Documents back to Malthus himself. Then look into Ricardo (the other wing of British Imperialism) in the context of the 1830s to 1860s Rise and Fall of the Whig party. http://www.newdealradio.com/home/2014/7/5/episode-12-antebellum-i-malthus-and-ricardo-vs-carey |
|
|
|
Who the hell is he, and why should we care?
I like how this thread is kind of concluded with the first answer. Apparently, he's some loud man who is being funded by Russia of all places. I take it as a compliment to be insulted by that sort. Also, derp -- the context makes no sense. He's acting as if Libertarians accept the breaking of financial contracts or something. One moment he talks that short-selling is somehow evil, then he's ranting how rocket launchers used by the public solve everything. Tha heck?It's because he's worked on Wall Street. He inventing patents around algoTrading and knows how the system works - although he doesn't present that that well to someone who doesn't already know who he is. Max is good for some things and understanding the daily workings of Wall St. is what he's best at. Although his bombastic nature and raving make it simultaneously a humorous and over-the-top show. In many regards the man knows what he's talking about. |
|
|
|
I consider a moral duty to do my best to not pay any tax, and that is one of the reasons I am into into bitcoins.
Is that because you don't agree with what the money is used for, or because you're an anarchist or something of that nature? I am a political realist, therefore anarchist. Besides, what is the point of taxes in a pure fiat money system? This made me lul. Thanks.  |
|
|
|
niemivh: do you expect to gain some rep being so full of hot air or are you just trolling for the sake of it?
Define what you mean by 'hot air'. You just did. Yuk yuk yuk. It's amateur night here at the stand-up club. |
|
|
|
Bastiat's central thesis is indelible probably because it is so easy to grasp. Governments and states create parallel, schizophrenic bodies of law: Public Law and Private Law.
Actors who could never get away with theft as private individuals are able to elevate themselves through entry into government and take by the auspices of their "office." Government allows for the exercise of all kinds of anti-social schemes and insanities that through any other method of organization would be rightly labelled criminal. Give a private offense the sanction of legislation, and it is somehow acceptable. This clearly violated Enlightenment conceptions of "universal law," and the long common law traditions (for one) that are its fundaments, and so Bastiat was able to call the law "perverted."
Grounding his observations and rhetorical strategies in their immediate material and historical contexts does not rob his thesis of its impact and clarity. You've confused yourself with your blog post. You aren't thinking clearly. But the attempt is worthy, and you shouldn't stop writing.
And if you'd like to have a line-by-line analysis and dialogue of the work "The Law" I'm totally willing and able. I'll just grab my notated copy and we can get started. Let me know. |
|
|
|
Of course it's not odd to me because I have a modicum of understanding of how the world actually works.
Look how you've pivoted from targeting his diagnosis of socialism to targeting his prescriptions. I'm traditionally a solutions-minded person. We have enough bellyaching rhetoric about how everything is messed up, what we need is solutions, not more and better descriptions for how fucked everything is. If you aren't proposing solutions to anything thing you aren't proposing anything - this should be obvious; and why I try to frame everything in the realm of provided solutions since it is what is needed. So how are those different? What pivoting are you talking about? My review covers both Bastiat's diagnoses of the problem and the solutions he proposes. That is mere apologism- and do you see how thoroughly conservative?
Could you clarify what you mean by that? I can interpret that to mean a variety of things, and I know how much Libs relish being vague. |
|
|
|
niemivh: do you expect to gain some rep being so full of hot air or are you just trolling for the sake of it?
Define what you mean by 'hot air'. |
|
|
|
Bastiat's central thesis is indelible probably because it is so easy to grasp. Governments and states create parallel, schizophrenic bodies of law: Public Law and Private Law.
Actors who could never get away with theft as private individuals are able to elevate themselves through entry into government and take by the auspices of their "office." Government allows for the exercise of all kinds of anti-social schemes and insanities that through any other method of organization would be rightly labelled criminal. Give a private offense the sanction of legislation, and it is somehow acceptable. This clearly violated Enlightenment conceptions of "universal law," and the long common law traditions (for one) that are its fundaments, and so Bastiat was able to call the law "perverted."
Grounding his observations and rhetorical strategies in their immediate material and historical contexts does not rob his thesis of its impact and clarity. You've confused yourself with your blog post. You aren't thinking clearly. But the attempt is worthy, and you shouldn't stop writing.
Funny then how following Bastiat's suggestions and ideas actually lead to a completely 'hands off' approach from the population, and when they don't have power the people that are financing and promoting Bastiat's works will take hold of it. So by doing what FB says, you're getting exactly what he warns against. Rather odd, wouldn't you say? Of course it's not odd to me because I have a modicum of understanding of how the world actually works. |
|
|
|
Does anyone disagree to saying:
Democrats/Republicans are more intellectually lazy & idiotic than Libertarians
The whole thing is a ship of fools. But there is some Republicans and Democrats that have some redeeming characteristics, but they are not the norm to be certain. Neither with the Libtards. Libs thinking that they're intellectually superior to people in the mainstream, or arguments between various Utopian ideologies always remind me of this:  |
|
|
|
+1 LOL Actually I think writing a picture book with all types of photos in this vein would be great. Since Libtards are so intimidated by the act of reading and thinking and not being in possession of their primitive absoluteisms, this book would be right up their alley. Doesn't matter if their knees buckle when they are confronted by any representative of the State (be it police officer or meter-maid) - they can act out their total impotence and weakness as males in such an absurd fashion as to think that they are going to be violent armed revolutionaries. It's fucking perfect. It'll be somewhat like the zombie books that tell you how to turn your house (parents basement or apartment, bungleoo, whatever) into a 'Lil Alamo' so you can imagine going down in a 'blaze of glory' as you somehow mow down dozens of federal agents. It's totally, absurdly, mythologically fantastic and plays to the stunted emotional intelligence, frustration and denial of male virtues in the society. So you're left to act that bottled aggression out in fantastic 'flights of fancy'. And it's not like the vast majority of you are having any worthwhile sex, often, if at all, so we can delete that as a potential outlet. And so you long for a collapse in which your flabby bodies and childlike personas would be brushed aside like dandruff, out of the way of people that don't have the fear you do and will victimize the hell out of you, as is so often when national governments collapse. I'm offering you something Utopian by constrast; and yet, real. If anyone wants to see my book list let me know, contrary to the Libtard doom-mongers and their king turd: Alex Jones, there is still time, there is always time and yet there is no time - none, if you never choose to take it. Not disagreeing with what you said, just curious; What is worthwhile sex to you? That is a question that says more about the person asking it than the person responding.  alright you got me. but it goes against my constitution to pay for sex +1 |
|
|
|
+1 LOL Actually I think writing a picture book with all types of photos in this vein would be great. Since Libtards are so intimidated by the act of reading and thinking and not being in possession of their primitive absoluteisms, this book would be right up their alley. Doesn't matter if their knees buckle when they are confronted by any representative of the State (be it police officer or meter-maid) - they can act out their total impotence and weakness as males in such an absurd fashion as to think that they are going to be violent armed revolutionaries. It's fucking perfect. It'll be somewhat like the zombie books that tell you how to turn your house (parents basement or apartment, bungleoo, whatever) into a 'Lil Alamo' so you can imagine going down in a 'blaze of glory' as you somehow mow down dozens of federal agents. It's totally, absurdly, mythologically fantastic and plays to the stunted emotional intelligence, frustration and denial of male virtues in the society. So you're left to act that bottled aggression out in fantastic 'flights of fancy'. And it's not like the vast majority of you are having any worthwhile sex, often, if at all, so we can delete that as a potential outlet. And so you long for a collapse in which your flabby bodies and childlike personas would be brushed aside like dandruff, out of the way of people that don't have the fear you do and will victimize the hell out of you, as is so often when national governments collapse. I'm offering you something Utopian by constrast; and yet, real. If anyone wants to see my book list let me know, contrary to the Libtard doom-mongers and their king turd: Alex Jones, there is still time, there is always time and yet there is no time - none, if you never choose to take it. Not disagreeing with what you said, just curious; What is worthwhile sex to you? That is a question that says more about the person asking it than the person responding. |
|
|
|
I haven't looked, but my guess is a bunch of long winded bullshit.
@niemivh: "The Law" is a short book because the truth can be summed up in simple, short sentences. Only bullshit needs all the extra verbosity.
Libtards (what I've taken to calling you all because no other name can suffice) don't want to hear anything that they can't fit on the back of an M&M... with a sharpie. How about this: "Jargleedom!" This word means all the problems we face and the solutions for those problems. It's the obvious choice. We suffer from a lot of Jargleedom these days but Jargleedom can fix it all. See how easy that was! Alright boys time to get back to drinking Mt. Dew and playing video games all night! Woo hoo! We're saviors! |
|
|
|
niemivh, have you ever actually read the US Constitution? I mean, like, sat down and read it front to back? Maybe you should add that to your reading list.
Just about 4 months ago I read it again when I was comparing it directly to the Confederate Constitution of the Southern States. Perhaps you should read that latter document, it is practically a Libertarian Manifesto. I know you're proud of reading it, and you want to flaunt that, and that's definitely great you read it - most people don't. But I read about a 500 page book every 1.5 weeks and transcribe it into notes, so sorry if things such as this don't impress me. I'm an aspiring author who's going to write a book on the fraud of Libertarianism all the way back to Adam Smith, so yes I've read it. Of course. I'm buying more books for research than I have places put them; I read a proverbial 'shit-ton'. And that number is probably going to near triple after this month is over and I actually go into "writer mode". Sorry, I'm excited.  Since I've read what you are suggesting (albeit, repeatedly, in the past) would you care to read something I recommend? Outside the Confederate Constitution, that is? "Oligarchy" by Jeff A. Winters. |
|
|
|
+1 LOL Actually I think writing a picture book with all types of photos in this vein would be great. Since Libtards are so intimidated by the act of reading and thinking and not being in possession of their primative absoluteisms, this book would be right up their alley. Doesn't matter if their knees buckle when they are confronted by any representative of the State (be it police officer or meter-maid) - they can act out their total impotence and weakness as males in such an absurd fashion as to think that they are going to be violent armed revolutionaries. It's fucking perfect. It'll be somewhat like the zombie books that tell you how to turn your house (parents basement or apartment, bungleoo, whatever) into a 'Lil Alamo' so you can imagine going down in a 'blaze of glory' as you somehow mow down dozens of federal agents. It's totally, absurdly, mythologically fantastic and plays to the stunted emotional intelligence, frustration and denial of male virtues in the society. So you're left to act that bottled aggression out in fantastic 'flights of fancy'. And it's not like the vast majority of you are having any worthwhile sex, often, if at all, so we can delete that as a potential outlet. And so you long for a collapse in which your flabby bodies and childlike personas would be brushed aside like dandruff, out of the way of people that don't have the fear you do and will victimize the hell out of you, as is so often when national governments collapse. I'm offering you something Utopian by constrast; and yet, real. If anyone wants to see my book list let me know, contrary to the Libtard doom-mongers and their king turd: Alex Jones, there is still time, there is always time and yet there is no time - none, if you never choose to take it. |
|
|
|
Don't worry about proposing solutions after the system collapses. Whatever Utopian systems you promote better begin with a large doses of Warlord repellent to deal with the pragmatic actualities of that future existence.
Got yer Warlord repellant right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agencyLOL. I forgot for a moment that you're wholly unworthy of my time. Sorry about that. I almost made the mistake of trying to sway you out of your... inclinations. Once again, PM me if you ever read that book "Oligarchy". Until then you go back in the playpen, and by that I mean "Ignore". |
|
|
|
niemivh, I'm not sure which "nation" you're talking about. But, if it's the United States, you should probably take a step back and realize that our "central" government has not served to aid in our "defense" in the least. On the contrary, it has only served to provide a convenient storefront for foreigners wishing to purchase our country wholesale. Centralization is a complete failure. Secessionism worked swimmingly the last time we had it. Your peddling the same old tired, collectivist ideologies that brought us to this point will not help in getting us through what is to come.
Are you referring to the Civil War? And are you admitting to treason? |
|
|
|
I would like to see a real Libertarian plan for a civilization that would actually work. If there is one, why haven't they created it yet?
You are taking part in it. The plan is to just replace governments and their creations piece by piece with superior decentralized alternatives. If these alternatives don't get created or adopted, perhaps there is still a need for government intervention in that realm. The idea that everything should be planned out beforehand is for other people to do. I see the decentralization movement not replacing government, just decentralizing it. Libertarians believe in no government and survival of the strongest. Historically Libertarians practice continuous warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History Other than Vikings living through raiding unsuspecting villages, I don't see a culture of selfishness actually working. Eventually collectivism of some sort will overpower warlords. I can see Bitcoin promoting privacy where government does not interfere with the individual without cause, such as taxation without representation. In fact, Bitcoin will probably eliminate the need for national borders and limit the ability of large-scale warfare because money is globally interdependent. Funny how all this 'decentralization' actually does the work of the 'dividing' prior to the 'conquering' that will soon follow. You regionalist fools are walking headlong into a trap in many regards to these proposed 'solutions'. Mark my words, before this decade is through we're going to see a serious resurgence of secessionism. I am not one of the Libertarians to partake in the jumping off the deep end into the waters of "all decentralization is good and having no central authority does not hinder our defense strategically" thanks very much Sorry, that wasn't meant to foist upon you something that you do not hold, it just reminded me of how much in the realm of supposed 'solutions' I'm seeing in this specific direction. My apologies. |
|
|
|
To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology. It takes more than this. Without the right attitude most people will just party or do what everyone else does to get by rather than work towards improving themselves and their environment . Do the methods used to provide for peoples basic needs encourage them to be curious and productive? If not, then it may not be worth it. Scientifically disproven argument. Besides, I didn't posit a method. Read a few books about experimental psychology. Well then the science disagrees with what I observe in my every day life. Also, I didn't say you did posit a method, I was just putting the issue forth as something to be considered. Dismissing what I said because it has been "scientifically disproven" would be unwise. "Science" is wrong more than right. I have a degree in psych, I think it is mostly people arguing about various opinions (slightly better than "philosophy"). The field is valuable in that it provides phenomena to be explained by the more "bottom-up" approaches, but I wouldn't take the aspects of it that make it into pop culture that seriously. Using the psych literature as the basis for public policy is foolish. Sure, use the information, but don't treat it as some kind of infallible truth. OK then real life examples. Most great inventors, artists, authors, etc. in history lived on a pension of some sort. They were supported by family wealth or at the amusement of an aristocrat. People struggling to survive don't think grand thoughts. Speaking of which, I must now bow to my master for a few hours. I would agree. I would just change the original wording from "[if needs are met] people will thrive" to "the ability of people to thrive is facilitated by having their basic needs met". In other words, having basic needs met is necessary but not sufficient for thriving.  For as bad as Maslow is, he's better than Bentham. |
|
|
|
Switzerland was in no position to take sides even if they wanted to. Bad example. What if England chose to remain neutral in WWII?
To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.
Switzerland's a perfect example of exactly how a libertarian nation or AnCap region would handle being surrounded by warring nations. "Well, I suppose my people would have to shoot twice." OK, now, how does libertarianism fail to meet those needs? Lol. You're cute. One of my friends is from there and goes back every year; and it is what you'd consider a hellscape of collectivism. Is it just the foreign policy you're giving kudos to or the whole country? Funny then how the opposite internal policies that you prefer actually lead to the desirable outcomes with regards to your foreign policy. Your provincialism is showing again. |
|
|
|
I'm afraid you're wrong about wanting "nothing to replace it" And Ron Paul isn't my Poster boy. I'm not a political Libertarian, I'm an agorist. That means I want to build the replacement system right now, within the shell of the old failing one, so that when it crumbles (oh, and it will, on that, I think we can agree), the new way is there to take up the slack. A few links that may help you understand my position: http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdfhttps://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/NLM.epubhttp://agorism.info/But before you read those, I want to ask you, What is it about human nature that you believe libertarianism would need to change? Don't worry about proposing solutions after the system collapses. Whatever Utopian systems you promote better begin with a large doses of Warlord repellent to deal with the pragmatic actualities of that future existence. Perhaps you should hang your cherished, quaint, and naive tenants of your ideology on a sign outside your encampment. So when the roaming band of starving, desperate people see it they can reflect on the finer points of cosmopoltian, bourgeoisie theoreticians of the 20th century; that is, right before they roll into your camp and plunder it for their own survival. Perhaps, if they are feeling generous - a faded memory of a lost time - they'll leave you with your eyes to cry with. People frozen in your 13 year old emotional state should simply pay these issues no mind. Leave it to actual adults with grown-up ideas, who read grown-up books and have grown-up conversations and quit being a radical advocate for your own personal and nation's destruction. I'd appreciate it, thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
