Libertarians and gun rights activits here is how the rest of the world sees you

[Elwar]

Socialists, like me, like bitcoin because it allows freedom and anonymity in transactions - which is as important to those fighting for change against dictatorships as it is for individual free-marketeers

I respect socialists and communists who actually have principles as opposed to Republicans and Democrats who's ideas come from others telling them what they should believe because of who they are.

I especially respect those that would be ok with my community of free thinkers living next to theirs without the need to try to regulate us "for our own good".

[1714668286]

1714668286

[1714668286]

1714668286

[1714668286]

1714668286

[codeneis]

So... what the first page of this thread is trying to say is that a civilized talk between libertarians and the rest of the world is impossible?

Glad to know this isn't true :]

[ErisDiscordia]

We view the original state of nature as pure freedom. These groups formed corporations to provide security to their customers in exchange for tribute - payment - which was given to their shareholders: the warriors or nobility. Doesn't history then prove that over the course of time a state of infinite competition settles into one of multiple monopolies which band together to stamp out potential challengers in their market? This entirely disproves libertarianism's main argument that infinite competition will provide infinite freedom.

That's not the main argument; the main argument is on ethics, claiming that using coercion is immoral, and the use of systematic coercion through the state is still systematically immoral.

actually there are two main lines of reasoning against the coercive power of state: the moral and the practical. The moral argument says: "it is wrong to force people to give up their resources and be ordered around under threat of force". The practical argument says: "the state is a hierarchical monopolistic structure and as such provides perverse incentives for its managers and absolutely SUCKS at collecting accurate information and making intelligent decisions based on it". Personally, I don't give a shit about the moral argument, I leave that to the moralists

[Mike Christ]

actually there are two main lines of reasoning against the coercive power of state: the moral and the practical. The moral argument says: "it is wrong to force people to give up their resources and be ordered around under threat of force". The practical argument says: "the state is a hierarchical monopolistic structure and as such provides perverse incentives for its managers and absolutely SUCKS at collecting accurate information and making intelligent decisions based on it". Personally, I don't give a shit about the moral argument, I leave that to the moralists

I suppose that would be the difference between the NT and the NF

[ErisDiscordia]

actually there are two main lines of reasoning against the coercive power of state: the moral and the practical. The moral argument says: "it is wrong to force people to give up their resources and be ordered around under threat of force". The practical argument says: "the state is a hierarchical monopolistic structure and as such provides perverse incentives for its managers and absolutely SUCKS at collecting accurate information and making intelligent decisions based on it". Personally, I don't give a shit about the moral argument, I leave that to the moralists

I suppose that would be the difference between the NT and the NF

What are NT and NF? Sorry, I just woke up and the coffee molecules haven't reached my processor yet.

[nwbitcoin]

Is Atlas Shrugged worth reading? I always hear polar opposite opinions on it.

Its a stupidly long book, that, if it was re-written well could be half the size and get the point over far better!

Its a good little story, but doesn't prove anything other than similar types of people like to stick together!

I used to consider Libertarianism as a good ideology, but slowly realized that it was just as ideologically impossible as socialism.

What the real world system that we have does, which is better, is that it creates a number of levels of trades for each trade, through adding various levels of bureaucracy. The result is that one trade which would only be of benefit to two people under libertarianism, actually benefits 10+ people under whatever you want to call what we have in the real world.

This is a very simplistic example, and to break down a real world example to prove it would take many 1000s or words - maybe even a book the size of Atlas Shrugged! ;-)

[Lethn]

Socialists, like me, like bitcoin because it allows freedom and anonymity in transactions - which is as important to those fighting for change against dictatorships as it is for individual free-marketeers

I respect socialists and communists who actually have principles as opposed to Republicans and Democrats who's ideas come from others telling them what they should believe because of who they are.

I especially respect those that would be ok with my community of free thinkers living next to theirs without the need to try to regulate us "for our own good".

+1 I was wondering where all the real communists and socialists had gone off to, because the real ones were actually pretty intelligent and rational.

[beetcoin]

whoa, it takes some courage to come out of the closet as a socialist on this forum. call me crazy, but for me.. following any extremist ideology never works. maybe voluntaryism works for me.

Is Atlas Shrugged worth reading? I always hear polar opposite opinions on it.

Its a stupidly long book, that, if it was re-written well could be half the size and get the point over far better!

Its a good little story, but doesn't prove anything other than similar types of people like to stick together!

I used to consider Libertarianism as a good ideology, but slowly realized that it was just as ideologically impossible as socialism.

What the real world system that we have does, which is better, is that it creates a number of levels of trades for each trade, through adding various levels of bureaucracy. The result is that one trade which would only be of benefit to two people under libertarianism, actually benefits 10+ people under whatever you want to call what we have in the real world.

This is a very simplistic example, and to break down a real world example to prove it would take many 1000s or words - maybe even a book the size of Atlas Shrugged! ;-)

yep, that was the gist of what i was saying. i can't follow anarchism as an ideology because it's too extreme for me, and socialism... kinda sucks. my conclusion is just that people are fucked up, and they need to change (myself included). ideology is just a tool used by people.

[Mike Christ]

What are NT and NF? Sorry, I just woke up and the coffee molecules haven't reached my processor yet.

It's a part of the MBTI; here's the descriptions for the two:

XNTX

XNFX

[ErisDiscordia]

What are NT and NF? Sorry, I just woke up and the coffee molecules haven't reached my processor yet.

It's a part of the MBTI; here's the descriptions for the two:

XNTX

XNFX

That makes sense. Thanks.

[hilariousandco]

Is Atlas Shrugged worth reading? I always hear polar opposite opinions on it.

Its a stupidly long book, that, if it was re-written well could be half the size and get the point over far better!

Its a good little story, but doesn't prove anything other than similar types of people like to stick together!

I used to consider Libertarianism as a good ideology, but slowly realized that it was just as ideologically impossible as socialism.

What the real world system that we have does, which is better, is that it creates a number of levels of trades for each trade, through adding various levels of bureaucracy. The result is that one trade which would only be of benefit to two people under libertarianism, actually benefits 10+ people under whatever you want to call what we have in the real world.

This is a very simplistic example, and to break down a real world example to prove it would take many 1000s or words - maybe even a book the size of Atlas Shrugged! ;-)

Well I'm a Libertarian Socialist, so would you recommend it? The length of the book is one of the reasons I've never got around to starting it.

whoa, it takes some courage to come out of the closet as a socialist on this forum. call me crazy, but for me.. following any extremist ideology never works. maybe voluntaryism works for me.

What's extreme about it? It only seems to be a dirty word in the states, where I don't think the majority of people even understand what it means.

yep, that was the gist of what i was saying. i can't follow anarchism as an ideology because it's too extreme for me, and socialism... kinda sucks. my conclusion is just that people are fucked up, and they need to change (myself included). ideology is just a tool used by people.

Why does Socialism "kinda suck"? And why is Anarchism extreme? Libertarian Socialism is Anarchism, but I'm not talking about the faux punk rock fuck tha government bullshit (although fuck da government! ). I'm afraid a little anarchy is going to be needed to bring about revolution or change the status quo, unless you are comfortable and happy with the corrupt hypocritical governments policing the globe and doing nothing but starting wars and laundering billions of tax payers money into the pockets of corporations. This 'democracy' we have is a sheer illusion. You get the choices between voting for Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dumber. Whoever wins won't change shit, nor will they do anything they said they would; in fact, they usually do the exact opposite.

[nwbitcoin]

Well I'm a Libertarian Socialist, so would you recommend it? The length of the book is one of the reasons I've never got around to starting it.

whoa, it takes some courage to come out of the closet as a socialist on this forum. call me crazy, but for me.. following any extremist ideology never works. maybe voluntaryism works for me.

What's extreme about it? It only seems to be a dirty word in the states, where I don't think the majority of people even understand what it means.

Why does Socialism "kinda suck"? And why is Anarchism extreme? Libertarian Socialism is Anarchism, but I'm not talking about the faux punk rock fuck tha government bullshit (although fuck da government! ). I'm afraid a little anarchy is going to be needed to bring about revolution or change the status quo, unless you are comfortable and happy with the corrupt hypocritical governments policing the globe and doing nothing but starting wars and laundering billions of tax payers money into the pockets of corporations. This 'democracy' we have is a sheer illusion. You get the choices between voting for Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dumber. Whoever wins won't change shit, nor will they do anything they said they would; in fact, they usually do the exact opposite.

As a European, let me give you an idea about why socialism sucks.

Firstly, socialists seem to spend all their time trying to make everything equal. They tell people they want everyone to get an equal chance at opportunity, however, this is where things go wrong.

The one thing that socialists don't like, is someone using their initiative and getting richer due to it. 

Socialists would prefer everyone has an awful level of service, than that some people can pay for a better level of service.  It may be awful, but everyone can use it is a success for a socialist.  The fact that its awful is because the government isn't spending enough on it.  Socialists can then campaign that governments can pay more for a better service, and they can get the money from the people who have 'cheated' and grabbed an opportunity through using their initiative!

The end result is that nothing works, except for people in the higher levels of central government and socialist organizations!

The worst part is that anyone who tries to better themselves has to pay twice to do so - once to actually make the opportunity work, and twice when they become successful!

Put it this way, I am forced to pay for a health service through my taxes.  The cost is similar to what I would pay if I wanted medical insurance. However, because I have to pay for the former, I can't afford the latter!

Socialists make sure that everyone is equally downtrodden.

That is why socialists suck!

[hilariousandco]

Well I'm a Libertarian Socialist, so would you recommend it? The length of the book is one of the reasons I've never got around to starting it.

whoa, it takes some courage to come out of the closet as a socialist on this forum. call me crazy, but for me.. following any extremist ideology never works. maybe voluntaryism works for me.

What's extreme about it? It only seems to be a dirty word in the states, where I don't think the majority of people even understand what it means.

Why does Socialism "kinda suck"? And why is Anarchism extreme? Libertarian Socialism is Anarchism, but I'm not talking about the faux punk rock fuck tha government bullshit (although fuck da government! ). I'm afraid a little anarchy is going to be needed to bring about revolution or change the status quo, unless you are comfortable and happy with the corrupt hypocritical governments policing the globe and doing nothing but starting wars and laundering billions of tax payers money into the pockets of corporations. This 'democracy' we have is a sheer illusion. You get the choices between voting for Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dumber. Whoever wins won't change shit, nor will they do anything they said they would; in fact, they usually do the exact opposite.

As a European, let me give you an idea about why socialism sucks.

Firstly, socialists seem to spend all their time trying to make everything equal. They tell people they want everyone to get an equal chance at opportunity, however, this is where things go wrong.

The one thing that socialists don't like, is someone using their initiative and getting richer due to it.  

On the contrary, I think that would be the opinion of some 'Diet Socialists' (or the 'poor' ones), but not ones I agree with. There are many Socialist schools of thought, so to lump them all together collectively is fundamentally wrong (you can't put National Socialism in with Democratic Socialism for instance). I'm not one of these "Robin Hood Socialists" who think we should take from the rich and give to the poor. I want equality, but for those who are successful and work hard all their life should not be penalised. I personally believe in a flat tax - for example: say everyone pays 20% whether you earn 15K a year or 15 trillion. In countries like France they have up to 75% tax which is absolute robbery. Even 50% tax is in my opinion.

I'm not saying Socialism is perfect or without flaws, but neither is standard democracy/capitalism, and the latter is not sustainable at all the way it's going and is going to fail triumphantly if nothing is done to curb its recklessness (you could argue that it already has with the subprime mortgage crisis etc).

[nwbitcoin]

Well I'm a Libertarian Socialist, so would you recommend it? The length of the book is one of the reasons I've never got around to starting it.

whoa, it takes some courage to come out of the closet as a socialist on this forum. call me crazy, but for me.. following any extremist ideology never works. maybe voluntaryism works for me.

What's extreme about it? It only seems to be a dirty word in the states, where I don't think the majority of people even understand what it means.

Why does Socialism "kinda suck"? And why is Anarchism extreme? Libertarian Socialism is Anarchism, but I'm not talking about the faux punk rock fuck tha government bullshit (although fuck da government! ). I'm afraid a little anarchy is going to be needed to bring about revolution or change the status quo, unless you are comfortable and happy with the corrupt hypocritical governments policing the globe and doing nothing but starting wars and laundering billions of tax payers money into the pockets of corporations. This 'democracy' we have is a sheer illusion. You get the choices between voting for Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dumber. Whoever wins won't change shit, nor will they do anything they said they would; in fact, they usually do the exact opposite.

As a European, let me give you an idea about why socialism sucks.

Firstly, socialists seem to spend all their time trying to make everything equal. They tell people they want everyone to get an equal chance at opportunity, however, this is where things go wrong.

The one thing that socialists don't like, is someone using their initiative and getting richer due to it.  

On the contrary, I think that would be the opinion of some 'Diet Socialists' (or the 'poor' ones), but not ones I agree with. There are many Socialist schools of thought, so to lump them all together collectively is fundamentally wrong (you can't put National Socialism in with Democratic Socialism for instance). I'm not one of these "Robin Hood Socialists" who think we should take from the rich and give to the poor. I want equality, but for those who are successful and work hard all their life should not be penalised. I personally believe in a flat tax - for example: say everyone pays 20% whether you earn 15K a year or 15 trillion. In countries like France they have up to 75% tax which is absolute robbery. Even 50% tax is in my opinion.

I'm not saying Socialism is perfect or without flaws, but neither is standard democracy/capitalism, and the latter is not sustainable at all the way it's going and is going to fail triumphantly if nothing is done to curb its recklessness (you could argue that it already has with the subprime mortgage crisis etc).

I have some Kool Aid for you. ;-)

Firstly, Libertarian Socialist is an oximoron. Your statement regarding a flat tax proves that! No socialist would support a flat tax because it would seen as a tax cut for the rich, and that isn't equality!

Secondly, All socialists are basically the same, the only difference is that they want themselves to be in charge.  More taboo is that socialism is just the friendly version of communism. The differences between the two ideologies are very limited, and the long term ideal of socialism is the implementation of communism.

While I totally agree that what we have now isn't perfect, it just seems easier to get what you want by learning how to play the game, than to try and get everyone playing a new game!

Oh, and the sub prime mortgage crisis was the unintended consequence of a law created by democrats in the 1970s. They implementing an equality bill where minorities could buy houses they couldn't afford - based on the idea that the reason they couldn't get loans was that they were being discriminated against (yeah, they were too poor!)

The worst thing with socialists is that they use emotion to solve problems! ;-)

[hilariousandco]

I have some Kool Aid for you. ;-)

Firstly, Libertarian Socialist is an oximoron. Your statement regarding a flat tax proves that! No socialist would support a flat tax because it would seen as a tax cut for the rich, and that isn't equality!

Secondly, All socialists are basically the same, the only difference is that they want themselves to be in charge.  More taboo is that socialism is just the friendly version of communism. The differences between the two ideologies are very limited, and the long term ideal of socialism is the implementation of communism.

While I totally agree that what we have now isn't perfect, it just seems easier to get what you want by learning how to play the game, than to try and get everyone playing a new game!

Oh, and the sub prime mortgage crisis was the unintended consequence of a law created by democrats in the 1970s. They implementing an equality bill where minorities could buy houses they couldn't afford - based on the idea that the reason they couldn't get loans was that they were being discriminated against (yeah, they were too poor!)

The worst thing with socialists is that they use emotion to solve problems! ;-)

I think you have a naive/incorrect/generalised view on socialists/socialism, or perhaps you've had some bad experiences with them (which I can understand if you've only dealt with these "Robin Hood Socialists"). I have no desire to lead over anyone; however, I also have no desire to be governed by these greedy hypocritical capitalist warmongering pigs who fritter away their peoples taxes on wars whilst flogging off state-owned assets to the highest bidder - especially when they should be buying back state-owned business and building schools and hospitals with that very money.

This is a great little speech by Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism and the supposed contradiction of the term: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE (it's only 5 minutes long).

While I totally agree that what we have now isn't perfect, it just seems easier to get what you want by learning how to play the game

I think this kind of apathy and blind submission by the masses to roll over and play the game whilst we let them fuck us repeatedly in the arse is one of main problems of why nothing ever changes. People seem to want change and are angry with the state of the world, but they only want revolution if they can sit at home and watch it happen on their flatscreen TVs from the comfort of their own lazyboy whilst they dull their senses with an opiate of their choosing. This is the whole Matrix predicament:



It doesn't have to be a Socialist-led revolution, but which pill you choose is ultimately up to you.

[nwbitcoin]

I think you have a naive/incorrect/generalised view on socialists/socialism, or perhaps you've had some bad experiences with them (which I can understand if you've only dealt with these "Robin Hood Socialists"). I have no desire to lead over anyone; however, I also have no desire to be governed by these greedy hypocritical capitalist warmongering pigs who fritter away their peoples taxes on wars whilst flogging off state-owned assets to the highest bidder - especially when they should be buying back state-owned business and building schools and hospitals with that very money.

This is a great little speech by Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism and the supposed contradiction of the term: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE (it's only 5 minutes long).

While I totally agree that what we have now isn't perfect, it just seems easier to get what you want by learning how to play the game

I think this kind of apathy and blind submission by the masses to roll over and play the game whilst we let them fuck us repeatedly in the arse is one of main problems of why nothing ever changes. People seem to want change and are angry with the state of the world, but they only want revolution if they can sit at home and watch it happen on their flatscreen TVs from the comfort of their own lazyboy whilst they dull their senses with an opiate of their choosing. This is the whole Matrix predicament:



It doesn't have to be a Socialist-led revolution, but which pill you choose is ultimately up to you.

I had a nice chuckle there! ;-)

I have spent far too much time in the company of socialist politicians to be in any doubt of my view!

Imagine you actually had a revolution - what would be the result?

The only people who ever win in a revolution are the politicians who lead them.  The people are ALWAYS the losers - it doesn't matter what ideology you use, however, of the ones available to us, socialism is the worst!

Its the worst because when they are out of power, socialist politicians promise the earth, based on a nice warm feeling of goodness! When they finally get into power they only look after themselves and their friends.

This isn't me having a bad experience, its the experience of every European country that has any left leaning government in charge.

From what you describe, you would possibly see European and UK centralist and right wing parties as being socialist enough for you, even though they themselves don't see themselves under that banner.

And that leads to the last point that the name of your ideology and its definition is ultimately pointless because its all about power - and as we all know, power corrupts, especially socialists! ;-)

[boot52]

Vizzini got it wrong in "The Princess Bride." Turning in your arms is the classic blunder.

http://offgridsurvival.com/wp-content/themes/church_10/images/2013/04/turninyourarms.jpg

[hilariousandco]

I think you have a naive/incorrect/generalised view on socialists/socialism, or perhaps you've had some bad experiences with them (which I can understand if you've only dealt with these "Robin Hood Socialists"). I have no desire to lead over anyone; however, I also have no desire to be governed by these greedy hypocritical capitalist warmongering pigs who fritter away their peoples taxes on wars whilst flogging off state-owned assets to the highest bidder - especially when they should be buying back state-owned business and building schools and hospitals with that very money.

This is a great little speech by Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism and the supposed contradiction of the term: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE (it's only 5 minutes long).

While I totally agree that what we have now isn't perfect, it just seems easier to get what you want by learning how to play the game

I think this kind of apathy and blind submission by the masses to roll over and play the game whilst we let them fuck us repeatedly in the arse is one of main problems of why nothing ever changes. People seem to want change and are angry with the state of the world, but they only want revolution if they can sit at home and watch it happen on their flatscreen TVs from the comfort of their own lazyboy whilst they dull their senses with an opiate of their choosing. This is the whole Matrix predicament:



It doesn't have to be a Socialist-led revolution, but which pill you choose is ultimately up to you.

I had a nice chuckle there! ;-)

I have spent far too much time in the company of socialist politicians to be in any doubt of my view!

Imagine you actually had a revolution - what would be the result?

The only people who ever win in a revolution are the politicians who lead them.  The people are ALWAYS the losers - it doesn't matter what ideology you use, however, of the ones available to us, socialism is the worst!

Its the worst because when they are out of power, socialist politicians promise the earth, based on a nice warm feeling of goodness! When they finally get into power they only look after themselves and their friends.

This isn't me having a bad experience, its the experience of every European country that has any left leaning government in charge.

From what you describe, you would possibly see European and UK centralist and right wing parties as being socialist enough for you, even though they themselves don't see themselves under that banner.

And that leads to the last point that the name of your ideology and its definition is ultimately pointless because its all about power - and as we all know, power corrupts, especially socialists! ;-)

And I have a good chuckle at your logic and willingness to let governments do what you're moaning Socialists would do if they got into power. It doesn’t matter what name it's under if politicians are fucking their people over.

And all of what you said applies to currently 'democratically' elected politicians in their capitalist systems. They promise the earth and do the exact opposite. You obviously have a bee in your bonnet with the mere word 'Socialism' alone. Just because people have failed in the past does not mean they will in the future. Of course if a phony Socialist gets in nothing will change, but simply saying Socialism = bad; Democracy/capitalism also = bad, but I can't be bothered to change it so I'm ok with it until it affects my comfort in my nice little house doesn't work either. And politicians don't need to lead a revolution; the people do. If we wait around waiting for a politician to come along we'll be waiting around forever; and like I said, it doesn’t have to be under the banner of Socialism, just united under the want of common change, because the current system has failed massively. But again, red or blue pill.

[Jason]

Has anyone thought about what binds together all of the various flavors of statism?  In other words, what are some of the things that it would fail without?

A big one that has been glossed over once or twice is the way we humans tend to hierarchically organize ourselves.  It seems to me that this makes statism of one form or another (including democracy, monarchy, and dictatorship) natural outcomes.  Perhaps such organization was a natural evolutionary response to the environment that early man found himself in, but is it still necessary, or even advantageous today (other than for the purpose of propagating the various forms of statism we are still subjected to today)?

Ultimately the argument that the use of force by the state to coerce individuals to its will is immoral falls on deaf ears.  If those of us who do not care to live under such a system would like to see a change, then we need to find effective ways of organizing ourselves that naturally support classic liberalism (or whatever flavor of anti-statism you support).  For example, disruptive technology like Bitcoin may turn out to be an effective way of organizing economic power in a manner that is disruptive to statism, by creating a compelling method of economic organization based on non-hierarchical principles.  But I don't think we can rely on it being sufficient by itself to bring about the downfall of statism.  More work is required.

Sites like www.josietheoutlaw.com raise public awareness of some of the negative aspects of statism and are something that most of us anti-statists can agree upon.  But a lot more is going to be required in order to end the long role that statism has played in human social evolution.

[nwbitcoin]

And all of what you said applies to currently 'democratically' elected politicians in their capitalist systems. They promise the earth and do the exact opposite. You obviously have a bee in your bonnet with the mere word 'Socialism' alone. Just because people have failed in the past does not mean they will in the future. Of course if a phony Socialist gets in nothing will change, but simply saying Socialism = bad; Democracy/capitalism also = bad, but I can't be bothered to change it so I'm ok with it until it affects my comfort in my nice little house doesn't work either. And politicians don't need to lead a revolution; the people do. If we wait around waiting for a politician to come along we'll be waiting around forever; and like I said, it doesn’t have to be under the banner of Socialism, just united under the want of common change, because the current system has failed massively. But again, red or blue pill.

You missed out all the practical parts of why I think as I do.

If you want to see change, then just make it happen under the system we have now - that is how politics works. Having a revolution is just proof that your ideas need violence to make them work, otherwise you could just put them to a vote - but it takes time for an idea to flourish!

The problem for any ideology is that the people don't care for thinking, they just want to live in a safe place where food is plentiful and stress is low.  However, ideology appeals to power hungry people who don't have the ability to format their ideas into a way that can make the life of the people any better without lying! - because people don't want to hear about compromise, which is what politics is all about!

Maybe you need to spend some time reading about the early days of the various revolutions we have had world wide in the last 100 years. Revolutions are lead by very focused individuals, unpaid politicians, they are the ones who get the people to move - but as I keep telling you, history shows us, they don't do it for altruistic reasons!

;-)