Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 08:37:14 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: George Michael -- Marxist Libertarian?  (Read 3696 times)
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 03:07:42 AM
 #1

Quote
All we have to see
Is that I don't belong to you
And you don't belong to me

Freedom! '90
(warning: contains Linda Evangelista)
("Top hairdresser Julien Dy's then cut her hair into what she described as 'a bowl cut with sideburns'. She cried during the haircut but it turned out to be the defining moment of her career." -wikipedia)

Libertarianism - Self Ownership

Quote
Do you enjoy what you do if not just stop
Don't stay there and rot.

Quote
I said d.h.s.s. - man
The rhythm that they're givin' is the very best.
I said b-one b-two - make the claims on your names all you have to do.

Wham Rap! (Enjoy What You Do)

The Right To Be Lazy, by Paul Lafargue

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
1481229434
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481229434

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481229434
Reply with quote  #2

1481229434
Report to moderator
1481229434
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481229434

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481229434
Reply with quote  #2

1481229434
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481229434
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481229434

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481229434
Reply with quote  #2

1481229434
Report to moderator
1481229434
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481229434

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481229434
Reply with quote  #2

1481229434
Report to moderator
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile WWW
April 09, 2012, 02:39:07 PM
 #2

what gives?

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
April 09, 2012, 02:50:52 PM
 #3

"Marxist Libertarian" is a contradiction in terms.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 04:45:18 PM
 #4

"Marxist Libertarian" is a contradiction in terms.
Marxism has to do mostly with economics and property. Libertarianism is more about personal freedom. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
April 09, 2012, 05:34:45 PM
 #5

Marxism has to do mostly with economics and property. Libertarianism is more about personal freedom. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Personal freedom is about economics & property.  No matter how many times you say it, a collectivist cannot be a libertarian.  The two worldviews are mutually exclusive by nature.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile WWW
April 09, 2012, 05:35:56 PM
 #6

"Marxist Libertarian" is a contradiction in terms.

nah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism was earlier

and it is *not* mutually exclusive, look at the anarchists in spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_spain

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 05:37:11 PM
 #7

Marxism has to do mostly with economics and property. Libertarianism is more about personal freedom. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Personal freedom is about economics & property.  No matter how many times you say it, a collectivist cannot be a libertarian.  The two worldviews are mutually exclusive by nature.
no its not.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
April 09, 2012, 05:53:01 PM
 #8

"Marxist Libertarian" is a contradiction in terms.

nah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism was earlier

and it is *not* mutually exclusive, look at the anarchists in spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_spain

European Anarchists aren't libertarians, primarily they are marxists.  Marx himself regarded the destruction of the capitalist order a necessary step towards communism.  Libertarians who can rationally be considered anarchists (in the literal, 'no ruler' root meaning) don't have a further political goal.

The problem with you guys is not that you don't understand collectivism, you all seem to.  You guys don't understand libertarianism.  The ideology requires economic liberty of individuals; which in turn requires a community standard for private property rights.  The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems.  No matter how I feel about the effectiveness of such an economic system, central planning of anything is invariablely opposed by some minority group.  The smallest minority is the individual.  Follow out the implications of your thought patterns and you will reach a different end than any that a libertarian can support.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile WWW
April 09, 2012, 06:12:23 PM
 #9

all fine, the synthesis is that a collective has to be voluntary. then it's just a local community which is not any different to a special form of organization in the eyes of american libertarianism.




https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 06:59:41 PM
 #10

The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems. 
no, collectivist ideals does not require enforcement structures. Its not impossible for communism to function with out central control, all it requires is that people are not narcissistic assholes, and begins care about other persons well being. There is no need for central control.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
April 09, 2012, 07:48:22 PM
 #11

all fine, the synthesis is that a collective has to be voluntary. then it's just a local community which is not any different to a special form of organization in the eyes of american libertarianism.


Okay, but a voluntary collective must also respect the right of members to leave the collective at will.  This also means that such collectives are not stable social constructs lacking the force of law.  Thus, although a libertarian society can coexist with a collectivist sub-culture; a collectivist society cannot coexist with a libertarian sub-culture; because the growth of the libertarian ideals are destructive to the collectivist social order.  So, in the end, a society that is libertarian with minority collectivist population is still a libertarian society; not a communist society.  Marxism , by it's own definition, seeks to establish a predominately communist society. 

Therefore one cannot be a marxist and a libertarian at the same time.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile WWW
April 09, 2012, 07:51:52 PM
 #12

I think you're right with Marxism, but I believe OP didn't necessarily mean Marxist-Libertarian, but Social-Libertarian.

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
April 09, 2012, 07:55:03 PM
 #13

The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems. 
no, collectivist ideals does not require enforcement structures. Its not impossible for communism to function with out central control, all it requires is that people are not narcissistic assholes, and begins care about other persons well being. There is no need for central control.

For any society larger than Dumbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that is dependent upon members of that society treating each other with the kind of mutual respect that is required for a truly voluntary commune to exist, some form of social hiearchy with the capacity to impose it's will upon individuals is required.  Otherwise it's unstable.  This pretty much describes any group larger than a (relatively small) church business meeting.  No town, city, county, state or nation can function otherwise; regardless of whether or not they are communist, libertarian or other.  Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature.  Communism cannot be minimalist in this fashion.  It's literally impossible.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
April 09, 2012, 07:56:54 PM
 #14

I think you're right with Marxism, but I believe OP didn't necessarily mean Marxist-Libertarian, but Social-Libertarian.

Maybe, but then I'd require a definition of "social-libertarian" to know if there were fundamental differences.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
April 09, 2012, 09:01:50 PM
 #15

...snip... 
Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature. 

...snip...

I'm guessing that its things like personal freedom and property rights that get enforced?  So you have police, courts, taxes, etc.

MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
April 09, 2012, 09:38:57 PM
 #16

...snip... 
Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature. 

...snip...

I'm guessing that its things like personal freedom and property rights that get enforced?  So you have police, courts, taxes, etc.

Yes, generally speaking.  Libertarianism does not equal anarchism.  To a lib, there are certain "natural" laws, which can be summed up with Maybury's two laws.

1)  Do all that you have agreed to do and..

2) Do not encroach upon another person or their property.

Property is not defined here, because it's a difficult meme to plainly define.  However, most of the time the simple, 2 year old type of 'possesion equals ownership' is somewhat accurate.  As in the idea, the car in my driveway for which I alone have keys for belongs to me, because I paid for it.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 10:31:41 PM
 #17

Marxism , by it's own definition, seeks to establish a predominately communist society. 

In the broadest sense, Marxism posits that a communist society will emerge regardless.

But perhaps it is true that Marxism is not strictly relevant to the discussion at hand.  I'm not sure what Brits would call their social welfare system.  Technically it might be considered benevolent monarchism.  But that doesn't seem accurate.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile WWW
April 09, 2012, 10:35:50 PM
 #18

actually, without formal property rights protected by a central state, the dispute between socialist libertarians (who want equality) and capitalist libertarians (who want individual freedom) dissolves. that's because the more property someone claims, the harder they will find it to protect, especially if they are unpopular. they'll have to hire more mercenaries and guards, or, in a more civilized society, this will be reflected in higher insurance costs.

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 06:42:01 AM
 #19

The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems. 
no, collectivist ideals does not require enforcement structures. Its not impossible for communism to function with out central control, all it requires is that people are not narcissistic assholes, and begins care about other persons well being. There is no need for central control.

For any society larger than Dumbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that is dependent upon members of that society treating each other with the kind of mutual respect that is required for a truly voluntary commune to exist, some form of social hiearchy with the capacity to impose it's will upon individuals is required.  Otherwise it's unstable.  This pretty much describes any group larger than a (relatively small) church business meeting.  No town, city, county, state or nation can function otherwise; regardless of whether or not they are communist, libertarian or other.  Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature.  Communism cannot be minimalist in this fashion.  It's literally impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number:
Quote
Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
April 10, 2012, 01:03:13 PM
 #20

Marxism , by it's own definition, seeks to establish a predominately communist society. 

In the broadest sense, Marxism posits that a communist society will emerge regardless.

But perhaps it is true that Marxism is not strictly relevant to the discussion at hand.  I'm not sure what Brits would call their social welfare system.  Technically it might be considered benevolent monarchism.  But that doesn't seem accurate.

Capitalism of course.

Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!