Originally posted by no1marauder That is utter nonsense unless you want to claim that I am "coerced" into obeying such things as red lights and then the point is trivial.
Try buying a shower head or toilet not approved by the federal government. Every food you buy, every medicine you take must be approved by a Federal agency. The curriculum in your public school is approved by Common Core. Need I go on?
Originally posted by normbenign Try buying a shower head or toilet not approved by the federal government. Every food you buy, every medicine you take must be approved by a Federal agency. The curriculum in your public school is approved by Common Core. Need I go on?
Those are "every human action" as your prior post hysterically claimed?
EDIT: It would be rather difficult to operate those toilets and showers if governments hadn't used eminent domain to build the pipes needed to supply them.
Originally posted by no1marauder Of course it matters. The right wing "libertarians" on this site continue to misrepresent the basic issue. It is not "liberty" v. "government" but whether a tiny minority will have the power in society or the majority. Right wing ideology has always favored a few dominating society . As Karl Hess wrote:
“[b]The overall characteristic of a right-wing r ...[text shortened]... hat is what being "right wing" is all about and it is hardly consistent with libertarian ideals.
A truly libertarian society doesn't have dominant government power, either by an elitist minority, or a populist majority. Its concern is about individual liberty and free choices.
Hess misrepresents reality, as the far left and far right both want the power to dictate to those not in power how they should live, and what opportunities they might have. The far right and far left are both minorities seeking their own form of domination over the majority who just need to be left alone.
The strange thing again is that no1 can't find a single place where Wajoma, I or any other libertarian has articulated what he says is our outlook economically and politically. It is his leftist elitists that demonstrably want power to run even the most personal decisions of life.
Originally posted by no1marauder Those are "every human action" as your prior post hysterically claimed?
Need I go on? What I am permitted to eat or drink or smoke? How much of life do I need to itemize that control freaks left and right want to decide on for me?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra First you said all decisions, now you say most decisions.
As it happens, every political philosophy that I know of advocates leaving "most" decisions up to the individual.
That is not true. Socialism in its many forms uses government force or coersion to decide for individuals what is "best" for them and for society. It dictates what we can buy, use, and how or when we can use these things. All because we don't know as well as the elites.
Originally posted by normbenign A truly libertarian society doesn't have dominant government power, either by an elitist minority, or a populist majority. Its concern is about individual liberty and free choices.
Hess misrepresents reality, as the far left and far right both want the power to dictate to those not in power how they should live, and what opportunities they might have. ...[text shortened]... s leftist elitists that demonstrably want power to run even the most personal decisions of life.
The right version of a "libertarian society" allows the rich and powerful to make binding economic decisions on all. The very existence of private property denies liberty. Your pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
Hess' history is correct; the present economic structure which is your ideological objective to defend is almost entirely based on theft and exploitation. You've even defended the "right" of slave owners to extend slavery into new territories! For you to claim you are defending "liberty" is a sick joke.
Originally posted by no1marauder Anarchy is unacceptable to right wing "libertarians" because it would give little opportunity for a small elite to grow powerful and dominate the rest (and no chance for a capitalist system based on property ownership). Anarchism has always been a left-wing ideology.
Originally posted by normbenign That is not true. Socialism in its many forms uses government force or coersion to decide for individuals what is "best" for them and for society. It dictates what we can buy, use, and how or when we can use these things. All because we don't know as well as the elites.
In a democratic society, the elites don't make the ultimate decisions. In a society where a tiny economic elite are allowed to conduct themselves in any way they see fit, the elite does. You oppose the former and support the latter.
Originally posted by no1marauder The right version of a "libertarian society" allows the rich and powerful to make binding economic decisions on all. The very existence of private property denies liberty. Your pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
Hess' history is correct; the present economic structure which is your ideological objective to defend is almost entirely based on theft a ...[text shortened]... xtend slavery into new territories! For you to claim you are defending "liberty" is a sick joke.
Originally posted by normbenign Anarchy leads quickly to despotism. Poly sci 101.
Sorry, I took PS 101 and it says no such thing. Anarchy might be impractical given the way the world has been seized by thugs and robbers (and of course you insist on their "right" to retain the fruits of their thuggery and robbery) but the Anarchism of Bakunin and Proudhon would lead to a far more just society (and one more in keeping with our fundamental nature) than the type of laissez faire plunder you espouse.
Originally posted by no1marauder In a democratic society, the elites don't make the ultimate decisions. In a society where a tiny economic elite are allowed to conduct themselves in any way they see fit, the elite does. You oppose the former and support the latter.
In a libertarian society, elites don't make the ultimate decisions. You well know I don't support democracy in its purest form. The greater in numbers can't dictate to the minority, any more than the minority dictating in a libertarian society.
In the end you simply favor one group of elitists over another. Liberty isn't on your radar.
Originally posted by no1marauder Sorry, I took PS 101 and it says no such thing. Anarchy might be impractical given the way the world has been seized by thugs and robbers (and of course you insist on their "right" to retain the fruits of their thuggery and robbery) but the Anarchism of Bakunin and Proudhon would lead to a far more just society (and one more in keeping with our fundamental nature) than the type of laissez faire plunder you espouse.
Where have I ever supported plunder? Laizzez faire works both ways. It favors neither consumer nor producer, and favors neither class nor wealth. Libertarianism is the absensce of force or fraud. You just prefer those things remain in the "proper" hands, the largest gang.
Originally posted by normbenign In a libertarian society, elites don't make the ultimate decisions. You well know I don't support democracy in its purest form. The greater in numbers can't dictate to the minority, any more than the minority dictating in a libertarian society.
In the end you simply favor one group of elitists over another. Liberty isn't on your radar.
In the type of laissez faire utopia you envision, the wealthy will soon have an economic stranglehold on the vast majority. Of course, you don't favor democracy; that would interfere with the economic elite's ability to rule society. They would dictate he could live and who could die by sheer force of economic power and by the "right" to exclude others of the means of subsistence.
That is your Dream World. And it has nothing to do with "liberty" except for a tiny elite.
Originally posted by normbenign Where have I ever supported plunder? Laizzez faire works both ways. It favors neither consumer nor producer, and favors neither class nor wealth. Libertarianism is the absensce of force or fraud. You just prefer those things remain in the "proper" hands, the largest gang.
You spout that nonsense as if you really believe if. Perhaps you do. But an economic reality where a relative few have acquired dominion over every square inch of the Earth hardly "favors neither class nor wealth". You either play by their rules or you die in Norm World.
Originally posted by no1marauder Anarchy is unacceptable to right wing "libertarians" because it would give little opportunity for a small elite to grow powerful and dominate the rest (and no chance for a capitalist system based on property ownership). Anarchism has always been a left-wing ideology.
Name any example of a government that has not devolved into the elite leading the rest.
31 Oct '14 21:33
Center for a Stateless Society article
Back to Top