Discuss and talk about any general topic.
14 posts • Page 1 of 1
I am currently in college studying economics, and I happen to be taking political science as a requirement. So anyways, I have a teacher who is rather conservative, which is kind of funny in a way, because of just how he expresses himself (very out with his beliefs, yet is not pushing), and such. But anyways, I did a paper on Marxism for the class, and when I got my grade back, me pulled me aside and told me that my paper was the best paper that he has seen in twenty years of teaching. I was kind of stunned to say the least. But anyways, I have been complemented on my papers (and on my ebook I published, the Asperger's Cheatsheet), and I have been thinking about how I can fully utilize my talent. I am passionate about finance and politics as well. If I write, I tend to write non-fiction. I have thought about freelancing, but I am kind of skeptical. So how can I apply my hidden skill? Thanks (BTW, I am not trying to brag, I am just kind of at a loss).
Wow a paper on Marxism. Fancy PM-ing me with a downloadable link? I am not joking...
So you are studying economics (and a bit of finance, I presume) and politics and you have a talent for writing. You could have a future as an economic researcher and analyst. They're basically the people who dissect an industry, or a company, usually comparing and contrasting with similar players and against the current or future macroeconomic backdrop, and give advice on how it will perform, how safe an investment it is, etc. Or you could specialise in economic policy research, taking it from the opposite side: you analyse the current status of one or more economic policies, analysing their interaction with existing policies and the markets etc. and you give advice on how this will impact specific industries or companies.
There's plenty of opportunities for people with your skills.
Okay, first thing I will say is, as a fellow libertarian you should forget Gary Johnson. Democracy is not compatible with Libertarianism. That may sounds crazy, but in a democracy the people hold the power. Do you think they will relinquish it? F.A. Hayek argued that it is better to live under a liberal dictator than an oppressive democracy.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspo ... urney.html
A long article, but well worth reading. You have to take the next step. The idea is that government should be as small as possible, but no smaller. Libertarianism works under stable conditions, but sometimes a country needs a military dictator so the local tribes don't all engage in a bloodbath. Don't make Murray Rothbard's mistake and confuse freedom and anarchy. Freedom allows for the concept of "spontaneous order" in Austrian economics. Anarchy is just chaos. Before there can be freedom and spontaneous order there should be non-spontaneous order. Yes, that means interventionism. Economic rights are more important than political rights.
I also very highly recommend Hayek's The Fatal Conceit. It's basically my Bible.
Also check out this blog:
It's good you can get by with economics in college. As an Austrian I think I'd just be really frustrated with how marginalized our ideas are.
Right now I am at a community college by the way, earning my Associates. But sure, I would be more than happy to: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pn7KM2tLRUTXSdJHRcBf6gPdvzuRYR4YVJcc5XvM6Uk/edit . The teacher wanted us to talk on the subject, probably since it was something dear to his heart (since he was in East Asia as a Marine and saw the carnage of communism).
David, I agree with you on that. I believe that we should be a republic, which would be elected through the people, but the decisions would ultimately be up to the law makers. Also, Republicans (not the party, just someone who believes in a republican form of government) would take into account everyone, not just one vocal group who propels them.
But anyways, while I agree with that, I am going to slightly disagree with you, while still slightly agreeing with you. I believe voluntarism is a great solution, and should be pursued over anarchy. In other word, while I agree with Murray Rothbard in the ultimate end goal of total freedom, I don't necessarily believe in anarchy. I would be more prone to call what I believe competitive governance, which technically is anarchy , is not. Because while I believe the individual should be responsible for themselves, I believe anarchy is not for most people, so I believe the next best alternative is to have government compete against each other in the same geographical zone. So in a sense, it is anarchism, but there would be governing forces. Any thought?
I just don't think that's likely to happen. Rothbard just always struck me as too much of a dreamer.
We already have a Republic though. I just think we should be less Democratic. Now we have Universal Suffrage, which the Founders didn't intend. There's a quote by Thomas Jefferson, most libertarian president we had, and he said women shouldn't ever have voting rights. Jefferson also made the Louisiana Purchase, which wasn't a libertarian move, but it was the right one. How does Obama get all the votes from people our age? He hangs out with rap stars! I'd give away my voting rights in a heartbeat if it meant all the rest in our generation would lose it too.
I would look at Lee Kuan Yew and Ian Smith of Rhodesia as examples of good leaders. Also Deng Xiaoping, who was influenced by Lee Kuan Yew. I'll get some flack for this, but I'll even say Augusto Pinochet.
If you want an example of competitive government, look up the Hanseatic League or even the medieval city states. There's a reason they don't exist anymore. Technically competitive government does exist within the sphere of international relations. I just don't see it ever getting smaller than that though, so that's why I can't buy into Rothbard.
One way to define my beliefs is "Fascist Libertarian" which I know sounds like a contradiction: http://therightstuff.biz/2013/01/23/fas ... ter-world/
And I understand that. I guess my major problem is that both limited and competitive governance are pipe dreams, so I would rather shoot for the latter, and at least get the first. Plus another problem I have with any system of governance is that it assumes IT IS THE SOLUTION TO ALL MAN'S ILLS. I even say this about libertarianism. Not everyone wants to smoke pot, be a polygamist, or live in a welfareless society. And so I ultimately believe that if that is what you want, more power to you, just don't force it on me. Do I believe people will accept this notion? No, but that is my endgame. Now as far as in the mean time, I think politics should be more of a defense , and less about "offense" per se. As far as long term, I think Sam Konkin had better ideas overall than Rothbard, and although Rothbard was a great intellectual, he was not the best at applying it. And it is in applying it Konkin had it right. You built up an infrastructure of freedom, and have it replace the main infrastructure (not roads, but commerce systems ). I think we are seeing this with technology, as things like bitcoin, tor, 3d printing, bit torrent, and other things take hold, we will be less reliant on the mainstream, and thus it will grant us real freedom. So while the ban guns "above" ground, tor will start becoming more vibrant in terms of arms. The only problem I see with Konkin's ideas is the political dilemma. What do you do when they want to regulate PHYSICAL spaces, like with zoning. And that is where I think politics plays its role as defense, which stops laws like that, all the while going on the "offense" in the digital universe.
Now that I think about it, and after reading that article, I think I get what you are saying. I agree hat many policies that libertarians want to implement in this environment would be tantamount to suicide (such as eliminating social welfare) , and so the only way to implement that would be to control the people to protect the society from coming unhinged. I understand that, and that is why it should be more of an evolution, an less about a revolution. Even if I slightly disagree, I understand what you mean (assuming your main points where based off the article link you posted)
Also, advocating freedom of the individual without them changing their behavior to adapt to their new environment would be a waste, since they would waste that freedom on serfdom.
You're exactly right about people's attitudes. That's why in a democracy they always vote against Libertarianism. So my solution is Fascism. I don't like serfs running the government.
Okay, so I read your essay and I don't know how you can survive community college. I was in a college that was just a step about community college and I just died of boredom. Freshman year I had a history class our midterm was to write a series of essay around a list of prompts, 18 pages or more total. We had at least a month to do it. I waited until the last week before it was due and wrote 40 pages with research. I got ten extra credit points even though there was no extra credit. I'm not bragging or trying to trump you, but I'm just saying I was in the same boat as you. I hated it all being so beneath me.
Last edited by abcdavid01 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
I was kind of "forced" into it, and I needed time to get on my feet, so I figure I would have at least two years to figure something out. After that I would like to maybe move if finances permit, or keep working for myself.
And as far as governance, I don't like serfs or one person running the show. But I understand what you mean. If that is how you want to bring about freedom, go ahead. For me personally, I am more in line with Harry Browne, in the case that you should try and create your own freedom, by making conscious choices that increase your freedom. One of them is being happier abroad. Another is financial independence. And there are other things, but you get my point. So while you can push for social change, usually the best change you can bring about is personal change.
What's your opinion of intellectual property?
Oh, okay, I see you take the Kinsella approach.
You are very lucky to have been homeschooled. May I ask how this was done? Specifically, how did you parents find a way to do it? I wish I was homeschooled because I would probably be years ahead intellectually without all the waste of public school.
I'm not sure I agree with you about more Tech connected schools though. My sister is a Liberal Feminist and a History teacher for low income students. It horrifies me that she's teaching them philosophies that will keep them in poverty. Anyway, this is a low income district, so they're always recieving a ton of funding. Just a little more money into the recipe and they'll all graduate, right? No. My sister's classroom doesn't have a blackboard, but a smartboard, which is like a giant tablet computer or something. You know, The Founding Fathers just read hardbooks and had a classical education and they were like another species from your typical modern high schooler. New tech is just a system. I use my tablet to read e-books, but the tablet doesn't make me smarter, the books do.
Well, I was not fitting in at school, plus for religious reasons, my parents homeschooled me. Starting out, it was mostly parents teaching me, but as I got older, I did it myself. And Like I said in the essay, it cost less than $200 (actually it was more like $120) . The only problems with homeschooling was math and science. I did not really feel deprived in terms of science though, but I wish I had more math in my schooling. (I would have but my dad was no longer with us due to disease, and he was the math person, so it was harder to learn). Otherwise I would suggest it.
I guess I was talking to a more diverse audience, so I was kind of a bit pragmatic. What I mean by technology is why not have skype based teachers? Why not have a competitive market for teachers online that could teach various subject (for college and k-12). That is what I meant by technology, not smart boards or wasteful spending. Why not try privatizing schools that are not being used and are breaking down and wasting tax payer dollars? For instance, using schools in Detroit for example, I imagine many schools are closed down. Why not try and rent them out to schools that utilize technology such as skype and other technologies to lower cost and provide better education. This could be the way forward for cities. Have an environment that promotes education through privatizing education and creating an environment that children can actually learn in, thus freeing up public coffers to pay down debt and eliminate taxes, followed by loosening of zoning laws, which would lead to an economic boom for those cities. This would encourage investment in the city, and thus bring up investment in everything, including schools.
I agree with Kinsella, although I am kind of mixed on trademarks. I am not really a stickler on this, but I do believe that the end goal should be a free market of ideas. But in pragmatic terms, this could mean merely lowering copyrights to 30 years or less, while keeping patents as is. Same with other things. While there are a lot of things I would like, my two major issues are de-monopolizing the money supply (to allow for both hard and soft money to compete) and abolishing of the income tax. If a candidate were able to accomplish those thing, I would be a happy camper. Now would I want more? Sure. But those are the two key measuring sticks for me. Followed by civil liberties. So I am not a stick in the mud, but I do have ideals.
You're religious. That's a good thing. Frankly I think my take of Fascist Libertarianism is better suited for religion. It's not like Ayn Rand, who hated Hayek and was a hardcore atheist. Why you want to avoid ideas like Konkin and agorism is this:
http://www.molyneuxrevealed.com/2012/06 ... x-and.html
Stefan Molyneux teaching extreme Libertarianism and claiming parents smacking their kids causes people to be against freedom and become anti-libertarian. According to his view of Libertarianism, the parental structure instills in people a respect for government that results in people acting against (and voting against) freedom as children enter adulthood. These are the principals of agorism. Molyneux has it right for one thing though: the family unit is intrinsically socialist. Ayn Rand wanted to purge this in favor of individualism. Hayek thought humans are intrinsically socialistic and that while it may have extremely negative effects on the market it can be safely channeled into families or communities. This kind of Libertarianism seems better suited to a religious person. It's the fascist kind I expouse. Just be wary of where these ideas really lead. Another thing that made me cross into Fascist Libertarianism is animal rights. Nature is heirarchical. Humans evolved large brains by taking energy from our stomachs and making them less efficient. That's why we needed to develop a meat based diet. Nature is not free this way, but freedom and socialism can find the right outlets. The safest outlets. These are ideas presented in Hayek's last work, his magnum opus, The Fatal Conceit. Hayek ends the book and his career on a defense of religion.
14 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Rock, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests