Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Best country for a libertarian coup de tete?

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Postby Cornfed » Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:50 am

zacb wrote: The cruxs of my argument at least for a voluntary society is that people should be able to decide what associations they want to associate with, and disassociate with ones they don't want. I just want people to be happy and quit fighting over territory. Even if I never got capitalist Koana, I would be happy if we lived in a voluntary society. :D

In a world with seven billion people and finite resources, such a thing is not even a theoretical possibility. Also, functional societies require people to fit into family structures that existed before they were born and so can't be voluntary. Some ways of doing things simply work better than others and need to be imposed on people if the society is to prosper. For example, if females are allowed to do what they think they want, they inevitably become hateful, worthless sluts, as we have seen. They need to be under the lifelong control and supervision of men and receive a good whipping if they step out of line. If not the ongoing trainwreck of their lives will drag down the rest of the society. Similarly, if dykes and faggots are allowed to form pair bonds and raise children then this will undermine the biological basis of society as a set of interlinked families. Hence their perversions need to be suppressed.

Functional societies require everyone to play their part as a kind of military operation for the society to work. The various Jew religions such as libertarianism assume that social relations are non-existent or don't matter and that you can just have atomized individuals who don't care about each other doing anything they want (provided they shuffle papers in an office or whatever for some number of hours) and the system will magically provide for them. This is a suicide cult that only seemed to have validity for a while because the Jews could prop it up by spending the surplus generated by previous functional societies. Now that we have finally burned through that we are going to have to abandon silly Jew fantasies and organize ourselves in the manner that thousands of years of experience have shown to be correct for the human species.
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:22 am







Postby zacb » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:27 pm

I would even be happy if we stuck to the Constitution, but I don't believe that is going to happen, so the best things to do is try and pull the country in an extreme position, at least of what it is used to, and because of moderating forces, you will end up with less change than expected, but change nevertheless. In other words, if you want a Constitutional Republic, aim for the Article of Confederation, Articles aim, for something more, etc. Heck, I would be happy if the Fed and legal tender laws were abolished and we had not taxes.

Overnight I think I figured out why Nazai Germany's economy might have worked. Since the government was in control of the money supply (via stict regulation of the central bank), it did not have to worry as much about people interfering with their deficit spending. But here is the crux: because they mostly spent on war supplies, this money went to corporations, which kept money to pad their war chest, but at the same time people were employed, so while inflationary pressure was off, people were still working and earning a more valuable currency. In addition, some of that money was exported, mostly to the US via Ford and Standard oil, although those were not the main companies to receive them.

On top of that, I found something interesting: http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... tizat.html

Any thoughts?
The Daily Agorist, Learn to Live Independent of the System! http://www.theagoristreview.blogspot.com
zacb
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:33 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Jester » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:01 am

Cornfed wrote:For example, if females are allowed to do what they think they want, they inevitably become hateful, worthless sluts, as we have seen. They need to be under the lifelong control and supervision of men and receive a good whipping if they step out of line. If not the ongoing trainwreck of their lives will drag down the rest of the society. Similarly, if dykes and faggots are allowed to form pair bonds and raise children then this will undermine the biological basis of society as a set of interlinked families. Hence their perversions need to be suppressed.

Functional societies require everyone to play their part as a kind of military operation for the society to work.


+1

It's not that I'm tyrannical dad. It's that I want my family to survive.

Teamwork rules.




Cornfed wrote:The various Jew religions such as libertarianism assume that social relations are non-existent or don't matter and that you can just have atomized individuals who don't care about each other doing anything they want (provided they shuffle papers in an office or whatever for some number of hours) and the system will magically provide for them. This is a suicide cult that only seemed to have validity for a while because the Jews could prop it up by spending the surplus generated by previous functional societies. Now that we have finally burned through that we are going to have to abandon silly Jew fantasies and organize ourselves in the manner that thousands of years of experience have shown to be correct for the human species.


Brilliant. I have been wondering why the PTB are allowing Libertarianism as the fashionable altenative to Obamunism.

You just put your finger on it.

Both cults treat people as individuals - atomized particles. Exactly. One seeks to let them run like rats, free within the confines of a corporate-controlled maze. The other seeks to organize them with rat-solidarity.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7869
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby abcdavid01 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:37 am

You'll like this Jester...

http://therightstuff.biz/2013/02/28/apr ... le-deluge/

Democracy is not a form of government that engenders outgroup cooperation. Liberalism is not an ideology that promotes better qualities in a human being (I argue it promotes the exact opposite of such). Capitalism is not an economic system that achieves maximum utility for a society. Putting these concepts together, you have the modern West: a population of over-stimulated, bickering, spiritually sterile idiots coddled by an ever more sexual matriarchy.

At their best, libertarians sought to separate Democracy from Liberalism, to raise the Capitalistic desire to acquire more material above the Liberal desire to make everyone an equal object. Do you see that “objectâ€￾ and “materialâ€￾ are linguistically related, connected?

The sad fact of the matter is that Capitalism and Liberalism are two sides of the same coin.
中国人万岁! 中国美女万岁!
abcdavid01
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:52 am
Location: On the run

Postby Jester » Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:32 pm

abcdavid01 wrote:You'll like this Jester...

http://therightstuff.biz/2013/02/28/apr ... le-deluge/

Libertarianism was and is forever unable to alter the course of Western civilization, because it was fundamentally sabotaged from the beginning.

Democracy is not a form of government that engenders outgroup cooperation. Liberalism is not an ideology that promotes better qualities in a human being (I argue it promotes the exact opposite of such). Capitalism is not an economic system that achieves maximum utility for a society. Putting these concepts together, you have the modern West: a population of over-stimulated, bickering, spiritually sterile idiots coddled by an ever more sexual matriarchy.

At their best, libertarians sought to separate Democracy from Liberalism, to raise the Capitalistic desire to acquire more material above the Liberal desire to make everyone an equal object. Do you see that “objectâ€￾ and “materialâ€￾ are linguistically related, connected?

The sad fact of the matter is that Capitalism and Liberalism are two sides of the same coin.

Check.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7869
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby zacb » Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:55 pm

I am not denying that collective freedom is almost impossible, but I think that we can all find personal freedom. But even the most anarcho-capitalist (such as Stefan Molyneux) has said it is a hard task, since most people are brought up with strict adherence to authority. In addition, I don't think anarcho-capitalist are against mutual cooperation, but against the use of force. But anyways.
The Daily Agorist, Learn to Live Independent of the System! http://www.theagoristreview.blogspot.com
zacb
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:33 am
Location: Michigan

Postby zacb » Fri Mar 01, 2013 5:06 pm

David, or anyone with similar inclinations, please explain to me what you are actually trying to promote. Are you trying to promote Fascism, and if so, please explain what your views on the subject are. I tried reading the right stuff, but it seemed kind of ambiguous was their point was. They attacked something, but what do they believe?
The Daily Agorist, Learn to Live Independent of the System! http://www.theagoristreview.blogspot.com
zacb
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:33 am
Location: Michigan

Postby djfourmoney » Fri Mar 01, 2013 5:29 pm

Libertarian is euphemism I'm not a racist, bigoted White Male but just happen to think like a typical Conservative, vote for the GOP and a key supporter of the MRA.

Libertarianism is Anglo construct it was nobody else's idea imported from Eastern Europe, East Asia, Africa or South America.

There is always Glen Beck's Libertarian community that he wants to build in Texas...
djfourmoney
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby djfourmoney » Fri Mar 01, 2013 5:31 pm

zacb wrote:David, or anyone with similar inclinations, please explain to me what you are actually trying to promote. Are you trying to promote Fascism, and if so, please explain what your views on the subject are. I tried reading the right stuff, but it seemed kind of ambiguous was their point was. They attacked something, but what do they believe?


Fascism is already here and all its other ism's to make it possible (Racism being one of them).
djfourmoney
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby zacb » Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:14 pm

djfourmoney wrote:
zacb wrote:David, or anyone with similar inclinations, please explain to me what you are actually trying to promote. Are you trying to promote Fascism, and if so, please explain what your views on the subject are. I tried reading the right stuff, but it seemed kind of ambiguous was their point was. They attacked something, but what do they believe?


Fascism is already here and all its other ism's to make it possible (Racism being one of them).


That is kind of why I am asking him. If I am hearing him correctly, and if the blog is any indication, it seems like it has a fascist bent. So basically, I am asking him if the fascism he is talking about is any different that what is here. Otherwise I have no other questions.
The Daily Agorist, Learn to Live Independent of the System! http://www.theagoristreview.blogspot.com
zacb
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:33 am
Location: Michigan

Postby abcdavid01 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:25 pm

I guess the unifying label is Reactionism. For a good blog that collects relevant news and posts from around the web you can check Foseti:

http://foseti.wordpress.com/

The idea is radical traditionalism. Patriarchy.

I posted this earlier in the thread, but take a look at the comments:

http://therightstuff.biz/2013/02/27/an- ... bertarians

Yup, that's me. I turned to Reactionism once I read Hayek's last work, The Fatal Conceit. Hayek argues that humans are intrinsically socialistic, families are socialist institutions, but there's nothing wrong with that. It only becomes an issue with the economic calculation problem. So understanding that makes Rothbard, Molyneux and most modern libertarians sound ridiculous. There's nothing voluntary about your existence after all.

Furthermore, this quote is again from the comments section and it's by Friedrich von Wieser, Hayek's teacher:

“Freedom has to be superseded by a system of orderâ€￾.

This idea comes from Mencius Moldbug. Libertarianism too early is just chaos. There's a difference between freedom and anarchy. Freedom allows for spontaneous order, but it must be preceded by non-spontaneous order. Sometimes a military dictatorship is necessary to keep the two tribes from engaging in a bloodbath.

Reactionism is also an attack on Post-modernism. Everything has been deconstructed, so there is no meaning in anything anymore. Reactionism is a backlash against the vacuousness of meaning.

It's almost like a Fight Club philosophy. There's an element of Socialism in it, but it's about as anti-Leftist, anti-Feminist as you can get.

The Leftists are in charge and have been for the past 50 years. So no, it is nothing at all like what exists. I'm a misogynist. It's about as taboo as you can get in this society.
中国人万岁! 中国美女万岁!
abcdavid01
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:52 am
Location: On the run

Postby zacb » Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:11 pm

Ok I am glad I could understand. I agree the family is important. And I agree that there must be personal responsibility on people's parts to truly enjoy freedom. But, at the same time, I believe that governing bodies must have the consent of the governed. Does that mean democracy? NO. But it means a republic, which is a trustee of the people, and is above reproach from people's personally interest's. So should people's opinions not matter in governing? Yes, to a certain extent. But I think that a country should be governed for all. So is there a non-democratic element, yes. But I still think people should be treated fairly by their government. So do I agree that democracy, at least in the modern sense, is a bad idea? Yes. How do we change it? Republican form of government. But even then, I think regardless of the type of government, it will become corrupt. I remember Stefan Molyneux (which is not perfect, but has some good insight) said that whenever you have a free and prosperous nation, such as the US, that has one of the smallest governments in the world, it will become the biggest and worst. I think what Molyneux is saying is you can't change the world, but you can change yourself. And sometimes, I believe that our nature needs tamed. Humans tend to be warlike, is that always good? No. Sometimes, yes. But I believe it must be tamed. Same with other things. Is it wrong to have "socialist" institutions. No. But some people are not that type of creature, and would rather be singular. Is being different in and of itself bad? no. Is it to be a social creature? No.
The Daily Agorist, Learn to Live Independent of the System! http://www.theagoristreview.blogspot.com
zacb
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:33 am
Location: Michigan

Postby abcdavid01 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:00 pm

Yeah, but there's a trade off. I'll take corruption over chaos. Do I think government should be representative of the people? Of the Volk? Certainly not. Governed for all can only mean governed for the majority. That's no different than democracy, though a little less direct. I'd rather have government represent the competent. America used to be that way by limiting voting rights to male property owners.

As for taming of instinct, that's the whole point. But humans have been in tribes since caveman times. That is our instinct, necessary for survival. These instincts only need to be tamed because of the economic calculation problem. They don't need to be tamed with regards to social life and only a very small minority can survive that way. You'd be living like an Ayn Randian ideal at best (obviously problematic because her lack of spiritual sense puts her in line with Secularism, minus the Humanist part) or as a lonely hermit at worst.

Obviously it's good that that's a minority or there would be little continuity of the human race. Once you leave agrarianism, where Malthus may apply, you start to enter the realm where Adam Smith applies when he said population growth is a sign of prosperity. It allows increasing complexity in the exchange of ideas and allows for the division of labor.
中国人万岁! 中国美女万岁!
abcdavid01
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:52 am
Location: On the run

Postby zacb » Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:08 pm

abcdavid01 wrote:Yeah, but there's a trade off. I'll take corruption over chaos. Do I think government should be representative of the people? Of the Volk? Certainly not. Governed for all can only mean governed for the majority. That's no different than democracy, though a little less direct. I'd rather have government represent the competent. America used to be that way by limiting voting rights to male property owners.

As for taming of instinct, that's the whole point. But humans have been in tribes since caveman times. That is our instinct, necessary for survival. These instincts only need to be tamed because of the economic calculation problem. They don't need to be tamed with regards to social life and only a very small minority can survive that way. You'd be living like an Ayn Randian ideal at best (obviously problematic because her lack of spiritual sense puts her in line with Secularism, minus the Humanist part) or as a lonely hermit at worst.

Obviously it's good that that's a minority or there would be little continuity of the human race. Once you leave agrarianism, where Malthus may apply, you start to enter the realm where Adam Smith applies when he said population growth is a sign of prosperity. It allows increasing complexity in the exchange of ideas and allows for the division of labor.


I think you are right about property rights being tied to voting rights. Just one problem: property has become so regulated, the average man could not buy it. And do we even have private property? If you think so, just trying own land without paying taxes.
The Daily Agorist, Learn to Live Independent of the System! http://www.theagoristreview.blogspot.com
zacb
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:33 am
Location: Michigan

Postby abcdavid01 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:11 pm

Well yeah, but that's now. Property ownership was more of a barrier to entry then than it is today. But the point holds. There should be barriers to entry as for who has political rights. Rule by the competent, but how the competent are chosen may change as society does.
中国人万岁! 中国美女万岁!
abcdavid01
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:52 am
Location: On the run

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests