Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss and talk about any general topic.
Hello! If you don't know, I just released a new book, called Leave Me Alone, the Facts About Libertarianism. In it, I discuss the basics of libertarianism, and explain the basic policies, the schisms, and the main figures of various factions. You can order it here:https://www.amazon.com/gp/css/homepage. ... nkified-20
Check out our Dating Sites and International Romance Tours!
Special Offer! FREE 6 Month Membership on ForeignWomen.com! Sign up here.
Find Your Foreign Sweetheart Now! Try our international Dating Sites and Overseas Romance Tours!
The link doesn't go to any product. Did you put the wrong link in there?
See my HA Ebook and Join Our Dating Sites to support us!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
What schisms? There's Rothbard who started the party. He's the most commonly followed it seems. Then there's Rand, but Objectivists hold no love for Libertarians. Agorism might be a faction. I don't suppose you've done a section on Reactionism, which is kind of an aristocratic libertarianism that holds it as the unobtainable end of politicial arrangement. Basically what happens when you keep Austrian economics, but throw out most of the rest for keeping the proles in line. Lot of the early Austrians had a respect for monarchy after all.
To answer your question David, I just went into the main splits, such as anarchist, libertarian leaning, minarchist, etc. I am not trying to offend, but I was going over the main divides. I imagine I could add libertarian socialist and marxist, but I was trying to keep it more into info, as an opener, not as a be all end all. I did consider Rand, bu tI was a tad iffy on her. I was also atad iffy on Friedman, but I added him. I also added Daniel Hannon, eve though he may not be libertarian through and through, I think he should be condsidered. I am sorry Bout the link. I will try and see what the problem is. But in the mean time th etitle is Leave Me Alone: the Facts About Libertarianism.
Daniel Hannon? Huh. I never heard of him. Looking this up now, so his idea is localism? Well, I wonder the viability of that when analyzed for systems theory.
Yeah, I get what you're saying though. I had to really read this stuff at the highest level to become a Reactionary. For example, how does a libertarian handle animal rights? I tried to reconcile this, but most answers I got from people just hand waved over the issue. It seemed like a contradiction.
Then I got to reading Hayek, who said the family is a socialist institution and humans are socialist by nature. Unlike Rand, Hayek thought this wasn't a problem so long as it didn't affect the economy barring certain political concerns. Basically, socialism is human nature, and human nature isn't always right (it's often wrong with regards to the needs to build and maintain civilization), but rejecting human nature would only lead to empty, psychotic people. Socialism for families. One's birth isn't voluntary. That's what I learned from Hayek.
Apparently Hayek's teacher Friedrich von Wieser went even further. He's the guy who coined the term "opportunity cost" although obviously the idea was well known to Bastiat long before. Wieser also coined the term "marginal utility" and said "freedom has to be superseded by a system of order." Thus, freedom is the opposite pole to anarchy, superseded by a system of chaos. Frankly I think that's close to what we have today. Anarcho-tyranny. It's something that characterizes many tyrannical regimes too; Hitler having his underlings compete and the like. Anarchy simply means no government and since the 1960's in many Western countries crime laws have been relaxed. The result of this government weakness has been chaos e.g. much higher crime rates. You can argue that America has a super high incarceration rate, but that's for stupid stuff like drug laws. I look at Western societies and I see chaos. Anarcho-tyranny.
Wieser was a Baron and advisor for the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That's where Austrian economics comes from and Menger and the other early ones worked as finance ministers for the empire...monarchy. Eugen Bohm von Bawek and Joseph Schumpeter are other ones to look at. It was only with von Mises that there was something of a split and then much further with Rothbard. Rothbard's prose and ideas are accessible even if they seem kind of out there. I've always thought early Austrians were much greater intellectual heavyweights though, even von Mises.
Last edited by abcdavid01 on March 19th, 2013, 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You expect people to pay $10 for something they could get from a Wikipedia entry?
There are numerous issues like how are major technological projects that take decades to come to fruition to be funded? how are people to get access to resources when there is a huge surplus of labor due to automation? etc. The whole thing is fairly silly really.
Well here are the other solutions:
Solution A is Jonathan Smith's Modest Proposal. Kill off the unfunded liabilities and sell the organs. Pretty f***ing awful for any sane person to consider. Solution C has to do with virtual reality. The Matrix maybe? Something like S_Parc would propose. Unlikely to happen. Remember, the problem is that if the masses can't be productive, they should at least be kept from degeneracy and harming society. Virtual reality super porn may make American society more like Japan or something maybe, but I still don't think it'll stop crime. Most crime is over drugs anyway and people feeding habits. Need some heroin money? Steal your neighbor's TV. These solutions try to prevent that and the best ones even make productive members of society. Solution B, outlined above, has enough problems that are well known. Like my father said recently, people have all this money, but none of the responsibility for it. Trade food stamps for drugs, eh? He's a criminal defense lawyer, so he sees it every day. He employs my aunt (his sister in-law) as his secretary for a small salary, but she's kind of dumb and with her habits probably couldn't find work elsewhere. She's a nice enough women, but she's simple. Good for getting fat and making babies and cooking and being kind. My dad has also wished there were better secretary robots though, like what Japan's barely starting to see in some isolated offices. That's another solution for later.
This is Solution D:
The problem with makework is that it's a house of cards that only functions with a strong government, which we don't have.
Solution E is restricting foreign trade, which would instantly raise GDP and employment. This is mercantilism. Kind of like Nazi Germany. Again, it has other problems in that it sacrifices choice. Free trade is more than products, but the exchange of ideas that increases human development in art, science, culture, etc. I'm wary of sacrificing that, so I rarely attack outsourcing. But that's me talking, not Moldbug.
Solution F is technology restrictions. What happens when robots become the new Mexicans stealing all our jobs?
Farming's a bit more dangerous to be fair. Governments would have to make sure there were never any shortages.
The future will require completely new social arrangements. Post-Industrialism.
I am not outright saying that collective action would never be a good idea, all I am saying is that individuals should be able to choose their own destiny. If you want to have a strong moral state, fine, just don't involve me in it (if I did not like that). I guess all I am saying is that a man is a king of his castle, and since it is his, he should be able to decide who he will cede that power to. I am not saying there should not be collective programs, just don't force me to pay for it. Because here is the thing: lets say we have a $500 billion dollar surplus. I say we build a missile defense system, you say we build a Death star, and David said we should go to mars or some other galaxy. Which is more valuable. I think most people would say the defense mechanism, but then you have people lobbying for this, and lobbying for that, and what ultimately makes one the right thing to spend it on or not to? Another way to look at this is in a partisan way. Should we build a homeless shelter for gays, should we continue the war on drugs, or should we build a road to no where to spur jobs? To each person, they have a stake in these things. But the problem is that not one of those are right or wrong. So the best thing, in most cases, is to let people use their own money to decide what is right. Because we will disagree on what is the best use of resources. This is called a free market. And here is the other thing, I don't want my tax payer dollars going to abortion or to fund wars in the name of God, so the best thing to do is don't even allow the government to open the door to those possibilities.
And now let me ask you this: why is your idea of government right?
You havenâ€™t actually addressed any of the above issues. It is clear that things like making long term technological progress or providing for people in the absence of much of a labor requirement would simply not be possible, so the system being proposed is nonsense.
Simple. Form a government according to common ideals, and fund reseatch for these long term projects. Or perhaps companies could research these. All I am saying is we shouldn't limit ourselves. I guess all I am asking for is interapping governments. A government should be like buying insurance, you choose which one is right for you. And depending on which system you choose, the answer to that question will be different. In other words, there is no one right or wrong governmnet, unless it is against the will of the governed. So how would you solve it? You answer is as right a smine, just don't force me to fund it.