Best country for a libertarian coup de tete?

[Cornfed]

One that has learned some lessons from history, like, say, the Western social democracies, circa 1945 to 1975. One that understands private capital will be as swinish and predatory as it possibly can be, that it must be regulated and opposed by countervailing forces such as government and labor (to use Galbraith's expression).

The economic component of libertarianism, as I understand it, is exactly the same thing as neoliberalism -- privatization (i.e., turning over public assets to private predators), deregulation (i.e., letting Wall Street crooks turn the economy into a private casino) and austerity (i.e., starving government and curtailing the social contract). Features such as socialism for large corporations may not be part of the theory, but they invariably become part of the program.

Indeed. The trouble is that once the Jews etc. secure control of key resources - which they can easily do via their control of the monetary system - then everyone else has no choice but to be their slave or starve, which makes a nonsense of the notion of voluntarism. The mechanism of working for them in exchange for access to resources doesn't produce a satisfactory outcome because there is no real demand curve for labor, but rather a largely fixed and finite number of jobs, and there is generally a huge surplus of potential workers. Hence most people have no choice but to work for any wage the Jews want to hand to them or starve. Even this awful arrangement is unstable, since social degradation due to the destruction of families and lack of long term investment will eventually lead to economic collapse. Neoliberalism/Libertarianism in practice is a kind of lootocracy where the Jews loot wealth from societies while bringing about their destruction.

[Teal Lantern]

Let's say I wanted to run for office on a Libertarian ticket and turn a country into a capitalist Koana, which country would be best to run in?

The virtual one you create online, yourself. Sims zacbLand.
In the physical world, people have real problems like how to get their next meal, and having to cope with unclean drinking water.
Food polls higher than "liberty" everywhere the choice is given (among those whose stomachs aren't already full).

[zacb]

Also, do you want to live under a jackboot tyranny? What would be your ideal government?

No. Rhetorical questions don't advance your argument.

One that has learned some lessons from history, like, say, the Western social democracies, circa 1945 to 1975. One that understands private capital will be as swinish and predatory as it possibly can be, that it must be regulated and opposed by countervailing forces such as government and labor (to use Galbraith's expression).

The economic component of libertarianism, as I understand it, is exactly the same thing as neoliberalism -- privatization (i.e., turning over public assets to private predators), deregulation (i.e., letting Wall Street crooks turn the economy into a private casino) and austerity (i.e., starving government and curtailing the social contract). Features such as socialism for large corporations may not be part of the theory, but they invariably become part of the program.

Not per se. Even Murray Rothbard, the father of modern libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, believed in some banking regulation. Some type of gold standard would be a start, although that alone would not be perfect. There should be reserve requirements, since you are using other people's money without their permission, unless otherwise asked. So something in line, ala Glass Stegall should be put in place, but still allow companies to merge. I may or may not agree per se with the Libertarian Orthodoxy, but I think there are right and wrong ways of privatization. The break up of AT&T was a step in the right direction, instead of selling it off. A better idea would be to allow people to own shares in one of the new companies, that way the chance of an oligarchy are nill, at least from the initial breakup. Also, don't quote me on this, but I believe the majority opinion in neoliberal circles is along the Monetarist bent. This means they believe in printing money, that is then given to the bankers. This should not happen. I think people should be allowed to choose their money, not it being forced upon them. In addition, the Monetarist believe in a fiat currency, which is just a fat check to the banks.

And with the environment, libertarians are for preserving it and fining individuals who harm property. As for my position, I believe that if we were to go by "a house is a man's castle", I think we would have less pollution overall, since most men do not like their neighbor polluting their land, so they would not allow that, via pollution rights that are tied to the land. If you are interested, Walter Block has written interesting books on the subject, which you might consider reading. On copyrights and patents, many libertarians are against them. My biggest beef is with copyrights. 75 years?! But I believe if IP were abolished, I think that many big companies would shrivel, and that smaller outfits, focused on tailored solutions, would arise. So while I agree with the underlying ideas, I think capitalism must also be balanced with personal responsibility. At least to be, the economic component is not as important as the non-aggression principle. That means that you shall not force, coerce, or steal from me ( this includes willful fraud) . So Libertarianism is not all for big business. But I agree with your points. And it should also be mentioned that in addition to easy money, there were laws that forced banks to lend to sub prime individuals, which encouraged corruption, by securitizing sub prime assets. They had two things they could do: forfeit their legal responsibility to earn a profit, or break another law. So in order to comply with both, they got them off their books via securitization. So while they fulfilled both, they defrauded investors to do it.

And that is another thing. Corporations and marriage have something in common: they should be private affairs, but the government regulates them. What do I mean? Take corps. . They should be able to determine structure, and not be forced by government to be a "corporation", "LLC", or whatever other legal structure. Basically, I am asking this question: can a corporation be without the legal structure? Why can't I have investors, without having to have a legal structure? So can we have corporations, but without all the legal protections? IDK. Just a thought.

So to summarize, no, libertarianism is not neoliberalism, although some of the ideas are similar.

[zacb]

One that has learned some lessons from history, like, say, the Western social democracies, circa 1945 to 1975. One that understands private capital will be as swinish and predatory as it possibly can be, that it must be regulated and opposed by countervailing forces such as government and labor (to use Galbraith's expression).

The economic component of libertarianism, as I understand it, is exactly the same thing as neoliberalism -- privatization (i.e., turning over public assets to private predators), deregulation (i.e., letting Wall Street crooks turn the economy into a private casino) and austerity (i.e., starving government and curtailing the social contract). Features such as socialism for large corporations may not be part of the theory, but they invariably become part of the program.

Indeed. The trouble is that once the Jews etc. secure control of key resources - which they can easily do via their control of the monetary system - then everyone else has no choice but to be their slave or starve, which makes a nonsense of the notion of voluntarism. The mechanism of working for them in exchange for access to resources doesn't produce a satisfactory outcome because there is no real demand curve for labor, but rather a largely fixed and finite number of jobs, and there is generally a huge surplus of potential workers. Hence most people have no choice but to work for any wage the Jews want to hand to them or starve. Even this awful arrangement is unstable, since social degradation due to the destruction of families and lack of long term investment will eventually lead to economic collapse. Neoliberalism/Libertarianism in practice is a kind of lootocracy where the Jews loot wealth from societies while bringing about their destruction.

Do you even know anything about libertarianism? It is AGAINST the fiat money system. And second, the Jews are not always the problem. Yes, they tend to be, but what about the Rockefellers? What about JP Morgan (which by all accounts, is a "Gentile" firm on Wall Street). There is even a divide on Wall Street between Jew and Gentile firms. Any yet they come together to destroy the economy. See a problem with this picture? Everyone, regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity, or other determining factor is reponsible for his or her self. Now quit it with the race baiting. Jew are not perfect, neither are Germans, or Arab or everyone else.

[abcdavid01]

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

[gsjackson]

Also, do you want to live under a jackboot tyranny? What would be your ideal government?

No. Rhetorical questions don't advance your argument.

One that has learned some lessons from history, like, say, the Western social democracies, circa 1945 to 1975. One that understands private capital will be as swinish and predatory as it possibly can be, that it must be regulated and opposed by countervailing forces such as government and labor (to use Galbraith's expression).

The economic component of libertarianism, as I understand it, is exactly the same thing as neoliberalism -- privatization (i.e., turning over public assets to private predators), deregulation (i.e., letting Wall Street crooks turn the economy into a private casino) and austerity (i.e., starving government and curtailing the social contract). Features such as socialism for large corporations may not be part of the theory, but they invariably become part of the program.

Not per se. Even Murray Rothbard, the father of modern libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, believed in some banking regulation. Some type of gold standard would be a start, although that alone would not be perfect. There should be reserve requirements, since you are using other people's money without their permission, unless otherwise asked. So something in line, ala Glass Stegall should be put in place, but still allow companies to merge. I may or may not agree per se with the Libertarian Orthodoxy, but I think there are right and wrong ways of privatization. The break up of AT&T was a step in the right direction, instead of selling it off. A better idea would be to allow people to own shares in one of the new companies, that way the chance of an oligarchy are nill, at least from the initial breakup. Also, don't quote me on this, but I believe the majority opinion in neoliberal circles is along the Monetarist bent. This means they believe in printing money, that is then given to the bankers. This should not happen. I think people should be allowed to choose their money, not it being forced upon them. In addition, the Monetarist believe in a fiat currency, which is just a fat check to the banks.

And with the environment, libertarians are for preserving it and fining individuals who harm property. As for my position, I believe that if we were to go by "a house is a man's castle", I think we would have less pollution overall, since most men do not like their neighbor polluting their land, so they would not allow that, via pollution rights that are tied to the land. If you are interested, Walter Block has written interesting books on the subject, which you might consider reading. On copyrights and patents, many libertarians are against them. My biggest beef is with copyrights. 75 years?! But I believe if IP were abolished, I think that many big companies would shrivel, and that smaller outfits, focused on tailored solutions, would arise. So while I agree with the underlying ideas, I think capitalism must also be balanced with personal responsibility. At least to be, the economic component is not as important as the non-aggression principle. That means that you shall not force, coerce, or steal from me ( this includes willful fraud) . So Libertarianism is not all for big business. But I agree with your points. And it should also be mentioned that in addition to easy money, there were laws that forced banks to lend to sub prime individuals, which encouraged corruption, by securitizing sub prime assets. They had two things they could do: forfeit their legal responsibility to earn a profit, or break another law. So in order to comply with both, they got them off their books via securitization. So while they fulfilled both, they defrauded investors to do it.

And that is another thing. Corporations and marriage have something in common: they should be private affairs, but the government regulates them. What do I mean? Take corps. . They should be able to determine structure, and not be forced by government to be a "corporation", "LLC", or whatever other legal structure. Basically, I am asking this question: can a corporation be without the legal structure? Why can't I have investors, without having to have a legal structure? So can we have corporations, but without all the legal protections? IDK. Just a thought.

So to summarize, no, libertarianism is not neoliberalism, although some of the ideas are similar.

Not sure how much I'd get out of Doc Block's (his not-fully-welcomed nickname in the New Orleans handball community) books, as I've had a few discussions with him on some of these subjects and come away unpersuaded -- particularly on the gold standard. He's a pretty good guy, and doesn't shy away from discourse, but his views are entirely theoretical and outside of any history, as one might expect from someone inspired by fantasy queen Ayn Rand. And he fits pretty squarely into cornfed's thesis of Jews formulating abstract economic theory for a social landscape denuded of culture. He took the customary path from communism to libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism, whatever) without missing a beat, or stopping to notice the actual culture of the countries he's theorizing about.

On the general topic of the gold standard, you don't seem to understand: Fiat money -- that is money minted by sovereign nations empowered to do so -- is not the problem. For 125 years at least, the problem, as identified by various populist movements, is theories of money that artificially limit its supply, such as the gold standard and the fractional reserve system of creating money almost entirely as debt. This has been pummeling ordinary working people for decades, while making banksters wealthy. The banksters and their mouthpieces -- libertarians, corporate media useful idiots, etc. -- try to convince you that fiat money is inflationary so that they can maintain control of the niggling system.

[zacb]

I slightly disagree, but people will not agree with everything. But I guess my biggest issue is legal tender laws, which limits competition. I am not saying a fiat currency could not work, I just don't want to be forced to use it. Honestly, I could give a rip as to whether you are anarcho-capitalist, communist, socialist, conservative, or whatever, I just want people to respect everyone's opinion and let them live it they way they want. I wish no bad to you or your views. I guess my biggest thing is if you want to live in a populist govern system, be my guest. Just don't force on people who don't want to go along. I may be wrong about my economics, or perhaps you are, but my biggest thing is that we need to respect each other. 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.

[Jester]

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

Great critique of liberalism.

Here's my alternative:
(1) First, make yourself strong.
(2) Then, make the people strong.

Thoughts?

[Jester]

On the general topic of the gold standard, you don't seem to understand: Fiat money -- that is money minted by sovereign nations empowered to do so -- is not the problem. For 125 years at least, the problem, as identified by various populist movements, is theories of money that artificially limit its supply, such as the gold standard and the fractional reserve system of creating money almost entirely as debt. This has been pummeling ordinary working people for decades, while making banksters wealthy. The banksters and their mouthpieces -- libertarians, corporate media useful idiots, etc. -- try to convince you that fiat money is inflationary so that they can maintain control of the niggling system.

I am just in the process of realizing that this "heresy" is truth.

On a past thread I had asked why Nazi Germany turned their economy around from disaster to prosperity in one year. The answer (was it from you? sorry I forget) was essentially that they created credit (i.e. money) via finance of industrial transactions (rather than bank wires to AIG in Switzerland, like the Fed does).

We on "the right" have been so indoctrinated to be goldbugs, that it is really hard to let go.

[Jester]

I'm not sure if anyone corrected this yet, but it's "coup d'etat" not "coup de tete"

They sound almost alike.

The first one - refers to the "state"
The second one - hurts.

[E_Irizarry]

I'd say Brasil, Argentina and non-Anglocountries in the Caribbean.
Maybe Xmas Island too.

[Jester]

...I just want people to respect everyone's opinion and let them live it they way they want. I wish no bad to you or your views. I guess my biggest thing is if you want to live in a populist govern system, be my guest. Just don't force on people who don't want to go along. I may be wrong about my economics, or perhaps you are, but my biggest thing is that we need to respect each other.

On the contrary, you be OUR guest. Go find yourself an unoccupied land mass, occupy it, and govern it with your all-voluntary philosophy. Decide if you will let folks join you there, and if so, if you will let them do just as they want. Hopefully you won't use "force on people who don't want to go along.".

I just want people to be happy and quit fighting over territory.

Contrary to human nature. Like wanting gravity to stop working.

Even if I never got capitalist Koana, I would be happy if we lived in a voluntary society.

Yeah unh-hunh. If it's 'voluntary', then it's not a 'society', is it?

[gsjackson]

On the general topic of the gold standard, you don't seem to understand: Fiat money -- that is money minted by sovereign nations empowered to do so -- is not the problem. For 125 years at least, the problem, as identified by various populist movements, is theories of money that artificially limit its supply, such as the gold standard and the fractional reserve system of creating money almost entirely as debt. This has been pummeling ordinary working people for decades, while making banksters wealthy. The banksters and their mouthpieces -- libertarians, corporate media useful idiots, etc. -- try to convince you that fiat money is inflationary so that they can maintain control of the niggling system.

I am just in the process of realizing that this "heresy" is truth.

On a past thread I had asked why Nazi Germany turned their economy around from disaster to prosperity in one year. The answer (was it from you? sorry I forget) was essentially that they created credit (i.e. money) via finance of industrial transactions (rather than bank wires to AIG in Switzerland, like the Fed does).

We on "the right" have been so indoctrinated to be goldbugs, that it is really hard to let go.

I may have weighed in on that thread, but I don't recall being the one who made that point convincingly. Cornfed possibly. The Nazi's economic success is well worth study, but of course is a taboo subject in mainstream discourse.

It's been an eye-opening experience for me too, for about the last four years, trying to figure out how money actually works.

[abcdavid01]

Interview with John Gray.

In your new book you say: ‘to think of humans as freedom loving, you must be ready to view nearly all of history as a mistake.’ Could you elaborate on this point?

Well there is a certain common view nowadays which says: what human beings have been until quite recently is different from what they really are. And only now do human beings have the chance to be what they are, which many people think is to be free. If we think of Homer; or the way things are described in the Bible; or medieval life: all these other ways of life are somehow today seen as not fully human. There is supposed to be a kind of essence to humanity, in which human beings want to shape their own lives.

So are you denying that it’s a natural human impulse to crave freedom?

Of course not. Otherwise we wouldn’t have the periods of freedom that we’ve had in human history. I’m just saying that it’s not the only human impulse, and rarely is it the most powerful one. You begin to see that when life becomes unsettled, when there are dangers, especially that people cannot understand. It’s then that human beings tend to look at solutions to these problems that typically involve restricting freedoms. In other words: when life gets rough, the need for freedom, or the impulse for freedom, which is real —it’s part of the human constitution you might say— tends very commonly to be eclipsed by other needs. These can simply be for security, or they can be darker needs to bolster up an identity to attack, marginalize, or even exterminate others. These are all classic human responses. The idea that humans are by nature free is one of the most harmful fictions that’s ever been promoted anywhere.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2013 ... john-gray/

The whole thing is quite fascinating. I might just pick up this book.

[zacb]

Interview with John Gray.

In your new book you say: ‘to think of humans as freedom loving, you must be ready to view nearly all of history as a mistake.’ Could you elaborate on this point?

Well there is a certain common view nowadays which says: what human beings have been until quite recently is different from what they really are. And only now do human beings have the chance to be what they are, which many people think is to be free. If we think of Homer; or the way things are described in the Bible; or medieval life: all these other ways of life are somehow today seen as not fully human. There is supposed to be a kind of essence to humanity, in which human beings want to shape their own lives.

So are you denying that it’s a natural human impulse to crave freedom?

Of course not. Otherwise we wouldn’t have the periods of freedom that we’ve had in human history. I’m just saying that it’s not the only human impulse, and rarely is it the most powerful one. You begin to see that when life becomes unsettled, when there are dangers, especially that people cannot understand. It’s then that human beings tend to look at solutions to these problems that typically involve restricting freedoms. In other words: when life gets rough, the need for freedom, or the impulse for freedom, which is real —it’s part of the human constitution you might say— tends very commonly to be eclipsed by other needs. These can simply be for security, or they can be darker needs to bolster up an identity to attack, marginalize, or even exterminate others. These are all classic human responses. The idea that humans are by nature free is one of the most harmful fictions that’s ever been promoted anywhere.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2013 ... john-gray/

The whole thing is quite fascinating. I might just pick up this book.

I agree. Now as far as Nazi Germany, because of a lax central bank, they were able to deficit spend their way into prosperity. Same with the 2000's bubble. But putting aside any restraints, whether that be through monetary policy or such, we don't know what a truly free fiat currency would operate (since no sane central bank would allow asinine deficit spending like the Roosevelt period). So as far as the after effects, we really don't know. Would Germany end up like the US? I don't know. It just seems like a parallel. The difference though would be one had more gov. control of the currency, the other did not.