Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of hayenmill
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Topics

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - hayenmill

Pages: [1]
1
General / To Welfare Haters
« on: December 05, 2009, 11:02:23 AM »
I've been traditionally opposed to state welfare, but it just struck me that it's not the most important of things.

Liberal welfare-statism is a pretty natural--if misguided--reaction to a society in which the ruling class (government + big business lobbyists), through privilege, creates great disparities in income. Privilege creates massive distortions, made cumulative through the process of feedback, that must be dealt with somehow. One way of dealing with the consequences is through a Rube Goldberg device like redistributive welfare policy, another layer of policy to counteract the first layer, to prevent underconsumption from becoming too destabilizing and the underclass from becoming too radicalized. The other way is to eliminate the privilege itself--a lot simpler.

But I don't kid myself now. If the privilege remains, statist "corrective" action will be the inevitable result. That's why I don't get too bent out of shape now about the statism of the minimum wage or overtime laws--in my list of statist evils, the guys who are breaking legs rank considerably higher than the ones handing out government crutches. All too many libertarians could care less about the statism that causes the problems of income disparity, but go ballistic over the statism intended to alleviate it. It's another example of the general rule that statism that helps the rich is "kinda sorta bad, maybe, I guess", but statism that helps the poor is flaming red ruin on wheels.

Libertarians need to stop admiring the emperor's clothes and pretending that disparities in income reflect the triumph of industrious ants over lazy grasshoppers. Liberals might be a lot easier to talk to then.

Thoughts?

2
General / Drop the term Capitalism
« on: November 18, 2009, 06:55:57 PM »
I'm sure this matter has been mentioned plenty of times before, but given that I believe to have new and refreshing arguments, here they are.

I was hoping most of you were familiar with Zhwazi's post (http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/05/actually-existing-capitalism.html) over at his blog. It basically addresses some of the communication problems between libertarians and "revolutionary" socialists.

Anyway,

To some, capitalism might mean individual ownership of capital is allowed, or even encouraged, but on a larger scale capitalism is synonymous with mercantilist practice. You're not going to win the hearts and minds of any potential anarchists by positing capitalism as part of it. Capitalism is functionally a state enforced system and is quite contrary to anarchism. This also makes capitalism incompatible with free enterprise.

There is no reason to romanticize capitalism, especially if you're an anarchist.

The real point is, why should one want to insist on their idealized and romanticized definition of a term when the majority of its usage is attached to other meanings?

Also, there seems to be a common "apologetic" fringe on both libertarians and socialists. While some libertarians are usually corporate apologetics, some socialists are state apologetics.

The truth is, as we already know, corporations are entities whose privilege derives from the State. There is no point giving examples of early corporations in the early 19th century, for example, as a proof of free market benefits because the root of the argument - its logical extreme - is flawed.

That is not to say that corporations haven't brought benefits to the market and the world, but to believe that they would be the predominant (or even existent) shape of market entities in a free market is an overstatement.

Likewise, there isn't any doubt that in some instances the State brought some benefits, but that does not justify its existence, its expropriation of value and the title it gives to itself as a regulator and overseer of all personal and economic activity.

So as Zhwazi points out, "Every usage of the word "Capitalism" can be replaced by "Free market", "Mixed economy", "Fascism", or something else." If you want to see more liberty-minded people and and "spread the message", clearing up semantics is a very important part, since it increases the efficiency of the argumentation.

And if you think that you or a family member might be a "corporate apologetic", fear not! Read this enlightening review of Kevin Carson's The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand to broaden your free market ideas.

http://attackthesystem.com/capitalism-versus-free-enterprise-a-review-of-kevin-carsons-the-iron-fist-behind-the-invisible-hand/

(Keep in mind that link was intended for a more socialist, communist audience, and therefore some terms use might appear too extreme. Nonetheless, it proves an excellent source of arguments when debating them)


3
General / Seasteading for Climate Change
« on: June 28, 2009, 03:37:14 PM »
Yes i know Seasteading has been spoken of before, but i bet you never thought it could have something to do with climate change/global warming

I think this article is interesting because it gives another reason why the development of floating platforms is important, provided global warming cannot be avoided (if its actually we who are causing it) and sea level rises as dramatically as the media makes so many people believe it will

LINK: http://digg.com/d1v6YL



Quote
The idea of floating cities that could one day house climate change refugees is not new. There have been some older news regarding that solution in case rising sea levels force people out of their homes. It is with great hope that a new idea will be shared.

further on,

Quote
It was with this scenario in mind, that an interest idea has sprung. The Seasteading Institute has as a mission “to further the establishment and growth of permanent autonomous communities, enabling innovation with new political and social systems”.

Quote
One of the main engineering problems faced by the Seasteading Institute was precisely how to reduce the cost of floating platforms in order to make the prospec of living in the sea more attractive. These and other concerns are mostly addressed in the Seasteading Institute’s Frequently Asked Questions.

Quote
Such advances in floating platforms will reduce the cost of building those platforms and will allow for more of them to be built and to house more climate change refugees. Let us hope the cost will be even more reduced by further developments on this field.

So, what are your thoughts on this? If global warming is inevitable, this solution will provide a cheaper cost for climate refugees to live AND a cheaper cost for political dissidents to go live there. If global warming isnt that bad, then at least other political ideas will be cheaper to be tried.

5
"Why Global Warming cannot be supported by data" Summed up in 4 points

Quote
After all the media time dedicated to Global Warming and the new proposals to stop such apparent threat, little is often heard about voices that have tried to explain logical inconsistencies inside the IPCC Man-made Global Warming theory. This is why Eco Wanderer wishes to present its readers with the other side of the argument, and ultimately let the readers make their own logical conclusions from analysis of the information.

The article will now present 4 pertinent arguments that point out inconsistencies in the current widely accepted theory that Man is responsible for the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation.

Quote
The notion that “debate time is over” and that we should base our opinions on the opinions of scientists without readers looking at the data themselves is not only unscientific but misleading

Quote
Water Vapor, the most relevant greenhouse gas, is accountable for approximately 95% of the greenhouse effect. Among climatologists this is common knowledge, but among certain interest groups, governmental groups or news reporters such fact is not mentioned and ends up ignored.



digg it!

oh and comment

6
Photoshops / Libertarian "movement" comedy
« on: May 03, 2009, 07:11:36 AM »
here's a topic for anyone who wishes to place pictures making fun of particular aspects of the current libertarian movement

here are two ones that i (poorly) made:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pmoo74E0L-w/Sf17I6W0KcI/AAAAAAAAAEI/BfH7Lky4kMY/s1600-h/whowill.jpg

Minarquism vs Ancap
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pmoo74E0L-w/Sf17MqlmjBI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/hv1m8GRo_2M/s1600-h/whowill2.jpg

A sense of self-criticism would also be greatly appreciated

7
General / David Friedman on achieving a freer society.
« on: April 29, 2009, 04:49:04 PM »

For civil disobediants:
"When people view anarchy as the ultimate evil, it is not because they are concerned about mail not being delivered or streets not being cleaned. They are afraid of theft, murder, and rape, riot and arson.
  The greater these fears, the greater the degree of government tyranny which people will tolerate, even support. Civil disorder leads to more government, not less. It may topple one government, but it creates a situation in which people desire another, and stronger. Hitler's regime followed the chaos of the Weimar years. Russian communism is a second example, a lesson for which the anarchists of Kronstadt paid dear. Napoleon is a third.(...)
 (...)What are their arguments? One is that civil disorder is educational. A government threatened by resurrection becomes more and more tyrannical, revealing itself to the populace in its true colors. The populace, thus radicalized, rises and abolishes the government. Experimentally, the truth of this argument - that revolution leads to repression, and repression to freedom- is demonstrated by the thriving anarchist communities now occupying the territories once ruled by the oppresive governments of Russia, China, and the German Reich."

On achieving anarcho-capitalism

"Why does government exist? Government as a whole exists because most people believe it is necessary."

Thus he explains 3 major ways of achieving ancap

"The fundamental task is one of education. The obvious way is to write books, give speeches, argue with friends, use all available means of communication to spread libertarian ideas."

"Showing is an effective way of teaching; people believe what they see. If it is the government that protects them from crime, delivers the mail, builds the streets, they will naturally conclude that without governments these things will not get done. The most effective way to demonstrate that these things can be done privately is to do them. So  a second strategy is the development of "alternative institutions" - the skeleton of anarcho-capitalism within the structure of contemporary society. (...) At some point if this trend continues, voters will find themselves protected almost entirely by private services, paid out of their own pockets. They will be understandably reluctant to pay a second time, in taxes, for a superfluous police force, just as parents whose children go to parochial schools are reluctant to vote for school taxes"

"It may often be possible to propose a step that benefits an incumbent politician in the short run but reduces the total power of government in the long run. (...) So the third strategy is to create and support proposals which are in the short-run interest of some present politicians and in the long-run interest of the rest of us"

On direct political action:
"...running libertarian candidates or pressuring candidates to take libertarian stands. I believe that action, although useful as a publicity device, a way of getting attention for libertarian ideas, serves no other purpose. People get more or less the politicians they want. Some would say the politicians they deserve. If the voters became so libertarian that they will only elect candidates who abolish each office as they leave it, such candidates will be found. If the voters want a powerful government, a few libertarians in Congress will not stop them"

Discuss

8
General / Anarcho - Capitalism: An Introduction
« on: April 04, 2009, 05:18:11 PM »
There you have it, promoting liberty by posting a youtube video on the freest form of society organization (in my view) .

heres vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8duSiR2GKU8

Although not a very mass targeted form of liberty promotion, i suppose it will be a nice start to anyone who wishes to know the basics on Anarcho - Capitalism.

So please comment on the video and let's get the discussion going already.

Pages: [1]

Page created in 0.016 seconds with 29 queries.