The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Show => Topic started by: LTKoblinsky on January 05, 2011, 11:40:38 PM
-
I don't mean to be one, but the way in which Mark and Ian dismiss capitalism really bugs me. I haven't listened much this week, but regularly over the last year or more, the hosts have periodically dismissed and in some cases derided "capitalism" based on collectivist/socialist perceptions of the concept.
Capitalism is, generally, an economic system of private ownership. With ownership, individuals are inherently given control of said property. This logically implies laisse faire government. Any restriction on the rights of ownership or contract are NOT capitalistic. Because there has never been a truly capitalistic economy (internet, maybe, but that's a different discussion), discussion of economics is done in relative measures. More or less capitalistic in the context of this discussion. The American system is given the title "capitalist" (historically speaking) in that it has been the freest economy in world history, on net. This does not logically imply that Keynesian, Progressive, or Special Interest policies are capitalist.
As for the label argument, allowing opponents to define your vehicle of communication is absurd. Historically, liberty loving people have been chased from their stances. First, liberals were traitors (first to the Crown, then to the Union), then capitalists were cronies, and anarchists are thugs. Where does that leave people like Ian? Well, they have two choices: 1) I prefer not to label myself. I prefer to spell out every individual belief I have to anyone who asks. Plus, I hate being staked to one position; isn't it freer to be able to flit inanely from idea to idea? or 2) I'm a voluntary-anarcho-pantheo-libero-pacifi-peace- (insert label of the day here).
Now, I'm not saying that the hosts and guests aren't intelligent, just that often, they make absurd, uninformed declarations. The Cap. one just happens to be a peave of mine.
Full disclosure: I graduated from a public university with a degree in economics.
-
LTKoblinsky are you gay?
No? Well I am as happy as I can be.
Did you think I was asking something else?
-
I feel your pain, LT. When you are used to communicating inside the group of folk who understand word meanings, it takes a long time to adjust to dealing with the ignorant masses outside in the world.
-
It's simply a matter of intellectual legitimacy. If you host a show on the basis of freedom and liberty and you specifically support free markets, you should (<warning! Opinion) be able to clearly articulate the different facets of said concept. i.e. not only should Mark and Ian know what "Capitalism" means, but be able to effectively argue for or against.
My personal opinion is that they should embrace the term capitalism and seek to clarify and strengthen listeners' ideas of it.
-
I understand that Mark and Ian have a difficult job trying to talk to a international audience and be clear. Regular listeners should be better at understanding their positions then people who stumble upon the show. I wouldn't listen to Dictionary Talk Live.
-
Knowing the meaning of a word wouldn't make FTL into Dictionary Talk Live.
-
LT, we discussed your post in the second hour of tonight's show. I hope we cleared up our thoughts on the subject. Feel free to call in if you have anything else to share.
-
Damn it! I was on the road tonight. I'll check out the podcast...
-
<spoiler>Dictionary definitions of words are not permissible, but the Thesaurus reigns supreme.</spoiler>
-
The academic, huh? That hurts my feeling. :lol:
Now, the point about 90% of how people perceive a word determines its true meaning is misleading. if a biologist describes evolution to a Christian, the Christian is going to hear "We came from monkeys." Does this make the entire broad, complex concept of evolution into "man from monkeys."
BTW: I'm no teacher. I work in the manufacturing industry. I'm also not a conservative. I'll try to call in later this week when I get my voice back from illness.
-
Most people who are against capitalism are actually angry about cronie capitalism or mercantilism. People understand the concept of companies using government regulation, handouts and taxes to eliminate free market competition. The problem is they think the correct term is Capitalism.
The question becomes how do you steer into the skid of the evolving meaning of Capitalism without wrecking the free market bus.
I have found usually once a term has evolved new accepted meaning it is highly unlikely that it will return to it's original meaning. Think about it when is the last time you heard someone use the term Gay to mean happy?
I'll have to listen to the pod cast myself. Sorry if I have repeated any concepts already covered.
-
Also, listening on a bit further: Picking apart one word (opponent) the way you did simply served to misdirect my point. Opponents in this case are not every person you speak with, but are rulers and supporters of the rulers trying to regulate your life.
I also made no allusions to slavery or coercion. I merely stated my position in a passive manner that you chose to read. My attempts are not to control you or change your entire show. It was explicitly stated that it was my personal opinion about one small aspect of your show.
-
Most people who are against capitalism are actually angry about cronie capitalism or mercantilism. People understand the concept of companies using government regulation, handouts and taxes to eliminate free market competition. The problem is they think the correct term is Capitalism.
The question becomes how do you steer into the skid of the evolving meaning of Capitalism without wrecking the free market bus.
I have found usually once a term has evolved new accepted meaning it is highly unlikely that it will return to it's original meaning. Think about it when is the last time you heard someone use the term Gay to mean happy?
I'll have to listen to the pod cast myself. Sorry if I have repeated any concepts already covered.
I understand the point about "gay." It doesn't counter my point about the word "evolution."
*Goddamit! I'm still listening to this and they keep saying that I'm bent out of shape over this. Since when does starting a discussion make me a pissed off asshole?!"
-
*Goddamit! I'm still listening to this and they keep saying that I'm bent out of shape over this. Since when does starting a discussion make me a pissed off asshole?!"
Hey, I didn't say anything like that.
-
*Goddamit! I'm still listening to this and they keep saying that I'm bent out of shape over this. Since when does starting a discussion make me a pissed off asshole?!"
Hey, I didn't say anything like that.
No, but you accused me of trying to enslave you, of seeking homogenization, of elitism, and generally derided me for 20 minutes. The comment "If you want to say something, you should start your own show." is especially ironic on Free Talk Live. What's that slogan, again? "Talk radio you control"?
-
*Goddamit! I'm still listening to this and they keep saying that I'm bent out of shape over this. Since when does starting a discussion make me a pissed off asshole?!"
Hey, I didn't say anything like that.
No, but you accused me of trying to enslave you, of seeking homogenization, of elitism, and generally derided me for 20 minutes. The comment "If you want to say something, you should start your own show." is especially ironic on Free Talk Live. What's that slogan, again? "Talk radio you control"?
AHAHAHAHAAH! Irony critical hit! You win.
-
*Goddamit! I'm still listening to this and they keep saying that I'm bent out of shape over this. Since when does starting a discussion make me a pissed off asshole?!"
Hey, I didn't say anything like that.
No, but you accused me of trying to enslave you, of seeking homogenization, of elitism, and generally derided me for 20 minutes. The comment "If you want to say something, you should start your own show." is especially ironic on Free Talk Live. What's that slogan, again? "Talk radio you control"?
Let me explain the point about using definitions of words to enslave. The roles of Master and Servant are those of domination and submission. You are assuming that you know the definition of a word. You claim the of authority as one who is an expert, and is in agreement with experts on the definition of the word. I claim that some experts would in fact disagree with you and that most people, the ignorant masses would also. You want me to do your bidding, confront the beliefs of the ignorant masses to your belief. What is that other than an attempt to establish domination over me?
If I were to attempt to change my name to Daddy Big Dick and I would not interact with anyone who did not call me by my new name, would I not be clearly trying to dominate those with whom I interact? I would not be violating the Non-Aggression Principle, but I would still be a lonely asshole.
I am not claiming that you are a lonely asshole, I am just saying that If people define "capitalism" one way, and you try to change that behavior, you are going to run up on a lot more resistance than if you give them their definition and use the term "free market" instead.
Yes, I derided your attempt to control and dominate. Yes, I believe you are acting in an elitist fashion i.e. you know the definition of capitalism and the other people's position is wrong. I also think that emails and blog posts get derided much more than phone calls on FTL; I wish that weren't so, but I don't really know how to control it.
-
To think, I always thought you were the reasonable one. Either way, your logic about slavery would include ANY attempt to sway other individuals' opinions. There can be no discussion, only slavery if we use your logic. Also, I am not exerting any "authority," but appealing to reason and logic in those I'm communicating with. Here's a very good article about intellectual authority vs. appeals to reason: http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1234
BTW, now that I think of it, listening to you two go on about Capitalism is much like listening to Christians babble about evolution...
-
Is Green Day "Punk" or is it not?
-
I think they self identify as Punk.
The Sex Pistols they are not.
I think both bands hated capitalism.
But I'll bet they both would have been upset if they were offered a hug for payment at a gig.
LTKobllinsky: we need a article on intellectual authority vs. appeals to reason vs. making points through sexual humor. Last one usually wins here.
-
To think, I always thought you were the reasonable one. Either way, your logic about slavery would include ANY attempt to sway other individuals' opinions. There can be no discussion, only slavery if we use your logic. Also, I am not exerting any "authority," but appealing to reason and logic in those I'm communicating with. Here's a very good article about intellectual authority vs. appeals to reason: http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1234
BTW, now that I think of it, listening to you two go on about Capitalism is much like listening to Christians babble about evolution...
You are doing it again! I don't want your reading assignments. What if I listed 9 links below and told you to read them? Would that be reasonable or would it be domineering?
No, you can attempt persuade people to act as your myrmidons in anyway that you wish. Some will work better than others. Slave may not be the best term, but I couldn't think of a better one at the time and still haven't. If you can think of a better one, I am open to it.
What about my position is illogical or unreasonable?
Your position, to me, seems to be a common one; that it is more important to be right than to be persuasive.
-
Mark feeds troll.
Why?
-
What about this makes me a troll? My posts have been substantial and reasonable. I've also made other, reasonable posts within this BBS.
Mark, I haven't attempted to coerce, threaten, or subjugate you. I haven't instructed you to scold every listener or lambaste them with capitalist lectures. The fact that you would balk in such a manner at reasonable discussion dissuaded me from calling in and really lowers my esteem of "Free" Talk Live.
I just heard Ian say that race is just an idea. Apparently, he thinks that race means all of humanity despite the fact that 90+% of people think of race as skin color. Can you not see that he just made the same argument about racism that I've been trying to make about Capitalism? (I am not racist; I think Ian is right on this). Is he trying to subjugate viewers? Is he speaking "the language of slavery?" :(
-
What about this makes me a troll?
Answer is in black-hole questions like this one:
Is he trying to subjugate viewers? Is he speaking "the language of slavery?" :(
-
What about this makes me a troll?
Answer is in black-hole questions like this one:
Is he trying to subjugate viewers? Is he speaking "the language of slavery?" :(
Those questions aren't black holes. This one makes the point that of course he's not, and neither am I.
-
LT, I don't think you are a troll; I think you are pissed. I think the tone that we responded to you with, on air, got out of hand. I think it might be the nature of the internet, the nature of the written word, the nature of talk radio, the type of show that we have done in the past vs how we would like it to sound in the future, and the way that a person tends to feel when they have addressed an issue for the umpteenth time. You want an apology? I am sorry I wasn't more patient and that I raised my voice.
Now here is a what you did:
1. You wrote a nice friendly little post informing us how you know the definition of capitalism and we don't.
2. You ignored most of my points in my posts. That is frustrating, man. I take the time to type stuff out and you ignore my words?
3. You willfully failed to acknowledge that definitions are at least in part defined by the masses and the common usage of a word.
4. You took the cheap way out and made a post of your point rather than calling in and making your point, on a TALK radio show.
5. You have denied that one can coerce and manipulate with words.
You are probably a fantastic debater, but if you act like something is a debate, this is what you are going to get. If you wanted a pleasant conversation to try to find out why we choose to define capitalism the way that we do, there might have been a better way to go about it. In your initial post you sounded like a know-it-all, a know-it-all trying to be pleasant, but a know-it-all. Then you didn't even acknowledge the point in my first post. Then you accused FTL of being intellectually dishonest or lazy. All of that happened BEFORE the post was read on air. If you want respect, LT, you need to give it.
-
You are probably a fantastic debater
Maybe even a Master Debater
-
LT, I don't think you are a troll; I think you are pissed. I think the tone that we responded to you with, on air, got out of hand. I think it might be the nature of the internet, the nature of the written word, the nature of talk radio, the type of show that we have done in the past vs how we would like it to sound in the future, and the way that a person tends to feel when they have addressed an issue for the umpteenth time. You want an apology? I am sorry I wasn't more patient and that I raised my voice.
Now here is a what you did:
1. You wrote a nice friendly little post informing us how you know the definition of capitalism and we don't.
2. You ignored most of my points in my posts. That is frustrating, man. I take the time to type stuff out and you ignore my words?
3. You willfully failed to acknowledge that definitions are at least in part defined by the masses and the common usage of a word.
4. You took the cheap way out and made a post of your point rather than calling in and making your point, on a TALK radio show.
5. You have denied that one can coerce and manipulate with words.
You are probably a fantastic debater, but if you act like something is a debate, this is what you are going to get. If you wanted a pleasant conversation to try to find out why we choose to define capitalism the way that we do, there might have been a better way to go about it. In your initial post you sounded like a know-it-all, a know-it-all trying to be pleasant, but a know-it-all. Then you didn't even acknowledge the point in my first post. Then you accused FTL of being intellectually dishonest or lazy. All of that happened BEFORE the post was read on air. If you want respect, LT, you need to give it.
Points well taken. A few things.
1) The gay reference flew right over my head the first time I read it. I addressed it later, though, with the point about evolution. There are differences between slang/general use words like gay and cool and technical terms used within specific professions. Capitalism is a word by economists, for economics. A broad misunderstanding of the term does not change the its meaning.
2) Words (outside of threats of force) cannot coerce. Manipulation is another matter. Manipulation is the point of every interaction with others, thought it is benign most of the time. I don't htink you established a case for me manipulating you outside of mundane attempt at convincing you.
3) I don't often get the opportunity to call in or even listen live. The BBS and chat allow me a chance to interact with you (my closest connection to the state I'm going to live in in a few months) outside of the small window of opportunity that is on air each night.
4) We obviously have stylistic difference of discussion. Yours is a more casual back and forth while mine leans more toward the structured end of the spectrum.
All of the Opinion warnings and even the title were meant to infer respect for your position on the subject and overall, but as someone who is knowledgable within the field of economics, I felt it was misinformed. Is there any chance to salvage a civil discussion out of this?
-
There is now.
So, your point that capitalism is an economic term and should thus be defined by economists doesn't take into consideration the reality of how language works. I have used capitalism in the fashion that you suggest and my experience is that some people are "charged up" by the word. They have a huge back story in their minds about what it means and how it operates. Are they wrong about the definition as it is used by some economists? Sure. But are they wrong if all of their friends and compatriots and the experts that they choose to listen to use it the same way as they do? Not in their minds.
I want the Philosophy of Liberty to appeal to a broad base of people; Left, Right, Center and Uninvolved. I think we have been successful at that on FTL and I try to take all critiques regarding how we use language and if we leave some people feeling excluded seriously. Remember that 99.999...% of our listeners will never call in. If I use Capitalism in the manner that you suggest, I will not have the opportunity to rebut the Lefty's (we are on several Progressive stations) concerns about capitalism. He will just tune out. I don't get to talk to the people that decide they will never listen again, I just lose them. If those people want to fight supporters of Capitalism, they won't be arguing with me. I will agree with them (usually throw in a quick caveat like "Well, if you define capitalism as what we have in America and largely the world, where global corporations work with governments to subjugate all of us...")
I am in this business for one reason, to convince people that the ideas of liberty are the most practical and moral way to arrange society. If the term capitalism, as you define it, takes a few hits in the process, so be it. The Free Market is a better term anyway.
Was the term Capitalism created by Marx?
-
Is Green Day "Punk" or is it not?
sometimes
-
I think they self identify as Punk.
The Sex Pistols they are not.
I think both bands hated capitalism.
But I'll bet they both would have been upset if they were offered a hug for payment at a gig.
LTKobllinsky: we need a article on intellectual authority vs. appeals to reason vs. making points through sexual humor. Last one usually wins here.
Is Green Day "Punk" or is it not?
sometimes
All attempts to enslave me with your twisted verbiage will be refudiated.
-
Mark,
Do you think the Progressive doesn't already tune you out every time you expose government education, welfare, or medicine? Do you not think that they already cringe whenever you espouse private property and gun ownership? Do the Christian Anarchists not huff and puff and rage whenever you deny the bible? My point is this: Capitalism is by its very definition a system of private property, which is the only condition in which liberty can survive. By throwing the term capitalism under the bus for the goal of reaching a broader audience, you are instead limiting your message of freedom.
-
Mark,
Do you think the Progressive doesn't already tune you out every time you expose government education, welfare, or medicine?
Some surely must. However, I have seen my message work in both real life and on the radio. If your system is better, that leaves the market place open to competition; and now we are back to the "If you think you can do it better..." conversation.
Do you not think that they already cringe whenever you espouse private property and gun ownership?
Perhaps the tried and true Progressive does, but they are not the only people that listen to Progressive Radio. 58% of talk radio listeners self-identify as neither Democrat nor Republican. http://talkers.com/online/?p=7286
It used to be 68%, I guess the Republicans have been successful recently.
Do the Christian Anarchists not huff and puff and rage whenever you deny the bible?
Some do, a few may come to the realization that what they believe is false, but I don't do a show about religion and I don't really care if a Christian comes to believe what I do. When I speak about a religion I am speaking what is true for me at the time and screwing with the ignorant, because it is fun. I have no intention of really converting them, because it is not germane to my goal, liberty (at least more of it) in my lifetime.
My point is this: Capitalism is by its very definition a system of private property,
Some experts would disagree. I don't, but my definition doesn't matter, only the definition of who is listening does.
which is the only condition in which liberty can survive.
I suppose you are right. I can't think of another, but I welcome others to try their schemes. That is why I believe in the Free Market, it is not necessarily limited to Capitalism. If some people want to make bread in a commune and trade it for eggs with the commune next door, I don't care and I am not going to try to stand there and demand that they call their system of exchange capitalism, because my time can be better spent.
By throwing the term capitalism under the bus for the goal of reaching a broader audience, you are instead limiting your message of freedom.
You are going to have to back that statement up. We just hit 90 stations this week. We are probably the largest truly pro-freedom media source on the planet, and if we aren't then give us a couple of years.
-
Keep my points in perspective here. I'm not saying your show is terrible and unbearable. I'm saying that you're willing to draw lines for not turning off listeners in many areas and that I think the decision to exclude capitalism is arbitrary.
-
Keep my points in perspective here. I'm not saying your show is terrible and unbearable. I'm saying that you're willing to draw lines for not turning off listeners in many areas and that I think the decision to exclude capitalism is arbitrary.
I'm not saying you think FTL is terrible and unbearable, I am just lending perspective. We are wildly successful, to my mind. So, we must be doing *something* right. I don't know what it is. It could be our way of attempting to make liberty palatable to as many people as possible. More likely, it is that we are the right type of show for a nation that is taking a swing towards liberty now, that we are young, tenacious and have a station friendly contract.
I would have to agree, my decision is arbitrary. None of assumptions are backed by double blind studies, but neither are yours. So, I guess we are left to making arbitrary decisions. I don't know what a focus group would cost, but I bet it will be more than 10 grand. Care to up your AMP :).
-
How did you know I was AMP? Its not on here.
-
Capitalism is a specific economic system that would likely arise in a state of great freedom (i.e. a free market). Saying "I support freedom" instead of "I support capitalism" is like saying "I support gun rights" instead of "I support shooting someone who comes at me with a knife."
-
Capitalism is a specific economic system that would likely arise in a state of great freedom (i.e. a free market). Saying "I support freedom" instead of "I support capitalism" is like saying "I support gun rights" instead of "I support shooting someone who comes at me with a knife."
Name me any other economic system that is both private property-based and laissez faire (spelling?). Communism? nope. Fascism? nope. socialism? nope. Any others?
-
How did you know I was AMP? Its not on here.
I didn't know, I just assumed without looking. You certainly seem to care deeply about the show.
-
I dont know why people get down on Ian and Mark for thinking they can change people over to liberty from other beliefs. People do change their beliefs over time and shows like this assist in positive ways. I used to be a left wing standard "anarchist" but FTL was an instrumental piece of the change in my views that led me to anarcho-capitalism (agorism, voluntaryism, etc).
-
I have nothing against them "converting" people. I'm all for it. I just don't think they should down the word capitalism in the process.
-
I have nothing against them "converting" people. I'm all for it. I just don't think they should down the word capitalism in the process.
Now that is something I can get behind! If your complaint is that We shouldn't *bash* capitalism, then I can see that. Instead of saying that I don't like capitalism, I think you are right that I should say something like "Capitalism means different things to different people, so I won't necessarily align myself with it, but I do believe that free people should be able to trade with other people without state hindrance."
-
Then you believe in capitalism. Tell me, what other economic system is compatible with freedom?
-
free exchange
-
Then you believe in capitalism.
I have never disagreed that I am a capitalist by your definition of the word. I have simply stated (repeatedly) that your definition is no where near universal, thus I shan't align myself with the word.
Tell me, what other economic system is compatible with freedom?
All other economic systems are compatible with freedom, so long as none of the adherents uses force to meet their ends. I am against monopolies and violence. Those are words that people understand.
-
Then you believe in capitalism.
I have never disagreed that I am a capitalist by your definition of the word. I have simply stated (repeatedly) that your definition is no where near universal, thus I shan't align myself with the word.
Tell me, what other economic system is compatible with freedom?
All other economic systems are compatible with freedom, so long as none of the adherents uses force to meet their ends. I am against monopolies and violence. Those are words that people understand.
All other economic systems?! Socialism is state ownership. Fascism is severe government regulation of private commerce. Mercantilism is government favoring and subsidizing select organizations. Communism is public ownership of all goods (until there's a disagreement about how to use them). Free exchange falls under capitalism.
Evolution is not "man from monkeys" no matter how many opponents of evolution see it that way. No matter, I think we can find a common ground on not bashing capitalism while not explicitly trumpeting it to the masses.
BTW, Ian is still a hippy.