@renatojj
A government enforcing property rights and contracts and punishing fraud is a government intervening in the economy. Perhaps your pithy original comment wasn't meant to imply you actually wanted the government all the way out of the economy, but there was nothing there to stop me from reading it that way.

I don't think government is the whole society, but I also don't ascribe to your view of what government does. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Must have been Marx who said that.

The two main pillars of socialism are social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy. I'm sure you don't agree with the first one, but if you want to remove government from the economy, wouldn't that require 'cooperative management of the economy'? So, can I assume you are at least a half-socialist?

@aaronfr Socialist nonsense. What crooked notion of free market do you have where government doesn't enforce property rights, contracts, and punishes fraud? Not understanding that is like implying free speech doesn't require protection from libel and slander.

I'm sick and tired of free markets being misrepresented by socialists, and dared to provide historical examples of something they claim never existed, but have no qualms blaming for every conceivable problem in the world economy.

"removing the government from the economy means removing the people from the economy"... If government = entire society to you, congratulations, you're a socialist. I'm not. Government, to me, is just the part of society that collects taxes as an excuse to provides services, most of which are dispensable and done poorly.

Your projections of what would happen in a free market is the typical delusion of your misconceptions. I can't argue with them, because I can't possibly fathom the disturbed scenarios playing out in your head.

100% correct. Because Obama tyranny succeeding has nothing to do with American Exceptionalism, private property rights, individual liberty and the Constitution. Barry shouldn't feel singled out; I hope China, Cuba, North Korea and other illicit regimes fail too.

"The new Chinese laws make it illegal to demolish private property by force without an agreement."

Wow, property rights! Chinese society is advancing by leaps and bounds!

Next thing you know, they'll be raising the age of consent above 14!

>> ^JiggaJonson:

The bottom line here is that you lack the courage for your convictions. Take the license plate off of your car, cut up your social security card, and stop paying your taxes. Otherwise, you're just contributing to a system that you believe is impinging on a majority of the populace's freedoms (a hypocrite).

Actually, the reductio ad absurdum goes a little further. If you think the government "owns" the people because it can collect taxes from them with impunity, and you claim to really believe in the idea that liberty is indistinguishable from the unfettered exercise of property rights, then really, you should be defending any government exercise of power over its property, because it owns the people, and anything it does to its subjects is a legitimate exercise of liberty.

You already see them trotting out a form of this argument anytime there's a major management/labor dispute in the press. From there, you only really need to change a few words, and you wind up with almost exactly the rationale given by royalists in favor of hereditary monarchies in middle-age Europe.

Conservatives are more or less living out the final chapters of Animal Farm now. Their supposed dedication to principles born from a rebellion against authoritarian monarchies has, over the ensuing decades, been slowly twisted until it's become a rationale for establishing a new monarchy on this side of the Atlantic.

I keep waiting for the day I see a clip of some wingnut on Fox News declaring four legs good, two legs better that monarchy is a superior form of government to democracy because then those undesirable people we're always bitching about would truly know their place...

@rbar I didn't call you a socialist, I don't know you that well! It was about your portrayal of capitalism. Also, I apologize for referring to free market capitalism, subject of this topic, as just "capitalism", that caused understandable confusion. I completely agree with you that some of those "isms" fall under a broader definition of capitalism, as they're social orders dependent on private property rights. Those who advocate free markets like me, however, really tend to consider free market capitalism as the only real one, while variations are just "less capitalistic" or not capitalism at all.

Any economic system is as cooperative as the next? Hmm... I don't know, rbar. Would you say there's as much cooperation inside North Korea as there is in South Korea? The old East and West Germanies? Surely any country with a lesser economy enjoys much less cooperation of their citizens among themselves (or with other countries) than a country where policy favors economic growth, no? Very common in North Korea, the "do what I tell or you'll starve in a concentration camp" approach, just isn't my favorite definition of cooperation. Coincidence or not, their economy is shit.

You raise a very important issue of limited resources, that wikipedia article on Capitalism explains better than I ever could, that counter-arguments to "those criticisms of the depletion of finite natural resources consists of the economic Law of Diminishing Returns, opportunity cost, and scarcity in economics". Interesting stuff.

My issue is with you portrayal of capitalism as ever-increasing competitiveness, because it's kind of biased and overlooks the abundance of cooperation. Imagine looking at a crowded night club and describing it simplistically as "a bunch of people struggling for the attention of the opposite sex". Seems pretty accurate if one hates night clubs. There is competition going on, specially for the most popular people, but what about all the other people enjoying each other's company over drinks, talking, flirting, and laughing, couples making out and enjoying the music on the dance floor? Who would describe those activities as purely competitive?

There is a lot of supply and demand in a capitalistic economy, not trying to sound like an economist, but competition is proportional to the difference between supply and demand. So what about where supply is meeting demand, should we just overlook the huge amount of cooperation happening there?

I find it amusing that you ask "What? What policy?", then, at the end of the same paragraph, write "The way the bailout happened is ... utter crap, but that is a different story all together." No, it's not a different story, the bailouts are government/central bank policy, partly the answer to your important question. Stepping in and handing out money to bankers who should have been punished by their excessive risk-taking with bankruptcy, is the exact opposite of letting free markets work.

To try to answer your persistent request for examples of free markets, if you didn't realize it yet, free markets are not very compatible with central banks, institutions that have a legal monopoly over what happens to half of a country's economy (usually half of all economic transactions involve money). Now, do you know how many countries have central banks today? Except for Monaco and Andorra, all of them.

Centuries ago, there wasn't a single country in the world where people enjoyed freedom of expression. That fact could be considered an obstacle to its adoption, but never a testament to its impracticality.

@blankfist I think you are playing a more serious game here than I am. I'm not trying to intimidate you. Just making a point and having a hearty discussion with my arch nemesis. It is kind of awesome to have an arch nemesis, just like the movies. Good clean fun.

Might as well have this conversation here too in case others want to partake....

@progressivevideo A free market is impossible, which is why one has never existed, and why you were unable to come up with any working examples. I understand the distinction, my point is that markets don't want to be truly free. Whenever there is a power vacuum, someone will fill it, which is why democracy came into being.

Let's do a little thought experiment. You support property rights, no? Do you think there should be any limits on how much property a person can own?

@renatojj A free market is impossible, which is why one has never existed, and why you were unable to come up with any working examples. I understand the distinction, my point is that markets don't want to be truly free. Whenever there is a power vacuum, someone will fill it, which is why democracy came into being.

Let's do a little thought experiment. You support property rights, no? Do you think there should be any limits on how much property a person can own?

@NetRunner

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

Some criticism of "Black Liberation Theology"


I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

>>> Well, aren't you claiming Dr. Paul is a racist? The man is not a fool, and knows that the libmedia is against him. Yet he continues to run for office and suffer what is assuredly unfair scrutiny.

>>> What's truly in Obama's heart no one knows. I see either a closet racist--more concerned with accruing power than skin color--or a crafty politician--more concerned with accruing power than anything else.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

>>> You may very well be making a fair statement about a majority of "self-identified American white supremacists", to which I reply, "So what?" Don't those people have a right to vote for whomever they wish? It's obvious they are not a large or serious base. Those people wear shoes, right? If they favor Keds, is everyone who wears Keds a racist?

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

>>> Rather far-fetched. I can't seriously believe you're worried about this. You think the only thing holding the system together--guiding the economic, religious and moral decisions of 300 million people--are a few recent laws on the books?

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>>> The Civil War was far more complex than "slavery". For at least the first 18 months of the war, slavery was not THE issue, and the South had every right to secede.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.

Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848
Congressional Globe, Appendix
1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

>>> Lincoln made the war primarily about slavery, but slavery was already on the way out before the War even began. Slavery had been abolished in most of Europe. Only wealthy Southerners owned slaves, and industrialization made plantations less and less able to compete with the North.

>>> I have to take this moment to remind that it was Republicans who ended slavery, and Democrats who donned the white sheets.

>>> The alternative to a proper balance of power between States' Rights and the feds is what we have now: an all-powerful federal mafia, ruling without the rule of law, made all the more dangerous when Democrats are in power due to their mainstream media media lackeys.

>>> There's plenty of valid criticism of Dr. Paul out there without the non-issue of some 20-year-old newsletters. Because our time and interests are finite, I assume this charge of racism is just an easy way for the left to refute the libertarian message, though it be simple, neat and wrong.


>> ^NetRunner:

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.
I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.
As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.
Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.
So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.
Ooops.
It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.
It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.
IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.
>> ^quantumushroom:


@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

This guy's a straight up douchebag.

Anyone watching this video and then defending parent's rights, rights to destroy personal property, rights to discharge weapons...whatever...you're doing nothing more than transposing your own ego over this particular event and other people's responses to it. Feeling personally threatened by and affronted by people's reactions to someone else's outrageous behavior.

Point being, if you're defending this guy you're needlessly applying this debate to yourself and not paying attention to what you're actually seeing here. Which is, this guy's a bonafide shit bucket.

There are many ways to parent and sure, who are we to criticize...but I find one general rule to hold true: When in conflict with a child, remember YOU'RE the adult. If at any point a bystander has difficulty discerning, based on words and actions, who is the adult in the conflict...then you're being a shitty parent.

This guy acts as bad as, or worse than, the teenager he's describing. He's a self centered fuck stick.

Somalia is as @renatojj describes it. There are no private property rights and no rule of law.

Libertarians are not anarchists.

But seeing how @Drachen may believe that American corporations are the same as warlord-driven Somalian gangs, I hereby swear allegiance to the McDonald's' McMillitia.

'Egg McMuffin' is just a beautiful name for a boy. Or a girl.


>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^renatojj:
@Drachen_Jager, Uh... no? Somalia is very oppressed by criminal militias, that's a huge restriction to doing business, how do you suggest I secure private property and enforce contracts in that environment? A society that is not civilized, has no freedoms, including your precious freedom of speech.
You aren't taking this seriously, I'm a bit disappointed. Is this recession a joke to you?

His point stands, there is no central government doing the repressing. Somalia IS the utopia that the extremist libertarian/anarchistic minded folk are lobbying for. If you want to eliminate ALL taxation and ALL government rule, Somalia IS what results.

Okay, plug up your bleeding heart for like two seconds and try to pick on up the NUANCES of these next few statements.

If MLK was arrested in a PUBLIC park, for no other justification than loitering [i'm sure he was].. that's Institutionalized Discrimination and is wrong. Society should never revert to that way of being.

[This is your main concern and the issue you feel I'm avoiding, correct?]

However, since MLK was arrested in a PRIVATE establishment, for loitering and possible harassment.. It's right.

He was infringing upon the natural rights of narrow-minded racist to segregate themselves within their own little box of hate.

AGAIN, THIS IS INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE OUR SOCIETY HAS EVOLVED BEYOND THE IDEA OF SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

Meaning, we don't need a fuckin' law to tell us it's immoral.
E.G. "Good thing the 13th Amendment will never be repelled. Otherwise, all my black friends would have to be slaves again"

[Luckily for us, those Yankees made an amendment. Now we only have wage, sex, prison and sweatshop slavery to contend with! Go Liberal Democrats!!]

I feel i've been very honest about the implications of a Ron Paul presidency.
I agree that some groups will seek to reestablish institutionalized discrimination under the guise of property rights [which I never intentionally advocated for this entire discussion].

Again, not the point!

The entire point of Ron Paul becoming president is to reshape the political landscape!

You know, into one where our tiny individual voices actually make a significant difference.

I'll put this argument in the simplest terms I can:

p1 - @NetRunner wants to see political change thru the act of voting and unimpeded democracy/consensus.

p2 - A Ron Paul Presidency would enable political change thru the act of voting and unimpeded democracy/consensus.

C - @NetRunner should advocate for a Ron Paul Presidency.

Shit, late for work.
kthanksbai

@GenjiKilpatrick I guess I should put this more bluntly, since you're just responding to me with slogans and talking points anyways. I don't want Ron Paul within a million miles of the Presidency. He is not even a slight match for me. He is a radical neo-Confederate psychopath.

The libertarian theory of governance is bunk. If all the government does is uphold absolute property rights, and enforce contract rights, then we don't all get more power, it means the wealthy people who own everything get more power, and the police just become their security guards.

The way I see it, nothing in this country will ever improve as long as this entire line of argument persists. The conversation we should be having is "what are the best government policies to move us forward" not this BS argument about whether government policies should exist at all.

Ron Paul exemplifies the worst aspects of the American right -- he whitewashes the past, and tries to bring old, failed, tyrannical, cruel policies from a century or more ago back to life, all the while trying to drape it in powdered wigs, the American flag, and cheese-covered freedom fries. But it's just snake oil. Hell, it's not just snake oil, it's fucking Soylent Green.

Have you ever looked at Ron Paul's personal copy of the Constitution? It's a cookbook! A cookbook!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

How is that world any less free if people aren't threaten with force/violence for openly discriminating?

Except of course the other alternative, the Ron Paul preferred alternative, is that we condone the use of violence to uphold the discrimination. I noticed you edited out from your quote of me the bit about the police being obligated to arrest gay people who defy a private shop's "no gays allowed" ban.

That's the real problem with the whole property rights > civil rights things. It doesn't reduce violence, it just legitimizes it when it's directed at the people being discriminated against.