Hey, Mike!
Long time no see. I can't improve on that so I won't try. Well put.
Topic: Ive Never Met a Poor or Non-White Libertarian (Read 3387 times)
Quote
And this has caused me to rethink my views. Im such a believer in personal freedom, but I dont really see how the endgame for freetrade can be anything other than disaster.
There is a selfishness to Libertarianism which is unappealing to me. It isnt explicit, and it isnt necessary by default, but human nature is by default selfish.
There is a selfishness to Libertarianism which is unappealing to me. It isnt explicit, and it isnt necessary by default, but human nature is by default selfish.
Correct, which is why we can't have a state: those with the power are too selfish to handle it, unless they're made of metal and wire, and always use it to make themselves rich.
Quote
When you extrapolate this selfishness out a thousandfold into the future, the disparity between the haves and have nots becomes cataclysmic to civil society.
Correct, when you have a state; people can't get rich when you don't give them your money, and if you give them your money then you agree they should have it. The only time this is not true is when the money is taken from you forcibly, either by taxing you directly or inflating the currency or giving special rights to businesses (i.e. corporations.) The divide between the poor and the rich without the state depends on how much good you contribute to the world, which I find entirely justified as a poor individual in this society will provide no benefit in being wealthy despite his lack of contribution, i.e. socialist beliefs are anti-humanitarian as they take from those successful in improving the world and give to those unsuccessful in improving the world, even bringing the world down. This makes 0 sense in a world with a state where rich people get rich because they pillage, but it makes sense in the libertarian ideal where people actually have to do good to become wealthy.
Quote
The only way I can see a libertarian capitalist utopia actually working is when people at the very very top, the .001%, act in a manner which benefits society at large.
They must, otherwise they'll have no other venue to remain rich. To be successful in the market is to successfully accommodate people's needs and desires; if you don't do this, you won't be rich. Except when there's a state.
Quote
But the problem is, for every Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, there are 10 Dick Cheneys and Mitt Romneys.
What'll they do without a military at their beck and call, beg you to donate all your money to them? You could have a million Dicks and Mitts for every Warren and Bill, it wouldn't matter if they have no justified force.
Quote
Sadly, the 1% are not a benevolent group: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-rich-are-as-selfish-as-you-think.html
You seem to be under the impression that libertarianism is "rule by the rich". All I can say here is that you have a very mistaken understanding of libertarianism (unless you're referring to minarchists and TLP, who are just as confused as you are.) Libertarianism has a very, very basic and fundamental political philosophy, but a far more expansive economic counterpart which will help you understand what I'm talking about: https://mises.org/
Furthermore, I'm not rich nor white by any means. Maybe you just happen to be white and know a lot of rich white people.
You could call me a poor Libertarian. I don't make a ton of money, I work one part-time job and do freelance writing on the side, and I want the government and everybody else to just stay out of my way when I start moving up. I can be stubborn when somebody tries to tell me I can't do something. I'm like an articulate version of every trailer trash loudmouthed bitch sometimes, but don't underestimate the power of my right hook when somebody tries to tell me I'm not good enough to make it on my own merit.
"Ive Never Met a Poor or Non-White Libertarian" - no, but if I were the Koch brothers I'd do my utmost to find one - and then get him/her to stand for President.
And then maybe, finally, it would never again be doubted that the US is, indeed, the Land of the Free
.
In spite of all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary
A 6'1 ((prerequisite) average height for US Presidents) hispanic lesbian, whose father was unknown and whose mother was a repeat offender TWOCer (thats "taking (motor vehicles) without owners consent" for the US contingent amongst us), who dropped out of school at 12 - only to then, with that protean spirit that lay at the heart of libertarianism and the American Dream, go on to grind their way up from the bottom of society working 5 shitty jobs 25 hours a day. And to grow to espouse and laud all that is great and good in the unfettered free market from which they have emerged triumphant.
I'd vote for them anyhow
And then maybe, finally, it would never again be doubted that the US is, indeed, the Land of the Free
.In spite of all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary
A 6'1 ((prerequisite) average height for US Presidents) hispanic lesbian, whose father was unknown and whose mother was a repeat offender TWOCer (thats "taking (motor vehicles) without owners consent" for the US contingent amongst us), who dropped out of school at 12 - only to then, with that protean spirit that lay at the heart of libertarianism and the American Dream, go on to grind their way up from the bottom of society working 5 shitty jobs 25 hours a day. And to grow to espouse and laud all that is great and good in the unfettered free market from which they have emerged triumphant.
I'd vote for them anyhow
The problem with libertarianism it that it doesn't provide poor people with freedom, only freedom for the rich to get even richer. I'm all up for liberty from the state etc but there has to be some institutions in place to care for the poor, elderly and sick.
You use that term freedom...I do not think you understand what it is.
Freedom ≠ crony capitalism.
Crony capitalism? Capitalism between friends?
Noam Chomsky On The Original Meaning Of Libertarian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj793e8Ss4w
...Before the word got co-opted by free market propagandists:
"Remember that the United States is out of the world on this type of thing. Britain is to a limited extent, but the United States is on Mars. So here, the term 'libertarian' means the opposite of what it always meant in history. 'Libertarian' throughout European history meant 'socialist-anarchist.' The worker's movement--the socialist movement--sort of broke into 2 branches, one statist, one anti-statist. The statist branch led to Bolshevism and Lenin and Trotsky and so on; the anti-statist branch, which included left-Marxists like Rosa Luxumberg, kind of merged with a big strain of anarchism into what was called 'libertarian socialism.' So 'libertarian' in Europe always meant 'socialist.' Here, it means ultra-Ayn Rand or Cato Institute or something like that. But that's a special US usage having to do with the--there are a lot of things special here."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj793e8Ss4w
...Before the word got co-opted by free market propagandists:
"Remember that the United States is out of the world on this type of thing. Britain is to a limited extent, but the United States is on Mars. So here, the term 'libertarian' means the opposite of what it always meant in history. 'Libertarian' throughout European history meant 'socialist-anarchist.' The worker's movement--the socialist movement--sort of broke into 2 branches, one statist, one anti-statist. The statist branch led to Bolshevism and Lenin and Trotsky and so on; the anti-statist branch, which included left-Marxists like Rosa Luxumberg, kind of merged with a big strain of anarchism into what was called 'libertarian socialism.' So 'libertarian' in Europe always meant 'socialist.' Here, it means ultra-Ayn Rand or Cato Institute or something like that. But that's a special US usage having to do with the--there are a lot of things special here."
Well, classical liberalism was equivalent to US libertarianism, so thanks, Chomsky, for throwing stones from your glass house.
I don't think people should be forced to use public infrastructure and services, simply because tax whores won't allow competition.
How is that possible?
Easy, by not being an asshole, oh wait I forgot! That's too difficult for some people!
I mean, how is it possible for someone not to use any public services or infrastructure?
That is part of the problem. The "public services" are typically a monopoly - people are not allowed to opt out or are penalized if they do. Then the monopolists play the guilt card - you owe "society" because you used the service they coerced you into using. You used some of them - the neonatal hospital, for example - before you were even sentient.
Noam Chomsky On The Original Meaning Of Libertarian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj793e8Ss4w
...Before the word got co-opted by free market propagandists:
"Remember that the United States is out of the world on this type of thing. Britain is to a limited extent, but the United States is on Mars. So here, the term 'libertarian' means the opposite of what it always meant in history. 'Libertarian' throughout European history meant 'socialist-anarchist.' The worker's movement--the socialist movement--sort of broke into 2 branches, one statist, one anti-statist. The statist branch led to Bolshevism and Lenin and Trotsky and so on; the anti-statist branch, which included left-Marxists like Rosa Luxumberg, kind of merged with a big strain of anarchism into what was called 'libertarian socialism.' So 'libertarian' in Europe always meant 'socialist.' Here, it means ultra-Ayn Rand or Cato Institute or something like that. But that's a special US usage having to do with the--there are a lot of things special here."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj793e8Ss4w
...Before the word got co-opted by free market propagandists:
"Remember that the United States is out of the world on this type of thing. Britain is to a limited extent, but the United States is on Mars. So here, the term 'libertarian' means the opposite of what it always meant in history. 'Libertarian' throughout European history meant 'socialist-anarchist.' The worker's movement--the socialist movement--sort of broke into 2 branches, one statist, one anti-statist. The statist branch led to Bolshevism and Lenin and Trotsky and so on; the anti-statist branch, which included left-Marxists like Rosa Luxumberg, kind of merged with a big strain of anarchism into what was called 'libertarian socialism.' So 'libertarian' in Europe always meant 'socialist.' Here, it means ultra-Ayn Rand or Cato Institute or something like that. But that's a special US usage having to do with the--there are a lot of things special here."
The problem with libertarianism it that it doesn't provide poor people with freedom, only freedom for the rich to get even richer. I'm all up for liberty from the state etc but there has to be some institutions in place to care for the poor, elderly and sick.
You use that term freedom...I do not think you understand what it is.
Freedom ≠ crony capitalism.
The problem with libertarianism it that it doesn't provide poor people with freedom, only freedom for the rich to get even richer. I'm all up for liberty from the state etc but there has to be some institutions in place to care for the poor, elderly and sick.
You use that term freedom...I do not think you understand what it is.
And this has caused me to rethink my views. Im such a believer in personal freedom, but I dont really see how the endgame for freetrade can be anything other than disaster.
There is a selfishness to Libertarianism which is unappealing to me. It isnt explicit, and it isnt necessary by default, but human nature is by default selfish.
There is a selfishness to Libertarianism which is unappealing to me. It isnt explicit, and it isnt necessary by default, but human nature is by default selfish.
I think if you speak with poor people they want freedom just like any libertarian it can often just be their socioeconomic situation which has led to them being under developed when communicating about the political landscape.
Im not rich either as first world goes and im pretty much wanting a libertarian style system.
The problem with libertarianism it that it doesn't provide poor people with freedom, only freedom for the rich to get even richer. I'm all up for liberty from the state etc but there has to be some institutions in place to care for the poor, elderly and sick.
I don't think people should be forced to use public infrastructure and services, simply because tax whores won't allow competition.
Need a strong and honest government to build up massive bullet train infrastructure like the one in China.
Private company and local goverment do not have the economic power and law on their side to do project at such scale.
LOL, China, which according to post-2010 documentaries, segregates its own people by province/economic status and restricts the right to travel (amongst many other non-train related tyranny), an "honest" government.
The definition of an honest politician is one who stays bought. Not many of 'em out there.
China is an honest government. They are openly of the opinion that they own the people. Better than hiding it, like "democracies".
I don't think people should be forced to use public infrastructure and services, simply because tax whores won't allow competition.
Need a strong and honest government to build up massive bullet train infrastructure like the one in China.
Private company and local goverment do not have the economic power and law on their side to do project at such scale.
LOL, China, which according to post-2010 documentaries, segregates its own people by province/economic status and restricts the right to travel (amongst many other non-train related tyranny), an "honest" government.
And this has caused me to rethink my views. Im such a believer in personal freedom, but I dont really see how the endgame for freetrade can be anything other than disaster.
There is a selfishness to Libertarianism which is unappealing to me. It isnt explicit, and it isnt necessary by default, but human nature is by default selfish.
When you extrapolate this selfishness out a thousandfold into the future, the disparity between the haves and have nots becomes cataclysmic to civil society.
The only way I can see a libertarian capitalist utopia actually working is when people at the very very top, the .001%, act in a manner which benefits society at large.
But the problem is, for every Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, there are 10 Dick Cheneys and Mitt Romneys.
Sadly, the 1% are not a benevolent group: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-rich-are-as-selfish-as-you-think.html
There is a selfishness to Libertarianism which is unappealing to me. It isnt explicit, and it isnt necessary by default, but human nature is by default selfish.
When you extrapolate this selfishness out a thousandfold into the future, the disparity between the haves and have nots becomes cataclysmic to civil society.
The only way I can see a libertarian capitalist utopia actually working is when people at the very very top, the .001%, act in a manner which benefits society at large.
But the problem is, for every Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, there are 10 Dick Cheneys and Mitt Romneys.
Sadly, the 1% are not a benevolent group: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-rich-are-as-selfish-as-you-think.html
It's because you don't know about how powerful common law is in America. Almost nobody does. Search on "Bill Thornton common law" and "Karl Lentz common law."
http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html = Angela Stark's Talkshoe.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw = TrustInAllLaw snippets of Karl's audios.
http://www.broadmind.org/ = Karl's main page.
http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/ = Karl's United Kingdom page.
http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da = Craig Lynch's snippets page.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAHRzuiOA&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D = Ten great Youtube videos, might be the best introduction to Karl.
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc = Karl's Talkshoe site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iua56K4Mysk = Karl Lentz - The Brian Bonar Incident - YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdHLHWS4gPE = Lentz-Sense - don't be a More~On - YouTube.
Other Info
http://voidjudgments.com/ = The Secret is most judgments are Void on their face and not merely voidable.
http://educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htm = Trinsey v. Pagliaro - Attorneys cannot "speak" in common law trials if the one who is bringing the suit orders it. Holding from Trinsey v. Pagliaro: "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness."
And this has caused me to rethink my views. Im such a believer in personal freedom, but I dont really see how the endgame for freetrade can be anything other than disaster.
There is a selfishness to Libertarianism which is unappealing to me. It isnt explicit, and it isnt necessary by default, but human nature is by default selfish.
There is a selfishness to Libertarianism which is unappealing to me. It isnt explicit, and it isnt necessary by default, but human nature is by default selfish.
I think if you speak with poor people they want freedom just like any libertarian it can often just be their socioeconomic situation which has led to them being under developed when communicating about the political landscape.
Im not rich either as first world goes and im pretty much wanting a libertarian style system.
I don't think people should be forced to use public infrastructure and services, simply because tax whores won't allow competition.
How is that possible?
Easy, by not being an asshole, oh wait I forgot! That's too difficult for some people!
I mean, how is it possible for someone not to use any public services or infrastructure?
That's another of the "basic" questions that libertarians and anarchists get tired of answering. But I'll give you a brief synopsis, and recommend some reading for you, because the subject has been covered in depth from multiple angles.
The basic gist is, that if a service is worth having, it's worth paying for, and if the money has to be stolen, then it's probably not worth having. Most "public services" are completely unconstitutional in the United States, but they exist anyway and we pay for them whether we use them or not. Which creates more of a free rider problem than the system that anarchists envision.
Prior to the "public" (read government) seizure of all roads, most roads in most countries were turnpikes, and the system worked well. That's just one example. I'm tired and not willing to go in depth right this minute, but here's some good resources:
For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard
The New Libertarian Manifesto by Samuel Edward Konkin III
mises.org
lewrockwell.com
I couldn't care less about the US government and I particularly dislike the usual type of US American libertarianism, but hey, it may make sense there...
So, I guess the answer is, people cannot do anything without using public services and infrastructure, correct?
"I've never met a poor or non-white libertarian..."
And this has caused me to rethink my views. ...
And this has caused me to rethink my views. ...
I have.
Maybe you just need to get around more?
You can also see some on YouTube by doing a search for "Slab City":
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpPmT7S4zHE
I don't think people should be forced to use public infrastructure and services, simply because tax whores won't allow competition.
Need a strong and honest government to build up massive bullet train infrastructure like the one in China.
Private company and local goverment do not have the economic power and law on their side to do project at such scale.
We have a strong but a dis honest government.
Need a strong and honest government to build up massive bullet train infrastructure like the one in China.
Private company and local goverment do not have the economic power and law on their side to do project at such scale.
Private company and local goverment do not have the economic power and law on their side to do project at such scale.
Why is there this "need"?
There has been an invention, they call it the aeroplane. It is faster than a bullet train.
I don't think people should be forced to use public infrastructure and services, simply because tax whores won't allow competition.
Need a strong and honest government to build up massive bullet train infrastructure like the one in China.
Private company and local goverment do not have the economic power and law on their side to do project at such scale.
Jump to: