Topic: Libertarians and gun rights activits here is how the rest of the world sees you - page 3. (Read 3831 times)

What if you were to do as they have done in advanced cultures who are already suffering from a shrinking population?
The Japanese are investing in medial care robots, to look after their old people - seeing as the younger population are better at earning money doing clever things!

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/19/national/robot-niche-expands-in-senior-care/

This could be technology and the capitalistic way of dealing with problems rather than the socialist way of just throwing tax money at welfare!

How about instead of sophisting over definitions let's look at what it would take to fix things?

The basic problem with welfare states at the current time is that we have a growing number of retirees from a large generation (baby boomers) and a shrinking number of new hands to work and pay taxes to support them (their children and grandchildren, whom they didn't have enough of - fertility rate in europe is something like 1.4-1.6 depending on sources. The same is true of the white part of america (no, shut up, go be offended elsewhere)), along with an ever expanding welfare state.

There is no quick fix to this under the current system. The options are to wait until the old folks die and a replacement-level generation is born and grow up, or to scrap the entire welfare system. And that is simply not going to happen, willingly. The only person who might have changed things was Ron Paul and we know how that went.

We are in this for the long haul.

State can be considered as an instrument to realize an individual's lust for power inherent to some humans (so called alpha males) in a more or less peaceful way, an instrument which has been sharpened and brought to perfection through centuries in socially well-developed states...

There isn't really Libertarian socialism, what you are looking for is traditional Anarchism/ Syndicalist Anarchism.
Both are still non-radicalized forms of Anarchism without bastardization, as they do not exclude certain concepts from the every authority must be justified principle.

"Capitalist" Anarchists (AnCap, Libertarians) for example define property either as a "natural" or "god-given" right and refuse to attribute it to Authority. They aren't really Anarchists at all and are really just radical Neoliberals.

Now that's a depressing thought.  I will operate under the presumption that it is merely a cultural phenomenon until proven otherwise.

If human civilization is a complex dynamic system, then surely there are tipping points which if reached, will result in spontaneous reorganization.  Sometimes in small ways such as changes in fashion, but sometimes in much more dramatic ways, such as the reformation and subsequent renaissance in Europe which paved the way for what we call the modern world.  In many cases, the invention a a new technology (gunpowder, the printing press, the internet) created the necessary condition(s) to bring about the change, without which stagnation would have continued indefinitely.

Perhaps Bitcoin will be another catalyst for change, but we (anti-statists) must be vigilant to insure that it triumphs against the rise of centrally-controlled cryptocurrencies which are sure to be backed by the statists in their bid to dull the threat posed by decentralized cryptocurrencies.  And while the statists are still scrambling to figure out how to deal with the new threat posed by decentralized cryptocurrencies, now would be an excellent time for other similarly disruptive technologies to debut.

It may turn our that statism as a form of human organization was in fact the best evolutionary response to the environment of early man, but the roots of this evolutionary adaptation should necessarily lie in the human nature itself (otherwise this simply wouldn't work out). It means that even if we change the environment as we already did, we still can't get rid of our nature and what it imposes upon us...

I never said anything about violence. Please don't think Revolution is just a synonym for Bloodshed and overthrowing governments by force. There are lots of ways you can peacefully bring about Revolution. I'd love to be able to vote somebody into power I believe in, but I've never seen any politician who I could, and even if I did I have no reason to believe what they promise. In this country we've got the choice between Labour, Lib Dems and the Conservatives, and as George Galloway says: They're three cheeks of the same arse. Whoever gets in; they'll just do the same shit. More wars, more tax breaks for the rich, more cuts for the poor.

Let's find somebody who is willing to do it for altruistic reasons then. It's unfortunate that most of the people who would probably make good leaders don't want to go into politics at all.

You missed out all the practical parts of why I think as I do.

If you want to see change, then just make it happen under the system we have now - that is how politics works. Having a revolution is just proof that your ideas need violence to make them work, otherwise you could just put them to a vote - but it takes time for an idea to flourish!

The problem for any ideology is that the people don't care for thinking, they just want to live in a safe place where food is plentiful and stress is low.  However, ideology appeals to power hungry people who don't have the ability to format their ideas into a way that can make the life of the people any better without lying! - because people don't want to hear about compromise, which is what politics is all about!

Maybe you need to spend some time reading about the early days of the various revolutions we have had world wide in the last 100 years. Revolutions are lead by very focused individuals, unpaid politicians, they are the ones who get the people to move - but as I keep telling you, history shows us, they don't do it for altruistic reasons!

;-)

Has anyone thought about what binds together all of the various flavors of statism?  In other words, what are some of the things that it would fail without?

A big one that has been glossed over once or twice is the way we humans tend to hierarchically organize ourselves.  It seems to me that this makes statism of one form or another (including democracy, monarchy, and dictatorship) natural outcomes.  Perhaps such organization was a natural evolutionary response to the environment that early man found himself in, but is it still necessary, or even advantageous today (other than for the purpose of propagating the various forms of statism we are still subjected to today)?

Ultimately the argument that the use of force by the state to coerce individuals to its will is immoral falls on deaf ears.  If those of us who do not care to live under such a system would like to see a change, then we need to find effective ways of organizing ourselves that naturally support classic liberalism (or whatever flavor of anti-statism you support).  For example, disruptive technology like Bitcoin may turn out to be an effective way of organizing economic power in a manner that is disruptive to statism, by creating a compelling method of economic organization based on non-hierarchical principles.  But I don't think we can rely on it being sufficient by itself to bring about the downfall of statism.  More work is required.

Sites like www.josietheoutlaw.com raise public awareness of some of the negative aspects of statism and are something that most of us anti-statists can agree upon.  But a lot more is going to be required in order to end the long role that statism has played in human social evolution.

And I have a good chuckle at your logic and willingness to let governments do what you're moaning Socialists would do if they got into power. It doesn’t matter what name it's under if politicians are fucking their people over.

And all of what you said applies to currently 'democratically' elected politicians in their capitalist systems. They promise the earth and do the exact opposite. You obviously have a bee in your bonnet with the mere word 'Socialism' alone. Just because people have failed in the past does not mean they will in the future. Of course if a phony Socialist gets in nothing will change, but simply saying Socialism = bad; Democracy/capitalism also = bad, but I can't be bothered to change it so I'm ok with it until it affects my comfort in my nice little house doesn't work either. And politicians don't need to lead a revolution; the people do. If we wait around waiting for a politician to come along we'll be waiting around forever; and like I said, it doesn’t have to be under the banner of Socialism, just united under the want of common change, because the current system has failed massively. But again, red or blue pill.

Vizzini got it wrong in "The Princess Bride." Turning in your arms is the classic blunder.

I had a nice chuckle there! ;-)

I have spent far too much time in the company of socialist politicians to be in any doubt of my view!

Imagine you actually had a revolution - what would be the result?

The only people who ever win in a revolution are the politicians who lead them.  The people are ALWAYS the losers - it doesn't matter what ideology you use, however, of the ones available to us, socialism is the worst!

Its the worst because when they are out of power, socialist politicians promise the earth, based on a nice warm feeling of goodness! When they finally get into power they only look after themselves and their friends.

This isn't me having a bad experience, its the experience of every European country that has any left leaning government in charge.

From what you describe, you would possibly see European and UK centralist and right wing parties as being socialist enough for you, even though they themselves don't see themselves under that banner.

And that leads to the last point that the name of your ideology and its definition is ultimately pointless because its all about power - and as we all know, power corrupts, especially socialists! ;-)

I think you have a naive/incorrect/generalised view on socialists/socialism, or perhaps you've had some bad experiences with them (which I can understand if you've only dealt with these "Robin Hood Socialists"). I have no desire to lead over anyone; however, I also have no desire to be governed by these greedy hypocritical capitalist warmongering pigs who fritter away their peoples taxes on wars whilst flogging off state-owned assets to the highest bidder - especially when they should be buying back state-owned business and building schools and hospitals with that very money.

This is a great little speech by Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism and the supposed contradiction of the term: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE (it's only 5 minutes long).


I think this kind of apathy and blind submission by the masses to roll over and play the game whilst we let them fuck us repeatedly in the arse is one of main problems of why nothing ever changes. People seem to want change and are angry with the state of the world, but they only want revolution if they can sit at home and watch it happen on their flatscreen TVs from the comfort of their own lazyboy whilst they dull their senses with an opiate of their choosing. This is the whole Matrix predicament:



It doesn't have to be a Socialist-led revolution, but which pill you choose is ultimately up to you.

I have some Kool Aid for you. ;-)

Firstly, Libertarian Socialist is an oximoron. Your statement regarding a flat tax proves that! No socialist would support a flat tax because it would seen as a tax cut for the rich, and that isn't equality!

Secondly, All socialists are basically the same, the only difference is that they want themselves to be in charge.  More taboo is that socialism is just the friendly version of communism. The differences between the two ideologies are very limited, and the long term ideal of socialism is the implementation of communism.

While I totally agree that what we have now isn't perfect, it just seems easier to get what you want by learning how to play the game, than to try and get everyone playing a new game!

Oh, and the sub prime mortgage crisis was the unintended consequence of a law created by democrats in the 1970s. They implementing an equality bill where minorities could buy houses they couldn't afford - based on the idea that the reason they couldn't get loans was that they were being discriminated against (yeah, they were too poor!)

The worst thing with socialists is that they use emotion to solve problems! ;-)

On the contrary, I think that would be the opinion of some 'Diet Socialists' (or the 'poor' ones), but not ones I agree with. There are many Socialist schools of thought, so to lump them all together collectively is fundamentally wrong (you can't put National Socialism in with Democratic Socialism for instance). I'm not one of these "Robin Hood Socialists" who think we should take from the rich and give to the poor. I want equality, but for those who are successful and work hard all their life should not be penalised. I personally believe in a flat tax - for example: say everyone pays 20% whether you earn 15K a year or 15 trillion. In countries like France they have up to 75% tax which is absolute robbery. Even 50% tax is in my opinion.

I'm not saying Socialism is perfect or without flaws, but neither is standard democracy/capitalism, and the latter is not sustainable at all the way it's going and is going to fail triumphantly if nothing is done to curb its recklessness (you could argue that it already has with the subprime mortgage crisis etc).

As a European, let me give you an idea about why socialism sucks.

Firstly, socialists seem to spend all their time trying to make everything equal. They tell people they want everyone to get an equal chance at opportunity, however, this is where things go wrong.

The one thing that socialists don't like, is someone using their initiative and getting richer due to it. 

Socialists would prefer everyone has an awful level of service, than that some people can pay for a better level of service.  It may be awful, but everyone can use it is a success for a socialist.  The fact that its awful is because the government isn't spending enough on it.  Socialists can then campaign that governments can pay more for a better service, and they can get the money from the people who have 'cheated' and grabbed an opportunity through using their initiative!

The end result is that nothing works, except for people in the higher levels of central government and socialist organizations!

The worst part is that anyone who tries to better themselves has to pay twice to do so - once to actually make the opportunity work, and twice when they become successful!

Put it this way, I am forced to pay for a health service through my taxes.  The cost is similar to what I would pay if I wanted medical insurance. However, because I have to pay for the former, I can't afford the latter!

Socialists make sure that everyone is equally downtrodden.

That is why socialists suck!

Well I'm a Libertarian Socialist, so would you recommend it? The length of the book is one of the reasons I've never got around to starting it.


What's extreme about it? It only seems to be a dirty word in the states, where I don't think the majority of people even understand what it means.



Why does Socialism "kinda suck"? And why is Anarchism extreme? Libertarian Socialism is Anarchism, but I'm not talking about the faux punk rock fuck tha government bullshit (although fuck da government! ). I'm afraid a little anarchy is going to be needed to bring about revolution or change the status quo, unless you are comfortable and happy with the corrupt hypocritical governments policing the globe and doing nothing but starting wars and laundering billions of tax payers money into the pockets of corporations. This 'democracy' we have is a sheer illusion. You get the choices between voting for Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dumber. Whoever wins won't change shit, nor will they do anything they said they would; in fact, they usually do the exact opposite.

That makes sense. Thanks.

It's a part of the MBTI; here's the descriptions for the two:

XNTX

XNFX

whoa, it takes some courage to come out of the closet as a socialist on this forum. call me crazy, but for me.. following any extremist ideology never works. maybe voluntaryism works for me.


yep, that was the gist of what i was saying. i can't follow anarchism as an ideology because it's too extreme for me, and socialism... kinda sucks. my conclusion is just that people are fucked up, and they need to change (myself included). ideology is just a tool used by people.