Originally posted by @wajoma"It's defined by the 'non-initiation of force' or 'non-aggression' principal. Financially you can be anything you like with like minded fellows provided it's all voluntary, morally you can be anything you like with like minded fellows provided it's voluntary."
It's defined by the 'non-initiation of force' or 'non-aggression' principal. Financially you can be anything you like with like minded fellows provided it's all voluntary, morally you can be anything you like with like minded fellows provided it's voluntary.
As you can see from this message board a lot of people think they're the experts at running your l ...[text shortened]... ings.
Libertarians don't believe in the 'f' word. Control freaks and busy bodies live by it.
Defined that way, it's unobtainable in a state having more than one active member, however it can be striven for anyway.
Originally posted by @wajomaOf course, I never said such a ridiculous thing as " free people would tend towards capitalism"; in our Natural State, when the People were most free they were socialists/communists and private property as properly defined did not exist.
And again, nope. In a free society people that have socialist ideals can band with like minded fellows form collectives and play out their fantasies. It's interesting to note that both you and No1 recognise that free people would tend towards capitalism.
In a free society no one could force capitalism on you anymore than they could force their sociali ...[text shortened]... o think about is a world where you don't get to force your dream feelings on to your fellow man.
You really don't even know what capitalism is; you seem to think it means "trade" or something. People have corrected your simplistic views on this matter many times regarding that misconception on this board and I fail to see a need to do so again. Capitalism requires government initiated force to exist and to maintain control over the many by the few. It is anathema to those who really want the People to be free.
Originally posted by @wajomaFree people don’t tend towards capitalism.
And again, nope. In a free society people that have socialist ideals can band with like minded fellows form collectives and play out their fantasies. It's interesting to note that both you and No1 recognise that free people would tend towards capitalism.
In a free society no one could force capitalism on you anymore than they could force their sociali ...[text shortened]... o think about is a world where you don't get to force your dream feelings on to your fellow man.
Capitalism is an enforced division of produce, ownership and wealth.
Without the enforcement it goes to pot.
According to most research people seem to be hard-wired to be altruistic.
And individualism leads to sociopathic problems.
Ask yourself: where did capitalism evolve from?
And then ask yourself: if it evolved / evolves... where’s it going next?
Originally posted by @rwingettFFF
Yes, Utopian Socialism. The topic of our times. I'd say more about it here, but I'd rather say something about it on the Facebook group I started just today that is dedicated to the topic. So...anyway...if you're the type who likes to prattle on endlessly about the ins and outs of Utopian Socialism (and I know you are), then I encourage you to join my spar ...[text shortened]... ny others.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/321668098319257/
Sorry for the shameless plug.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by @whodeyNeither of those have anything to do with moderation, and North Korea nothing with socialism. (Again, stop using words you don't properly understand.)
Tell that to people in places like Venezuela and North Korea.
Look, instead, at Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Horrors of moderate (!) socialism and repression in the eyes of the USA, much more personal happiness than you could handle. Don't believe what your bully-boy Pete Heekstraw says.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by @whodeyAnd that, Grasshopper, is why they don't. Or even want to - that's an aspiration of fascism, not socialism, which is yet another reason why you teabaggers should learn the meaning of words before you use them.
Imagine how controlling a government would have to become in order to regulate and monitor every single financial transaction made and then redistribute the money as they see fit. No government has the potential to become as tyrannical as that one.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by @shavixmirFinancially and politically anarchist, morally neo-con.
What’s a libertarian anyways?
Financially capitalist, but morally left leaning?
So the worst of both possible worlds, really.
Originally posted by @no1marauderI spoke consistently and unambiguously of the political system and philosophy of freedom known as Libertarianism, you blokes kept coming back trying to make it about the economic system known as capitalism, the legitimate assumption one can deduce from that is that you and shav acknowledge that free people tend towards capitalism. This you cannot abide, i.e. free people deciding for themselves and very likely not choosing to live by your dream feelings no matter how clever you think they are. I cannot make it any clearer Libertarianism is not a synonym for capitalism, Rand was not a libertarian.
Of course, I never said such a ridiculous thing as " free people would tend towards capitalism"; in our Natural State, when the People were most free they were socialists/communists and private property as properly defined did not exist.
You really don't even know what capitalism is; you seem to think it means "trade" or something. People have correc ...[text shortened]... control over the many by the few. It is anathema to those who really want the People to be free.
However like you I do believe that free people would tend to capitalism and that capitalism is more than free trade. Being able to trade freely is an aspect of capitalism, a natural outcome of the recognition of property rights. Just another thing you don't want people to do without your bright ideas on controlling them.
Originally posted by @shavixmirShav: "Free people don’t tend towards capitalism"
Free people don’t tend towards capitalism.
Capitalism is an enforced division of produce, ownership and wealth.
Without the enforcement it goes to pot.
According to most research people seem to be hard-wired to be altruistic.
And individualism leads to sociopathic problems.
Ask yourself: where did capitalism evolve from?
And then ask yourself: if it evolved / evolves... where’s it going next?
Then you would be an advocate for a free society right. You would be confident that in a free society people would choose to follow your brain waves, most would opt for them, they would choose to cede their property rights to your cause So what if a few lunatics go off and live as capitalists, they'd serve as examples of why you're oh so right.
Originally posted by @wajomaWajoma: However like you I do believe that free people would tend to capitalism
I spoke consistently and unambiguously of the political system and philosophy of freedom known as Libertarianism, you blokes kept coming back trying to make it about the economic system known as capitalism, the legitimate assumption one can deduce from that is that you and shav acknowledge that free people tend towards capitalism. This you cannot abide, i.e ...[text shortened]... . Just another thing you don't want people to do without your bright ideas on controlling them.
I believe no such thing as I have already said .................................. repeatedly. "Free people" absolutely did not tend to capitalism; capitalism was a system imposed on them by force.
It's still amusing that you think capitalism is kids trading marbles or some such. No, capitalism is a system where a relatively small minority control the means of production and the State and the vast majority have to sell their labor to that minority to survive (and, of course, their labor will only be purchased if it is profitable for the capitalist to do so; otherwise they can and do starve). From my beloved Anarchist's FAQ:
Obviously, a company cannot force you to work for them but, in general, you have to work for someone. This is because of past "initiation of force" by the capitalist class and the state which have created the objective conditions within which we make our employment decisions. Before any specific labour market contract occurs, the separation of workers from the means of production is an established fact (and the resulting "labour" market usually gives the advantage to the capitalists as a class).
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB4.html#secb41
The one with "dream feelings" regarding economic reality is you.
Originally posted by @no1marauderAnd as I have repeatedly stated a free society allows you to pursue your socialist ideals and it allows capitalists to pursue their ideals. Obviously you believe your ideals lead to a prosperous happy rewarding existence and in the free market of ideas it will win out in the end with a few lone lunatic capitalists on the fringes serving as a reminder of who has the soundest philosophy, the only difference being you couldn't force your ideals.
I believe no such thing as I have already said (numerous full stops removed). repeatedly. "Free people" absolutely did not tend to capitalism; capitalism was a system imposed on them by force.
Take a step back and you'll see how much you sound like a god botherer, with your supposed source of morality being the state.
Of course I have never said trade is what defines capitalism, trade is an aspect of capitalism, a natural outcome. I'm curious as to what you feel a capitalist is, are all employers capitalists? and no employees can ever be capitalists? This sounds like an ATY fantasy, because that's what is coming from your latest copy/paste.