Sparko, I don't mind...
I thought you knew I had moved to anarchism. IMHO, it is the logical conclusion of the form of libertarianism I embraced unless other values would supersede it. Which have not for me.
Clarification: I am an anarchist as a libertarian qua libertarian, i.e. a philosophical anarchist. Politically, I am for whatever is possible to achieve, and if that is minarchy so be it.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
You might be a libertarian if… (restricted thread)
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Darth Xena View PostLOL I forgot about this thread, and in re-reading my last post, I see it could have been taken as I was done with discussion. That comment was more to nutty fundamentalists.
But probably a good idea I postponed... I thought my life exploded before... it REALLY exploded since then. And in re-reading the OP, I laughed. Because I am now an anarchist. Still affiliated with the Libertarian Party though.
...oops I am not supposed to post here. I am causing chaos.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Darth Xena View PostHi Jerk, my life exploded in this tme as well. Right now I am in Vegas at the Libertarian Political Expo for the weekend. During the past few weeks I got in a huge debate with one of our Presidential candidates- got called a LINO (good times). I think he lost my vote;). My burnout factor is rapid since leaving forums behind. I go from advocacy to "think what you want" in record time now, though as you know I have been there for years with the silly eschatology stuff. Sooooo you think Obama is the antiChrist? Okay, good day, think what you want.
Lost a bit in the slots yesterday, but got my Paddle Faster, I Hear Banjoes shirt on and hanging out with my tribe, so it's all good.
LOL I forgot about this thread, and in re-reading my last post, I see it could have been taken as I was done with discussion. That comment was more to nutty fundamentalists.
But probably a good idea I postponed... I thought my life exploded before... it REALLY exploded since then. And in re-reading the OP, I laughed. Because I am now an anarchist. Still affiliated with the Libertarian Party though.
Leave a comment:
-
Hi Jerk, my life exploded in this tme as well. Right now I am in Vegas at the Libertarian Political Expo for the weekend. During the past few weeks I got in a huge debate with one of our Presidential candidates- got called a LINO (good times). I think he lost my vote;). My burnout factor is rapid since leaving forums behind. I go from advocacy to "think what you want" in record time now, though as you know I have been there for years with the silly eschatology stuff. Sooooo you think Obama is the antiChrist? Okay, good day, think what you want.
Lost a bit in the slots yesterday, but got my Paddle Faster, I Hear Banjoes shirt on and hanging out with my tribe, so it's all good.
Leave a comment:
-
My apologies, Deedz. As it turned out, it took a good deal longer than a weekend to clean up that mess. But, the ship has finally finished being built, albeit two weeks after it set sail.
In the meantime, this property showed up on Zillow: two and a half acres, former house burned down; electric, fencing, an asphalt road, septic, well, pump, and even cable already on the property; tomato farms and palm tree orchards as neighbors, the entrance to Everglades park a mile and a half away ... let's just say the new car plans are now on hold. This could become the future site of the Radically Strawberry Manse.
I've been busy.
But there's a lull now, so ...
Leave a comment:
-
Jerk, another Libertarian on Facebook was gently instructing me in the ways of The Faith, and pointed me to his article on gay marriage and the consistent Libertarian position. I thought you might be interested
http://freevirginia.blogspot.com/201...bertarian.html
Part of the problem I mentioned before, he identifies… so much of what Libertarians would like to change is intertwined, so it is hard to implement piecemeal. The marriage issue is related to the tax issue is related to the freedom of association issue, etc. I am horridly inconsistent on this issue. I reflect an internal conflict in the Party I think between empathy, wanting to see government not privilege one group over another, and purity of doctrine. Simply saying "I support gay marriage" is kinda putting me in a cultural box that libertarians just don't fit into.
Libertarians actually take NO position on marriage, except for the idea that everyone has the absolute right to arrange their affairs and relationships as they wish -- without interference by any government authority.
In other words, Libertarians don't "favor" any kind of marriage, gay or otherwise -- we just want the government out of it.Last edited by Darth Xena; 05-08-2015, 08:45 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Jerk take your time. I am busy losing my ever-loving mind on FB over free speech. Such a massive #libertarianfail fest.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by lao tzu View PostTrue to form, the Virtual College didn't get back to me yesterday, not that I blame the coordinator. Their chair lets their full-time faculty dither until the last minute and then some, which is just nuts considering the demand for those virtual lines. And ya know, I think the kids should know which professor is teaching when they sign up, but maybe that's just me. I set my own schedule at my main job, but I still have to set it two months before the next term begins, excepting overloads if we have to open another section.
From: ..., Maria ...
Subject: 2014-3 Virtual College Assignment – J ... (REVISED)
Date: May 8, 2015 at 4:34 PM
To: ..., Jesse
(New Assignment)
5/11/2015
7/31/2015
...
Good afternoon Prof. ...,
An additional section of ... has been assigned to you for the 2014-3 term.
In case you're wondering, yes, the final deadline for faculty changes is at 5:00 p.m. I've got 48 hours to prep this ... in Blackboard Learn, which just replaced ANGEL, and which I've never used before though I've been through the orientation and glanced through the course that starts at the end of June.
I'm gonna busy for a bit, but I'll try to carve out some time for me and you, Sunday night maybe?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by lao tzu View PostCiao bella, canniba
Less of an issue, I'd agree. But freed of government regulation, monopolies have historically formed their own pseudo-states when given the chance, complete with company scrip, company stores to spend it in, company land rights allowing repossession of employee homes, and company thugs to shoot up the tent cities of the repossessed ... pour encourager les autres.
And just broadly speaking since we don’t have a specific situation to look at, with the exception of the “company thugs” (in a minarchy, thuggery is still a State function), a company could do those other things, and the market can respond.
Accepted, for now, while maintaining that freedom needs policing, and policing needs police. A hoe in one hand and a howitzer in the other is no way to farm a field.
A lot of this disincentive speech is just guff, I'm afraid. The market is just as quick to arbitrage a penny on the dollar as it is to arbitrage a dime, and more-so in fact, if the dime's not available. There's this odd double-think I encounter quite often in these discussions, where a "conservative" (in name only?) argues that increasing the burden on the poor will incentivize them to work harder, while increasing the burden on the wealthy will cause them to give up. I'll grant that burdens create muscle, but I can't ignore the fact that the folks who are more muscular can lift more, even proportionately, and the strongest are the least likely to break under the strain.
"From each according to their abilities" may be ideologically objectionable, but it's pointless to argue that it's not pragmatic.
Now I honestly don't know what to do with "a land tax is not necessarily a wealth tax." Yes, it is. It might be justifiable, or equivocated with a tax on wealth earned by one's own personal labor, but a justifiable wealth tax is still a wealth tax.
And while some consumption is voluntary, much is not, and proportionately less for the less wealthy.
I work hard for my money too, but I also turn a decent dime. The next big "choice" on my radar is a decision between a $50k or $70k car. The difference between the two is voluntary, but even that difference is still less than the median American spends on a car. I mention this only to make it clear that I'm not merely arguing for my own interests. All of these alternatives to an income tax would net me more money. I've done the math on this.
The question for me is what's best for society as a whole, not so much because I'm altruistic (though I'd like to think or at least flatter myself that that plays a role), but because that's the argument that must be won to gather general agreement on changing the order of society.
Why d'ya have to be such a girl? I can take off your shirt, or I can take pictures. Make up your mind!
Did you know there's a fashion trend toward backless t-shirts now? Had a gal show up for a final last week in one, an oversize t-shirt mind you, sans bra, meaning side-cleavage when she was sitting up straight — which I could deal with, seeing as it's Miami — and about a foot and a half of free space when she leaned over to start her test — which I couldn't, or wouldn't anyway because I needed their attention on other smooth continuous curves: the ones provided in the exam.
It's time to pack up and go. Even with online classes in the mix and no on-ground classes on Fridays, I still commute 350 miles a week, so I envy your work from home.
Mas tarde, chica.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Darth Xena View PostHola Jerk:)
No worries, I always have a brutal work schedule. She works hard for the money.
Because the crony capitalism is enabled and feeds the State. If the State was minimal, this wouldn’t be the issue. And the State has a monopoly on coercive legal force, so it makes it more pernicious.
A truly freed market. The defense of this would be beyond my capabilities at this time however.
Since the freight should be minimal, as we have no rights-based obligations to sacrifice ourselves for others, there isn’t more benefits. Other than unequal outcomes that is just life. Taxes are a burden, and the last thing that should be burdened is productivity, particularly unevenly burdened as it disincentivizes achievement and the market. This discussion is difficult in the midst of a non-minarchist State as the dynamics have way too many factors. Some (and I could be persuaded as well) would support a flat tax that isn’t tiered, in which those producing more would pay more, but at the same rate as that is not forcing others to sacrifice for the benefit of others sheerly because they are more successful. A land tax is not necessarily a wealth tax (and I am only competent to address this only tangentially) in the hypothetical minarchist state for these reasons (though there could be more): common defense and infrastructure could be proportioned by how much of the national land is owned and Libertarians generally base property rights on a Lockean philosophical foundation in which your right to the land is based on homesteading principles, including mixing your labour with the land. What is sufficient labour is debatable, and it could be argued that maintenance of the infrastructure and defense needed to secure those rights is a necessary mixing. A consumption tax is much more voluntary in that for most good people choose to buy or not buy. Of course, Libertarians are looking for other ways to fund necessary minarchist needs, for instance, a lottery (such were done in the country’s founding). It is then just a tax on people who can’t do math, like me.
"From each according to their abilities" may be ideologically objectionable, but it's pointless to argue that it's not pragmatic.
Now I honestly don't know what to do with "a land tax is not necessarily a wealth tax." Yes, it is. It might be justifiable, or equivocated with a tax on wealth earned by one's own personal labor, but a justifiable wealth tax is still a wealth tax. And while some consumption is voluntary, much is not, and proportionately less for the less wealthy. I work hard for my money too, but I also turn a decent dime. The next big "choice" on my radar is a decision between a $50k or $70k car. The difference between the two is voluntary, but even that difference is still less than the median American spends on a car. I mention this only to make it clear that I'm not merely arguing for my own interests. All of these alternatives to an income tax would net me more money. I've done the math on this.
The question for me is what's best for society as a whole, not so much because I'm altruistic (though I'd like to think or at least flatter myself that that plays a role), but because that's the argument that must be won to gather general agreement on changing the order of society.
<unclasps hands> First you don’t want to remove my shirt, and now you want to hold my hand? Such mixed signals! Oh wait, you just said shake hands. I feel somehow let down.
Did you know there's a fashion trend toward backless t-shirts now? Had a gal show up for a final last week in one, an oversize t-shirt mind you, sans bra, meaning side-cleavage when she was sitting up straight — which I could deal with, seeing as it's Miami — and about a foot and a half of free space when she leaned over to start her test — which I couldn't, or wouldn't anyway because I needed their attention on other smooth continuous curves: the ones provided in the exam.
These kids!
It's time to pack up and go. Even with online classes in the mix and no on-ground classes on Fridays, I still commute 350 miles a week, so I envy your work from home.
Mas tarde, chica.
Leave a comment:
-
Hola Jerk:)
Originally posted by lao tzu View PostI'm going to hit back on a couple more of these before we move on, because I want to avoid the need to do more reading until my work-week ends tomorrow ... (though there's a good chance I'm about to have a new class dumped on me to start on Monday, and I'll have to go into overdrive to get prepped up ... I'll know by tonight ... I really need to learn to say no.)
I've read condemnation of both corporatist and state-sponsored aggression in these links, but the real vitriol seems directed solely at the state, which brings up some interesting questions. Are libertarians even aware that "targeted income redistribution" occurs in both of these domains?
Just as a practical consideration, what force outside the state is powerful enough to push back against the modern trend of flat-lined wages during a period of radically increased productivity?
But I remain interested in seeing why libertarians think a productivity tax should be considered less moral than a wealth tax (which is what a land tax amounts to), or a consumption tax for that matter (even assuming we considered the acquisition of financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds consumption as well.) To me, it seems uncontroversial that those who acquire most of the benefits should pay most of the freight.
Now here, I see the admission of a hierarchy of rights as tacit acceptance of conflicting rights, and so I'm happy to join with you and Yossarian, shaking hands and exiting smiling.
Actually, this is truly helpful for the apparent agreement is due to my lack of skill at wording things that are in my head. My terminology of hierarchy of rights was unfortunate and confusing to someone who isn’t ideologically on the same plane. It would have been likely not confusing to another libertarian as we have the same presuppositions. What I was calling the hierarchy of rights (bad me, bad me) was just another way to say that I believe the NAP implies the MAP (minimization of aggression principle). In a simple case, you unknowingly trespass on my property, and I know it was an unknowing trespass. You are violating my property rights. You are not threatening me in any way. You are a living person with a right to life, but your right to life does not impose any obligation on me to support it, only not to aggress against it. If I don’t just ask you to leave my property but instead shoot you in the head, I have initiated aggression against you as it was not necessary to do that to enforce my rights. It may appear that there was an conflict of rights, but in actuality there wasn’t. (other cases get dicier, yes, I agree)
As an aside, this comes into play with Block’s evictionist abortion position, which he claims is the “only consistent libertarian position.” I am not sure I agree (other principles such as the fact that the fetus was made helpless by the actions of someone else’s body). In this he holds that the fetus has a right to life, but the mother has self-ownership, and she merely has a right of eviction, and must do so following the MAP (he calls it “gentleness”). So, practically this means, in the absence of artificial wombs, that the fetus would be killed in the act of eviction in the first 20 weeks or so but after that, perhaps not, and as technology advanced this would effectively push back that barrier.
I know you know this, but others are reading as well, and I just wanted to leave this here, particularly for people who might be thinking, wth? You don’t want to feed the hungry you heartless d-bag! (don’t know if I am allowed to say that, guess I will find out--- I have developed a bit of a blue streak since leaving here)
Robert Nozick: Libertarianism never really claimed that all of ethics was exhausted by what could be enforced, by what one could legitimately be coerced to do or not do. That's the political, interpersonal realm that libertarian principles were about, not what might be the highest ethical aspiration.
And what I have said, just because a Libertarian says they do not want the State to do something does not mean that they don’t want it done.
I'm actually okay with you getting ahead of me, so long as it's not too far. I'm doing my best to engage with everything substantive, but if it turns into a smörgåsbord, I'll have to start picking my favorite dishes.
Now this is worthy of its own response.
I think Heinlein's conception of a line marriage is easier to defend than polygamy because of its durability.
That said, beyond my inherent interest in the subject, the real reason I'm responding to this piecemeal is because this is you, on TWeb, supporting gay marriage. The mind boggles at the conniptions that would ensue out in Civics if this wasn't a one-on-one. Just imagine the dudgeon! Now that would truly be a lovely prospect.
I changed my view on the issue probably within a few months of leaving. I was already getting there, and flirting with the idea of the State having no business licensing personal relationships. I had only the vaguest idea that this kind of idea was a “thing.”
My views on gay marriage are in tension between pragmatics, potential losses of civil liberties for others in granting these civil liberties to gay couples, and pure Libertarian thought. In purity, I should oppose legalization because the State has no business being in it---actually I should oppose the continuation legalization of hetero marriages. But in pragmatics, the State has no basis (in my view) to be denying a personal relationship status in a way that affects 2% of the population. Oddly enough, it was my reading on the Spanish Flu that connected the dots where some accounts talked about 2% of the population dying in a short period of time. It struck me that such is a LOT of people.
The problem with trying to act in Libertarian purity is that too many policies are connected. For instance, if we opened up the borders more…. (a generally Libertarian idea), then we drain on services, causing more unjust government… It is all of one cloth, it is hard to be purely Libertarian piecemeal. So with the marriage thing, I am really torn because we have the govt interference with private affairs by creating classes of people that others lose their freedom to chose to freely contract with etc (discrimination laws) so granting these rights (a good thing) is going to lead to more restrictions in property rights/association rights (bad thing).
I find three things some of the most egregious violations by the State (on the civil liberties side, not the economics side) and I am often forced to support something that infringes another.
1. Licensing of personal relationships
2. Radical freedom of association/property rights meaning I have the right to choose what I am going to use my labor and property for, without State restriction. The market and society can chose to respond in whatever peaceful way it wishes.
3. Telling people they can’t ingest a substance that harms only them.Last edited by Darth Xena; 05-06-2015, 12:53 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Darth Xena View PostThat argument is why I changed my mind on the issue before I was a Libertarian. It was an outgrowth of why I thought the state had a case to recognize and encourage infertile couples or those that said they would not have children, to be a model in general and provide stability. Now I don’t think there is any argument for state recognition or encouragement and that such is the role of a free society, but pragmatics…. And arguably equal protection. Though I think polygamous people are getting denied it if we go down the equal protection road, and we go down the rabbit hole… which is what I ultimately want. I see zero reason for free people to not have “line marriages” ala The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
I think Heinlein's conception of a line marriage is easier to defend than polygamy because of its durability. Even in a traditional marriage, the loss of one spouse can be relatively easy to repair through remarriage. And while that's true for polygamous marriages as well, the durability is not symmetric. It's only if the spouse is female. My Senegalese friend Afia lost his biological mother while retaining three moms, making the loss far more limited than in a traditional marriage. But if it had been his dad instead ... that's a lot of women and kids tossed out into the cold, or the heat rather, as we're talking about sub-Saharan Africa.
That said, beyond my inherent interest in the subject, the real reason I'm responding to this piecemeal is because this is you, on TWeb, supporting gay marriage. The mind boggles at the conniptions that would ensue out in Civics if this wasn't a one-on-one. Just imagine the dudgeon! Now that would truly be a lovely prospect.
Leave a comment:
-
I'm going to hit back on a couple more of these before we move on, because I want to avoid the need to do more reading until my work-week ends tomorrow ... (though there's a good chance I'm about to have a new class dumped on me to start on Monday, and I'll have to go into overdrive to get prepped up ... I'll know by tonight ... I really need to learn to say no.)
Originally posted by Darth Xena View PostAbolishing the income tax is pretty much scripture with Libertarians as it views taxing productivity and targeted income redistribution as inherently immoral and state aggression against property. And I don’t deviate from that orthodoxy.
Now that's a big old rabbit hole, so maybe we should just skip it.
But I remain interested in seeing why libertarians think a productivity tax should be considered less moral than a wealth tax (which is what a land tax amounts to), or a consumption tax for that matter (even assuming we considered the acquisition of financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds consumption as well.) To me, it seems uncontroversial that those who acquire most of the benefits should pay most of the freight.
We probably have to agree to disagree because I just “see” the fundamental conflict and to establish “rules” from which to work out from, you do have to presume you know the situation you are philosophizing from. I find equal competing rights that are mutually exclusive (i.e. a right to assert force justly and a right to resist force justly) incoherent. If I have a right to do something, I have a right to do it without force against me, you don’t have the right to stop me through force. But if you have a right to defend yourself, there is a conflict. If I have a right that you stop, I have a cause of action against you for the harm you did to me. When you add in the third party, you add in different motivations for the force. You do not have the right in justice to stop me from keeping you from harming someone, but I only have the right to stop you to insure that end, not to keep you from jumping off the cliff at a point away from the third party. Does it get complex? Yes. All ethical/justice systems will.
[...]
Ultimately and perfectly? No. But we have to live in the world we have. I do see what you did, but I don’t think describing them as “conflicting” rights makes them actually conflicting rights but is an artifact of the way we use language. It makes them apparently conflicting rights, but I don’t think rights can truly ever conflict. Are there going to be fuzzy-edged situations? Yes of course. I think abortion ends up being one of those fuzzy-edged situations which is why it bitterly divides Libertarians. Some (on the fringe to my way of thinking) reject a hierarchy of rights and as I said, proportionality (otherwise known as the MAP, which is minimization of aggression). I believe a right to life is higher on the scale than a right to property, which is why I am obligated to find the “gentlest” means possible to defend my property rights if possible in order to respect your right to life. This is of course once again deontologically based.
Hopefully you don’t mind if I start another post right now, only because I found a great article that has a quote that says it better than I could.
Leave a comment:
-
So if I understood you right, we are going on to a next "you might be a libertarian if…" (and looking through what we have already gone through, we have gone through a great deal of it--- the foundations of what puts someone in Club Libertarian are not very numerous, as you saw Noland articulated only five, and others dispute that monetary policy part)
Here is from a good article I read earlier, it can seem a bit macho-flashy, but I do think it contains a great deal of truth:
The drug war is a great libertarian litmus test. No one who supports government at any level having any kind of a war on drugs is even remotely a libertarian. It doesn’t matter what else he believes about foreign policy, the welfare state, the warfare state, or the surveillance state. No one can “lean libertarian” and support such a gross violation of individual liberty, personal freedom, property rights, a free market, and a free society as the war on drugs.
Leave a comment:
-
So long as you don't threaten me with LibHades, it's all good.
When individuals support each other, there's less need for government assistance. This is a positive argument for state recognition and encouragement of stable, self-supporting relationships, including gay marriage. I suspect this is an issue where "better" can be the enemy of "best" for a libertarian.
Full context might change my opinion, but as written, I'd call Rothbard's quote an act of intellectual abnegation. It conveniently neglects the need to illuminate a path from here to there.
The Libertarian Macho Flash has much in common with sexual exhibitionism. A common-looking person exposes his political beliefs in a shocking way. Invariably, he disgusts people or at least shakes them up. The Libertarian Macho Flasher displays his views in the most offensive way or exhibits whichever views are most likely to offend the audience.
I don't agree entirely with that author, I like to flash once in a while, but I take his point and try to tone it down. Running into a room of Christians and just dropping, "Well you know, why shouldn't heroin be legal?" isn't going to be as effective as "Well you know, no one has a right to have a cake."
The flashing lights started with the founder's statement that ... maybe ... a land tax would be better than an income tax ... and the sirens went off when he went full flatline on the gold standard. It appears he believes a gold standard can somehow annul his otherwise undisclosed issues with a "fiat" currency. Surely, you can peg x dollars to y grams, but the market will scale that right back to a floating standard. To believe this is not so, is to embrace kookery ... or Venezuelan economics if we're looking for a real world example.
The Austrian model, for all its flaws, has the advantage of at least getting it wrong, and the even greater advantage of getting some things right. But I'd happily invite anyone who doesn't believe in econometrics to step into the market with me and watch while I arbitrage their last dime. Admittedly, markets do not always behave rationally. There is a human factor. That's a fact. But if you bet against the objective models on a consistent basis, you will lose your shirt ... and no, I'm not going there, lovely as the prospect might be.
If you're not ready to make substantive comments on this, no worries, we've got plenty of other things to look at.
Abolishing the income tax is pretty much scripture with Libertarians as it views taxing productivity and targeted income redistribution as inherently immoral and state aggression against property. And I don’t deviate from that orthodoxy.
But this much is not, which is why I can acknowledge the premises above without admitting a prima facie premise of non-conflicting rights. In fact, I've seen theological arguments about divine omniscience that successfully, in my view, split the difference between knowing all that will happen and knowing all that could happen. Without taking a position on either horn, the point remains that philosophical arguments do not require all facts be known.
I don’t see a purpose into getting into the divine, since we are not divine.
"Adjudicating" is exactly the right word here, in the sense that participants in an action cannot be the final arbiters of whether their conflicting rights (see what I did there?) were defensible.
But neither can we require full knowledge for human actors without divorcing them from free exercise of their rights. Acolytes at a thousand Buddhist temples may be satisfied to sit and wait for enlightenment, but the rest of us want to get something done, today maybe, and the philosophical freedom to do so before we've risen to join the Bodhisattvas.
The closest I come to deontological ethics is in my support for the 1st amendment.
The government regularly passes laws that the government finds unconstitutional, too.Okay, I think that's enough on these ancillary issues, though I'll chase any other thoughts you'd like to share on them later. In my next post, I want to get back to the less controversial aspects of Libertarianism, the "You might be ..." issues.
Tomorrow maybe?Last edited by Darth Xena; 05-05-2015, 12:41 PM.
Leave a comment:
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Leave a comment: