Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Anarchy and FSP together???  (Read 28682 times)

Eddie Willers

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 236
  • "Neo" Objectivist
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2004, 04:16:45 pm »

Quote
That you are a frequent purveyor of such garbage is standalone fact; anything you post is suspect by reputation alone.

BTW, I wasn't questioning your motive.  I was questioning your competence.

That, boys and girls, is a textbook example of an "ad hominem" attack. As Cicero so aptly put it:

"If you don't have a good argument, attack the plaintiff."

'nuff said.

Eddie
Logged
Take care of the means and the End will take care of itself.

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2004, 08:20:50 pm »

Quote
That you are a frequent purveyor of such garbage is standalone fact; anything you post is suspect by reputation alone.

BTW, I wasn't questioning your motive.  I was questioning your competence.

That, boys and girls, is a textbook example of an "ad hominem" attack. As Cicero so aptly put it:

"If you don't have a good argument, attack the plaintiff."

'nuff said.

Eddie

This "geo" libertarian thanks you sir, Mr. "neo" objectivist, for those "to the point" remarks. You will make a fine granite "stater"...
Logged

protovack

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2004, 04:03:04 am »


In reality, we're not talking about "corporations", we're talking about companies, businesses, and entrepreneurs.  In other words, we're talking about you and me.  This is why economic freedom cannot be separated from personal freedom.

People cannot be "exploited" in voluntary transactions such as voluntary employment.  If you do not like your pay, then find another job.  Involuntary exploitive labor, therefore, does not exist in this country as far as I am aware.

Ok, your distinction between corporations and "companies" holds some water.  And you also included entrepreneurs, which is good, because they are at least individuals right?  But what about the engineers who design everything, and the workers who make everything?  Sure you can say "If you don't like your pay, find another job."  But we are talking about one small state here, correct?  

For example, what if I am a waitor, or a janitor, single parent, with kids.  And what if I really agree with the FSP, and I want to move to NH.  What are my options going to be when I get there.  Do the Libertarians care about me at all? Or are we only recruiting professionals who already have skills that can get them a good job?

It seems semi-hypocritcal to me, to suggest that we all support personal and economic freedom, yet offer no alternative to the current problem with wages for unskilled workers.  I see social-darwinism creeping in.

And next, you have claimed that "involuntary or exploitive labor does not exist in this country as far as I am aware."  Now, no matter what all our views on capitalism are, we all know that its here and we have to work with it.  I know that, even as a semi-anarchist.  I'm not sure where you are looking, but there are plenty of examples of labor exploitation in this country.  The reason we buy many fruits, vegetables, and meat products at an insanely low price is that immigrant labor is being exploited.  Then take a look at the working poor, who typically attempt to support a family on a less-than-living wage.  I wouldn't say that we can solve all these problems at once, but come on. At least see the world as it is.

It's easy to pick and move to NH when you're a professional, making good money.  I think we should consider that situations of our fellow citizens as well, and somehow institute a living wage law of some kind.

Now, i know the word "law" is loaded around here, so how can we encourage NH businesses to support this idea?

I guess it depends on if you think people will selflessly pay their workers enough to live on. Personally, I don't think a lot of classical libertarians really even care.  But I think I speak for a least a few people when I pose these questions.  

How would you do it?

1) Sponsor an actual bill for a living wage and try to get it passed in congress?

or

2) Use education and persuasion to convince everyone that its a good idea, in the hope that it will actually happen.

or

3) Who cares? People should go to school to learn new skills and get better jobs.

hehe, only problem is, were talking about people who clean your offices, serve you fast food, harvest your produce, sell you gasoline, answer customer support lines, etc etc..

You CAN'T have a nation of 350 million people with Masters degrees. It'll never happen and it never should.  

« Last Edit: March 04, 2004, 04:41:16 am by protovack »
Logged

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2004, 05:05:50 am »

First of all. You claim to be an anarchist.

How do you expect to enforce socialism, with-out a government forcing people to give their wealth that they worked for to other people?

Anarcho-socialism?

Wow. So you just think people would be willing to volentarily give most of their wealth that they worked for away to others?

Well, in many ways that happens with the free market. Lots of people volentarily donate to charities. In the free market their alloud to choose which and what types of charities they donate too. Under socialism, they're FORCED to "donate" to a single central monopoly agency who somehow has the hubris to think that he knows better then the individual how that individual should spend his money.

Take a look at my article "Who are me helping"
http://www.geocities.com/tracysaboe/Privatecharityandwelfare.html

Tracy

TRacy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2004, 05:07:57 am »

Quote
You CAN'T have a nation of 350 million people with Masters degrees. It'll never happen and it never should.  

So do you think that instead we need a government to coersively set up a cast system dictating how many experts we need and how many "non" experts we need? A system which the government prilidged live off the work of the non-privlidged for the "greater good?"

Tracy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

protovack

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2004, 05:34:12 am »

Quote
First of all. You claim to be an anarchist.

Yes, although maybe I mis-represented myself.  I'm more of a libertarian-socialist.  Meaning, I think we could use a skeleton government that serves a meta-organizational function.  No funds would be controlled by it.  No laws, no police, and best of all, no "property rights."

Quote
How do you expect to enforce socialism, with-out a government forcing people to give their wealth that they worked for to other people?

Socialism doesn't need to be "enforced."  It also doesn't rest upon redistrobution of wealth.  Rather, it addresses the underlying causes of inequality in the first place.

Quote
How do you expect to enforce socialism, with-out a government forcing people to give their wealth that they worked for to other people?

I'm not interested in accumulating wealth.  I'm interested in food, a roof, and enough shared resources to accomodate the collective need for leisure and hobby time.  Thats it.  

Quote
Well, in many ways that happens with the free market. Lots of people volentarily donate to charities. In the free market their alloud to choose which and what types of charities they donate too

True, although a bulk of that money(the specific amount I'm not sure of), goes to "pet" charities.  For example, how much money goes to dog/cat rescue organizations, when there are American citizens starving.  Do we need to cure obscure genetic diseases before we feed and house our veterans?

Quote
Under socialism, they're FORCED to "donate" to a single central monopoly agency who somehow has the hubris to think that he knows better then the individual how that individual should spend his money.

It sounds like you don't really know what libertarian-socialism is.  Trust me, we have much more in common than you think.  I agree with you on basically everything, and additionally, I suggest that we address economic exploitation.  Social-darwinism certainly doesn't address that.  Simply saying "Well, the government shouldn't be a welfare state," is more of an avoidance of the real issues.  Why are people on welfare in the first place?  It's because all of our good jobs are in China.  It's because some people have psychotic disorders, many of them veterans.  It's because we are still a racist and sexist culture.  

It all comes back to your intro Sociology 201.  When you hear the words "Single mom on Welfare," don't just hear a soundbite.  Look at the meaning behind the situation.  Look at the economic opportunities available to people.

Libertarian-Socialism shares much with standard-fare libertarianism.  But lets remember what your stance is here.  Are you really a social-darwinist?  Just let everybody fall where they may....and if you aren't an "entrepreneur" then you're fucked?  Come on.

Sure, our wealth should be ours to keep. I guess I just don't share your belief in people being charitable.  

It's like people who volunteer at the Humane Society, but still eat meat.

It's not charity. It's filling up your time making yourself feel good.
Logged

FTL_Ian

  • FSP Participant/First 1000
  • Golden Porcupine
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2710
  • Former FSP, still in NH.
    • Free Keene - NH's Liberty Activism Destination
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2004, 07:11:12 am »

Quote
It's like people who volunteer at the Humane Society, but still eat meat.

It's not charity. It's filling up your time making yourself feel good.

So what?  Making ourselves feel good by helping others is the motivation behind all charitable work.  There's nothing wrong with it.

Quote
Socialism doesn't need to be "enforced."  It also doesn't rest upon redistrobution of wealth.  Rather, it addresses the underlying causes of inequality in the first place.

Can you expand on this?

Regards,
Ian
Logged
150+ Reasons to Move to Keene : http://move.FreeKeene.com

Join the *other* liberty activism forum in NH: http://forum.shiresociety.com

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2004, 07:41:29 am »

Quote
Yes, although maybe I mis-represented myself.  I'm more of a libertarian-socialist.  Meaning, I think we could use a skeleton government that serves a meta-organizational function.  No funds would be controlled by it.  No laws, no police, and best of all, no "property rights."

get yourself over to "The Commons" to interact with other "Left Libertarians"

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=46;action=display;threadid=5793
Logged

thrivetacobell

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2004, 08:36:22 am »

[quote from protovack ]
Yes, although maybe I mis-represented myself.  I'm more of a libertarian-socialist.  Meaning, I think we could use a skeleton government that serves a meta-organizational function.  No funds would be controlled by it.  No laws, no police, and best of all, no "property rights."

Protovack

Glad to see your back, and I hope your keeping an open mind. By all means, stick to your beliefs- until you find you can't believe them anymore.

If you get the chance, theres some reading you might enjoy which  right along the lines of what seems to be your 'ideal society'.

The first is an eloquent essay by Oscar Wilde, written around the 1880's, in which he argues that socialism will inevitably lead to individualism,  titled "The Soul of Man Under Socialism".

The second is a short novel called "Looking Backward", written in the late 1890's. I forget the authors name, but in the story he envisions Boston in the year 2000, a hundred years in the future. Its a largely socialist society, and the author gets into the details of government and economics and wages and entertainment.

I recommend them only insomuch as they were written before socialism had a chance to prove itself in the field. They offer a chance to look at how things were envisioned to work, theoretically, in such a society and, in the past century, we get to look back and see how they turned out in practice.

A question on your quote above... No property rights? Well, i'm a lobsterman. If their were no property rights, my boat wouldn't belong to me, right? Perhaps i'd be working on a government boat?

So there i'd be, risking my life on a government boat, to make a small living for myself. But it wouldn't be for myself. The government would need its share, as they need to maintain the vessel. And the money left, well, I couldn't keep it because I live in an ideal society where everyone has a home and food and health care, and even though they might fill out 'emergency need' forms all day in the office, i'm out risking my ass on the water, in all seasons and weather.  Wheres the justice?
Quote
« Last Edit: March 04, 2004, 09:14:28 am by thrivetacobell »
Logged
"There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way."
                       Chistopher Morley

LeRuineur6

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1634
  • Act decisively. Without reserve!
    • Liberty Scholarship Fund
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #24 on: March 04, 2004, 09:00:09 am »

It seems semi-hypocritcal to me, to suggest that we all support personal and economic freedom, yet offer no alternative to the current problem with wages for unskilled workers.  I see social-darwinism creeping in.

New Hampshire's poverty rate is 40% (?) lower than Vermont's, yet Vermont has FAR MORE government social programs.

Why?

Because in a free society, people will lift THEMSELVES out of poverty.

Proof:

Report Card on Vermont #4 - NH versus VT
http://home.adelphia.net/~frankmazur/nh_vs_vt.htm

"New Hampshire’s poverty rate has decreased in 5 years to the lowest in the country while Vermont’s has remained at 10%.  The percent of population receiving public aid in New Hampshire is half of what it is in Vermont.  Welfare payments are also significantly lower in New Hampshire and their caseload reduction caused by welfare reform is 2 times greater than Vermont’s.  The leniency in the administration of welfare in Vermont and the benefits to the poor make this state a hand out leader."

"It appears Vermont’s potpourri of taxes and fees only stimulates the appetite of bureaucrats.  New Hampshire has the same level of services without the broad-based sales and income tax.  New Hampshire’s  tax free, self-serving, if-you-can-make-it-you-can-keep-it economic philosophy has helped the economic climate in New Hampshire."


People do not WANT to live in poverty.

Also, charitable donation and volunteerism help as a hand up rather than a handout.  This is addressed by the Give Five charity that we're starting in the FSP-Charities group.  In New Hampshire, we're going to promote giving 5% of your net income and 5 hours per week to charitable purposes.

A free society is the most prosperous society because it is directly in line with human nature.  Governments and laws inherently violate human nature, and thus will never be successful "solutions" to any problem.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2004, 09:02:59 am by LeRuineur6 »
Logged
Please donate $5 to $10 per month to the Liberty Scholarship Fund!
"Noncooperation is intended to pave the way to real, honorable, and voluntary cooperation based on mutual respect and trust." -Gandhi

Karl

  • Guest
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2004, 09:03:51 am »

protovack,

Based on your questions, I suspect you haven't had an opportunity to read much about free market economics vs. socialism.  On its face, socialism seems like the moral system.  Virtually everyone wants their fellow man to have a good education, good health, satsifying work, and a happy life.  Socialism means well by striving to provide these things for everyone.  But, there is a cost.  To enact it, government must threaten to jail and murder those with wealth to give it to those it deams deserving.

That said, it would be unwise to rely on this forum to eductate yourself on this subject.  The way I began to understand moral economics is by slowly taking in the wealth of quality information available for free over the internet.  By understanding this philosophy, it will become easy to determine how most free staters might tend in specific policy.

Start with this animation.  Its abstract, but extremely useful.  I still like to watch it every now and then:

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Read some of the regularly published articles on these web sites:

http://www.mises.org
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.free-market.net

Mises is more academic.  A great recent article appropriate to this discussion titled "Proud to be a Replacement Worker" seems particularly appropriate for this discussion (although I do strongly disagree with its conclusion that union strikes constitute coersion; carrying signs and exercising free speech on public property can in no way constitute initiation of force).  

LewRockwell.com is a bit more firebrand, written to an audience that already understands libertarian fundamentals and appreciates free-market economics.

Free-Market.net also contains many great articles.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2004, 09:05:02 am by Karl Beisel »
Logged

thrivetacobell

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2004, 09:37:19 am »

Karl Biesel

I loved that animation you mentioned,

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Absolutely wonderful... Don't miss it, Protovack!
Logged
"There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way."
                       Chistopher Morley

Karl

  • Guest
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2004, 09:37:50 am »

Socialism doesn't need to be "enforced."  It also doesn't rest upon redistrobution of wealth.  Rather, it addresses the underlying causes of inequality in the first place.

Of course it needs to be enforced.  How else will wealth be given to the poor if the wealthy aren't willing to give it to them?

BTW, a kind of micro-socialism does exist and is good -- families, churches and all manner of community/charitable organizations are socialist by design.  Of course, all of these are voluntary.  And they work fairly well.  One of the consequences of governmentalized socialism is that it weakens these institutions.  Ex: Why should I give money to the church when the government already takes care of the poor?

Quote
I'm not interested in accumulating wealth.  I'm interested in food, a roof, and enough shared resources to accomodate the collective need for leisure and hobby time.  Thats it.

Start a collective, a church, or a family.  If you have wealth to spare, invite the poor to share in your wealth.  Remember, life can never be a free ride.  At minimum, one must hunt/gather and cook, and have shelter.  Like all creatures in the world, humans should be expected to provide for their own life, and not live on the production of others against that producer's will.

Quote
True, although a bulk of that money(the specific amount I'm not sure of), goes to "pet" charities.  For example, how much money goes to dog/cat rescue organizations, when there are American citizens starving.  Do we need to cure obscure genetic diseases before we feed and house our veterans?

This is false.  Where did you get this idea?

Here's a web site that describes the destination of most charities.  Almost half goes to churches and education.  The pets charities are so small, their lobbed into the "environment/animals" categoriy at 2.7%.  I bet they're significantly less than half of one percent.


http://www.aafrc.org/bytypeof.html

Quote
...Why are people on welfare in the first place?  It's because all of our good jobs are in China.  It's because some people have psychotic disorders, many of them veterans.  It's because we are still a racist and sexist culture.

This is also false.  More Americans are more prosperous today than ever.  Outsourcing production to China, where they can make certain goods more efficiently, is a boon for Americans.  It means more Americans can buy less expensive goods, and use their time and labor in pursuing more worthwhile goals and more prosperous ends.

I believe you have grossly overestimated the number of uncared for veterans with psychotic disorders.

America is probably the least sexist and least racist culture the world has ever known, though it does exist in some places.  Again, you have overestimated its existance, and its impact.  Crying racism and sexism is no longer an excuse for getting on the government dole, as it might once have been.

Quote
Libertarian-Socialism shares much with standard-fare libertarianism.  But lets remember what your stance is here.  Are you really a social-darwinist?  Just let everybody fall where they may....and if you aren't an "entrepreneur" then you're fucked?  Come on.

The term "social-darwinism" is archaic, and does not describe most libertarians.  Libertarians, for the most part, simply don't want other people stealing from them.  Libertarians want to choose the time and manner in how their wealth is used.

Quote
Sure, our wealth should be ours to keep. I guess I just don't share your belief in people being charitable.

What is so wrong about expecting individuals to sustain their own lives?  Every creature on earth does it.  The "poor" are not some permanently oppressed group.  They are people who work jobs or engage in trade, or cultivate land for crops, to support themselves and their families, just as every human being has the moral duty to do.  Because they make some "income" below some line established by buerocrats ought not compel everyone to render them additional aid beyond what they are receiving for their voluntarily-provided services.

Quote
It's like people who volunteer at the Humane Society, but still eat meat.
It's not charity. It's filling up your time making yourself feel good.

When I give money to charity, I expect to feel good about it.  Thats what motivates me to give to charity.  It would take a twisted moral outlook to expect me to feel bad about it.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2004, 09:51:22 am by Karl Beisel »
Logged

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2004, 10:56:12 am »

Leave it to BillG to dredge up some choice indecipherable rubbish.

ad hom·i·nem    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

tsk tsk Karl!

I won't explain in every detail how obscure and dense the "manifesto" you cited is.  It is self evident to all who read it.

That you are a frequent purveyor of such garbage is standalone fact; anything you post is suspect by reputation alone.

BTW, I wasn't questioning your motive.  I was questioning your competence.

Actually, the information is spot-on!   Corporate fascism has blinded many liberatarians into confusing individual rights with the privileges of government-sanctioned authoritarian collectives (i.e., multi-national corporations).   These are quasi-governmental entities operating in ways that are antagonistic to individual freedom -- they are the coming Borganism in its infancy!

All freedom and rights ARE individual.  Everything else is corporate fiction.

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

Karl

  • Guest
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #29 on: March 04, 2004, 11:09:44 am »

Leave it to BillG to dredge up some choice indecipherable rubbish.

ad hom·i·nem    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

tsk tsk Karl!

I won't explain in every detail how obscure and dense the "manifesto" you cited is.  It is self evident to all who read it.

That you are a frequent purveyor of such garbage is standalone fact; anything you post is suspect by reputation alone.

BTW, I wasn't questioning your motive.  I was questioning your competence.

Actually, the information is spot-on!   Corporate fascism has blinded many liberatarians into confusing individual rights with the privileges of government-sanctioned authoritarian collectives (i.e., multi-national corporations).   These are quasi-governmental entities operating in ways that are antagonistic to individual freedom -- they are the coming Borganism in its infancy!

I was only stating that it was difficult to read.  The author used disjointed academicese.

I am in agreement that corporations have excessive government-granted priveledges.  I am deeply troubled at how corporations have grafted themselves into the government, and am increasingly skeptical of the wisdom of their limited-liability protections.  On the other hand, I am even more skeptical of attempts to apply band-aid solutions by regulating these businesses, which essentially grafts them even more into government.  These band-aids are often what I see proposed by Greens and other lefties, motivated more by a desire to harness the powers of these corporations for the benefit of big government than to end the evil perpetrated by them.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 8   Go Up