Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Where Did I Ever Quote Carl (sic) Marx?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
BeamMeUpScotty
May 24, 2012, 7:05:45 PM5/24/12
to
On 5/24/2012 5:29 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> In article
> <be1bf173-a1dc-458e...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
>
>> of course marx was a libertarian. he was for free trade, and wanted
>> government to disappear.
>
> Not a libertarian, an anarchist.
>
>
> snicker
That's right because Libertarians want government but only enough to
protect the individuals RIGHTS.
--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-
-Kum bay ya-
> In article
> <be1bf173-a1dc-458e...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
>
>> of course marx was a libertarian. he was for free trade, and wanted
>> government to disappear.
>
> Not a libertarian, an anarchist.
>
>
> snicker
That's right because Libertarians want government but only enough to
protect the individuals RIGHTS.
--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-
-Kum bay ya-
Lamont Cranston
May 24, 2012, 8:46:57 PM5/24/12
to
On 5/24/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 5/24/2012 5:29 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
>> In article
>> <be1bf173-a1dc-458e...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Nickname unavailable<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> of course marx was a libertarian. he was for free trade, and wanted
>>> government to disappear.
>>
>> Not a libertarian, an anarchist.
>>
>>
>> snicker
>
>
> That's right because Libertarians want government but only enough to
> protect the individuals RIGHTS.
>
Libertarians don't give a shit about individuals' rights, they only care
> On 5/24/2012 5:29 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
>> In article
>> <be1bf173-a1dc-458e...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Nickname unavailable<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> of course marx was a libertarian. he was for free trade, and wanted
>>> government to disappear.
>>
>> Not a libertarian, an anarchist.
>>
>>
>> snicker
>
>
> That's right because Libertarians want government but only enough to
> protect the individuals RIGHTS.
>
about their own rights.
Eddie Haskell
May 25, 2012, 2:32:13 PM5/25/12
to
"Lamont Cranston" <L...@TS.org> wrote in message
news:jpmkps$4el$8...@news.datemas.de...
-Eddie Haskell
BeamMeUpScotty
May 27, 2012, 9:07:58 PM5/27/12
to
I think in all your stupidity, you unknowingly got it right for the
wrong reason....
Eddie Haskell
May 29, 2012, 3:06:12 PM5/29/12
to
"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4FC2CFE...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
-Eddie Haskell
Bret Cahill
May 29, 2012, 3:49:01 PM5/29/12
to
> >>>> of course marx was a libertarian. he was for free trade, and wanted
> >>>> government to disappear.
>
> >>> Not a libertarian, an anarchist.
>
> >>> snicker
>
> >> That's right because Libertarians want government but only enough to
> >> protect the individuals RIGHTS.
>
> > Libertarians don't give a shit about individuals' rights, they only care
> > about their own rights.
>
> Libertarians are "individuals".
>
> I think in all your stupidity, you unknowingly got it right for the
> wrong reason....
How could he have known that you said your wife's restraining order
> >>>> government to disappear.
>
> >>> Not a libertarian, an anarchist.
>
> >>> snicker
>
> >> That's right because Libertarians want government but only enough to
> >> protect the individuals RIGHTS.
>
> > Libertarians don't give a shit about individuals' rights, they only care
> > about their own rights.
>
> Libertarians are "individuals".
>
> I think in all your stupidity, you unknowingly got it right for the
> wrong reason....
violated _your_ right to association?
Bret Cahill
BeamMeUpScotty
May 30, 2012, 10:30:59 AM5/30/12
to
I suppose he could find that restraining order on file and post it to
prove it exists but like everything a Liberal knows, it is fantasy and a
lie and there is no restraining order and never was and never will be.
Charles Bell
May 31, 2012, 6:12:34 AM5/31/12
to
On May 24, 7:05 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
your argument that your method is valid.
Note that Marx denied a valid existence of individual rights, at least
in the same sense that any American would use that term:
Marx concludes in “On the Jewish Question":
<<Human emancipation will only be complete when the real, individual
man has absorbed into himself the abstract citizen; when as an
individual man, in his everyday life, in his work, and in his
relationships, be has become a species-being; and when he has
recognized and organized his own powers as social powers so that he
no longer separates this social power from himself as political
power.>>
Namely, . . . that the North American/French concept of individual
rights is something away from which man evolves: The rights-bearing
individual is an “isolated monad […] withdrawn behind his private
interests and whims and separated from the community.” [see:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/ ]
On the alleged distinction between the libertarian and the anarchist:
the "rights of the individual" for the anarchist (generally) will
*not* bend the collective to the individual, but rather the individual
will be bent to the collective, as in Marx's "human emanicipation,"
but the "rights of the individual" for the libertarian has no distinct
meaning at all and only a vague sort of definition as Marx refers to
it as the North American/French civic, political emancipation in
contrast to the German one (at the time.)
Until a "libertarian" can define how his concept of individual rights
is different than a Marxist on the one hand and the French/North
American constitutional-republican on the other hand, he has not
defined his political philosophy distinctly at all.
My point of view is that "libertarian" is mostly an meaningless word
that is either a floating abstraction, at best, or an anti-concept, as
vermin such as Noam Chomsky (socialist) and David Friedman
(capitalist) would use it.
And then there are those who like to use the word "libertarian" just
because they want their particular illegal pastime: recreational
drugs, gambling, etc. made legal anywhere, any time.
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/24/2012 5:29 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <be1bf173-a1dc-458e-b588-6feb9e1f7...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> On 5/24/2012 5:29 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
>
> > In article
> > Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> >> of course marx was a libertarian. he was for free trade, and wanted
> >> government to disappear.
>
> > Not a libertarian, an anarchist.
>
> > snicker
>
> That's right because Libertarians want government but only enough to
> protect the individuals RIGHTS.
>
Define "individual rights"; the method you arrived at that definition;
>
> >> of course marx was a libertarian. he was for free trade, and wanted
> >> government to disappear.
>
> > Not a libertarian, an anarchist.
>
> > snicker
>
> That's right because Libertarians want government but only enough to
> protect the individuals RIGHTS.
>
your argument that your method is valid.
Note that Marx denied a valid existence of individual rights, at least
in the same sense that any American would use that term:
Marx concludes in “On the Jewish Question":
<<Human emancipation will only be complete when the real, individual
man has absorbed into himself the abstract citizen; when as an
individual man, in his everyday life, in his work, and in his
relationships, be has become a species-being; and when he has
recognized and organized his own powers as social powers so that he
no longer separates this social power from himself as political
power.>>
Namely, . . . that the North American/French concept of individual
rights is something away from which man evolves: The rights-bearing
individual is an “isolated monad […] withdrawn behind his private
interests and whims and separated from the community.” [see:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/ ]
On the alleged distinction between the libertarian and the anarchist:
the "rights of the individual" for the anarchist (generally) will
*not* bend the collective to the individual, but rather the individual
will be bent to the collective, as in Marx's "human emanicipation,"
but the "rights of the individual" for the libertarian has no distinct
meaning at all and only a vague sort of definition as Marx refers to
it as the North American/French civic, political emancipation in
contrast to the German one (at the time.)
Until a "libertarian" can define how his concept of individual rights
is different than a Marxist on the one hand and the French/North
American constitutional-republican on the other hand, he has not
defined his political philosophy distinctly at all.
My point of view is that "libertarian" is mostly an meaningless word
that is either a floating abstraction, at best, or an anti-concept, as
vermin such as Noam Chomsky (socialist) and David Friedman
(capitalist) would use it.
And then there are those who like to use the word "libertarian" just
because they want their particular illegal pastime: recreational
drugs, gambling, etc. made legal anywhere, any time.
Message has been deleted
Charles Bell
May 31, 2012, 4:50:27 PM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 1:20 pm, China Blue Max <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <36e287cf-f486-4096-bc52-9fdfddc76...@t20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> As a species, perhaps as a genus, humans exist in a tension
> between herd species (like horses) and solitary species (like bears).
> Individuals create cultural innovations and communities implement those; there
> has to be constant balancing between the needs of the creators and the needs of
> the implementors.
>
Be that as it may -- it's not easy to dispute that generally -- is it
not true that all political philosophies divide into four: (1) hard
collectivist; (2) soft collectivist; (3) soft individualist; (4) hard
individualist, and that Marx's “isolated monad […] withdrawn behind
his private interests and whims and separated from the community" is a
hard-individualist archtype that is diffficult to point to as real --
that he uses as in a strawman argument -- but also Marx's (Rousseau-
ian) "species-being" is a hard-collectivist archtype that also does
not and cannot exist?
> > My point of view is that "libertarian" is mostly an meaningless word
> > that is either a floating abstraction, at best, or an anti-concept, as
> > vermin such as Noam Chomsky (socialist) and David Friedman
> > (capitalist) would use it.
>
> Libertarians would disappear in a puff of logic if they ever actually thought
> about their philosophy. They want to end compulsion and so disband peace
> officers, but they recognise we need independent judges to resolve conflicts. So
> how do courts collect revenues to stay in business and who enforces their
> decisions?
>
That was the gist of my overall point. There is Glenn Beck and many
others on the "right" out there claiming some affinity to
"libertarianism" as if it meant the sort of classical liberalism (soft
individualism) of the Founders when the word really applies outside of
North America to hard-collectivist anarchist, and Glenn Beck himself
is really a soft-collectivist theocrat communitarian, and I also
believe Romney is.
> In article <36e287cf-f486-4096-bc52-9fdfddc76...@t20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Note that Marx denied a valid existence of individual rights, at least
> > in the same sense that any American would use that term:
>
> Marx was an idiot.
>
> > Note that Marx denied a valid existence of individual rights, at least
> > in the same sense that any American would use that term:
>
> As a species, perhaps as a genus, humans exist in a tension
> between herd species (like horses) and solitary species (like bears).
> Individuals create cultural innovations and communities implement those; there
> has to be constant balancing between the needs of the creators and the needs of
> the implementors.
>
Be that as it may -- it's not easy to dispute that generally -- is it
not true that all political philosophies divide into four: (1) hard
collectivist; (2) soft collectivist; (3) soft individualist; (4) hard
individualist, and that Marx's “isolated monad […] withdrawn behind
his private interests and whims and separated from the community" is a
hard-individualist archtype that is diffficult to point to as real --
that he uses as in a strawman argument -- but also Marx's (Rousseau-
ian) "species-being" is a hard-collectivist archtype that also does
not and cannot exist?
> > My point of view is that "libertarian" is mostly an meaningless word
> > that is either a floating abstraction, at best, or an anti-concept, as
> > vermin such as Noam Chomsky (socialist) and David Friedman
> > (capitalist) would use it.
>
> about their philosophy. They want to end compulsion and so disband peace
> officers, but they recognise we need independent judges to resolve conflicts. So
> how do courts collect revenues to stay in business and who enforces their
> decisions?
>
That was the gist of my overall point. There is Glenn Beck and many
others on the "right" out there claiming some affinity to
"libertarianism" as if it meant the sort of classical liberalism (soft
individualism) of the Founders when the word really applies outside of
North America to hard-collectivist anarchist, and Glenn Beck himself
is really a soft-collectivist theocrat communitarian, and I also
believe Romney is.
0 new messages