Jefferson: Libertopianism Is A Disease
BretCahill
association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate
pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which
the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their
exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and
pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as
we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H.
Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28
HempForVictory
even though you wish to be a carbunkle on the butt of
society we still tolerate you.
BretCahill wrote in message
<20010511074313...@ng-mh1.aol.com>...
Daedra Morrighan
says...
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of
our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.
"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no
passion or principle but that of gain." --Thomas Jefferson to
Larkin Smith, 1809.
John Shafto
> bretc...@aol.com says...
> >
> >"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its
> >association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate
> >pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers
which
> >the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their
> >exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and
> >pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory,
as
> >we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H.
> >Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28
Ah, Jefferson, one of my favorite subjects. :)
> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
> moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
> government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of
> our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.
What did he mean by "moneyed corporations" Didi?
What was he talking about there? Have you read the
whole letter?
> "The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no
> passion or principle but that of gain." --Thomas Jefferson to
> Larkin Smith, 1809.
So? This would be *very* contrary to your reactionary,
nationalistic anti-trade position.
I love it when the left tries to use Jefferson to support
their lunacy. It always ends up the same.
Daedra Morrighan
>
>> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
>> moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
>> government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of
>> our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.
>
>What did he mean by "moneyed corporations" Didi?
>What was he talking about there? Have you read the
>whole letter?
Yes.
He spoke against the "aristocracy of moneyed corporations."
Capitalist 'libertarians' want that aristocracy to be unlimited in power and
scope.
>
>> "The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no
>> passion or principle but that of gain." --Thomas Jefferson to
>> Larkin Smith, 1809.
>
>So? This would be *very* contrary to your reactionary,
>nationalistic anti-trade position.
You obviously either know nothing about my "position," or you are deliberately
trying to mislead.
I am not a reactionary; I am for sweeping and revolutionary change.
Reactionaries are conservatives and/or traditionalists.
As for calling me "nationalistic" and "anti-trade," that sounds like a smear
typical of the tripe that comes out of the corporate media and their watchdog
groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Steven Eric Romer
member, and even ordered their educational videos until I received
some HORRIFIC, HATE-FILLED, HYPOCRITICAL crap about the "Militia"!
They were just picking an alternate group for hating, not removing the
very idea of hate which they say they are against! Geez, is there any
hope for humanity?
On 11 May 2001 13:47:42 -0700, Daedra Morrighan
Daedra Morrighan
>
>I agree with you about that "Southern Poverty Law Center". I was a
>member, and even ordered their educational videos until I received
>some HORRIFIC, HATE-FILLED, HYPOCRITICAL crap about the "Militia"!
>They were just picking an alternate group for hating, not removing the
>very idea of hate which they say they are against! Geez, is there any
>hope for humanity?
Morris Dees is a racist scumbag. Some black women who once worked for the SLPC
have complained about that.
The SLPC says that colored people should be "protected" by being disarmed.
That makes about as much sense as taking a lesson on candor from Bill Clinton.
Marcus S. Turner
Daedra Morrighan <vang...@antisocial.com> wrote in message
news:9dhj5...@drn.newsguy.com...
> As for calling me "nationalistic" and "anti-trade," that sounds like a
smear
> typical of the tripe that comes out of the corporate media and their
watchdog
> groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Well that's a first.
SPLC being named as a watchdog of the corporate media... Whatever will you
think of next?
Paul T. Ireland
<vang...@antisocial.com> wrote:
>In article <tfoe30l...@corp.supernews.com>, "John says...
>
>>
>>> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
>>> moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
>>> government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of
>>> our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.
>>
>>What did he mean by "moneyed corporations" Didi?
>>What was he talking about there? Have you read the
>>whole letter?
>
>Yes.
>
>He spoke against the "aristocracy of moneyed corporations."
>
>Capitalist 'libertarians' want that aristocracy to be unlimited in power and
>scope.
You obviously know less than nothing about Libertarianism.
Libertarians don't want corporations to be unchecked. Libertarians
are about personal responsibility even with corporations.
Libertarians believe that if corporations commit fraud, theft,
pollution, or produce a product that harms those who use it without
warning they should be punished harshly.
>
>>
>>> "The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no
>>> passion or principle but that of gain." --Thomas Jefferson to
>>> Larkin Smith, 1809.
>>
>>So? This would be *very* contrary to your reactionary,
>>nationalistic anti-trade position.
>
>You obviously either know nothing about my "position," or you are deliberately
>trying to mislead.
>
>I am not a reactionary; I am for sweeping and revolutionary change.
What type of sweeping and revolutionary change do you seek? An end to
capitalism? What would you prefer? My guess is Marxism. How sad.
>
>Reactionaries are conservatives and/or traditionalists.
>
>As for calling me "nationalistic" and "anti-trade," that sounds like a smear
>typical of the tripe that comes out of the corporate media and their watchdog
>groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It sounds exactly like the way you are portraying yourself. If it is
incorrect please describe how you are different from the discriptions.
Aren't you a nationalist? Aren't you anti-trade? If not where do you
stand exactly?
Paul T. Ireland
<vang...@antisocial.com> wrote:
>In article <3afc5eb5.28330896@news>, log...@home.com says...
>>
>>I agree with you about that "Southern Poverty Law Center". I was a
>>member, and even ordered their educational videos until I received
>>some HORRIFIC, HATE-FILLED, HYPOCRITICAL crap about the "Militia"!
>>They were just picking an alternate group for hating, not removing the
>>very idea of hate which they say they are against! Geez, is there any
>>hope for humanity?
>
>Morris Dees is a racist scumbag. Some black women who once worked for the SLPC
>have complained about that.
>
>The SLPC says that colored people should be "protected" by being disarmed.
>
>That makes about as much sense as taking a lesson on candor from Bill Clinton.
>
Of course I disagree with anyone being disarmed against their will.
But I would have pegged you for someone who was against the 2nd
amendment.
John Shafto
> "John says...
>
> >
> >> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
> >> moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
> >> government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of
> >> our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.
> >
> >What did he mean by "moneyed corporations" Didi?
> >What was he talking about there? Have you read the
> >whole letter?
>
> Yes.
>
> He spoke against the "aristocracy of moneyed corporations."
What were the "moneyed corporations", and how would they
create their aristocracy? Do you think we should go back to specie?
Hint: It has nothing to do with Monsanto Corporation,
or anyone else you nifty lefties love to hate.
Transcend
> On 11 May 2001 15:44:27 -0700, Daedra Morrighan
> <vang...@antisocial.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3afc5eb5.28330896@news>, log...@home.com says...
> >>
> >>I agree with you about that "Southern Poverty Law Center". I was a
> >>member, and even ordered their educational videos until I received
> >>some HORRIFIC, HATE-FILLED, HYPOCRITICAL crap about the "Militia"!
> >>They were just picking an alternate group for hating, not removing the
> >>very idea of hate which they say they are against! Geez, is there any
> >>hope for humanity?
> >
> >Morris Dees is a racist scumbag. Some black women who once worked for the
> >SLPC have complained about that.
> >
> >The SLPC says that colored people should be "protected" by being
> >disarmed.
> >
> >That makes about as much sense as taking a lesson on candor from Bill
> >Clinton.
> >
>
> Of course I disagree with anyone being disarmed against their will.
> But I would have pegged you for someone who was against the 2nd
> amendment.
Oh but in order for her to have her "glorious marxist revolution" she has
to have a well armed (at first) "oppressed" populace!
--
Natural selection won't matter soon, not anywhere as much as concious
selection. We will civilize and alter ourselves to suit our ideas of what
we can be. Within one more human lifespan, we will have changed ourselves
unrecognizably. -- Greg Bear
BretCahill
Message-id: <mdimft8lr0bpp2m73...@4ax.com> writes:
>On 11 May 2001 13:47:42 -0700, Daedra Morrighan
><vang...@antisocial.com> wrote:
>>In article <tfoe30l...@corp.supernews.com>, "John says...
>>>> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
>>>> moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
>>>> government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of
>>>> our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.
>>>What did he mean by "moneyed corporations" Didi?
>>>What was he talking about there? Have you read the
>>>whole letter?
>>Yes.
>>He spoke against the "aristocracy of moneyed corporations."
>>Capitalist 'libertarians' want that aristocracy to be unlimited in power and
>>scope.
>You obviously know less than nothing about Libertarianism.
True. Libertarianism isn't about wanting
bad things to happen. Libertarianism is
about wanting good things to happen
through governmental inaction.
>Libertarians don't want corporations to be unchecked.
Looneytarians just think some mystical
entity besides government will do the
checking.
>Libertarians
>are about personal responsibility even with corporations.
>Libertarians believe that if corporations commit fraud, theft,
>pollution, or produce a product that harms those who use it without
>warning they should be punished harshly.
What *should* happen and what *will*
happen w/o government are two different
things.
Bret Cahill
Libertopist: And when libertopia breaks out, everything is done by consent,
because everyone always consents to everything in libertopia.
Normal person: And what about those with no dough or other property?
Do they get to influence society?
Libertopist: If you ain't got no dough, you ain't gonna do jack in
libertopia except own your body.
Normal person: Why haven't you libertopists been successful in getting
libertopia to break out?
Libertopist: We ain't got no dough.
Normal person: He he. That's the best one I've heard all morning. Your
problem isn't getting TO libertopia. Your problem is getting OUT OF
libertopia.
Bret Cahill
Tony Veca
wrote:
[...deletions...]
>Yes.
>
>He spoke against the "aristocracy of moneyed corporations."
>
>Capitalist 'libertarians' want that aristocracy to be unlimited in power and
>scope.
[...deletion...]
If that was the case, then why haven't the corporations joined the
Libertarian cause? Think about it for a moment, what is it about
Libertarian principles, that look great for the corporations upon cursory
examination, but when you start looking deeper, make them want nothing to
do with us.
The answer is simple, since the primary principle of libertarianism is
"non-initiation of force" it means that they can't use government
regulation to stifle competition from smaller, faster and smarter
companies. It mean that they (the corporations) would be under constant
attack (figuratively speaking) by smaller companies wanting to take the big
guys down. The fact that under libertarian philosophy they would be held
accountable for any harm they do to the environment (Exxon would have been
in a real world of hurt financially if they had been forced to pay for the
clean up of St. Charles Bay after the Exxon Valdez fiasco by themselves.
Not to mention the fact that they would loose all of those wonderful
government corporate subsidies.
--
==============================================================
__ __ Tony Veca jav...@earthlink.net
/'( _ )'\ =============================================
/ . \/^\/ . \ "The Universe is already mad, anything
/ _)_'-'_(_ \ else would be redundant"
/.-' ).( '-.\ -- Ambassador Londo Molari
/' /\_/\ '\ [Babylon 5]
"-V-"
===============================================================
Tony Veca
wrote:
[...deletion...]
>You obviously know less than nothing about Libertarianism.
>Libertarians don't want corporations to be unchecked. Libertarians
>are about personal responsibility even with corporations.
>Libertarians believe that if corporations commit fraud, theft,
>pollution, or produce a product that harms those who use it without
>warning they should be punished harshly.
Not to put to fine a point on it, it isn't so much about punishment, but
about "reparations" being made to the victims of fraud, theft, pollution,
or produce a product that harms those who use it without warning.
Tony Veca
wrote:
>I agree with you about that "Southern Poverty Law Center". I was a
>member, and even ordered their educational videos until I received
>some HORRIFIC, HATE-FILLED, HYPOCRITICAL crap about the "Militia"!
>They were just picking an alternate group for hating, not removing the
>very idea of hate which they say they are against! Geez, is there any
>hope for humanity?
Yes, there is. We are called Libertarians.
Daedra Morrighan
>
>On 11 May 2001 13:47:42 -0700, Daedra Morrighan <vang...@antisocial.com>
>wrote:
>
>[...deletions...]
>
>>Yes.
>>
>>He spoke against the "aristocracy of moneyed corporations."
>>
>>Capitalist 'libertarians' want that aristocracy to be unlimited in power and
>>scope.
>
>[...deletion...]
>
>If that was the case, then why haven't the corporations joined the
>Libertarian cause?
The answer is in 'Why the Libertarian Party is Insignificant,' another post of
mine on this NG.
The libertarian right proposes that the state is a limit to corporate freedom
(read: power), and seeks to sharply curtail the state.
The corporate elite, on the other hand, has a better, tried and true strategy:
it claims the state as its own.
Indeed, in libertopia, the corporate aristocracy would quickly create a
superstate to fill in the void and carry out a broad range of functions. Since
such a superstate already exists, and fulfills corporate needs effeciently,
libertarian proposals tend to be laughed off by capitalists.
Constantinople
<vang...@antisocial.com> wrote:
>In article <uc9sftophrfofbjd7...@4ax.com>, Tony says...
>>
>>On 11 May 2001 13:47:42 -0700, Daedra Morrighan <vang...@antisocial.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[...deletions...]
>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>He spoke against the "aristocracy of moneyed corporations."
>>>
>>>Capitalist 'libertarians' want that aristocracy to be unlimited in power and
>>>scope.
>>
>>[...deletion...]
>>
>>If that was the case, then why haven't the corporations joined the
>>Libertarian cause?
>
>The answer is in 'Why the Libertarian Party is Insignificant,' another post of
>mine on this NG.
>
>The libertarian right proposes that the state is a limit to corporate freedom
>(read: power), and seeks to sharply curtail the state.
You're lying about what libertarians propose, even going so far as to
delete the inconvenient passage of the post you're replying to. Your
statement that "Capitalist 'libertarians' want that aristocracy to be
unlimited in power and scope" is false and Tony showed why, but you
snipped his evidence and repeated your claim. Given that you've
displayed your dishonesty so boldly, why should anyone listen to you
any more?
Of course, if I plonked every fool and liar on Usenet then I might
have to abandon Usenet discussion entirely. But that might not be such
a bad idea.
BretCahill
Message-id: <9dlg2...@drn.newsguy.com> writes:
. . .
>Indeed, in libertopia,
You mean, as Republicans adopt
libertopic principles . . .
In real life, libertopia never breaks out.
> the corporate aristocracy would quickly create a
>superstate to fill in the void and carry out a broad range of functions.
You are wrong there. Only nice things
happen in libertopia.
In real life, however, you never escape the
fact there will be government, if only by
that one bad guy statist.
>Since
>such a superstate already exists, and fulfills corporate needs effeciently,
>libertarian proposals tend to be laughed off by capitalists.
Libertopic theory always rests on the
simple minded principle that, since money
is good, all monied interests are good.
Therefore, why do you need government?
I don't think libertopic principles are always
laughed at. What about Reagan? A lot
of what the Gipper said was libertopic.
Cut taxes "starve" government and
everything gets better.
But it is true those in power think most
libertopists are as dumb as a stick.
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
John Shafto
>
> The libertarian right proposes that the state is a limit to corporate
freedom
> (read: power), and seeks to sharply curtail the state.
The state limits HUMAN freedom (sometimes correctly),
whether those humans happen to be somehow involved
in corporations or not. That is the govt's job.
> The corporate elite, on the other hand, has a better, tried and true
strategy:
> it claims the state as its own.
>
> Indeed, in libertopia, the corporate aristocracy would quickly create a
> superstate to fill in the void and carry out a broad range of functions.
Can you elaborate on this "broad range of functions" you
speak of?
> Since such a superstate already exists,
Can you explain how this phantom corporate superstate exists,
how does it function? We do have a federal superstate,
but it is the one we can plainly see.
> and fulfills corporate needs effeciently,
> libertarian proposals tend to be laughed off by capitalists.
Capitalists like Alan Greenspan?
--
Remember, Hitler demonized the "Rich Jews" who were
"running everything". Take out the word "Jews", and
today we have the same politics, different time.
Plus ça change
Plus c'est la même chose
Daedra Morrighan
says...
>I don't think libertopic principles are always
>laughed at. What about Reagan? A lot
>of what the Gipper said was libertopic.
>Cut taxes "starve" government and
>everything gets better.
Reagan gave lip service to libertopianism. His economy was a war economy, not a
libertopic economy. His foreign policy was imperialist and militarist, not
libertopic.
And while he was supposedly "starving government" he was stuffing the mouth of
the military-industrial complex.
>
>But it is true those in power think most
>libertopists are as dumb as a stick.
It all boils down to: Which political strategy is most effective for maximizing
the power and prestige of the capitalist elite? Libertopists will never achieve
power because those already in power have a far better strategy than what
libertopists have to offer.
Transcend
>
> Of course, if I plonked every fool and liar on Usenet then I might
> have to abandon Usenet discussion entirely. But that might not be such
> a bad idea.
Remember, this is the same person that in another thread is advocating
Fascism.
Tony Veca
wrote:
>The answer is in 'Why the Libertarian Party is Insignificant,' another post of
>mine on this NG.
No that is not an answer, and the Libertarian Party is not Insignificant.
We are already influencing the Republican Moderates and some of the
Democrats in congress.
>
>The libertarian right proposes that the state is a limit to corporate freedom
>(read: power), and seeks to sharply curtail the state.
Nice of you to cut out the reason I said the corporations wouldn't join the
Libertarians, it is the one that blows every one of your arguments out of
the water.
>
>The corporate elite, on the other hand, has a better, tried and true strategy:
>it claims the state as its own.
I think that you have been reading what's her name who wrote
'Cyberselfish'. She had similar views of Libertarians.
>
>Indeed, in libertopia, the corporate aristocracy would quickly create a
>superstate to fill in the void and carry out a broad range of functions.
I would love to know how they could do such a thing, when there would be
nothing to stop smaller companies or even individuals from filling those
same funtions at a lower price.
>Since
>such a superstate already exists, and fulfills corporate needs effeciently,
>libertarian proposals tend to be laughed off by capitalists.
Considering the fact that every Libertarian is a Capitalist, but not every
Capitalist is a Libertarian. This remark show a sever lack of
understanding about Libertarian principles.
Libertarians do not preach a message of cheer and hope. Our message is one
of defiance--one of unabashed assumption of personal responsibility that
the rights of the individual requires, no, make that, demands of us. We
rarely put it over. A few of us accept the bitter with the sweet stand up,
drink it and understand it. Millions of others treat liberty as some
'prize' without a contest--a 'conversion' or ignore it entirely. No matter
what we say, they insist on treating government as something outside of
themselves. Something that will take care of every indolent moron and
comfort and support them. The idea that the effort to bring liberty into
their life has to be their own, and that all of the trouble they are in is
of their own doing is one they can't or won't entertain.
What makes Libertarians different is the fact that we know goodness is not
enough, goodness is never enough. A hard, cold pragmatic wisdom is
required, too, for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom
invariably accomplishes evil.
classicliberal2
<constan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> If that was the case, then why haven't the
>>> corporations joined the Libertarian cause?
>>
>> The answer is in 'Why the Libertarian Party
>> is Insignificant,' another post of mine on this
>> NG.
>>
>> The libertarian right proposes that the state is
>> a limit to corporate freedom (read: power), and
>> seeks to sharply curtail the state.
>
> You're lying about what libertarians propose, even
> going so far as to delete the inconvenient passage
> of the post you're replying to. Your statement that
> "Capitalist 'libertarians' want that aristocracy to be
> unlimited in power and scope" is false and Tony
> showed why, but you snipped his evidence and
> repeated your claim. Given that you've displayed
> your dishonesty so boldly, why should anyone listen
> to you any more?
___
You're insane! What was Tony's "evidence" that
was snipped?
"The answer is simple, since the primary principle
of libertarianism is 'non-initiation of force' it means
that they can't use government regulation to stifle
competition from smaller, faster and smarter
companies. It mean that they (the corporations)
would be under constant attack (figuratively
speaking) by smaller companies wanting to take
the big guys down. The fact that under libertarian
philosophy they would be held accountable for
any harm they do to the environment (Exxon
would have been in a real world of hurt financially
if they had been forced to pay for the clean up of
St. Charles Bay after the Exxon Valdez fiasco by
themselves. Not to mention the fact that they
would loose all of those wonderful government
corporate subsidies."
What do Libertarians offer to stop the subsidies,
the protectionism, etc.? Words! Nothing but
words, unworthy of the wind required to give
voice to them. "The Libertarian philosophy."
Trim down the government, and suddenly its
corporate masters will stop trying to use it for
their own benefit. They'll have no other
choice--our legislators adhere to the
"Libertarian philosophy." And they'll to do this
out of the goodness of their hearts. Politicians
have such golden ones, don't they?. Or perhaps
they're to be sent to reeducation camps to be
properly reprogrammed--that will certainly be
necessary for the rest of the population, which
will be unwilling to accept the idea that they
are not to have any control of their
government if they wish to use it for things
that conflict with the Libertarians' absolutist
dogma. Those who don't get with the
program--who do things like organize to get
child labor laws passed or workplace safety
regulations enacted--will have to be shot
down by this benevolent Libertarian state if
they become to vehement about it, and
Libertarian dogma will portray them as the
would-be oppressors and their murders as
self-defense! The words of Libertarians
against corporate oligarchy mean nothing.
Concretely, anyone who proposes cutting
off the campaign contributions, the paid
junkets, the gifts to legislators that actually
buy all that wonderful state intervention on
behalf of corporate America runs into a
passle of Libertarians screaming about the
fact that you're cutting off their ability to buy
legislators. The Libertarian idea is that it's
alright to buy them, as long as they adhere
to the "Libertarian philosophy" and don't give
anything in return--hardly a reasonable
expectation.
BretCahill
Message-id: <9dmig...@drn.newsguy.com> writes:
>In article <20010513121146...@ng-xb1.aol.com>, bretc...@aol.com
>says...
. . .
>>But it is true those in power think most
>>libertopists are as dumb as a stick.
>It all boils down to: Which political strategy is most effective for
>maximizing
>the power and prestige of the capitalist elite? Libertopists will never
>achieve
>power because those already in power have a far better strategy than what
>libertopists have to offer.
Libertopists would be too dizzy to offer
anything even if they wanted, which they
don't.
I only need to ask for an example of free
speech with the public that isn't 100%
dependent on public funding and they go
bonkers.
They are SURE freedom somehow exists
independently of elective government.
Bret Cahill
"On the other hand, small parties are
generally without political faith. As they
are not elevated and sustained by lofty
purposes, the selfishness of their
character is openly displayed in all their
actions. They glow with factitious zeal;
their language is violent, but their progress
is timid and uncertain. The means they
employ are as disreputable as the aim
sought. That is why, when a time of calm
succeeds a great revolution, great men
seem to disappear suddenly and minds
withdraw into themselves."
Great parties convulse society; small
ones agitate it; the former rend and the
latter corrupt it; the first may sometimes
save it by overthrowing it, but the second
always create unprofitable trouble.
Alexis DeTocqueville
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Tony Veca
(classicliberal2) wrote:
[...deletia..]
>What do Libertarians offer to stop the subsidies,
>the protectionism, etc.? Words! Nothing but
>words,
Because that is all we can use, our philosphy keeps us from "initiating
force" to affect social or political change.
>unworthy of the wind required to give
>voice to them. "The Libertarian philosophy."
>Trim down the government, and suddenly its
>corporate masters will stop trying to use it for
>their own benefit. They'll have no other
>choice--our legislators adhere to the
>"Libertarian philosophy." And they'll to do this
>out of the goodness of their hearts. Politicians
>have such golden ones, don't they?.
Actually no we don't expect them to do this out of the goodness of their
hearts, or because it is the right thing to do. We expect them to do the
right thing because if they don't they will be held accountable for
screwing up. Wouldn't that be a nice change, to see legislators held
accountable for the laws they pass and the harm they cause.
>Or perhaps
>they're to be sent to reeducation camps to be
>properly reprogrammed--that will certainly be
>necessary for the rest of the population, which
>will be unwilling to accept the idea that they
>are not to have any control of their
>government if they wish to use it for things
>that conflict with the Libertarians' absolutist
>dogma. Those who don't get with the
>program--who do things like organize to get
>child labor laws passed or workplace safety
>regulations enacted--will have to be shot
>down by this benevolent Libertarian state if
>they become to vehement about it, and
>Libertarian dogma will portray them as the
>would-be oppressors and their murders as
>self-defense!
What part of "No one has the right to initiate force to affect social or
political change." don't you understand? This is the core principle of
Libertarianism.
>The words of Libertarians
>against corporate oligarchy mean nothing.
>Concretely, anyone who proposes cutting
>off the campaign contributions, the paid
>junkets, the gifts to legislators that actually
>buy all that wonderful state intervention on
>behalf of corporate America runs into a
>passle of Libertarians screaming about the
>fact that you're cutting off their ability to buy
>legislators. >The Libertarian idea is that it's
>alright to buy them, as long as they adhere
>to the "Libertarian philosophy" and don't give
>anything in return--hardly a reasonable
>expectation.
You know this would be really funny if it wasn't such a sick assumption. A
true libertarian legislator can't be bought. Libertarians have been
fighting the quid pro quo politics for a long time. The principles that we
live by are to important to play the "I scratch your back, you scratch
mine" game.
Daedra Morrighan
>
>On 11 May 2001 13:47:42 -0700, Daedra Morrighan
><vang...@antisocial.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <tfoe30l...@corp.supernews.com>, "John says...
>>
>>>
>>>> "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
>>>> moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
>>>> government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of
>>>> our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.
>>>
>>>What did he mean by "moneyed corporations" Didi?
>>>What was he talking about there? Have you read the
>>>whole letter?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>He spoke against the "aristocracy of moneyed corporations."
>>
>>Capitalist 'libertarians' want that aristocracy to be unlimited in power and
>>scope.
>
>You obviously know less than nothing about Libertarianism.
Wrong. I just correctly realize that capitalist libertoonianism ain't gonna
happen, and if it did happen, it would be a disaster.
>Libertarians don't want corporations to be unchecked. Libertarians
>are about personal responsibility even with corporations.
>Libertarians believe that if corporations commit fraud, theft,
>pollution, or produce a product that harms those who use it without
>warning they should be punished harshly.
See the thread 'Why the Libertarian Party is Insignificant' for my answer to
this.
>>
>>I am not a reactionary; I am for sweeping and revolutionary change.
>
>What type of sweeping and revolutionary change do you seek? An end to
>capitalism? What would you prefer? My guess is Marxism. How sad.
The system I advocate replacing capitalism with is libertarian socialism. I
advocate bringing this system to fruition through a democratic revolution,
culminating in broad and direct democracy. I do not totally rule out the use of
force. For example, there is a good case to be made for the use of force against
corporations that ruthlessly assault the environment, endangering life itself.
Still, I vastly prefer peaceful revolution over the use of violence. I am of the
view that socialism cannot be very effective unless coupled with liberty.
Especially crucial are freedom of association and freedom of expression. The
right to peacefully dissent -- no matter how abhorrent the majority may find the
dissenter -- must be protected. Unlike most liberals, who are much closer to the
political center than I am (I am far to the left of, say, Hillary Clinton), I
believe the people should be armed. The concept that poor people, colored
people, and women would be "better off" if forcibly disarmed would be laughable
if not so dangerous. In libertarian socialism, the workers themselves, rather
than a corporate-bureaucratic elite, would control the means of production and
reap the benefits of their labor. Bourgeois property rights and claims would be
democratically overturned. People would work less, but because they would
benefit directly from their own labor, they would work brilliantly. In short,
libertarian socialism will create a decentralized, freely-associated, democratic
socialist society.
>
>>
>>Reactionaries are conservatives and/or traditionalists.
>>
>>As for calling me "nationalistic" and "anti-trade," that sounds like a smear
>>typical of the tripe that comes out of the corporate media and their watchdog
>>groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center.
>
>It sounds exactly like the way you are portraying yourself. If it is
>incorrect please describe how you are different from the discriptions.
>Aren't you a nationalist? Aren't you anti-trade? If not where do you
>stand exactly?
You guess above that I advocate "Marxism," but here you accuse me of being a
"nationalist." Seriously, do you know anything about either Marxism or
nationalism?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to
put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence."
-Mohandas K. Gandhi
Daedra Morrighan
>
>On 11 May 2001 15:44:27 -0700, Daedra Morrighan
><vang...@antisocial.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3afc5eb5.28330896@news>, log...@home.com says...
>>>
>>>I agree with you about that "Southern Poverty Law Center". I was a
>>>member, and even ordered their educational videos until I received
>>>some HORRIFIC, HATE-FILLED, HYPOCRITICAL crap about the "Militia"!
>>>They were just picking an alternate group for hating, not removing the
>>>very idea of hate which they say they are against! Geez, is there any
>>>hope for humanity?
>>
>>Morris Dees is a racist scumbag. Some black women who once worked for the SLPC
>>have complained about that.
>>
>>The SLPC says that colored people should be "protected" by being disarmed.
>>
>>That makes about as much sense as taking a lesson on candor from Bill Clinton.
>>
>
>Of course I disagree with anyone being disarmed against their will.
Good.
>But I would have pegged you for someone who was against the 2nd
>amendment.
Why?
BretCahill
Message-id: <9ds94...@drn.newsguy.com> writes:
>In article <knimftcaast6i0u0o...@4ax.com>, Paul says...
. . .
>>But I would have pegged you for someone who was against the 2nd
>>amendment.
>Why?
Because you took this test:
AMENDMENT II - from the Bill of Rights:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed.
Please answer these questions:
Multiple Choice Section:
1. Ex. convicted felons cannot invoke which of the following const.
rights
listed in the first 10 amends.?
a. all
b. none
c. freedom of speech
d. the right to a speedy trial
e. the right to keep and bear arms alone
is lost
f. the right to cruel and unusual
punishment
g. the right to fantacize that you're
a hero in an excitin' Hollywood movie.
2. The Bill of Rights was intended as a
check against
a. state power
b. judicial power
c. federal power
d. women's rights
e. Hollywood home invaders
3. How many times have the feds been
checked by individualist ownership of
arms on U. S. soil?
a. four score and 7
b. 38
c. a month of Sundays
d. twice
e. once
f. never
g. individualist ownership of guns
continuously checks government
by keeping the feds quaking in their
boots because of "violence telepathy."
The federal government has
shrunk in size and power and no
longer violates rights because the
number of guns has increased
h. not important because anything can
happen in an excitin' Hollywood movie.
4. A "well regulated" militia means
a. being efficient in shooting an ethnic
home invader right between the eyes
just like in an excitin' Hollywood
movie
b. the militia could be regulated but any
individualist had a right to shoot
any fed with any gun any way he
pleases.
c. the militia would be regulated by a
democratic elective process
d. the militia was to be regulated by
the guy with the most money
e. the militia was to be regulated by
the guy with semi auto.
5. The constitution clearly explains how
future generations were to decide
which arms are constitutional under
the 2nd amend. and which aren't.
This was to be determined by
a. a dual with muskets
b. an unemployed Hollywood actor
c. a Harvard law professor
d. the Supreme Court by hearing each
and every hardware case thereby
keeping all 800,000 lawyers busy.
e. popular vote
f. the constitution never explains this
because basic rights do not hinge on
arbitrary definitions of hardware. No
restrictions are placed on arms in
the 2nd amend.
g. a Usenet flame war
h. you'd know if you watched enough
excitin' Hollywood movies.
6. According to the _Federalist_ who
has "power of the sword?"
a. Tim McVeigh
b. the legislative branch
c. any individualist
d. the people
e. the executive branch
f. anyone with a sword who watched
a lot of excitin' Hollywood movies.
g. the Supreme Court when it allows
McVeigh to be executed
7. Private gun ownership rates before
the Civil War were about
a. 95%
b. 50%
c. 25%
d. 10%
e. 5%
f. what you'ld expect from watching
excitin' Hollywood movies.
g. it has never been determined
h. not important because precivil war
Americans were slaveowners and
not the intelligent enlightened
freedom loving political activists of
today's NRA.
8. Private gun ownership rates in
antibellum South were higher than the
North because
a. slaves would often try to escape
b. slavery induced a love of warfare
c. Southerners had more money and
time to spend on frivolous extras
d. we enjoy shooting at old cars
e. we watch more excitin' Hollywood
movies.
9. The chief beneficiary of the gun
debate is:
a. the rich oligarchy which will do
anything to keep the public debate
off of populist economic issues.
b gun owners
c. gun control folk
d. criminals
e. trial lawyers
f. shooting victims
g. politicians
h. excitin' Hollywood movie makers
i. a, e & g
j. FBI
10. "[T]he people" in the 2nd amendment
actually means.
a. each and every individualist
b. the people
True/False Section:
11. "[P]eople" is plural for "person". (T/F)
12. Plural is the same as singular.
(T/F)
13. An element of a set has all the
qualities, i. e. divisibility, etc., of the
set to which is belongs. (T/F)
14. The framers believed liberty was
both collective and individual in nature.
(T/F)
15. The founders made a distinction
between rights for the people and
rights for the individual. (T/F)
16. NRA lawyers often invoke the 2nd
amendment in court as well as to
raise money. (T/F)
17. You could make better use of your
time politically if you didn't spend so
much time oiling your gun and
fantacizing about a glorious gun
battle with bad guys just like in an
excitin' Hollywood movie. (T/F)
Essay question
18. How did the early Americans combat
the effects of individualism?
classicliberal2
wrote:
>>What do Libertarians offer to stop the subsidies,
>>the protectionism, etc.? Words! Nothing but
>>words, unworthy of the wind required to give
>>voice to them. "The Libertarian philosophy."
>>Trim down the government, and suddenly its
>>corporate masters will stop trying to use it for
>>their own benefit. They'll have no other
>>choice--our legislators adhere to the
>>"Libertarian philosophy." And they'll to do this
>>out of the goodness of their hearts. Politicians
>>have such golden ones, don't they?.
>
> Actually no we don't expect them to do this
> out of the goodness of their hearts, or
> because it is the right thing to do. We
> expect them to do the right thing because
> if they don't they will be held accountable
> for screwing up. Wouldn't that be a nice
> change, to see legislators held
> accountable for the laws they pass and
> the harm they cause.
___
Except saying they'll be "held accountable" is
nothing but more words. There's no holding
them accountable for anything in Libertopia,
where the right of the corporate oligarchy to
commit bribery is considered God-given. Sure,
you can work against them on the campaign
trail, but they'll kick your ass there every time,
because they have all the money on their
side. They either subscribe to Libertarian
absolutism out of the goodness of their hearts,
or they won't act in a Libertarian fashion as
legislators. Herein lies an important distinction
between the words of Libertarians and their
real-world application. Politicians are NEVER
to be trusted in this fashion, and only a fool
argues otherwise.
___
>> Or perhaps
>> they're to be sent to reeducation camps to be
>> properly reprogrammed--that will certainly be
>> necessary for the rest of the population, which
>> will be unwilling to accept the idea that they
>> are not to have any control of their
>> government if they wish to use it for things
>> that conflict with the Libertarians' absolutist
>> dogma. Those who don't get with the
>> program--who do things like organize to get
>> child labor laws passed or workplace safety
>> regulations enacted--will have to be shot
>> down by this benevolent Libertarian state if
>> they become to vehement about it, and
>> Libertarian dogma will portray them as the
>> would-be oppressors and their murders as
>> self-defense!
>
> What part of "No one has the right to initiate
> force to affect social or political change." don't
> you understand? This is the core principle of
> Libertarianism.
___
I understand it quite well. The uppity population
isn't accepting the absolutist notions of
Libertarians--they thought they were rid of kings
and princes. They are demanding that shackles
be put on corporate power. Minimum wage laws.
Child labor laws. Workplace safety laws.
Environmental laws. This is simply unacceptable
aggression on their part (but not, of course, on
the part of the businesses that offered them no
pay, sent their children to the factories, put them
in unsafe workplaces, and poisoned their
environment). At that point, they can either be
allowed some influence over the Libertopian
State--at which point it immediately ceases to be
a Libertopian State--or they will have to be
brought into line using any means necessary.
There's little doubt which course would be
chosen, or upon what grounds it would be
justified (The rest of the "non-initiation of force"
equation is, of course, self-defense).
___
>> The words of Libertarians
>> against corporate oligarchy mean nothing.
>> Concretely, anyone who proposes cutting
>> off the campaign contributions, the paid
>> junkets, the gifts to legislators that actually
>> buy all that wonderful state intervention on
>> behalf of corporate America runs into a
>> passle of Libertarians screaming about the
>> fact that you're cutting off their ability to buy
>> legislators. >The Libertarian idea is that it's
>> alright to buy them, as long as they adhere
>> to the "Libertarian philosophy" and don't give
>> anything in return--hardly a reasonable
>> expectation.
>
> You know this would be really funny if it wasn't
> such a sick assumption.
___
It's a safe assumption, and not to be laughed at.
It is rooted in the nature of government itself and
to pretend it can ever be removed is delusional.
___
> A true libertarian legislator can't be bought.
> Libertarians have been fighting the quid pro
> quo politics for a long time. The principles that
> we live by are to important to play the "I
> scratch your back, you scratch mine" game.
___
The argument of every utopian doctrine since
the world began. If people all just thought the
same way I do, we could run the world the way
I'd like it run. That happens to be true, but to
get to that point you either have to use brute
force (the Bolshevik solution--didn't work) or
you have to convince people you are correct,
in which case you have to be reasonable.
There's no chance of ever seeing any success
at the latter if you are arguing absolutist notions.
They are, by definition, unreasonable.
Something is the way it is just because it is the
way it is. No reasoning. No historical precedent.
No test of utility. It just is, and physical evil must
be allowed to happen to avoid offending these
intangible notions. This neither does, nor will it
ever, fly. We've moved beyond kings and
princes, and despite Libertarian claims to the
contrary, this was a GOOD thing.
Daedra Morrighan
says...
>
>Daedra Morrighan <vang...@antisocial.com> in
>Message-id: <9ds94...@drn.newsguy.com> writes:
>
>>In article <knimftcaast6i0u0o...@4ax.com>, Paul says...
>
>. . .
>
>>>But I would have pegged you for someone who was against the 2nd
>>>amendment.
>
>>Why?
>
>Because you took this test:
The Consitution is outdated, Bret. It was written in a radically different time.
Back when the Constitution was written, most people believed that diseases could
be "bled out," women, blacks and many others couldn't vote, and people lived
shorter, strikingly different lifestyles, etc.
I don't support private gun ownership because some interpretation of the Second
Amendment tells me to. I support it because I'm for power to the people, not
just to the army, pigs and the gummit. I do agree with some of your critique of
libertopianism, but not with your support for gun control.
Tony Veca
What is it about the concept of political activists who actually believe
and live by a code of conduct and principles which are above any moral or
ethical reproach that bothers you so much?
If you think our talking doesn't have an effect, guess again. Now I know
the Democrats and other left collectivists don't take us seriously (a
tactical error every Libertarian loves to takes advantage of) but the
Republicans do see us a threat, but their way of dealing with it is to take
our ideas and remake them in thier image.
John Shafto
>
> You guess above that I advocate "Marxism," but here you accuse me of being
a
> "nationalist." Seriously, do you know anything about either Marxism or
> nationalism?
I know Nationalism and Marxism work together well in China,
and although Marxism has collapsed in Russia, I hear they are
still quite nationalistic there (for the old USSR).
--
classicliberal2
wrote:
> classicliberal2
>
> What is it about the concept of political activists
> who actually believe and live by a code of
> conduct and principles which are above any
> moral or ethical reproach that bothers you so
> much?
___
The fanaticism implicit in such a question
should serve as a sufficient answer. It isn't
a strength never to doubt oneself, Tony.
___
> If you think our talking doesn't have an
> effect, guess again. Now I know the
> Democrats and other left collectivists
> don't take us seriously (a tactical error
> every Libertarian loves to takes advantage
> of) but the Republicans do see us a threat,
> but their way of dealing with it is to take
> our ideas and remake them in thier image.
___
You have the chronology wrong, there. The
Libertarians' "ideas" so often resemble those
of the Republican party because the
Libertarians, in fact, came from the
Republican party. The Republicans aren't
stealing ideas--they are simply repeating what
has always passed for ideas among
Republicans.
Daedra Morrighan
>
>"Daedra Morrighan" wrote
>>
>
>> You guess above that I advocate "Marxism," but here you accuse me of being
>a
>> "nationalist." Seriously, do you know anything about either Marxism or
>> nationalism?
>
>I know Nationalism and Marxism work together well in China,
China isn't "Marxist." It's more of a state-capitalist/fascist economy. They've
been communist in name only for a good while.
>and although Marxism has collapsed in Russia, I hear they are
>still quite nationalistic there (for the old USSR).
National Bolshevism isn't Marxism. Marxism is anti-nationalist; those forms of
socialism which allow for nationalism are not Marxist. They may be somewhat
influenced by Marxism, however.
BretCahill
Message-id: <9dsts...@drn.newsguy.com> writes:
>In article <20010515225906...@ng-fx1.aol.com>, bretc...@aol.com
>says...
>>Daedra Morrighan <vang...@antisocial.com> in
>>Message-id: <9ds94...@drn.newsguy.com> writes:
>>>In article <knimftcaast6i0u0o...@4ax.com>, Paul says...
. . .
>>>>But I would have pegged you for someone who was against the 2nd
>>>>amendment.
>>>Why?
. . .
> I do agree with some of your critique
>of
>libertopianism, but not with your support for gun control.
What makes you think I'm for more gun
control?
I'm against ignorance of rights and the 2nd
Amend. has nothing to do with what the
gun wackos are suggesting.
Just because it is constitutional to
regulate guns doesn't mean every gun
regulation is good.
BretCahill
Message-id: <9dsts...@drn.newsguy.com> writes:
. . .
>The Consitution is outdated, Bret. It was written in a radically different
>time.
Free speech is no longer correlative with
the sovereignty of the people?
>Back when the Constitution was written, most people believed that diseases
>could
>be "bled out,"
Science, especially medical science, is
always changing. They are always flip
flopping today.
Basic logic and human nature, however,
don't change over time, therefore political
classics mean as much today as ever.
It's like math. Has the Pythagorean
Theorem changed?
> women, blacks and many others couldn't vote,
That's the way it is today in Florida . . .
BretCahill
Message-id: <9dt79...@drn.newsguy.com> writes:
. . .
> They may be somewhat
>influenced by Marxism, however.
The old Russian joke:
There are only 5 communists in the USSR
and they are all in prison.
John Shafto
>
> You have the chronology wrong, there. The
> Libertarians' "ideas" so often resemble those
> of the Republican party because the
> Libertarians, in fact, came from the
> Republican party. The Republicans aren't
> stealing ideas--they are simply repeating what
> has always passed for ideas among
> Republicans.
In 1971 Ayn Rand called the Libertarians
"right-wing hippies", because they evolved
out of the 1960's counter culture, but rejected
Marxism.
If rejecting Marxism makes a person Republican,
then count me in. Marxism has lead to more death
and human misery than any other political movement
in human history. Hitler and Mussolini were both
students of Marxism, as was Mao, Castro, ad nauseum.
Daedra Morrighan
says...
>
>Daedra Morrighan <vang...@antisocial.com> in
>Message-id: <9dsts...@drn.newsguy.com> writes:
>
>. . .
>
>>The Consitution is outdated, Bret. It was written in a radically different
>>time.
>
>Free speech is no longer correlative with
>the sovereignty of the people?
Free speech is very important, but not merely because some interpretation of
some amendment tells me so.
>
>>Back when the Constitution was written, most people believed that diseases
>>could
>>be "bled out,"
>
>Science, especially medical science, is
>always changing. They are always flip
>flopping today.
>
>Basic logic and human nature, however,
>don't change over time, therefore political
>classics mean as much today as ever.
True to an extent. There are some good ideas that can be extracted out of just
about anything. That doesn't mean we should go back to 1776, though.
I disagree about "human nature" in a sense: people do change and their "nature"
is not as fixed as you may think.
>
>It's like math.
Superficially, perhaps.
>
>> women, blacks and many others couldn't vote,
>
>That's the way it is today in Florida . . .
True.
Another good example of how the constitution is outdated is the Electoral
College. Is that really needed today? What purpose does it serve? The whole
reason it was created was to hold back progress. The reactionaries are the ones
who came up with the whole idea; the truly revolutionary were opposed to an
electoral college from the beginning.
classicliberal2
<jo...@WAMBAMNOSPAMMAN.mato.com> wrote:
>> You have the chronology wrong, there. The
>> Libertarians' "ideas" so often resemble those
>> of the Republican party because the
>> Libertarians, in fact, came from the
>> Republican party. The Republicans aren't
>> stealing ideas--they are simply repeating what
>> has always passed for ideas among
>> Republicans.
>
>In 1971 Ayn Rand called the Libertarians
>"right-wing hippies", because they evolved
>out of the 1960's counter culture, but rejected
>Marxism.
___
Then she was about as right about that as she
was about anything else. The Libertarians split
from the Republicans after 1964. They were
conservatives who left the party when it adopted
the "Southern Strategy" and absorbed the
religious right.
___
>If rejecting Marxism makes a person
>Republican, then count me in. Marxism
>has lead to more death and human misery
>than any other political movement in human
>history. Hitler and Mussolini were both
>students of Marxism, as was Mao, Castro,
>ad nauseum.
____
Benito Mussolini on socialism:
"Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian
Socialism, the materialist conception of history
of human civilization can be explained simply
through the conflict of interests among the
various social groups and by the change and
development in the means and instruments of
production.... And if the economic conception
of history be denied, according to which theory
men are no more than puppets, carried to and
fro by the waves of chance, while the real
directing forces are quite out of their control,
it follows that the existence of an
unchangeable and unchanging class-war is
also denied - the natural progeny of the
economic conception of history. And above
all Fascism denies that class-war can be the
preponderant force in the transformation of
society."
Adolph Hitler on socialism:
"The original founders of this plague of the
nations must have been veritable devils; for
only in the brain of a monster--not that of a
man--could the plan of an organization assume
form and meaning, whose activity must
ultimately result in the collapse of human
civilization and the consequent devastation
of the world."
John Shafto
> On Wed, 16 May 2001 09:00:36 -0600, "John Shafto"
> <jo...@WAMBAMNOSPAMMAN.mato.com> wrote:
>
> >> You have the chronology wrong, there. The
> >> Libertarians' "ideas" so often resemble those
> >> of the Republican party because the
> >> Libertarians, in fact, came from the
> >> Republican party. The Republicans aren't
> >> stealing ideas--they are simply repeating what
> >> has always passed for ideas among
> >> Republicans.
> >
> >In 1971 Ayn Rand called the Libertarians
> >"right-wing hippies", because they evolved
> >out of the 1960's counter culture, but rejected
> >Marxism.
> ___
>
> Then she was about as right about that as she
> was about anything else. The Libertarians split
> from the Republicans after 1964. They were
> conservatives who left the party when it adopted
> the "Southern Strategy" and absorbed the
> religious right.
Close, but no cigar. :)
The Libertarian Party (USA) was founded by
Peter Nolan late in 1971. The "libertarian movement"
(as so named, most people consider the founders,
and pre-socialist liberals, "libertarians" as well)
began in the 1940s with people like Hayek and Rand.
The first explicitly libertarian organization was the
Foundation for Economic Education. FEE was founded
in 1946 by American entrepreneur Leonard E. Read,
with the help of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises
and American economic journalist Henry Hazlitt.
Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign and the counter
culture movements did hasten the libertarian movement
considerably though. and eventually lead to the founding
of the Party.
The social conservatives have been a part of
the Republican Party since it was founded, but
there were several pushes to get the religious
Southern Democrats into the party as well.
___
>
> >If rejecting Marxism makes a person
> >Republican, then count me in. Marxism
> >has lead to more death and human misery
> >than any other political movement in human
> >history. Hitler and Mussolini were both
> >students of Marxism, as was Mao, Castro,
> >ad nauseum.
> ____
>
> Benito Mussolini on socialism:
>
> "Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian
> Socialism, [....]
And this from a person who was a member of
the communists until he decided to run against
them in Italy, modifying his position ever-so-slighty
to placate the capital power, but make no mistake,
he was a socialist, regardless what he says. It's
the only economic system he understood. Govt
power arises from Marx's ideas, and he knew it.
> Adolph Hitler on socialism:
>
> "The original founders of this plague of the
> nations must have been veritable devils; for
> only in the brain of a monster--not that of a
> man--could the plan of an organization assume
> form and meaning, whose activity must
> ultimately result in the collapse of human
> civilization and the consequent devastation
> of the world."
Hitler was a mixed socialist (the third way), which is
apparent in the name "National Socialism". If you
insist on quoting him, so shall I.
"Each activity and need of the individual will thereby be
regulated by the party as the representative of the general
good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the
individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism... [But]
Our Socialism goes far deeper...a powerful social force
has caught [the people] up...Why need we to trouble to
socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings..."
-- Adolph Hitler.
"(T)here is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates
us from it." Hitler also gave orders requiring former
communists to "be admitted to the party at once," because
though some Germans will not make good Nazis,
"...the Communist always will."
"Nationalism, ...means the power of the nation over
the individual on every realm, including economics; ie, it means
socialism. Socialism means rule by the whole..."
-- Adolph Hitler
'What matters is to emphasize the fundamental idea in my party's economic
program clearly -- the idea of authority. I want the authority; I want
everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the
priniciple: benefit to the community recedes benefit to the individual. But
the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider
himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property
against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial
matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners
of property." -- Adolf Hilter, 1931
Andrew J. Brehm
classicliberal2 <classic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Robert Hutchinson
> Don't destroy their worldview all at once, my friend. :-)
It's too late. The murderers have spoken, and they have told us that they
are not murderers. I'm sure their word is their bond. While we're at it,
I'm the king of France.
--
Robert Hutchinson | Why, it's Mr. and Mrs. Squeakers.
| They live in your sneakers.
| -- Bubbles, "Helter Shelter",
| The Powerpuff Girls
John Shafto
news:9dt79...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <tg45agd...@corp.supernews.com>, "John says...
> >
> >"Daedra Morrighan" wrote
> >>
> >
> >> You guess above that I advocate "Marxism," but here you accuse me of
being
> >a
> >> "nationalist." Seriously, do you know anything about either Marxism or
> >> nationalism?
> >
> >I know Nationalism and Marxism work together well in China,
>
> China isn't "Marxist." It's more of a state-capitalist/fascist economy.
They've
> been communist in name only for a good while.
State Capitalism isn't Marxist. Hmmm. I guess I better read up some
more.
> >and although Marxism has collapsed in Russia, I hear they are
> >still quite nationalistic there (for the old USSR).
>
> National Bolshevism isn't Marxism. Marxism is anti-nationalist; those
forms of
> socialism which allow for nationalism are not Marxist. They may be
somewhat
> influenced by Marxism, however.
Nationalism is a human quality, and has nothing to do with what
form of government is in place.
Why are you defending Marxism anyway? I thought you
said you were an Anarchist? Marx hated the Bakunin/Proudhon
left-anarchists.
classicliberal2
<jo...@WAMBAMNOSPAMMAN.mato.com> wrote:
>>>> You have the chronology wrong, there. The
>>>> Libertarians' "ideas" so often resemble those
>>>> of the Republican party because the
>>>> Libertarians, in fact, came from the
>>>> Republican party. The Republicans aren't
>>>> stealing ideas--they are simply repeating what
>>>> has always passed for ideas among
>>>> Republicans.
>>>
>>>In 1971 Ayn Rand called the Libertarians
>>>"right-wing hippies", because they evolved
>>>out of the 1960's counter culture, but rejected
>>>Marxism.
>>
>>Then she was about as right about that as she
>>was about anything else. The Libertarians split
>>from the Republicans after 1964. They were
>>conservatives who left the party when it adopted
>>the "Southern Strategy" and absorbed the
>>religious right.
>
>Close, but no cigar. :)
>
>The Libertarian Party (USA) was founded by
>Peter Nolan late in 1971. The "libertarian
> movement" (as so named, most people
> consider the founders, and pre-socialist
> liberals, "libertarians" as well)
___
Well, they weren't.
___
>began in the 1940s with people like Hayek
>and Rand.
___
They are roots of Libertarianism, as were
the social Darwinists and the Austrian
"economists." They were always just
called conservatives in those days.
(Perversely, some of them even tried to
appropriate the word "liberal" to describe
themselves.)
___
>The first explicitly libertarian
>organization was the Foundation for
>Economic Education. FEE was founded
>in 1946 by American entrepreneur
>Leonard E. Read, with the help of
>Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises
>and American economic journalist Henry
>Hazlitt.
___
That was merely another conservative
organization as well, until its own Dean
Russell suggested, in 1955, that the
word "Libertarian" be appropriated to
describe their ideology (for over a century,
at that point, a "libertarian" had been an
anarchist). There are a handful of other
uses of the word by the right around that
same time, but it didn't immediately catch
on because it didn't describe a movement
in any way distinct from the conservatives
until after the Goldwater loss.
___
>Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign and
>the counter culture movements did
>hasten the libertarian movement
>considerably though. and eventually
>lead to the founding of the Party.
___
There was, in fact, no significant role played
by "counter culture movements" in the
beginning of Libertarianism, except insofar as
the conservatives were totally alienated by
those movements.
___
>The social conservatives have been a part of
>the Republican Party since it was founded, but
>there were several pushes to get the religious
>Southern Democrats into the party as well.
___
That is what led to the break. The Dems
embraced civil rights and the Repubs the
Southern Strategy. Suddenly, the religious
right controlled the Republican party.
___
>>>If rejecting Marxism makes a person
>>>Republican, then count me in. Marxism
>>>has lead to more death and human misery
>>>than any other political movement in human
>>>history. Hitler and Mussolini were both
>>>students of Marxism, as was Mao, Castro,
>>>ad nauseum.
>>
>> Benito Mussolini on socialism:
>>
>> "Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian
>> Socialism, [....]
>
>And this from a person who was a member of
>the communists until he decided to run against
>them in Italy, modifying his position ever-so-slighty
>to placate the capital power,
___
His "ever so slight modifications" involved
large-scale assaults and murder aimed at
every left-wing group in Italy--every party,
every union, every cooperative--culminating
in a seizure of the state financed directly by
Italy's capitalist power-brokers.
___
>but make no mistake,
>he was a socialist, regardless what he says.
___
What you say is all that matters, eh? I'll stick
with what Mussolini actually did. Once in power,
he began a merciless campaign of suppression
of any anti-capitalist or even liberal reformist
elements. The unions were eliminated. The
socialists were eliminated. Large sections of
state-owned industries were handed over
wholesale to wealthy private interests, and
industry and agribusiness were given heavy
subsidies, and fat government contracts.
___
> It's
>the only economic system he understood.
>Govt power arises from Marx's ideas, and
>he knew it.
___
Whatever.
___
>> Adolph Hitler on socialism:
>>
>> "The original founders of this plague of the
>> nations must have been veritable devils; for
>> only in the brain of a monster--not that of a
>> man--could the plan of an organization assume
>> form and meaning, whose activity must
>> ultimately result in the collapse of human
>> civilization and the consequent devastation
>> of the world."
>
>Hitler was a mixed socialist (the third way),
>which is apparent in the name "National
>Socialism".
___
Hitler wasn't a "socialist" at all. He used socialist
rhetoric from time to time when vying for power as
a means of attracting votes. This isn't an open
question, either--every historian agrees on this
point. A tip of the hat as to who is correct comes
from the fact that this revisionist "Hitler was a
socialist" crap all comes from ignorant morons.
For myself, I'll stick with history.
John Shafto
> "John Shafto" wrote:
> >
<snippa loadsa shite>
> >The first explicitly libertarian
> >organization was the Foundation for
> >Economic Education. FEE was founded
> >in 1946 by American entrepreneur
> >Leonard E. Read, with the help of
> >Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises
> >and American economic journalist Henry
> >Hazlitt.
> ___
>
> That was merely another conservative
> organization as well, until its own Dean
> Russell suggested, in 1955, that the
> word "Libertarian" be appropriated to
> describe their ideology (for over a century,
> at that point, a "libertarian" had been an
> anarchist).
The word "libertarian" in political context was
only used in Europe (not in the US), by a bunch
of lunatics who advocate a fallacious form of
government, that they call "Anarchy", but is
completely unworkable, and had been
nothing by a footnote in history. They opposed
Marx, and had that little human rights fiasco in
Spain. Do a search anywhere on the word
"libertarian", and Bakunin/Proudhon only come
up as minor notations. Probably because most
sane people know they were a joke.
<snippa loadsa shite>
> >> Benito Mussolini on socialism:
> >>
> >> "Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian
> >> Socialism, [....]
> >
> >And this from a person who was a member of
> >the communists until he decided to run against
> >them in Italy, modifying his position ever-so-slighty
> >to placate the capital power,
> ___
>
> His "ever so slight modifications" involved
> large-scale assaults and murder aimed at
> every left-wing group in Italy--every party,
> every union, every cooperative--culminating
> in a seizure of the state financed directly by
> Italy's capitalist power-brokers.
Totalitarians didn't like political competition
for some odd reason.
> ___
>
> >but make no mistake,
> >he was a socialist, regardless what he says.
> ___
>
> What you say is all that matters, eh? I'll stick
> with what Mussolini actually did. Once in power,
> he began a merciless campaign of suppression
> of any anti-capitalist or even liberal reformist
> elements. The unions were eliminated. The
> socialists were eliminated.
Yep, kill the competion and political power
structures. This doesn't mean his brand of
socialism wasn't real.
> Large sections of state-owned industries
> were handed over wholesale to wealthy
> private interests, and industry and agribusiness
> were given heavy subsidies, and fat government contracts.
Quite the free-marketeer wasn't he?
___
>
> > It's the only economic system he understood.
> >Govt power arises from Marx's ideas, and
> >he knew it.
> ___
>
> Whatever.
> ___
>
> >> Adolph Hitler on socialism:
> >>
> >> "The original founders of this plague of the
> >> nations must have been veritable devils; for
> >> only in the brain of a monster--not that of a
> >> man--could the plan of an organization assume
> >> form and meaning, whose activity must
> >> ultimately result in the collapse of human
> >> civilization and the consequent devastation
> >> of the world."
> >
> >Hitler was a mixed socialist (the third way),
> >which is apparent in the name "National
> >Socialism".
> ___
>
> Hitler wasn't a "socialist" at all. He used socialist
> rhetoric from time to time when vying for power as
> a means of attracting votes.
So, when you quote Hitler, he was right, but when
I quote him four times, he was lying? Odd.
> This isn't an open question, either--every historian
> agrees on this point.
Really, can you name some?
> A tip of the hat as to who is correct comes
> from the fact that this revisionist "Hitler was a
> socialist" crap all comes from ignorant morons.
> For myself, I'll stick with history.
Hitler was a germanic middle-class psuedo intellectual
just like Marx. They were like peas in a pod, but
Hitler was even more of a power monger.
I think you need a refresher course in history, and
not from leftist propaganda sheets on the web.
Daedra Morrighan
Actually there was a faction of real socialists within the Nazi party -- the
Strasser faction -- but Hitler didn't want to alienate his financial backers so
he eventually got rid of it.
>
>
>
Tony Veca
(classicliberal2) wrote:
>On Wed, 16 May 2001 05:37:36 GMT, Tony Veca <jav...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>> classicliberal2
>>
>> What is it about the concept of political activists
>> who actually believe and live by a code of
>> conduct and principles which are above any
>> moral or ethical reproach that bothers you so
>> much?
>___
>
>The fanaticism implicit in such a question
>should serve as a sufficient answer.
Poor argument, where is the fanaticism? The real problem you have with
Libertarians is the fact that we refuse to roll over and play dead when you
attack us with your words. We fight back, and that is what really scares
you.
> It isn't
>a strength never to doubt oneself, Tony.
Hey, I question my motives all the time. But at least I am honest enough to
admit it. I know I may not be right about many things. But I do know with
out a shadow of doubt, that working to protect of the rights of the
individual and securing those rights for future generations will the most
important work I will ever do save for raising my children.
classicliberal2
<_john~@~shafto.org_> wrote:
>> >The first explicitly libertarian
>> >organization was the Foundation for
>> >Economic Education. FEE was founded
>> >in 1946 by American entrepreneur
>> >Leonard E. Read, with the help of
>> >Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises
>> >and American economic journalist Henry
>> >Hazlitt.
>>
>> That was merely another conservative
>> organization as well, until its own Dean
>> Russell suggested, in 1955, that the
>> word "Libertarian" be appropriated to
>> describe their ideology (for over a century,
>> at that point, a "libertarian" had been an
>> anarchist).
>
>The word "libertarian" in political context was
>only used in Europe (not in the US), by a bunch
>of lunatics who advocate a fallacious form of
>government, that they call "Anarchy", but is
>completely unworkable, and had been
>nothing by a footnote in history.
___
Actually, one of the earliest uses of
"libertarian" by the anarchists occured
in the 1840s in the United States--The
Libertarian, an anarchist publication,
was published in New York until 1861.
Beginning in 1881, Benjamin Tucker
(also an anarchist) published Liberty,
explicitly identifying himself as a
libertarian (that lasted into the early
20th century). There was an anarchist
Libertarian League in the U.S. in the
1920s, then another (same name)
started in 1954 (a year before
Russell suggested the word be stolen
by conservatives).
___
>They opposed
>Marx, and had that little human rights
>fiasco in Spain.
___
Which was no "human rights fiasco,"
and if you are going to study it's history,
you would be well advised that Bryan
Caplan is about as reliable an historian
as the average Holocaust deniar.
___
>Do a search anywhere
>on the word "libertarian", and
>Bakunin/Proudhon only come
>up as minor notations. Probably because
>most sane people know they were a joke.
___
As a matter of fact, please spare us your
vast historical knowledge of anarchism from
now on. A week ago, you said anarchism
was a doctrine of the 20th century! You
haven't learned much since then.
___
>>>> Benito Mussolini on socialism:
>>>>
>>>> "Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian
>>>> Socialism, [....]
>>>
>>>And this from a person who was a member of
>>>the communists until he decided to run against
>>>them in Italy, modifying his position ever-so-slighty
>>>to placate the capital power,
>>
>> His "ever so slight modifications" involved
>> large-scale assaults and murder aimed at
>> every left-wing group in Italy--every party,
>> every union, every cooperative--culminating
>> in a seizure of the state financed directly by
>> Italy's capitalist power-brokers.
>
>Totalitarians didn't like political competition
>for some odd reason.
___
Just thought it worth pointing out that you were
either ignorant or consciously lying when you
suggested Mussolini offered only some "slight
modification" on socialism. He was only a force
in Italy because he was bent on beating back
a social revolution. You were also lying when
you said he "decided to run against them"--he
led a violent movement bent on their
destruction and siezed the state at gunpoint.
Ludwig von Mises, one of Libertarianisms'
patron saints, praised fascism at the time for
having saved civilization.
___
>>>but make no mistake,
>>>he was a socialist, regardless what he says.
>>
>> What you say is all that matters, eh? I'll stick
>> with what Mussolini actually did. Once in power,
>> he began a merciless campaign of suppression
>> of any anti-capitalist or even liberal reformist
>> elements. The unions were eliminated. The
>> socialists were eliminated.
>
>Yep, kill the competion and political power
>structures. This doesn't mean his brand of
>socialism wasn't real.
___
He says fascism is the opposite of socialism,
and his actions bear this out. The evidence
is irrefutable--if you have some counter-analysis
of it, you will please present it now.
___
>> Large sections of state-owned industries
>> were handed over wholesale to wealthy
>> private interests, and industry and agribusiness
>> were given heavy subsidies, and fat
>> government contracts.
>
>Quite the free-marketeer wasn't he?
___
As much of one as any Libertarian in this country.
___
>>> It's the only economic system he understood.
>>>Govt power arises from Marx's ideas, and
>>>he knew it.
>>
>> Whatever.
>> ___
>>
>> >> Adolph Hitler on socialism:
>> >>
>> >> "The original founders of this plague of the
>> >> nations must have been veritable devils; for
>> >> only in the brain of a monster--not that of a
>> >> man--could the plan of an organization assume
>> >> form and meaning, whose activity must
>> >> ultimately result in the collapse of human
>> >> civilization and the consequent devastation
>> >> of the world."
>> >
>> >Hitler was a mixed socialist (the third way),
>> >which is apparent in the name "National
>> >Socialism".
>> ___
>>
>> Hitler wasn't a "socialist" at all. He used socialist
>> rhetoric from time to time when vying for power as
>> a means of attracting votes.
>
>So, when you quote Hitler, he was right, but when
>I quote him four times, he was lying?
___
Yes.
___
> Odd.
___
No.
___
>>This isn't an open question, either--every
>>historian agrees on this point.
>
>Really, can you name some?
___
Bullock, Shirer, and Toland. If you know of
a single respectable (an important qualifier)
historian who supports your "interpretation,"
please provide the name now.
classicliberal2
wrote:
>>> classicliberal2
>>>
>>> What is it about the concept of political activists
>>> who actually believe and live by a code of
>>> conduct and principles which are above any
>>> moral or ethical reproach that bothers you so
>>> much?
>>
>> The fanaticism implicit in such a question
>> should serve as a sufficient answer.
>
> Poor argument,
___
No, it's an invaluable argument.
___
> where is the fanaticism?
___
To say one's principles are "above any moral
and ethical reproach" is the height of
fanaticism (indicative, in fact, of utter insanity).
Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but you
did say it, and, offered the opportunity, did
nothing to correct any misperception.
___
> The real problem you have with
> Libertarians is the fact that we refuse to roll
> over and play dead when you attack us
> with your words. We fight back, and that is
> what really scares you.
___
I have a big problem with prefab dogma of
any kind (and, by extension, the adherents
to same). Such a dogma can't explain the
world to you--you can only fool yourself into
believing it does. I do find someone capable
of exercising that degree of doublethink to
be disturbing.
___
>> It isn't
>> a strength never to doubt oneself, Tony.
>
> Hey, I question my motives all the time.
___
Not if you honestly believe your principles
are "above any moral and ethical reproach";
this is just another example of doublethink.
___
> But at least I am honest enough to admit it.
___
If your principles are "above any moral and
ethical reproach," saying one of them was
wrong would be lying, wouldn't it? Or can
you convince yourself otherwise?
___
> I know I may not be right about many
> things.
___
I know beyond a shadow of doubt you are
wrong about a great many things. I tried to
articulate some of them earlier in the thread.
___
> But I do know with
> out a shadow of doubt, that working to
> protect of the rights of the individual and
> securing those rights for future generations
> will the most important work I will ever do
> save for raising my children.
___
Your devotion to activism is admirable. I only
wish it took a more positive direction.
John Shafto
> On Wed, 16 May 2001 22:19:10 -0600, "John Shafto"
> <_john~@~shafto.org_> wrote:
>
> >
> >The word "libertarian" in political context was
> >only used in Europe (not in the US), by a bunch
> >of lunatics who advocate a fallacious form of
> >government, that they call "Anarchy", but is
> >completely unworkable, and had been
> >nothing by a footnote in history.
> ___
>
> Actually, one of the earliest uses of
> "libertarian" by the anarchists occured
> in the 1840s in the United States--The
> Libertarian, an anarchist publication,
> was published in New York until 1861.
> Beginning in 1881, Benjamin Tucker
> (also an anarchist) published Liberty,
> explicitly identifying himself as a
> libertarian (that lasted into the early
> 20th century). There was an anarchist
> Libertarian League in the U.S. in the
> 1920s, then another (same name)
> started in 1954 (a year before
> Russell suggested the word be stolen
> by conservatives).
These Anarchists were individualist Anarchists,
much like many of today's Libertarian Anarchists
or Anarcho-Capitalists.
I wasn't aware of these uses of the word, but even so,
how does it give you looney leftists any claim to the
word?
I just found out that Proudhon was for also for
private property, at least that which a person
could work himself.
> >Do a search anywhere
> >on the word "libertarian", and
> >Bakunin/Proudhon only come
> >up as minor notations. Probably because
> >most sane people know they were a joke.
> ___
>
> As a matter of fact, please spare us your
> vast historical knowledge of anarchism from
> now on. A week ago, you said anarchism
> was a doctrine of the 20th century! You
> haven't learned much since then.
I was talking about "means of production" freaks,
or left-anarchists. I knew Anarchism went back to
the 1500s at least. I wasn't aware that American
"left-Anarchism" movements went back much further
than the turn of the century though.
<snip hitler and mussolini>
jason pierce
much stalins contribution. that kind of "marxism"
is refered to as "stalinism". there are major distinctions
between basic marxism and stalinism. many memebers of
the bolshevik party were against stalins "socialism in one country"
ideas that is until they were shot or exiled.
j
jason pierce
prior even to marxs birth. mussolini rejected marxism.
look up his definitition of fascism, it clearly
states his rejection of marxist ideologies.
yeah you and mussolini.
i don't know what criteria you are using for being
a "student" of marxism. if it's just reading marx
that would apply to just about everyone. you would
have to be a moron to be politically active and
not have an at least general understanding of marxs
ideas.
if hitler was a "student" of marxism then he
wasn't a very good one, considering he was such a capitalist.
j
classicliberal2
<_john~@~shafto.org_> wrote:
>>> The word "libertarian" in political context was
>>> only used in Europe (not in the US), by a bunch
>>> of lunatics who advocate a fallacious form of
>>> government, that they call "Anarchy", but is
>>> completely unworkable, and had been
>>> nothing by a footnote in history.
>>
>> Actually, one of the earliest uses of
>> "libertarian" by the anarchists occured
>> in the 1840s in the United States--The
>> Libertarian, an anarchist publication,
>> was published in New York until 1861.
>> Beginning in 1881, Benjamin Tucker
>> (also an anarchist) published Liberty,
>> explicitly identifying himself as a
>> libertarian (that lasted into the early
>> 20th century). There was an anarchist
>> Libertarian League in the U.S. in the
>> 1920s, then another (same name)
>> started in 1954 (a year before
>> Russell suggested the word be stolen
>> by conservatives).
>
> These Anarchists were individualist
> Anarchists, much like many of today's
> Libertarian Anarchists or
> Anarcho-Capitalists.
___
They were socialists, and so called
themselves. They are in no way related
to "anarcho"-capitalists or right-wing
"Libertarians."
___
> I wasn't aware of these uses of the word,
> but even so, how does it give you looney
> leftists any claim to the word?
___
It's a totally insignificant issue. If Libertarians
today didn't insist upon arguing against the
facts, there would be no need to dwell on it.
A "libertarian" was an anarchist all over the
world right up until a branch of American
conservatism stole the word. They applied it
to something that was almost the polar
opposite of what it meant. This means they
are weird. It doesn't say anythiing else,
though. In the U.S., the word, for now, is lost.
___
> I just found out that Proudhon was for
> also for private property, at least that
> which a person could work himself.
___
Yep. That idea emerged directly from
classical liberalism and is a standard feature
of many variations of anarchism.
___
>>> Do a search anywhere
>>> on the word "libertarian", and
>>> Bakunin/Proudhon only come
>>> up as minor notations. Probably because
>>> most sane people know they were a joke.
>>
>> As a matter of fact, please spare us your
>> vast historical knowledge of anarchism from
>> now on. A week ago, you said anarchism
>> was a doctrine of the 20th century! You
>> haven't learned much since then.
>
> I was talking about "means of production"
> freaks, or left-anarchists.
___
There's no point in creating the designation
"left-anarchist." It's redundant.
___
> I knew Anarchism
> went back to the 1500s at least. I wasn't
> aware that American "left-Anarchism"
> movements went back much further than
> the turn of the century though.
___
Josiah Warren was putting forward anarchist
ideas in the U.S. pretty much simultaneously
with Proudhon in Europe (this is in the 1830s
and 40s).
Daedra Morrighan
>
>though there was quite a bit "death and misery"
>prior even to marxs birth. mussolini rejected marxism.
>look up his definitition of fascism, it clearly
>states his rejection of marxist ideologies.
>
>yeah you and mussolini.
>
>i don't know what criteria you are using for being
>a "student" of marxism. if it's just reading marx
>that would apply to just about everyone. you would
>have to be a moron to be politically active and
>not have an at least general understanding of marxs
>ideas.
>
>if hitler was a "student" of marxism then he
>wasn't a very good one, considering he was such a capitalist.
True! But there was one faction of the Nazi party that really was Socialist, the
Strasser faction. And Hilter had that faction "liquidated."
Daedra Morrighan
>
>yeah i agree, the nationalist aspect of the ussr was pretty
>much stalins contribution. that kind of "marxism"
>is refered to as "stalinism". there are major distinctions
>between basic marxism and stalinism. many memebers of
>the bolshevik party were against stalins "socialism in one country"
>ideas that is until they were shot or exiled.
>
>j
>
There are various "Third Positionist," Strasserite, etc. groups that espouse a
mixture of socialism and nationalism. It is possible for a mixture to exist.
However, such 'social nationalist' doctrines are NOT Marxist.
John Shafto
> yeah i agree, the nationalist aspect of the ussr was pretty
> much stalins contribution. that kind of "marxism"
> is refered to as "stalinism". there are major distinctions
> between basic marxism and stalinism. many memebers of
> the bolshevik party were against stalins "socialism in one country"
> ideas that is until they were shot or exiled.
I thought you said you were a left-anarchist?
Bakunin and Proudhon hated Marx, and Marx
hated the anarcho-communists. He thought they
were confused (I tend to agree with him on this,
but then I also agree with Bakunin about Marx :).
I am not sure why you are apologizing for Marx.
James A. Donald
On Wed, 16 May 2001 18:20:11 GMT, classic...@my-deja.com
(classicliberal2) wrote:
> Then she was about as right about that as she
> was about anything else. The Libertarians split
> from the Republicans after 1964. They were
> conservatives who left the party when it adopted
> the "Southern Strategy" and absorbed the
> religious right.
The 1964 libertarians were pro dope anti war activists. Still are.
They were at that time generally allied with the Marxists, not the
republicans. The split became obvious with the end of conscription,
when it became apparent that the libertarians had been working for
freedom in America, and the Marxists for slavery and terror in
Indochina, that they had fought the draft for radically different
reasons.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
NOd0EBnRBU8EE2Q7rBD1dlv2OTWlzMN4dLmwKZIx
4BmBJt4umwsJr+1Nsmsw1pHfcBT2ntHcrm7HQmzuA
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
John Shafto
I have debated some of these issues with you before,
showed you how you were wrong, and you are bringing
them up again. I gave you example after example of
how Jefferson was not a leftist. How Classic Liberals
were not leftists, how left anarchy is a fallcy (one cannot
be a socialist AND and anarchist), and now you want
me to debate with you about individualist anarchists too.
You are confused, and I expect you are stubborn enough
to stay that way. Best of luck to you.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
James A. Donald
On Fri, 18 May 2001 01:19:38 GMT, jason pierce
<onyx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> yeah i agree, the nationalist aspect of the ussr was pretty
> much stalins contribution. that kind of "marxism"
> is refered to as "stalinism". there are major distinctions
> between basic marxism and stalinism. many memebers of
> the bolshevik party were against stalins "socialism in one country"
> ideas that is until they were shot or exiled.
Until the 56th congress of the communist party, almost all western
socialists fully supported Stalin. After the 56th congress suddenly
decided on deStalinization, suddenly no western socialists supported
Stalin. The U turn on Stalin resembles the two previous U turns on
Hitler.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
VT9WZ77Dtfnc+MbCXbCrw5AGQ74gakozWleB2o5t
4gSkeeP512YACcZI3rABC1xIyKifXdK5Ud4h4lLgA
James A. Donald
On 17 May 2001 20:31:52 -0700, Daedra Morrighan
<vang...@antisocial.com> wrote:
> There are various "Third Positionist," Strasserite, etc. groups that espouse a
> mixture of socialism and nationalism. It is possible for a mixture to exist.
> However, such 'social nationalist' doctrines are NOT Marxist.
The difference, while it seems enormous to Marxists, seems
imperceptible to ex Marxists.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
QudgIefJ4/edskVVltPa58ayBx73Zh9mJwUNMK2J
46DwdG7O30hlduPHxwTfQ68kO2eeAaO6q0Nwylm7Z
jason pierce
anarchy by terrorist means. Proudhon was a socialist
as well, so i'm not sure why he hated marx unless
it was just because of marxs later views. i wasn't
apologizing for marxism(?) i don't feel there's
any need to "apologize" for marxism. if by "marxism"
you mean say the russian revolution that wasn't purely
marxist as lenin and stalin applied their own
well only in stalins case was it an extreme distortion
but lenins style of marxism had things added to it
that didn't origionate in marxs writing, ie the
idea that the revolution could only be carried out
by a few revolutionarys. this was lenins idea not marxs.
so i'm not sure what you mean by "marxism". marx in no way
advocated totalitarianism unless it ws in his later years
(which i'm not as familiar with). at least in his early writings
marx advocated social democracy.
j
Tony Veca
(classicliberal2) wrote:
>On Thu, 17 May 2001 05:39:44 GMT, Tony Veca <jav...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>> classicliberal2
>>>>
>>>> What is it about the concept of political activists
>>>> who actually believe and live by a code of
>>>> conduct and principles which are above any
>>>> moral or ethical reproach that bothers you so
>>>> much?
>>>
>>> The fanaticism implicit in such a question
>>> should serve as a sufficient answer.
>>
>> Poor argument,
>___
>
>No, it's an invaluable argument.
>___
>
>> where is the fanaticism?
>___
>
>To say one's principles are "above any moral
>and ethical reproach" is the height of
>fanaticism (indicative, in fact, of utter insanity).
>Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but you
>did say it, and, offered the opportunity, did
>nothing to correct any misperception.
No I write what I mean, I don't say one thing and mean another. I leave
that for collectivists like yourself.
The principle that I live by are above any moral or ethical reproach, it
doesn't meant I always live up to them, but then I am only human and I do
make mistakes.
Besides truth is truth and doesn't change.
>___
>
>> The real problem you have with
>> Libertarians is the fact that we refuse to roll
>> over and play dead when you attack us
>> with your words. We fight back, and that is
>> what really scares you.
>___
>
>I have a big problem with prefab dogma of
>any kind (and, by extension, the adherents
>to same). Such a dogma can't explain the
>world to you--you can only fool yourself into
>believing it does. I do find someone capable
>of exercising that degree of doublethink to
>be disturbing.
Let's see this is the "All Libertarians are mentally disturbed" attack,
been awhile since I have seen that one. Why don't we be honest here, the
problem you are having is that you can't really find anything wrong with
libertarian principles or philosophy so you are going to impunge upon the
reputations of those that adhear to libertarian principles aand philosophy.
You know damn well that if you go for our honor we will rip you apart. But
instead you go for our reputation either as a group or as individuals. Poor
debate tactic.
I give you a little secrete. Honor is what you know about your self,
reputation is what other's "think" they know about you.
And to be honest you are not doing your reputation much good right now.
>___
>
>>> It isn't
>>> a strength never to doubt oneself, Tony.
>>
>> Hey, I question my motives all the time.
>___
>
>Not if you honestly believe your principles
>are "above any moral and ethical reproach";
>this is just another example of doublethink.
It is not double think, the principle themselves are above reproach, but
put into practise, and being human means that we sometimes fail, the
problem isn't the principle it is the person.
[...deletia...]
>> But I do know with
>> out a shadow of doubt, that working to
>> protect of the rights of the individual and
>> securing those rights for future generations
>> will the most important work I will ever do
>> save for raising my children.
>___
>
>Your devotion to activism is admirable. I only
>wish it took a more positive direction.
No, you wish it took the direction you want it to go. What you call
positive, I call slavery of the worst sort.
jason pierce
because of marxs critique of proudhonism
"the poverty of philosophy". they
only bickered over the scale of industry
division of labor, exchange, economic details etc.
i see those mostly as personal disputes
as marx had quite a few of them.
but actually "full" communism in marxs view
would end up as in the "whithering of the state"
where government would no longer be necessary.
so i don't know what his dispute with
anarcho communist would be. unless it
was over personal minutae type things.
j
jason pierce
as there certainly was no destalinization while he was alive.
no one even dared criticize him until khrushchev.
j
John Shafto
"social democracy", in fact, that was what Bakunin's
writing were later called specificly. They both criticised
Marx loudly for what they called "The Dictatorship of
the proletariat".
"They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship --
their dictatorship, of course -- can create the will of the people,
while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other
aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery
in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom,
that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free
organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up."
--Mikhail Bakunin, Statism and Anarchism
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part11b
--
Plus ça change
Plus c'est la même chose
.
John Shafto
1.) Socialist states "wither away"
2.) Bakunin and Proudhon were wrong.
There is one thing I agree with Bakunin and Proudhon on:
1.) Marx was an anti-semitic, middle-class psuedo-intellectual lunatic
James A. Donald
On Wed, 16 May 2001 22:19:10 -0600, "John Shafto"
<_john~@~shafto.org_> wrote:
> The word "libertarian" in political context was
> only used in Europe (not in the US), by a bunch
> of lunatics who advocate a fallacious form of
> government, that they call "Anarchy",
The word "libertarian" existed long before it became associated with
various factions.
It first became associated with socialism through the use of the
phrase "libertarian socialism", with "libertarian" used as a qualifier
to distinguish one's own socialist faction from all other socialist
factions.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
b+2G/hv2qPbI/X8eFswzqkjDyXvbUFC4KrE5icWk
4bT8osGDs4uet2RCzX5PkQ/epcZmTaj819vurukuU
James A. Donald
On Fri, 18 May 2001 07:31:16 GMT, jason pierce
<onyx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> i assume the 56th congress was well after stalin was dead.
> as there certainly was no destalinization while he was alive.
> no one even dared criticize him until khrushchev.
"dare"?
Why was the enthusiasm in the west near identical to the enthusiasm in
the Soviet Union.
When I read old copies of "new republic", a left wing publication
published in the US, they describe Stalin in terms more appropriate to
a god than a man
Almost all western socialists loved Stalin, and claimed to think of
him as kindly uncle Joe, until the line changed, and overnight they
all suddenly claimed to hate Stalin
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
kA3axZhi5LI2qe6G4o6kpIukOD/FPPRGfmF/d3a2
4rguDE67k/rhrwFAI3FaRRJzcm0qCAW6eQMAA6I/c
John Shafto
> --
> On Wed, 16 May 2001 22:19:10 -0600, "John Shafto"
> <_john~@~shafto.org_> wrote:
> > The word "libertarian" in political context was
> > only used in Europe (not in the US), by a bunch
> > of lunatics who advocate a fallacious form of
> > government, that they call "Anarchy",
>
> The word "libertarian" existed long before it became associated with
> various factions.
>
> It first became associated with socialism through the use of the
> phrase "libertarian socialism", with "libertarian" used as a qualifier
> to distinguish one's own socialist faction from all other socialist
> factions.
It seems the individualist anarchists in the US were using
the term politically about the same time as the
"libertarian socialists" started using it in Europe.
I don't know which used it first though.
jason pierce
he was referring to the need for government after class distinctions,
private property etc. were fully done away with.
marx may have been anti semitic or not, i don't know (he was german, so
it
wouldn't shock me). marx wasn't middle class as he never had a job,
engels
had to send him money as he refused to work. he was pretty dirt poor.
coming from someone that likes Rand i'd take "Pseudo intellectual
lunatic"
as a scathing compliment.
j
John Shafto
> i think you are misinterpreting what he meant by "withering away"
> he was referring to the need for government after class distinctions,
> private property etc. were fully done away with.
I know what he meant, but he was right anyway,
just in a different way.
> marx may have been anti semitic or not, i don't know
> (he was german, so it wouldn't shock me).
He was.
> marx wasn't middle class as he never had a job,
He was born of the middle class in Germany, he was
associated with, and spoke politically to the Germanic
middle class, just like Hitler.
> engels had to send him money as he refused to work.
> he was pretty dirt poor.
This doesn't surprise me at all, given his political philosophy
> coming from someone that likes Rand i'd take "Pseudo
> intellectual lunatic" as a scathing compliment.
Marx makes Rand look like a genius, but I don't just
take her word as gospel, there are many many others who
have known and said similar things. She just developed
objective reasoning into a structured philosophy.
You waste your time attacking Rand, I could give
you forty other people that you would also have to
attack in order to subdue the truth.
jason pierce
cronies,
prior to that the leaders of the US communist party were anti cold war
and against stalins anti US rhetoric. stalinist interference in western
socialist parties is well documented. esp. in america where you can
see a distinct correlation between the shrinking of socialist influence
and stalinist interference. prior to that the communist and socialist
parties in america were quite healthy.
so sure the stalinist cronies loved stalin so i'm not sure
exactly what you're saying. are you saying western socialist etc.
liked stalin at first and then became resistant to his interference
(meaning stalins efforts to replace western socialist leadership
with his own men) or what?
j
jason pierce
John Shafto wrote:
>
> > marx wasn't middle class as he never had a job,
>
> He was born of the middle class in Germany, he was
> associated with, and spoke politically to the Germanic
> middle class, just like Hitler.
well he thought the petit bourgeosie was the key to a
proletarian revolution so it makes sense that he would talk
to them. you are faulting a guy for the economic status
of his parents? he certainly didn't perpetuate middle class
ideologies.
>
>
> > engels had to send him money as he refused to work.
> > he was pretty dirt poor.
>
> This doesn't surprise me at all, given his political philosophy
you got to admire a guy for sticking to his philosophy. (heh heh)
>
>
>
> Marx makes Rand look like a genius, but I don't just
> take her word as gospel, there are many many others who
> have known and said similar things. She just developed
> objective reasoning into a structured philosophy.
ooooh i would pit the "genius" of marx vs the "genius" of
rand any day. no one apart from libertarians take Rand seriously,
and rightly so.
>
>
> You waste your time attacking Rand, I could give
> you forty other people that you would also have to
> attack in order to subdue the truth.
ok would "truth" here be a universal or a concept? as i would
like to know exactly what i am attempting to subdue.
j
James A. Donald
> well for example the US communist party was taken over by stalinist
> cronies,
> prior to that the leaders of the US communist party were anti cold war
> and against stalins anti US rhetoric. stalinist interference in western
> socialist parties is well documented. esp. in america where you can
> see a distinct correlation between the shrinking of socialist influence
> and stalinist interference. prior to that the communist and socialist
> parties in america were quite healthy.
True and misleading.
Why was Stalin able to dominate western socialist left organizations
when he could not shoot anyone?
Many socialist left organizations claimed to be independent of the
Soviet Union, but whenever Soviet foreign policy changed, so did there
line. A few Trotskyists did criticize Pol Pot even before the Soviet
line changed, but that was rare and mild display of independence. and
the Trots usual quarrel with the Soviet Union was that it was not
totalitarian enough.
> so sure the stalinist cronies loved stalin so i'm not sure
> exactly what you're saying. are you saying western socialist etc.
> liked stalin at first and then became resistant to his interference
> (meaning stalins efforts to replace western socialist leadership
> with his own men) or what?
No. I am saying that most western socialists were utterly servile to
Stalin from beginning to end, and continued to worship him as a god
until worship was abruptly deemed politically incorrect at the 56th
congress of the communist party, whereupon they all denounced him,
every single one, with as much fervour as they had formerly worshipped
him.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
7Nc9GKilq9Jy6vvibUjMNANaDYsFKhBPFu1lgU4Z
4PswtkIjZBbc+iNMqPiw9NsjHXkXoDzqTdOIX84Ti
jason pierce
"James A. Donald" wrote:
> --
> On Fri, 18 May 2001 17:32:35 GMT, jason pierce
> <onyx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> True and misleading.
>
> Why was Stalin able to dominate western socialist left organizations
> when he could not shoot anyone?
it's fairly easy to remove someone from an organisation without shooting
them
"I knew I could not maintain that leadership in open struggle against Moscow
influence. Only two
Communist leaders in history ever succeeded in doing this -
Tito and Mao Tse-tung. I confined
my resistance to the Duclos Letter to declaring publicly that
it was a disastrous mistake which I
would never approve. But I made no efforts to organize my
supporters to hold on to the
apparatus. Consequently I was soon expelled and my followers,
who did not change coats
overnight, quietly left or were expelled from the party.
I have opposed the Communist cold war line ever since, both
by public utterance and by private
help to trade unionists breaking free from the Communist
influence. I abandoned the party
apparatus to Stalin's adherents in order to prevent them from
capturing the party's former mass
influence"- interview with earl browder
>
>
> Many socialist left organizations claimed to be independent of the
> Soviet Union, but whenever Soviet foreign policy changed, so did there
> line. A few Trotskyists did criticize Pol Pot even before the Soviet
> line changed, but that was rare and mild display of independence. and
> the Trots usual quarrel with the Soviet Union was that it was not
> totalitarian enough.
trotskyist arguing for more totalitarianism? what source are you using
to base this claim? these would be troskyist that weren't shot or
expelled by stalin right?
>
> No. I am saying that most western socialists were utterly servile to
> Stalin from beginning to end, and continued to worship him as a god
> until worship was abruptly deemed politically incorrect at the 56th
> congress of the communist party, whereupon they all denounced him,
> every single one, with as much fervour as they had formerly worshipped
> him.
>
given mr Browders statement this seems hardly suprising. it just shows
the extent of Stalins "pervasive influence".
j
classicliberal2
wrote:
>>>>> classicliberal2
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it about the concept of political activists
>>>>> who actually believe and live by a code of
>>>>> conduct and principles which are above any
>>>>> moral or ethical reproach that bothers you so
>>>>> much?
>>>>
>>>> The fanaticism implicit in such a question
>>>> should serve as a sufficient answer.
>>>
>>> Poor argument,
>>___
>>
>> No, it's an invaluable argument.
>>___
>>
>>> where is the fanaticism?
>>___
>>
>> To say one's principles are "above any moral
>> and ethical reproach" is the height of
>> fanaticism (indicative, in fact, of utter insanity).
>> Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but you
>> did say it, and, offered the opportunity, did
>> nothing to correct any misperception.
>
> No I write what I mean, I don't say one thing
> and mean another. I leave that for collectivists
> like yourself.
___
Fair enough. I've put that to the test below.
___
> The principle that I live by are above any
> moral or ethical reproach, it doesn't meant
> I always live up to them, but then I am only
> human and I do make mistakes.
>
> Besides truth is truth and doesn't change.
>
>>___
>>
>>> The real problem you have with
>>> Libertarians is the fact that we refuse to roll
>>> over and play dead when you attack us
>>> with your words. We fight back, and that is
>>> what really scares you.
>>___
>>
>> I have a big problem with prefab dogma of
>> any kind (and, by extension, the adherents
>> to same). Such a dogma can't explain the
>> world to you--you can only fool yourself into
>> believing it does. I do find someone capable
>> of exercising that degree of doublethink to
>> be disturbing.
>
> Let's see this is the "All Libertarians are
> mentally disturbed" attack, been awhile
> since I have seen that one.
___
This isn't any sort of pre-fab attack at all;
as I plainly noted, I'm expressing a personal
bias. You are inadvertantly offering a perfect
example of why I have that bias. To wit:
___
> Why don't we be honest here, the
> problem you are having is that you can't
> really find anything wrong with libertarian
> principles or philosophy so you are going
> to impunge upon the reputations of those
> that adhear to libertarian principles aand
> philosophy.
>
> You know damn well that if you go for our
> honor we will rip you apart. But instead
> you go for our reputation either as a group
> or as individuals. Poor debate tactic.
___
Instead of simply conceding that reasonable
people can disagree on these matters, you
insist upon the fanatic's position time and
time again. I am that which is right, you say.
I am that which is honorable. Therefore
someone who disagrees with me is inherently
wrong, dishonest, and dishonorable. My
principles are above any moral and ethical
reproach. Therefore, even to question me is
to defame me. I will not play this game with
you.
___
> I give you a little secrete. Honor is what
> you know about your self, reputation is
> what other's "think" they know about you.
>
> And to be honest you are not doing your
> reputation much good right now.
___
Appropriately, I'll leave that for others to decide.
___
>>>> It isn't
>>>> a strength never to doubt oneself, Tony.
>>>
>>> Hey, I question my motives all the time.
>>
>> Not if you honestly believe your principles
>> are "above any moral and ethical reproach";
>> this is just another example of doublethink.
>
> It is not double think, the principle themselves
> are above reproach, but put into practise, and
> being human means that we sometimes fail, the
> problem isn't the principle it is the person.
___
The "principles" are your motives, Tony. If
you can't question them, you can't question
your motives. If you think they are unquestionable
but at the same time questionable, you are
engaging in doublethink, no matter how you slice
it. Since you've already said both, but insist you
aren't engaging in doublethink, tell us which of
them you didn't mean. Or did you not mean to
say you weren't engaging in doublethink? Say
what you mean, since you've already said that's
what you always do...or was that just more
doublethink?
___
>>> But I do know with
>>> out a shadow of doubt, that working to
>>> protect of the rights of the individual and
>>> securing those rights for future generations
>>> will the most important work I will ever do
>>> save for raising my children.
>>
>> Your devotion to activism is admirable. I only
>> wish it took a more positive direction.
>
> No, you wish it took the direction you want it
> to go.
___
I do have views of my own.
___
> What you call positive, I call slavery of
> the worst sort.
___
And that is why we have dialogue--to hash
things out. Unlike yourself, however, I freely
admit that something isn't inherently right (or
honorable or honest) simply because I
believe it to be so.
James A. Donald
> > Many socialist left organizations claimed to be independent of the
> > Soviet Union, but whenever Soviet foreign policy changed, so did there
> > line. A few Trotskyists did criticize Pol Pot even before the Soviet
> > line changed, but that was rare and mild display of independence. and
> > the Trots usual quarrel with the Soviet Union was that it was not
> > totalitarian enough.
> trotskyist arguing for more totalitarianism?
Recollect that Trotsky was called "the butcher".
> what source are you using
Primarily I am recalling the Trotskyists of my youth. However to this
day Trotskyists criticize Stalin for going slow in collectivising the
peasants.
If you do not think Trots are the most totalitarian of communists, you
and I probably have different definitions of totalitarian. To a trot,
totalitarianism is when the leader of the party has party members
executed, but when party member have a free had to execute non party
members without bothersome party discipline and red tape, that to them
is liberation, the opposite of totalitarianism.
Trots do not think that the Soviet Union was totalitarian until 1934.
To them, totalitarianism was the supremacy of Stalin, not the
supremacy of the party.
Jim Patterson
wrote:
>> No. I am saying that most western socialists were utterly servile to
>> Stalin from beginning to end, and continued to worship him as a god
>> until worship was abruptly deemed politically incorrect at the 56th
>> congress of the communist party, whereupon they all denounced him,
>> every single one, with as much fervour as they had formerly worshipped
>> him.
>>
>
>given mr Browders statement this seems hardly suprising. it just shows
>the extent of Stalins "pervasive influence".
>
>j
The hot/cold on uncle joe is an example of mindless sheeple who actually
believe that it has *always* been Eastasia or Eurasia, whichever the
current party line says it has always been.
And you are right that someone can be very effectively removed without
shooting them. An example of an attempt to do so is the recent attempt to
discredit John Ashcroft by the libdems. Another recent example is the MP
John Townend in the UK(a forced public apology for....nothing but speaking
his mind)
jim
* * * *
"All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans
will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy
and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial--but
democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian sense."
Aldous Huxley, 1958.
Shrikeback
"Daedra Morrighan" <vang...@antisocial.com> wrote in message
news:9e253...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <3B04777D...@earthlink.net>, jason says...
> >
> >yeah i agree, the nationalist aspect of the ussr was pretty
> >much stalins contribution. that kind of "marxism"
> >is refered to as "stalinism". there are major distinctions
> >between basic marxism and stalinism. many memebers of
> >the bolshevik party were against stalins "socialism in one country"
> >ideas that is until they were shot or exiled.
> >
> >j
> >
>
> There are various "Third Positionist," Strasserite, etc. groups that
espouse a
> mixture of socialism and nationalism. It is possible for a mixture to
exist.
> However, such 'social nationalist' doctrines are NOT Marxist.
Does it really matter if they are theologically correct in your view.
Marxism has proven useful to tyrants, just as nationalism is. I would
expect any Machiavellian ruler to use whatever theology seemed useful.
kamil
(classicliberal2) wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2001 04:52:45 GMT, Tony Veca <jav...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>Except saying they'll be "held accountable" is
>nothing but more words. There's no holding
>them accountable for anything in Libertopia,
>where the right of the corporate oligarchy to
>commit bribery is considered God-given. Sure,
>you can work against them on the campaign
>trail, but they'll kick your ass there every time,
>because they have all the money on their
>side. They either subscribe to Libertarian
>absolutism out of the goodness of their hearts,
>or they won't act in a Libertarian fashion as
>legislators. Herein lies an important distinction
>between the words of Libertarians and their
>real-world application. Politicians are NEVER
>to be trusted in this fashion, and only a fool
>argues otherwise.
One can ensrine libertarian principals into the constitution,
An make it posssible to sue polititions that pass laws that are
unconstitutional and affect your rights, in a negative maner.
>> What part of "No one has the right to initiate
>> force to affect social or political change." don't
>> you understand? This is the core principle of
>> Libertarianism.
>___
>
>I understand it quite well. The uppity population
>isn't accepting the absolutist notions of
>Libertarians--they thought they were rid of kings
>and princes. They are demanding that shackles
>be put on corporate power.
No mostly they are demanding response to laws bought by corperations
that destroy peoples rigths.
>Minimum wage laws.
I don't think many juristictions have effective minimum wage laws
anymore.
Some of the effects of effective (read the minimum is higher than what
the company is willing to pay) minimum wage laws are:
1)small diffrences in skill of applicants are amplified as all
potential workers are going to start at the same rate the company will
want to hire the more experianced ones. this causes young workers
into a cycle of no experiance no job. One has to then volenteer to get
experiance.
2) if there is any racial/ethnic preference along the people doing
the hireing the effect will be more severe, without the laws the
ethnic/racial group might of been willing to work for $0.25 less than
other workers and since there may be only a slight racial preference
the minority workers would get hired (at a lesser rate).
>Child labor laws.
How effective are these laws?
When were they introduced?
These laws were introduced affter children working could be done
without, after sociaty was wealthy enough that it could afford to do
so.
Are these laws in place more to stop abuse by family members than to
stop evil companies.
> Workplace safety laws.
These laws can be replaced by simply making the companies very liable
for worker injuries.
This makes sence from the common law perspective.
>Environmental laws.
These can and were delt with by private property rigths under common
law, laws were bought by companies that stoped making them liable for
polution they dreated.
> This is simply unacceptable
>aggression on their part (but not, of course, on
>the part of the businesses that offered them no
>pay, sent their children to the factories, put them
>in unsafe workplaces, and poisoned their
>environment). At that point, they can either be
>allowed some influence over the Libertopian
>State--at which point it immediately ceases to be
>a Libertopian State--or they will have to be
>brought into line using any means necessary.
>There's little doubt which course would be
>chosen, or upon what grounds it would be
>justified (The rest of the "non-initiation of force"
>equation is, of course, self-defense).
no. look at solutions above.
James A. Donald
Daedra Morrighan:
> > There are various "Third Positionist," Strasserite, etc.
> > groups that espouse a mixture of socialism and nationalism.
> > It is possible for a mixture to exist. However, such 'social
> > nationalist' doctrines are NOT Marxist.
Shrikeback
> Does it really matter if they are theologically correct in your
> view. Marxism has proven useful to tyrants, just as nationalism
> is. I would expect any Machiavellian ruler to use whatever
> theology seemed useful.
Yes indeed: Class war, race war, what is the difference? Either way
anyone who opposes the regime gets sent to the death camps along with
those of the wrong race or wrong class. In practice the communists
frequently used race war, and the fascists sometimes used class war.
Any port in a storm.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
pU9nn4jA2qbhSS7MjrfKkP4UrX0zxZ67GJfH0yg4
4bwDhofa36qgrRgvuHXXHukJiSWcXDrDLCBMQ+n/o
Daedra Morrighan
says...
Marxism does not allow for nationalism.
In realpolitick, both big capital and big government will naturally pose a
threat to liberty. It is often that a ruling class will hide behind a lofty
ideology without being faithful to principle.
James A. Donald
On Sat, 19 May 2001 17:56:19 GMT, ka...@cs.ualberta.ca (kamil) wrote:
> One can ensrine libertarian principals into the constitution,
Been tried.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
RaS/Zb3xc8BLncQRNjbTkz4zIDq99/PnWisYny1P
4NeunEijWNcnuLDETEjmpp6qLVboqvjElQwUFY2ai
Ministry of Propaganda
> --
> On 17 May 2001 20:31:52 -0700, Daedra Morrighan
> <vang...@antisocial.com> wrote:
> > There are various "Third Positionist," Strasserite, etc. groups that espouse a
> > mixture of socialism and nationalism. It is possible for a mixture to exist.
> > However, such 'social nationalist' doctrines are NOT Marxist.
>
> The difference, while it seems enormous to Marxists, seems
> imperceptible to ex Marxists.
Capitalists try to lump nationalists and communists together because
both are "collectivist." Nationalists, of course, lump the capitalists
and commies together because both are "materialist." Commies say that
capitalists and nationalists are similar because nationalists usually
are for preserving some degree of "private property," which Marxists
see as the bedrock of capitalism.
In reality, capitalists, commies and nationalists are all equidistant
from one another on the ideological scale. "Left" and "right" really
have very limited use for describing political ideologies and
outcomes.
__
Daedra Morrighan
vang...@antisocial.com
http://www.pornonationalist.ws
John Shafto
>
> In reality, capitalists, commies and nationalists are all equidistant
> from one another on the ideological scale. "Left" and "right" really
> have very limited use for describing political ideologies and
> outcomes.
The left/right scale makes sense if one sees it for what it really
is. Those on the left advocate more government action, those
on the right advocate less. This is the driving power of politics,
it can be seen in any issue debate. The various flavors of
government are just dawdling in methodology.
"The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature.
They exist in all countries, whether called by these names
or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and
Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals.
The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory
by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is
formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.
Communists and Libertarian Socialists advocate complete
integration of government into society, they are the extreme
left. Anarchists (Individualists) advocate a complete lack
of governance, they are extreme right.
"Some writers have so confounded society with government,
as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they
are not only different, but have different origins ... Society is in
every state a blessing, but Government, even in its best state,
is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
--Thomas Paine, Common Sense
James A. Donald
On 20 May 2001 11:22:08 -0700, national_...@email.com (Ministry
of Propaganda) wrote:
> Capitalists try to lump nationalists and communists together because
> both are "collectivist." Nationalists, of course, lump the capitalists
> and commies together because both are "materialist."
No, fascists lump capitalists with commies, because they are both
supposedly jewish, or more plausibly, because they are both genuinely
internationalist.
Of course lately, since the collapse of communism, commies in the west
have suddenly seen the light about the evils of international trade
and migration, and are now singing the same distinctly nationalist
song as the fascists have always been singing. At the same time as
the fascists are rising in influence among the radicals, the commies
have been trying to steal the fascist's best lines.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
8277cK5qUOOZ5/b41+/gGOORrNeuKpqqoCZOJSUV
4/yN8hnAJiMRMvbqwJUUKLnJnenNW75cTGafnuThe
John Shafto
>
> No, fascists lump capitalists with commies, because they are both
> supposedly jewish, or more plausibly, because they are both genuinely
> internationalist.
>
> Of course lately, since the collapse of communism, commies in the west
> have suddenly seen the light about the evils of international trade
> and migration, and are now singing the same distinctly nationalist
> song as the fascists have always been singing. At the same time as
> the fascists are rising in influence among the radicals, the commies
> have been trying to steal the fascist's best lines.
<heh>
What an inbred bunch they are.
Tim Starr
>James A. Donald:
>> > Many socialist left organizations claimed to be independent of the
>> > Soviet Union, but whenever Soviet foreign policy changed, so did there
>> > line. A few Trotskyists did criticize Pol Pot even before the Soviet
>> > line changed, but that was rare and mild display of independence. and
>> > the Trots usual quarrel with the Soviet Union was that it was not
>> > totalitarian enough.
>
>> trotskyist arguing for more totalitarianism?
>
>Recollect that Trotsky was called "the butcher".
>
>> what source are you using
>
>Primarily I am recalling the Trotskyists of my youth. However to this
>day Trotskyists criticize Stalin for going slow in collectivising the
>peasants.
Evidence for this can be found in Orwell's "Animal Farm," which was an
allegory of the Trotskyist critique of Stalinism. Orwell picked up the
Trotskyist critique of Stalinism when he fought in the Spanish Civil War.
Orwell's Trotsky character is "Snowball," with "Napoleon" for Stalin. The
allegory for collectivization of agriculture is building the windmill.
Trotsky is the one to originally propose building the windmill on the
Central
Committee, & Napoleon opposes him and has Snowball driven off the farm by
the
puppies. Then Napoleon supports building the windmill, claiming it was his
idea all along.
This is exactly what happened with collectivization of agriculture in Soviet
Russia, which was originally Trotsky's idea, Stalin opposed it at first on
the
grounds that it was too soon, purged Trotsky, then championed it against
Bukharin, purging him, too.
Even though "Animal Farm" is anti-Stalinist, it is also pro-Communist, as my
girlfriend could tell when we watched the recent movie of "Animal Farm"
without having ever read the book before.
Tim Starr
BRUCE SHAW
"jason pierce" <onyx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3B057776...@earthlink.net...
M. Simon
>> > Marx makes Rand look like a genius, but I don't just
>> > take her word as gospel, there are many many others who
>> > have known and said similar things. She just developed
>> > objective reasoning into a structured philosophy.
>>
>> ooooh i would pit the "genius" of marx vs the "genius" of
>> rand any day. no one apart from libertarians take Rand seriously,
>> and rightly so.
Good philosophy, mostly. Very bad writing. Turgid prose.
M. Simon Space-Time Productions http://www.spacetimepro.com
Free CNC Machine Control Software
Free Source Code
Control the World From a Parallel Port
Micheal Ellis
>
> >> > Marx makes Rand look like a genius, but I don't just
> >> > take her word as gospel, there are many many others who
> >> > have known and said similar things. She just developed
> >> > objective reasoning into a structured philosophy.
> >>
> >> ooooh i would pit the "genius" of marx vs the "genius" of
> >> rand any day. no one apart from libertarians take Rand seriously,
> >> and rightly so.
>
> Good philosophy, mostly. Very bad writing. Turgid prose.
>
are you refering to Rand or Marx? as there are serious
holes in rands "philosophy".
Tony Veca
(classicliberal2) wrote:
[...deletia..]
>
>The "principles" are your motives,
Only to a liberal collectivist, but then you have yet to learn to say what
mean and mean what you say.
My only motivation is what is in my own self-interest. My principles are
the guidlines which my motivation must follow.
>Tony. If
>you can't question them, you can't question
>your motives. If you think they are unquestionable
>but at the same time questionable, you are
>engaging in doublethink, no matter how you slice
>it.
When I question my motives, it to make sure that I am not going to do
something that I will end up regretting latter or acted upon for the wrong
reasons. This called being responsible.
___
>
>>>> But I do know with
>>>> out a shadow of doubt, that working to
>>>> protect of the rights of the individual and
>>>> securing those rights for future generations
>>>> will the most important work I will ever do
>>>> save for raising my children.
>>>
>>> Your devotion to activism is admirable. I only
>>> wish it took a more positive direction.
>>
>> No, you wish it took the direction you want it
>> to go.
>___
>
>I do have views of my own.
Of cours you do. But from my POV, you are the type of reformer who creates
misery. When you say "Something must be done!" I see someone with a head
full of vicious intentions that have no other outlet.
--
==============================================================
__ __ Tony Veca jav...@earthlink.net
/'( _ )'\ =============================================
/ . \/^\/ . \ "America is at that awkward stage. It's too
/ _)_'-'_(_ \ late to work within the system, but too
/.-' ).( '-.\ early to shoot the bastards. On the road
/' /\_/\ '\ to tyranny, we've gone so far that
"-V-" polite political action is about as
useless as a miniskirt in a convent."
-- Claire Wolfe
"101 Things To Do 'til The Revolution"
===============================================================
classicliberal2
wrote:
>[...deletia..]
>
>>The "principles" are your motives,
>
>Only to a liberal collectivist, but then you have
>yet to learn to say what mean and mean what
>you say.
___
The doublethink just keeps coming. Two
weeks ago, you said you lived by these
principles, and now you are not only denying
you are motivated by them but saying only
liberal collectivists do silly things like live by
principles at all. On top of that, you, who
haven't stood by anything you've said at all
in our entire exchange, then accuse me of
not saying what I mean...after, of course,
slicing away most of the parts where I
show you contradicting yourself. Do you
think all this is convincing people to
become Libertarians? It's a perfect example
of why I'm not one.
___
>My only motivation is what is in my own
>self-interest. My principles are the guidlines
>which my motivation must follow.
___
This is very simple, Tony: The question is,
Are you motivated by principles or not? All
you've done here is excerpt one principle--the
one that says self-interest should be your sole
motivation in life--and call it your "motivation,"
as though it weren't a principle. This doesn't
change the idea that your principles are your
motivation; it proves it. Still, you are able to
do these bizarre mental gymnastics and
somehow deduce that only "liberal
collectivists" are motivated by principle. Are
you a "liberal collectivist?"
___
>>Tony. If
>>you can't question them, you can't question
>>your motives. If you think they are unquestionable
>>but at the same time questionable, you are
>>engaging in doublethink, no matter how you slice
>>it.
>
>When I question my motives, it to make sure that
>I am not going to do something that I will end up
>regretting latter or acted upon for the wrong
>reasons. This called being responsible.
___
You aren't questioning your motivating principles
when you do those things--you're only questioning
whether you've lived up to them or not, whether
your actions have complied with them. If the
motivating principles themselves are erroneous,
this process doesn't do you any good at all.
You're still maintaining the fanatics position that
they are "above any moral and ethical
reproach" while, at the same time, saying you
aren't maintaining that position. Doublethink.
___
>>>>> But I do know with
>>>>> out a shadow of doubt, that working to
>>>>> protect of the rights of the individual and
>>>>> securing those rights for future generations
>>>>> will the most important work I will ever do
>>>>> save for raising my children.
>>>>
>>>> Your devotion to activism is admirable. I only
>>>> wish it took a more positive direction.
>>>
>>> No, you wish it took the direction you want it
>>> to go.
>>
>>I do have views of my own.
>
>Of cours you do. But from my POV, you are the
>type of reformer who creates misery. When you
>say "Something must be done!" I see someone
>with a head full of vicious intentions that have
>no other outlet.
___
You have no idea what my views are, yet you
are constantly making these personal attacks.
Is this just a personal quirk, or are Libertarians
just assholes?
Tony Veca
If you were honest with yourself, you would give the real reason that you
are not a libertarian.
>
>>My only motivation is what is in my own
>>self-interest. My principles are the guidlines
>>which my motivation must follow.
>___
>
>This is very simple, Tony:
Your right it is, but you are the one trying to confuse it, in my opinion
you keep looking for some other meaning that isn't there. Like I stated
before I say what I mean and mean what I say. There are no hidden meaning,
I leave that for people like you.
>You aren't questioning your motivating principles
You still don't get it. Principles are not motivation, they are guide
lines. My motivations is my personal self-intrest, i.e. whats in it for me.
My principles are the guiding factors of my motivation, to wit my
self-interest.
I honestly don't see what is so hard to understand here.
>You're still maintaining the fanatics position that
>they are "above any moral and ethical
>reproach" while, at the same time, saying you
>aren't maintaining that position. Doublethink.
No, that is what you want to believe when the evidence says othewise. You
remind of the joke about the contry bumpkin that sees an elephant for the
first time and says "There ain't no such animal."
The contridiction isn't with me, it is with you IMNSHO.
[...deletia...]
>>Of cours you do. But from my POV, you are the
>>type of reformer who creates misery. When you
>>say "Something must be done!" I see someone
>>with a head full of vicious intentions that have
>>no other outlet.
>___
>
>You have no idea what my views are, yet you
>are constantly making these personal attacks.
>Is this just a personal quirk, or are Libertarians
>just assholes?
I didn't make a personal attack, I made an personal observation from my
POV.
Had I made a personal attack, you monitor would have been on fire.