Critiques of Libertarianism 5th Anniversary
Kythe
Libertarianism, including the Non-Libertarian FAQ and Libertarianism
in One Lesson!
Mike's site provides much information and many links on logical
argumentation and rhetoric, Ayn Rand's Objectivism, economics, law,
political philosophy and more. It is an indispensible resource for
libertarians and their opponents alike.
To visit Critiques of Libertarianism:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Regards,
Jonathan
Crash
on Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:58:30 GMT,
(Kythe) wrote:
about: Critiques of Libertarianism 5th Anniversary
>This week marks the Fifth Anniversary of Mike Huben's Critiques of
>Libertarianism, including the Non-Libertarian FAQ and Libertarianism
>in One Lesson!
Hey Good stuff! Well researched.
Intelligent.
I don't think most Libs could understand it.
But it doesn't matter, they are into religion, why
would they check reality?
>Mike's site provides much information and many links on logical
>argumentation and rhetoric, Ayn Rand's Objectivism, economics, law,
>political philosophy and more. It is an indispensible resource for
>libertarians and their opponents alike.
Yeah, I guess it is at that.
Crash
What whackos!
Can you believe these guys?
It's a MONSTER SITE! 43,000 hits!
I saw this, pick any topic!
==========Introductory features:
A Non-Libertarian FAQ.
A general introduction to discussion with libertarians, with
an extensive discussion of
arguments commonly used by libertarian evangelists.
Unsolicited Praise for the Non-Libertarian FAQ.
Criticisms of the Non-Libertarian FAQ.
Libertarianism in One Lesson.
Mike Huben's guide to becoming a libertarian. If you've argued
with libertarians, you'll
understand them well enough to ROTFL. :-) for the humor-impaired.
So You Want To Discuss Libertarianism....
Brief, basic ideas about how to discuss libertarianism
meaningfully. Common sense that is
often ignored.
Quotations relevant to libertarianism.
You've seen the quotes the libertarians select. Now see the
others....
Subject indexes:
FAQs and reference documents.
An index to sites about logic, propaganda, historical documents,
liberalism, and other
information relevant to libertarian arguments. Very high quality!
Reviews Of Books Related To Libertarianism.
An index to reviews that show libertarianism in an unfavorable
light.
Humor, Satire, and Quotations.
These make an otherwise dry subject more palatable.
Liberal Criticisms.
Liberals understand that government has a useful track record.
Conservative Criticisms.
Few conservatives seem to feel much need to bash libertarianism:
liberals are much bigger
enemies.
Left-Libertarian and Anarchist Criticism.
A resounding clash of ideologies!
Objectivist Critiques Of Libertarianism.
While Objectivism is a type of libertarianism, there is a great
deal of conflict between the
two groups, sometimes resulting in some good criticisms.
Criticisms of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand).
Ayn Rand was a truculent, domineering cult-leader,
whose Objectivist
pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with
heroic fiction about righteous capitalists.
Criticisms of Robert Nozick and "Anarchy, State, and Utopia".
The foremost philosophy of libertarianism has been thoroughly
discredited.
David Friedman.
An anarcho-capitalist libertarian whose ideas undermine most
libertarian's philosophy. His
writings and criticisms of them.
Testimonials by former libertarians and objectivists.
Let's see what we can learn from some of the many who have left
libertarianism.
Criticisms of the Libertarian Party.
There's lots to laugh at, behind the veil of propaganda.
Make Or Break Views Of Libertarianism.
Positions so absolute and extreme as to border on self-ridicule.
The "World's Smallest Political Quiz".
What's wrong with this prime propaganda.
Liberty And Government.
Most libertarians view government as a destroyer of liberty. But
the fact is that
government is essential to create liberty.
Government And Economics.
Libertarians tend to consider government a drain on the economy,
when in actuality it is
an active player in creating a more vigorous economy.
Austrian Economics.
A fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many
libertarians on ideological
grounds.
Criticisms of Neoliberalism, Capitalism, and Free Markets.
Libertarians are unabashed promoters of capitalism and free
markets, and generally can
see no wrong with them, either historically, philosophically, or
economically. The rest of
the world can though.
Libertarian Economic Experiments.
Chile and New Zealand are often cited by libertarians as sites of
successful libertarian
economic reform. They tend to cite a few "benefits", but there are
many downsides....
Freedom Through Technology.
Cypherpunks, high-tech libertarians, and various others mistakenly
think technology will
eliminate the need for government (if not outright eliminate
government.)
The Constitution, Laws, and Libertarians.
Libertarians frequently parrot bizarre pseudolegal formulas or
selective histories to justify
militias, common law courts, sovereign citizenship, immunity from
taxes, etc. They also
adopt many right wing criticisms of modern court interpretations of
the Constitution.
Environmentalism.
Libertarians are often grotesquely anti-environmental in terms of
regulation. (Though
some do like market-oriented pollution rights.) They frequently
repeat anti-environmental
propaganda.
Gun Control.
Libertarians tend to be strongly anti-gun-control, more so even
than the NRA leadership,
since ideology knows no bounds.
Privatization.
Libertarians are generally unabashedly in favor of privatization,
with only minor limits in
the case of minarchists. It's not that simple.
Social Security.
Social Security is one of the biggest libertarian bugaboos. It's
obvious success clashes
harshly with the sink-or-swim ideology of most libertarians.
Transferring Power To The States.
Libertarians frequently prefer to decentralize government power by
moving it to the
states. Sometimes that's not good planning.
Public Schools, Education, and Vouchers.
Libertarians generally adopt anti-public school rhetoric, and
recommend vouchers as a
first step towards elimination of public schools.
Taxation.
Most libertarians are opposed to taxes, and make various arguments
why they should be
"equal" and not progressive.
Limited Property: Zoning and Takings.
Most libertarians are in favor of absolute property rights, in
contradiction to essentially all
traditions of property ownership.
Limited Property: Property Taxes.
Most libertarians are opposed to property taxes. The Georgists have
an answer that
libertarians are unable to rebut.
Reciprocal Links and other Resources Of Interest.
Crash
on Thu, 28 Oct (Kythe) wrote:
about: Critiques of Libertarianism 5th Anniversary
>Libertarianism, including the Non-Libertarian FAQ and Libertarianism
>in One Lesson!
>
>To visit Critiques of Libertarianism:
>
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Libertarianism in One Lesson
No, this isn't David Bergland's evangelistic text. This is an outsider's
view of the precepts of
libertarianism. I hope you can laugh at how close this is to real
libertarianism!
Introduction
One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is
basically a very simple ideology.
Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign
words like
"proletariat".
This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need to hit the
ground running as a freshly
indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and proselytize!
Philosophy
In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent
Government tempted
man into Initial Coercion.
Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and
all Good from the
Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few
will just happen to
have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to
be the meritorious few
by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.
Government cannot own things because only individuals can own
things. Except for
corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything
else we except but
government.
Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative,
reasoning individualist.
Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than
they can choose
language, residence, school, or religion.
Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and
benefit from defense,
infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.
Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia.
Sovereign citizenry!
The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!
Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully
integrated honesty is
whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit
Wallace. Zonpower
Rules Nerdspace!
The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is
necessary and unnecessary.
The answer is only to be found by individuals.
Government
Libertarians invented outrage over government waste, bureaucracy,
injustice, etc.
Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop
them.
Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred mantra
"Government does not
work" according to Guru Browne.
Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by
settlers to acquire
their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and sold by
private companies,
no matter how many heads of union members are broken by private
police.
Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying
the economy.
Money retained by individuals grows the economy, eve
[chop]
heeeeeeheeeeeeee Heeeeeeeee haw!!!!!!
BOOM!
Reality Crash
Kythe
supposed to be humorous (and it is), but it's dead on, as well!
Jonathan
On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:12:04 GMT, see.m...@theBeach.edu (Crash)
wrote:
Kythe
supposed to be humorous (and it is), but it's dead on, as well!
Jonathan
On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:22:26 GMT, see.m...@theBeach.edu (Crash)
wrote:
>
>on Thu, 28 Oct (Kythe) wrote:
>about: Critiques of Libertarianism 5th Anniversary
>>This week marks the Fifth Anniversary of Mike Huben's Critiques of
>>Libertarianism, including the Non-Libertarian FAQ and Libertarianism
>>in One Lesson!
>>
>
>>To visit Critiques of Libertarianism:
>>
>http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
>
Kythe
nuts.
Jonathan
Kythe
a great place to start.
Jonathan
On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:52:09 GMT, see.m...@theBeach.edu (Crash)
wrote:
>
>on Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:58:30 GMT,
>(Kythe) wrote:
>about: Critiques of Libertarianism 5th Anniversary
>>This week marks the Fifth Anniversary of Mike Huben's Critiques of
>>Libertarianism, including the Non-Libertarian FAQ and Libertarianism
>>in One Lesson!
>
Crash
Are you new to the U.S. Libertarian Party?
Are you going to your first Libertarian meeting?
Read this to hit the ground running as a freshly
indoctrinated libertarian.
on Fri, 29 Oct 1999 (Kythe) wrote:
about: Re: Critiques of Libertarianism 5th Anniversary
>"Libertarianism in One Lesson" is one of my favorite pieces.
>(Crash) wrote:
>>on Thu, 28 Oct (Kythe) wrote:
>>>Libertarianism, including the
>>>Non-Libertarian FAQ and Libertarianism in One Lesson!
>>http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
>>Libertarianism in One Lesson
>>Introduction
>>
>>One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is
>>basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even
>>simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign
>>words like "proletariat".
>>
>>This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need
>>to hit the ground running as a freshly
>>indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and proselytize!
Well, isn't it a quasi-religion anyway? Oh sure, they
may CLAIM that they hate religion...but....
Oh sure, they may CLAIM that they are rational...but....
What's the reality? Test it for yourself.
>> Philosophy
>>
>> In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent
>>Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.
>> Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and
>>all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
Jeepers, does this sound familiar???? But I guess that's
more polite than "bitch Godess Rand".
>> We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few
>>will just happen to
>> have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to
>>be the meritorious few
>> by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.
I'll bet the Randist parrots (Libertarians) all line
up to play Lotto. Lotto and Randism are taxes on the
numerically illiterate. But hey! They have a dream!
>> Government cannot own things because only individuals can own
>>things. Except for
>> corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage,
>> and anything else we except but government.
I love the below, it's soo true!
>> Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative,
>> reasoning individualist.
laughinggggg!!!! But what if they could reason? Oh yeah,
I forgot, all their key terms (freedom, individual, the Right-Left
continuum, etc) have been REDEFINED! Hey, as long as they accept
that kooky terminology, reason works just fine. Now THAT is
ome sophistocated brainwashing. They are CUT OFF.
>> Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than
>>they can choose language, residence, school, or religion.
How can they believe this:
>> Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and
>> benefit from defense,
>> infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.
What irresponsible spoiled brats! Mama shoulda used some
disipline on those folks. They need a good spanking.
>> Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia.
>>Sovereign citizenry!
>> The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!
>> Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully
>> integrated honesty is
>> whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit
>> Wallace. Zonpower
What's the Neo-Tech? A sub-cult?
>> Rules Nerdspace!
>> The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is
>>necessary and unnecessary.
>> The answer is only to be found by individuals.
>> Government
>> Libertarians invented outrage over government waste,
>> bureaucracy, injustice, etc.
Not only that, but all non-Liberts are evil SOCIALISTS!!!!!
>> Libertarians invented outrage over government waste,
>> bureaucracy, injustice, etc.
>> Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works
>> to stop them.
That's because they are soo smart! It's an exclusive club of
the only people who have minds or can see!
>> Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred mantra
>>"Government does not work" according to Guru Browne.
>> Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were
>> killed by settlers to acquire
>> their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and
>> sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of
>> union members are broken by private police.
Yes!...there is no such thing as financial tyranny!
So?
Are these guys just Republicans who smoke dope?
>> Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying
>>the economy.
>> Money retained by individuals grows the economy, eve
>>
>> [chop]
>>
>>heeeeeeheeeeeeee Heeeeeeeee haw!!!!!!
I'll drink to that.
>>http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
>>
>>Libertarianism in One Lesson
BOOM!
Reality Crash
realist
>
> This week marks the Fifth Anniversary of Mike Huben's Critiques of
> in One Lesson!
I've seen your faq posted here before. It was so huge, that it
would take all day to respond to it. I'd suggest that you post
one section at a time, and then you might get more people to
respond.
As far as your critique of Libertarianism, I have this to say:
A couple days ago, I turned down a side street while driving to
work. Turns out I "violated" some obscure section of a traffic
law that I didn't know about. Boom. Instant $250 fine.
So I don't need your faq. I know that government is just a
bunch of highway robbers, setting up traps to steal money
from people. My opinion now (I've always felt it) is that
whatever happens to this country, it deserves. Tornadoes,
hurricanes, school shooters... It deserves it. When you
can be stolen from, just for driving to work, Hey, I don't
care anymore.
Andrew Northbrook
Libertarianism as your "evidence".
--
think about it,
Andrew Northbrook
Congress: Putting the FUN back into dysfunctional
Rob Robertson
>
> Kythe wrote:
> >
> > This week marks the Fifth Anniversary of Mike Huben's Critiques of
> > Libertarianism, including the Non-Libertarian FAQ and Libertarianism
> > in One Lesson!
> (snip)
>
> I've seen your faq posted here before. It was so huge, that it
> would take all day to respond to it. I'd suggest that you post
> one section at a time, and then you might get more people to
> respond.
>
> As far as your critique of Libertarianism, I have this to say:
>
> A couple days ago, I turned down a side street while driving to
> work. Turns out I "violated" some obscure section of a traffic
> law that I didn't know about. Boom. Instant $250 fine.
Oh, quit your whining, Sure, *you* might be out $250, but
remember that The People have now GAINED $250! If everyone
made the same wrong turn, we could all be filthy rich!
[Someone may want to check my math on that, however,...]
> So I don't need your faq. I know that government is just a
> bunch of highway robbers, setting up traps to steal money
> from people. My opinion now (I've always felt it) is that
> whatever happens to this country, it deserves. Tornadoes,
> hurricanes, school shooters... It deserves it. When you
> can be stolen from, just for driving to work, Hey, I don't
> care anymore.
Sad but true. Were Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, or John Adams
magically transported to this day and age they would be instantly
reviled as "gunL@@Ns" and "radical extremists", and they'd
probably look at today's citizenry with complete disgust, as
so many of us do today.
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org
_
Rob Robertson
"Thus the fear of concentration camps and the resulting insight
into the nature of total domination might serve to invalidate
all obsolete political differentiations from right to left and
to introduce beside and above them the politically most important
yardstick for judging events in our time, namely: whether they
serve totalitarian domination or not."
- Hannah Arendt, _The Origins of Totalitarianism_, p. 442
Kythe
>Kythe wrote:
>>
>> This week marks the Fifth Anniversary of Mike Huben's Critiques of
>> Libertarianism, including the Non-Libertarian FAQ and Libertarianism
>> in One Lesson!
>(snip)
>
>I've seen your faq posted here before. It was so huge, that it
>would take all day to respond to it. I'd suggest that you post
>one section at a time, and then you might get more people to
>respond.
First, I can't and won't take credit for Mike Huben's work. It's
extensive, extremely well-researched, and very thorough in its
philosophy. If you read clear through it, and really thought about
it, it might help you to see the flaws in libertarian philosophy.
>
>As far as your critique of Libertarianism, I have this to say:
>
>A couple days ago, I turned down a side street while driving to
>work. Turns out I "violated" some obscure section of a traffic
>law that I didn't know about. Boom. Instant $250 fine.
>
>So I don't need your faq. I know that government is just a
>bunch of highway robbers, setting up traps to steal money
>from people. My opinion now (I've always felt it) is that
>whatever happens to this country, it deserves. Tornadoes,
>hurricanes, school shooters... It deserves it. When you
>can be stolen from, just for driving to work, Hey, I don't
>care anymore.
So you have to pay a (perhaps excessive, perhaps not, depending upon
the reason for the law...) $250 fine, and now government is "a bunch
of highway robbers".
Nope, you don't need the Non-libertarian FAQ to tell you this. On the
other hand, if you want to know the flaws in your reasoning, above,
you might try devoting at least a little time to it.
Jonathan
Paul Zrimsek
promise to respond to David Friedman's critique of his FAQ.
( http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html )
I'm still looking forward to finding out why none of Friedman's
"disappointingly standard" arguments were anticipated in a document
that bills itself as a refutation of standard libertarian arguments.
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@tiac.net
----------------------------------------------------------------
She's the sort of woman who lives for others-- you can always
tell the others by their hunted expression. --C.S. Lewis
Kythe
wrote:
>realist wrote:
<snip>
> Sad but true. Were Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, or John Adams
>magically transported to this day and age they would be instantly
>reviled as "gunL@@Ns" and "radical extremists", and they'd
>probably look at today's citizenry with complete disgust, as
>so many of us do today.
Funny, how there's just never an end to the ability of libertarians to
posthumously declare great thinkers as fully supportive of their
views.
Something Mike addresses at his site, I might add. Want to know the
consequences of the Libertarian Party's goals (to whose site you
referred people)? Try exposing yourself to an alternative point of
view -- Mike's Critiques of Libertarianism.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Jonathan
Kythe
Since Mike acknowledges on his site (specifically, his Non-libertarian
FAQ and Libertarianism in One Lesson) that there are many different
flavors of libertarianism, and criticism of some flavors might not
apply to others, your objection is somewhat off.
Libertarianism in One Lesson (which the previous post quoted)
specifically describes itself as a humorous piece, "close to real
libertarianism". But if you compare the piece with the Libertarian
Party Platform (and other stated positions), I think you'll find the
"distorted depiction" is pretty much right on.
Or perhaps some of the aspects of common libertarian belief, when
presented in all their stark glory, are rather discomforting?
Jonathan
Rob Robertson
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:06:43 -0400, Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com>
> wrote:
>
> >realist wrote:
> <snip>
> > Sad but true. Were Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, or John Adams
> >magically transported to this day and age they would be instantly
> >reviled as "gunL@@Ns" and "radical extremists", and they'd
> >probably look at today's citizenry with complete disgust, as
> >so many of us do today.
>
> Funny, how there's just never an end to the ability of libertarians to
> posthumously declare great thinkers as fully supportive of their
> views.
What would *you* have happen if I and a few dozen of my friends
showed up on the Lexington Green armed with full-auto M-16s at
the ready in order to defend the cannon we had hidden in Concord
from federal troops?
> Something Mike addresses at his site, I might add. Want to know the
> consequences of the Libertarian Party's goals (to whose site you
> referred people)? Try exposing yourself to an alternative point of
> view -- Mike's Critiques of Libertarianism.
I've seen it, and though there are some good points in it, I find
that mostly it's laced with the same kind of mindless hooting that
I witnessed from you and Crash in this thread. Pathetic, really.
> http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Response to Mike Huben’s “Critiques of Libertarianism”
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html
> Jonathan
_
Rob Robertson
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of
servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go
home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your
chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you
were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, 1776
Bob Bickford
>First, I can't and won't take credit for Mike Huben's work. It's
>extensive, extremely well-researched, and very thorough in its
>philosophy. If you read clear through it, and really thought about
>it, it might help you to see the flaws in libertarian philosophy.
Or, on the other hand, slightly more careful reading should convince
you that Huben has deluded himself by attacking what are, at best,
just caricatures of what actual libertarians think. And that his
so-called "research" is shallower than soap scum, and doesn't even
begin to compare to the huge volumes of multi-disciplinary research
done over the past few decades which supports the rather large and
varied panoply of libertarian positions and policy prescriptions.
Huben's diatribe is useful in one regard: it shows the sorts of
logical and rhetorical errors that a typical pseudo-intellectual
will commit when trying to attack a large and complex philosophy
that they really don't understand except as a series of caricatures.
Other than that, it can be dismissed for the waste-of-bandwidth
that it is.
.....rab
Andrew Northbrook
>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:47:13 -0700, "Andrew Northbrook"
><ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>>How very interesting that you took a thoroughly distorted depiction of
>>Libertarianism as your "evidence".
>>
>
>Libertarian Party is to read Usenet. A week of that, and you'll
>realize it's not distorted at all...
>
>(Note that Andrew still has this nasty habit of snipping entire posts
>and dismissing them as wrong without proof, but has the nerve to say
>others are "intolerant" and "bigoted". )
No, Milt, I only snip the parts that I consider irrelevant. Man, talk about
a *total* non-issue!
Frankly, IMHO, most people -- & you're a prime example -- quote excessively.
Anyone who wants to go back & re-read the thread can do so. I've pointed
this out more than once, but somehow, you keep missing it. Why is that,
Milt?
Andrew Northbrook
>
>Are you new to the U.S. Libertarian Party?
>Are you going to your first Libertarian meeting?
>Read this to hit the ground running as a freshly
>indoctrinated libertarian.
>
>on Fri, 29 Oct 1999 (Kythe) wrote:
>about: Re: Critiques of Libertarianism 5th Anniversary
>>"Libertarianism in One Lesson" is one of my favorite pieces.
>>(Crash) wrote:
>>>on Thu, 28 Oct (Kythe) wrote:
>>>>Libertarianism, including the
>>>>Non-Libertarian FAQ and Libertarianism in One Lesson!
>
>>>http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
>
>>>Libertarianism in One Lesson
>
>>>Introduction
>>>
>>>One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is
>>>basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even
>>>simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign
>>>words like "proletariat".
No, you just have to learn "American" words like "constitution" &
"independence".
>>>This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need
>>>to hit the ground running as a freshly
>>>indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and proselytize!
Nah, no thanks -- I'd rather save the preaching to the preachers.
>Well, isn't it a quasi-religion anyway?
What, you mean like... say... ANY OTHER POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY?????
Those who run about saying things like "libertarianism is really a
religion!", for some reason, also turn out to be the same people who bristle
when told that "evolution is really a religion!" They then go into hysterics
to prove that evolution *can't* be a religion.
Well, of course it's not a religion, any more than libertarianism is a
religion. Note, though, that actual knowledge still leaves plenty of room
for ignorance.
>>>In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent
>>>Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.
>>>Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and
>>>all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
I see, nothing like spouting false Randian-ism.
Ayn Rand did not believe that *all* government was bad. She believed that
government existed only to protect the liberties of their citizens. She
argued, though, that government -- just like established religion, or "the
thugs of the spirit, as she called it -- was all too capable of destroying
the rights of individuals, often while trying to actually do some good.
>>>We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few
>>>will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich.
Libertarians happen to
>>>be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.
Actually, Libertarians applaud the meritorious few who actually invent
things that make the world better, & in so doing make themselves comfortably
wealthy. Libertarians see no reason why they should be compelled to fund the
lives of other people.
>>>Government cannot own things because only individuals can own
>>>things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage,
>>>and anything else we except but government.
Governments cannot own things, only individuals can. Only individuals have
rights. Governments have powers.
As an example, note the 9th & 10th Amendments to the US Constitution. The
9th Amendment specifically speaks of RIGHTS, which are reserved to the
people. The 10th Amendment, on the other hand, specifically refers to
POWERS, which are reserved to either the states or to the people. Clearly,
the Constitution itself notes that difference.
>>>Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than
>>>they can choose language, residence, school, or religion.
Unfortunately the children can't choose that government, either. But the
rest of those are all pretty much true.
>>> The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!
No Libertarian argues for "states rights", because the concept is mutually
contradictory.
>>>The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is
>>>necessary and unnecessary.
Limited government is necessary. Note that anarchy is NOT exclusive to
Libertarians.
>>> Libertarians invented outrage over government waste,
>>> bureaucracy, injustice, etc.
>>> Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works
>>> to stop them.
?????????????????
Blatant lie.
>>> Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were
>>> killed by settlers to acquire
>>> their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and
>>> sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of
>>> union members are broken by private police.
Gosh, how very interesting of the liar who wrote this: he or she failed to
point out that ALL of these immoral activities were the responsibility of
corrupt governments. Nothing like ideological blinders.
>>>Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying
>>>the economy.
ROTFLMFAO. Nothing like people who not what-of they speak.
Do some more research, Sparky. Very little of this was accurate enough even
to satirize.
Milt
<ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>How very interesting that you took a thoroughly distorted depiction of
>Libertarianism as your "evidence".
>
Jesus, Andrew; all one needs to do to get a depiction of the
Libertarian Party is to read Usenet. A week of that, and you'll
realize it's not distorted at all...
(Note that Andrew still has this nasty habit of snipping entire posts
and dismissing them as wrong without proof, but has the nerve to say
others are "intolerant" and "bigoted". )
Milt
With liberty comes responsibility.
Milt
jxoxnxvx...@xixaxsxtxaxtxex.xexdxu (Kythe) wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:47:13 -0700, "Andrew Northbrook"
><ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>>How very interesting that you took a thoroughly distorted depiction of
>>Libertarianism as your "evidence".
>>
>>--
>>think about it,
>>Andrew Northbrook
>>Congress: Putting the FUN back into dysfunctional
>
>Since Mike acknowledges on his site (specifically, his Non-libertarian
>FAQ and Libertarianism in One Lesson) that there are many different
>flavors of libertarianism, and criticism of some flavors might not
>apply to others, your objection is somewhat off.
>
>Libertarianism in One Lesson (which the previous post quoted)
>specifically describes itself as a humorous piece, "close to real
>libertarianism". But if you compare the piece with the Libertarian
>Party Platform (and other stated positions), I think you'll find the
>"distorted depiction" is pretty much right on.
>
>Or perhaps some of the aspects of common libertarian belief, when
>presented in all their stark glory, are rather discomforting?
>
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there is a
stark difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian. At their
heart, I think most people are libertarians, to some degree. While
Libertarians are a little nutty, and seem to be happy with the 1% of
the vote they get in most elections, and their occassional stints as
dog catchers...
Milt
<ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>Milt wrote in message <381a378c...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:47:13 -0700, "Andrew Northbrook"
>><ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>How very interesting that you took a thoroughly distorted depiction of
>>>Libertarianism as your "evidence".
>>>
>>
>>Jesus, Andrew; all one needs to do to get a depiction of the
>>Libertarian Party is to read Usenet. A week of that, and you'll
>>realize it's not distorted at all...
>>
>>(Note that Andrew still has this nasty habit of snipping entire posts
>>and dismissing them as wrong without proof, but has the nerve to say
>>others are "intolerant" and "bigoted". )
>
>No, Milt, I only snip the parts that I consider irrelevant. Man, talk about
>a *total* non-issue!
Not at all. It's a tactic that you use when you don't want to deal
with something. It's actually become a major tactic among the tpg
group. You snip the entire post, throw out an ad hominem, comment on
the poster, and change the header justa tiny bit, in the hopes that
no one will be able to find the post you're answering. Then there are
the ones in which you answer, and trim all newsgroups except tpg...
It's part of the overall lack of veracity your ilk shows in
"debate"...
>
>Frankly, IMHO, most people -- & you're a prime example -- quote excessively.
I only quote what's relevant. The only time I quote a lot is when
context is important. it's a judgment call. But I never cut and then
answer, and the only time I change the headers is when I'm quoting
most of the previous post.
>Anyone who wants to go back & re-read the thread can do so. I've pointed
>this out more than once, but somehow, you keep missing it. Why is that,
>Milt?
It depends on the newsreader, Andrew. On many newsreaders, the thread
changes when the header is changed. Also, some newsreaders are set to
only download posts for a set number of days, or to only download a
limited number of headers. That's why you should at least quote the
sections to whihc you're directing your answer. It's called common
courtesy.
Of course, then it would be a lot easier to see how profoundly stupid
you really are...
BretCahill
Message-id: <7vct5q$2gq$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net> writes:
>
>How very interesting that you took a thoroughly distorted depiction of
>Libertarianism as your "evidence".
Don't keep us sitting on the edges of
our chairs.
Why not post a "nondistorted" version?
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
BretCahill
Message-id: <3819E7...@real.com> writes:
. . . .
>As far as your critique of Libertarianism, I have this to say:
>
>A couple days ago, I turned down a side street while driving to
>work. Turns out I "violated" some obscure section of a traffic
>law that I didn't know about.
I'm curious. What WAS the obscure traffic
law?
> Boom. Instant $250 fine.
Why don't you git educated so you can
make enough dough to pay your fines?
>So I don't need your faq.
What about a Libertarian Party FDQ
(Frequently Dodged Questions).
>I know that government is just a
>bunch of highway robbers,
You don't have to live here. American
Airlines will fly libertopists one way to
tax free Somalia.
. . .
> When you
>can be stolen from, just for driving to work,
Then you are obviously living in the wrong
country.
> Hey, I don't
>care anymore.
Do ANY libertopists EVER care enough
about ANYTHING to EVER do ANYTHING
other than whine?
BretCahill
jxoxnxvx...@xixaxsxtxaxtxex.xexdxu (Kythe) in
Message-id: <381a18ad...@news.earthlink.net> writes:
>
>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:06:43 -0400, Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com>
>wrote:
>
>>realist wrote:
><snip>
>> Sad but true. Were Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, or John Adams
>>magically transported to this day and age they would be instantly
>>reviled as "gunL@@Ns" and "radical extremists", and they'd
>>probably look at today's citizenry with complete disgust, as
>>so many of us do today.
>
>Funny, how there's just never an end to the ability of libertarians to
>posthumously declare great thinkers as fully supportive of their
>views.
That's only because they never read any.
A few of the more honest, more well read
ones will openly admit that the constitution
isn't a libertopic document.
But these are rare and getting rarer.
No one's left but the gun nuts.
BretCahill
Message-id: <mgqS3.1169$G51.3...@news.wenet.net> writes:
. . .
>Or, on the other hand, slightly more careful reading should convince
>you that Huben has deluded himself by attacking what are, at best,
>just caricatures of what actual libertarians think.
Libertopists, not true libertarians.
> And that his
>so-called "research" is shallower than soap scum,
Which STILL isn't as shallow as a
libertopist.
>and doesn't even
>begin to compare to the huge volumes of multi-disciplinary research
>done over the past few decades which supports the rather large and
>varied panoply of libertarian positions and policy prescriptions.
Like the high tax Klinton economy.
Lan...@aol.com
bretc...@aol.com (BretCahill) wrote:
> Just kidding.
>
> jxoxnxvx...@xixaxsxtxaxtxex.xexdxu (Kythe) in
> Message-id: <381a18ad...@news.earthlink.net> writes:
> >
> >On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:06:43 -0400, Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>realist wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Sad but true. Were Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, or John Adams
> >>magically transported to this day and age they would be instantly
> >>reviled as "gunL@@Ns" and "radical extremists", and they'd
> >>probably look at today's citizenry with complete disgust, as
> >>so many of us do today.
> >
> >Funny, how there's just never an end to the ability of libertarians
to
> >posthumously declare great thinkers as fully supportive of their
> >views.
>
> That's only because they never read any.
>
> A few of the more honest, more well read
> ones will openly admit that the constitution
> isn't a libertopic document.
>
So says Bret, who after being asked repeatedly still has not explained
what the 9th and 10th Amendments mean, why the framers used "well-
regulated" in the 2nd Amendment, as opposed to "well-governed" (the
phrase used to ascribe government control of the military), and a host
of other Constitutional questions which make it clear that the
libertarian view of the Constitution is much closer to reality than his.
- Andrew Langer
--
For Bret Cahill: Irony produced by DELIBERATELY appearing to be
ignorant is particularly to be avoided on Usenet.
- Kym Horsell on 9/13/99 in sci.environment and talk.environment
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
M.Simon
>I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there is a
>stark difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian. At their
>heart, I think most people are libertarians, to some degree. While
>Libertarians are a little nutty, and seem to be happy with the 1% of
>the vote they get in most elections, and their occassional stints as
>dog catchers...
And mayor.
As to national elections Libertarians got 1/2% of the vote.
We are developing a farm team. Winning local elections is the first
step.
Never underestimate a dedicated minority. They can change the world.
Simon - http://www.spacetimepro.com Free CNC machine tool software
Milt
>
>>I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there is a
>>stark difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian. At their
>>heart, I think most people are libertarians, to some degree. While
>>Libertarians are a little nutty, and seem to be happy with the 1% of
>>the vote they get in most elections, and their occassional stints as
>>dog catchers...
>
>And mayor.
>
>As to national elections Libertarians got 1/2% of the vote.
>
>We are developing a farm team. Winning local elections is the first
>step.
Um... I hate to break it to you, but the party's been around for
almost 30 years now. At what point do you plan to put a couple of
people into the majors??
>
>Never underestimate a dedicated minority. They can change the world.
Not if their agenda is so whacked out no one can relate to them....
Ronin
"M.Simon" wrote:
> >I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there is a
> >stark difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian.
Absolutely. The difference: LPers do not recognize the libertarian
Guiding Principles. The LP has no definitive philosophy. It is ruled by
pragmatists. IOW, those willing to compromise our human rights in the
name of expediency.
> At their
> >heart, I think most people are libertarians, to some degree.
Perhaps. Can't prove it in this NG.
> While
> >Libertarians are a little nutty, and seem to be happy with the 1% of
> >the vote they get in most elections, and their occassional stints as
> >dog catchers...
Used to be Congressmen and a Governor. And one million Pres votes. This
was before the new hierarchy took over. Now the LP is not too different
from the Republicrats. If the LP continues on its present course it will
soon just become another "third party." Albeit with an oft used gimmick:
Less govt.
> And mayor.
Of Bumf*** Egypt, Ca. IIRC. A joke!
> As to national elections Libertarians got 1/2% of the vote.
Beaten by the Green Party which refused contributions and spent pennies
compared to the LP.
Beaten buy a huge margin (app 8% = 1600%) by an upstart: Perot. Who was
ridiculed constantly in the media. AND spent fewer dollars than the LP.
> We are developing a farm team. Winning local elections is the first
> step.
You aren't "winning local elections." You are electing "dogcatchers."
What the LP is doing is making a joke out of itself. Alienating those
who would aid the LP. Pursuing a losing strategy. Congratulating itself
on spending millions electing the odd "dogcatcher" hither, thither and
yon. The LP can't even manage a MENTION in Newsweek's latest (several
pages) article on "Third Party's."
> Never underestimate a dedicated minority. They can change the world.
Not w/o a creed to unite around. Not if they continue pursuing a policy
of appeasement and compromise. Not if they refuse to demand Freedom Now.
Not if they continue to use the same political gimmicks that the oppfors
use; ie; 2000 in the yr. 2000.
2000 dogcatchers spread out over a system with a total of 12 Million
public servants. WOW! What progress. ..... What progress?
The LP can be summed up in one sentence: From governor to dogcatcher in
20 yrs.
The LP MUST change!
Ronin.
diallo
Rob Robertson wrote:
> Sad but true. Were Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, or John Adams
> magically transported to this day and age they would be instantly
> reviled as "gunL@@Ns" and "radical extremists", and they'd
> probably look at today's citizenry with complete disgust, as
> so many of us do today.
These same men ought to be looked at with scorn. Given their hypocrisy,
they'd be appalled that Blacks are no longer enslaved and women are finally
achieving some semblance of equality. Each and every one of those men was
an avowed bigot. I suppose it's easier for the small-minded to buy into
the myth than to actually look at the truth. God bless your "heroes".
--
-----------------------------
http://www.votesocialist.org
Jackson Harvey
BretCahill wrote:
> > And that his
> >so-called "research" is shallower than soap scum,
>
> Which STILL isn't as shallow as a
> libertopist.
Since a libertopists is a figment of your imagination, I doubt you will
offend anyone except your imaginary friends with this post.
> >and doesn't even
> >begin to compare to the huge volumes of multi-disciplinary research
> >done over the past few decades which supports the rather large and
> >varied panoply of libertarian positions and policy prescriptions.
>
> Like the high tax Klinton economy.
Surely you are not suggesting that the high-tax Clinton tyranny is a
libertarian position?
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Jackson Harvey
BretCahill wrote:
> A few of the more honest, more well read
> ones will openly admit that the constitution
> isn't a libertopic document.
There is no such thing as a libertopic document, since libertopians are a
figment of your imagination. Is it just easier to attack your fictional
group, since they cannot defend themselves? Is there a deeper reason why
you invent enemies?
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Jackson Harvey
BretCahill wrote:
> > Hey, I don't
> >care anymore.
>
> Do ANY libertopists EVER care enough
> about ANYTHING to EVER do ANYTHING
> other than whine?
Since libertopists are a figment of your imagination, you will have to
tell us the answer to this.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
wcolley
> Do ANY libertopists EVER care enough
> about ANYTHING to EVER do ANYTHING
> other than whine?
Does Bret Cahill EVER care enough about ANYTHING to EVER do ANYTHING
other than post inane remarks?
> All conservatism is based on censorship of
> economic information.
>
All of Bret Cahills posts are based on the absence of information.
William C Colley
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Albert Isham
>
>On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:00:01 GMT, msi...@tefbbs.com (M.Simon) wrote:
>
>>
>>>I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there is a
>>>heart, I think most people are libertarians, to some degree. While
>>>Libertarians are a little nutty, and seem to be happy with the 1% of
>>>the vote they get in most elections, and their occassional stints as
>>>dog catchers...
>>
>>
>>As to national elections Libertarians got 1/2% of the vote.
>>
>>step.
>
>almost 30 years now. At what point do you plan to put a couple of
>people into the majors??
>>
>
>
>
>Milt
>
>
>With liberty comes responsibility.
>
wcolley
> But these are rare and getting rarer.
Intelligent posts from Bret Cahill are rare and getting rarer.
> No one's left but the gun nuts.
Nothing is left but "he's nuts".
> All conservatism is based on censorship of economic information.
>
All of Bret Cahills posts are based on absence of information.
wcolley
> Which STILL isn't as shallow as a libertopist.
Which STILL isn't as shallow as a Bret Cahill post.
James F. Mayer
writes:
alt.politics.org.batf,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham)
Subject: Re: NRA Arms Criminals
Date: 30 Apr 1997 16:16:20 GMT
“...We need to confiscate guns from the lawless and the disloyal and we
want any confiscating to be conducted as authorized by law and not
conducted by "armed citizen guerrillas" who may be the real tyrants."
Are these the “lawless and the disloyal” of which you speak?
http://www.us.net/phoenix/
Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945
by Dr. William L. Pierce
* Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been
born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic
terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of
citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded
Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law,
etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and
degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate.
I see that you advocate a police state to enforce your gun control
agenda.
This is partly derived from the Firearms Policy Journal that, in
part, relies on material from the National Alliance (a known neo-Nazi
Organization) home page to justify some of its assertions.
Bill Kasper
was translated:
=
=
=Rob Robertson wrote:
=
=> Sad but true. Were Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, or John Adams
=> magically transported to this day and age they would be instantly
=> reviled as "gunL@@Ns" and "radical extremists", and they'd
=> probably look at today's citizenry with complete disgust, as
=> so many of us do today.
=
=These same men ought to be looked at with scorn.
Be happy.
They are better than scorned, they are anonymous to the
vast majority of your government-schooled chattels.
=Given their hypocrisy,
=they'd be appalled that Blacks are no longer enslaved and women are finally
=achieving some semblance of equality. Each and every one of those men was
=an avowed bigot. I suppose it's easier for the small-minded to buy into
=the myth than to actually look at the truth.
Indeed. I wish everyone could understand the truth of beauty of Marx, as
clearly as you do.
=God bless your "heroes".
Be happy.
You won.
The Revolution is virtually the status quo now, hiveboy.
And the Founders are Dead White Males.
When does the war with Oceana start up again?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his
liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the
right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights
constantly."- THE LAW, by Frederic Bastiat, Paris, 1850
Bert W
>
>
>Rob Robertson wrote:
>
>> Sad but true. Were Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, or John Adams
>
>they'd be appalled that Blacks are no longer enslaved and women are finally
>
Gee Diallo, we in the late 20th century are able to take a quite exalted view
of human reality largely due to the efforts of the people you denigrate. How
dare they fail to reach the moral heights of a Diallo centuries before his
birth? By your criteria I suppose Leonardo was a buffoon for failing to
create a working model of his helicopter, Newton was an idiot for his
ignorance of quantum mechanics, etc. We're all standing on the shoulders of
giants - and the decent among us refrain from pissing on them.
Pat Hines
>
> In article <381b3085....@news.earthlink.net>, Milt says...
> >
> >On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:00:01 GMT, msi...@tefbbs.com (M.Simon) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there is a
> >>>stark difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian. At their
> >>>heart, I think most people are libertarians, to some degree. While
> >>>Libertarians are a little nutty, and seem to be happy with the 1% of
> >>>the vote they get in most elections, and their occassional stints as
> >>>dog catchers...
> >>
> >>And mayor.
> >>
> >>As to national elections Libertarians got 1/2% of the vote.
> >>
> >>We are developing a farm team. Winning local elections is the first
> >>step.
> >
> >Um... I hate to break it to you, but the party's been around for
> >almost 30 years now. At what point do you plan to put a couple of
> >people into the majors??
> >>
> >>Never underestimate a dedicated minority. They can change the world.
> >
> >Not if their agenda is so whacked out no one can relate to them....
> >
> >
> >Milt
> >
> >
> >With liberty comes responsibility.
> >
> See http://world.std.com/~mhuben/guns.html
Yes, by all means visit the above site if you want to see where the
sociofascist wish to take America.
They know that they'll never be successful in resurrecting violent
socialism from the slag heap of history without total or near total
disarmament of law abiding citizens. They love criminals with guns, the
acts of these criminals gives justification to their withdrawal of
citizen access to self defense tools, and other civil rights.
Sociofascists are dangerous to civil rights in America and should be
viewed with the same revulsion reserved for advocates for child
prostitution and baby molesters.
Pat Hines
diallo
Bert W wrote:
> Gee Diallo, we in the late 20th century are able to take a quite exalted view
> of human reality largely due to the efforts of the people you denigrate.
The truth is known. That you call it "denigration" suggests that you don't
like acknowledging that your little heroes were, in fact, scumbags.
> How dare they fail to reach the moral heights of a Diallo centuries before his
> birth?
I don't view slave holding, and the promotion of slavery, as merely a minor
moral transgression. Especially from people who were allegedly so
committed to independence.
> By your criteria I suppose Leonardo was a buffoon for failing to
> create a working model of his helicopter, Newton was an idiot for his
> ignorance of quantum mechanics, etc.
Nice try, but completely irrelevant.
> We're all standing on the shoulders of
> giants - and the decent among us refrain from pissing on them.
Gee... you don't like the truth much, do you?
I don't have many heroes, but I don't idolatrize bigots either.
And I don't consider "decency" to be looking the other way in favor of
bullshit patriotism.
--
-----------------------------
http://www.votesocialist.org
Kythe
<ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>Crash wrote in message <3819b37f....@news.psnw.com>...
>>>>One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is
>>>>basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even
>>>>simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign
>>>>words like "proletariat".
>
>No, you just have to learn "American" words like "constitution" &
>"independence".
Neither of which are specific to Libertarianism -- and there are
better alternatives if you want to truly support the above glittering
generalities. Try again.
>
>>>>This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need
>>>>to hit the ground running as a freshly
>>>>indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and proselytize!
>
>Nah, no thanks -- I'd rather save the preaching to the preachers.
>
>>Well, isn't it a quasi-religion anyway?
>
>What, you mean like... say... ANY OTHER POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY?????
Nope. Philosophy is not idealism. If you don't know the difference,
it's not suprising you wouldn't see the flaws in Libertarianism.
>>>>In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent
>>>>Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.
>>>>Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and
>>>>all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
>
>I see, nothing like spouting false Randian-ism.
>
>Ayn Rand did not believe that *all* government was bad.
And the above didn't claim that. Read it again. It said "all evil
comes from government", not that "all that government does is evil".
>>>>We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few
>>>>will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich.
>Libertarians happen to
>>>>be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.
>
>Actually, Libertarians applaud the meritorious few who actually invent
>things that make the world better, & in so doing make themselves comfortably
>wealthy. Libertarians see no reason why they should be compelled to fund the
>lives of other people.
In other words, those who actually invent things that make the world
better and still don't get comfortably wealthy can go hang. And those
who get wealthy through luck are just beneficiaries of market side
effects. Or are they, by definition, meritorious?
>
>>>>Government cannot own things because only individuals can own
>>>>things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage,
>>>>and anything else we except but government.
>
>Governments cannot own things, only individuals can. Only individuals have
>rights. Governments have powers.
Baloney. Reasonably define "ownership" for me without resorting to
the above question begging, and then tell me why government's claims
are different (honestly, if you'd read Mike's writings, you'd know the
flaws in your line of reasoning already).
>>>> Libertarians invented outrage over government waste,
>>>> bureaucracy, injustice, etc.
>>>> Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works
>>>> to stop them.
>
>?????????????????
>
>Blatant lie.
Well, yes. He is satirizing Libertarian extremism, you know.
>>>> Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were
>>>> killed by settlers to acquire
>>>> their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and
>>>> sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of
>>>> union members are broken by private police.
>
>Gosh, how very interesting of the liar who wrote this: he or she failed to
>point out that ALL of these immoral activities were the responsibility of
>corrupt governments. Nothing like ideological blinders.
Indeed. Yours don't even allow tunnel vision, it seems. ALL of the
above were, by definition, the responsibility of unregulated
capitalism. Unless you want to claim government was responsible for
failing to stop the above? That's a singularly un-Libertarian point
of view.
>
>>>>Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying
>>>>the economy.
>
>ROTFLMFAO. Nothing like people who not what-of they speak.
>
>Do some more research, Sparky. Very little of this was accurate enough even
>to satirize.
Evidently, you found it threatening enough to try.
Want more? Try the rest of Mike's site:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Jonathan
Kythe
jxoxnxvx...@xixaxsxtxaxtxex.xexdxu (Kythe) wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:30:36 -0700, realist <rea...@real.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>As far as your critique of Libertarianism, I have this to say:
>>
>>A couple days ago, I turned down a side street while driving to
>>work. Turns out I "violated" some obscure section of a traffic
>>law that I didn't know about. Boom. Instant $250 fine.
<snip>
>Nope, you don't need the Non-libertarian FAQ to tell you this. On the
>other hand, if you want to know the flaws in your reasoning, above,
>you might try devoting at least a little time to it.
I'll even give you a hint: Is it "highway robbery" if the fine is
charged by the owner of the highway?
Jonathan
Rob Robertson
>
> Rob Robertson wrote:
>
> > Sad but true. Were Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, or John Adams
> > magically transported to this day and age they would be instantly
> > reviled as "gunL@@Ns" and "radical extremists", and they'd
> > probably look at today's citizenry with complete disgust, as
> > so many of us do today.
>
> These same men ought to be looked at with scorn. Given their hypocrisy,
> they'd be appalled that Blacks are no longer enslaved and women are finally
> achieving some semblance of equality. Each and every one of those men was
> an avowed bigot. I suppose it's easier for the small-minded to buy into
> the myth than to actually look at the truth. God bless your "heroes".
I agree there is a lot of hypocrisy attached to men who proclaimed
that 'all men are created equal' even as their plantations were
tended by slaves, but I don't think you're being accurate regarding
the Adams'. The slave trade was brought to the colonies by the British,
and the corrosive effect of 'free' labor wove itself deeply into the
fabric of American life. The Adams', however, were vehemently opposed
to the idea of slavery, and it strikes me as extremely short-sighted
to tar ALL of the patriots with the 'bigot' brush. A great many men
spoke out against slavery, and the tepid language in the Constitution
regarding the slave trade subverted the principle of freedom for
political expediency in the desire to ensure ratification of the
new plan of national government. Two opposing views regarding this
question of political expediency are;
"It was urged that by this system, we were giving the general
government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under
which general power it would have a right to restrain, or
totally prohibit the slave trade - it must appear to the world
absurd and disgraceful to the last degree, that we should except
from the exercise of that power, the only branch of commerce,
which is unjustifiabe in its nature, and contrary to the rights
of mankind - That on the contrary, we ought rather to prohibit
expressly in our constitution, the further importation of slaves;
and to authorize the general government from time to time, to
make such regulations as should be thought most advantageous
for the gradual abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of
slaves which are already in the States.
That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism,
and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is
supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of
mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression."
- Luther Martin, "The Genuine Information" VIII
Maryland Gazette (Baltimore) January 22, 1788
...and one arguing for political expediency;
"Under the present confederation, the states may admit the
importation of slaves as long as they please; but by this
article [Article 1, Sec. 9, U.S. Constitution] after the
year 1808, the congress will have power to prohibit such
importation, notwithstanding the disposition of any state
to the contrary. I consider this as lying the foundation
for banishing slavery out of this country; and though the
period is more distant than I could wish, yet it will
produce the same kind, gradual change, which was pursued
in Pennsylvania."
- James Wilson, Pennsylvania Convention, December 3, 1787
> -----------------------------
> http://www.votesocialist.org
Vote SOCIALIST!? You're arguing for the institution of
slavery of everyone regardless of color, not for the fredom
of all men *regardless* of color!
"So great is the Wickedness of some Men, & the stupid
Servility of others, that one would be almost inclined
to conclude that Communities cannot be free. The few
haughty Families, think *they* must govern. The Body of
the People tamely consent & submit to be thier Slaves.
This unravels the Mystery of Millions being enslaved by
the few!"
- Samuel Adams to Richard Henry Lee
Boston, December 3, 1787
Vote for freedom, *period*. Vote Libertarian!
_
Rob Robertson
Bert W
Lee Harrison
ruthe...@rocketmail.com wrote on 10/29/99 7:19 PM:
> Milt wrote in message <381a378c...@news.earthlink.net>...
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:47:13 -0700, "Andrew Northbrook"
>> <ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How very interesting that you took a thoroughly distorted depiction of
>>> Libertarianism as your "evidence".
>>>
>>
>> Jesus, Andrew; all one needs to do to get a depiction of the
>> Libertarian Party is to read Usenet. A week of that, and you'll
>> realize it's not distorted at all...
>>
>> (Note that Andrew still has this nasty habit of snipping entire posts
>> and dismissing them as wrong without proof, but has the nerve to say
>> others are "intolerant" and "bigoted". )
>
> No, Milt, I only snip the parts that I consider irrelevant. Man, talk about
> a *total* non-issue!
>
> Frankly, IMHO, most people -- & you're a prime example -- quote excessively.
> Anyone who wants to go back & re-read the thread can do so. I've pointed
> this out more than once, but somehow, you keep missing it. Why is that,
> Milt?
People do seem to deflate your arguments by posting verifiable facts, and
I've noticed that you delete text that embarrasses you, misquote and distort
what these posts said, then claim victory and launch ad hominem attacks.
Is that why you couldn't respond to anything from U.S. v. Emerson? Just
deleted the text and claimed victory?
Only idiots do that, Andy. It's the same as throwing a temper tantrum and
running away.
> Andrew Northbrook
The Lone Weasel
Not-So-Secret-Hideout
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/index.html
My Weasel Board
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/bboard.mv
BretCahill
heavier in proportion to the liberty of the
subject, and that there is a necessity for
reducing them in proportion to the increase
of slavery. This has always been and
always will be the case. It is a rule derived
from nature that never varies. We find it in
all parts, in England, in Holland, and in
every state where liberty gradually
declines till we come to Turkey."
-- Montesquieu
Book XIII, Chapt. 12, _Spirit of Laws_
(1748)
wcolley
Bret Cahill apparently believes that Montesquieu is still alive, since
only then could he explain the "High Tax Klinton Economy".
Jackson Harvey
BretCahill wrote:
As usual, you are quoting from someone instead of trying to use reason.
Just because someone said something does not make it true. Try thinking
for yourself.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Friso Buker
"These great advantages of liberty have caused the
abuse of liberty itself. Because *moderate* government
has produced remarkable results, this moderation has
been abandoned; because large taxes have been raised,
one has wanted to raise excessive ones; and,
disregarding the hand of liberty that gave this
present, one has turned to *servitude*, which refuses
everything."
"Liberty has produced excessive taxes, but the effect
of these excessive taxes is to produce servitude in
their turn, and the effect of servitude is to produce a
decrease in taxes."
-- Montesquieu
The Abuse of Liberty
Book XIII, Chapt. 15, _Spirit of Laws_
(1748)
BretCahill
Message-id: <382622E6...@tc.umn.edu> writes:
>BretCahill wrote:
>> "It is a *general rule*, that taxes may be
>> heavier in proportion to the liberty of the
>> subject, and that there is a necessity for
>> reducing them in proportion to the increase
>> of slavery. This has always been and
>> always will be the case. It is a rule derived
>> from nature that never varies. We find it in
>> all parts, in England, in Holland, and in
>> every state where liberty gradually
>> declines till we come to Turkey."
>>
>> -- Montesquieu
>>
>> Book XIII, Chapt. 12, _Spirit of Laws_
>> (1748)
>
>As usual, you are quoting from someone instead of trying to use reason.
Then why don't any libertopists ever
explain the high tax Klinton economy.
>Just because someone said something does not make it true.
The "celebrated Montesquieu" worked for
the framers. There's no reason he won't
work for us as well.
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
Jackson Harvey
BretCahill wrote:
> >As usual, you are quoting from someone instead of trying to use reason.
>
> Then why don't any libertopists ever
> explain the high tax Klinton economy.
Sure. They are stealing lots of money for us for bad reasons. Simple
enough?
> >Just because someone said something does not make it true.
>
> The "celebrated Montesquieu" worked for
> the framers. There's no reason he won't
> work for us as well.
Except when he's wrong. That doesn't seem to bother you, though. What is
important is the validity of what is said, not who does the speaking. If
Montesquieu or God himself tells me something that doesn't make sense, I
will not believe it. This is especially true due to the fact that
Montesquieu is dead and I don't believe in God. :-)
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
R. Sumner
Milt> On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:00:01 GMT, msi...@tefbbs.com (M.Simon)
Milt> wrote:
Milt> >Never underestimate a dedicated minority. They can change the
Milt> >world.
Milt>
Milt> Not if their agenda is so whacked out no one can relate to
Milt> them....
Milt>
What seems whacked out about a free market, a taxless society, and a
mostly (proportionately speaking) privatized government, retaining
law?
Kyfho
But you have given me quite a neat idea. . .
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted with Amiga NewsRog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
W. E. Woods
Milt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 18:19:56 -0700, "Andrew Northbrook"
> <ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Milt wrote in message <381a378c...@news.earthlink.net>...
> >>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:47:13 -0700, "Andrew Northbrook"
> >><ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>How very interesting that you took a thoroughly distorted depiction of
> >>>Libertarianism as your "evidence".
> >>>
> >>
> >>Jesus, Andrew; all one needs to do to get a depiction of the
> >>Libertarian Party is to read Usenet. A week of that, and you'll
> >>realize it's not distorted at all...
> >>
> >>(Note that Andrew still has this nasty habit of snipping entire posts
> >>and dismissing them as wrong without proof, but has the nerve to say
> >>others are "intolerant" and "bigoted". )
> >
> >No, Milt, I only snip the parts that I consider irrelevant. Man, talk about
> >a *total* non-issue!
>
> Not at all. It's a tactic that you use when you don't want to deal
> with something. It's actually become a major tactic among the tpg
> group.
Untrue, little milty. Unlike you, some people are smart enough to trim
down the size of a post for reasonable handling. For example, a person
may answer one or two points as representative, and trim the rest of
drivel you post. They are not avoiding dealing with your "work," just
avoiding needless, pointless clutter.
"Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
what ships are built for."
"Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"
W. E. Woods
Albert Isham wrote:
>
> In article <381b3085....@news.earthlink.net>, Milt says...
> >
> >On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:00:01 GMT, msi...@tefbbs.com (M.Simon) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there is a
> >>>stark difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian. At their
> >>>heart, I think most people are libertarians, to some degree. While
> >>>Libertarians are a little nutty, and seem to be happy with the 1% of
> >>>the vote they get in most elections, and their occassional stints as
> >>>dog catchers...
> >>
> >>And mayor.
> >>
> >>As to national elections Libertarians got 1/2% of the vote.
> >>
> >>We are developing a farm team. Winning local elections is the first
> >>step.
> >
> >Um... I hate to break it to you, but the party's been around for
> >almost 30 years now. At what point do you plan to put a couple of
> >people into the majors??
> >>
> >>Never underestimate a dedicated minority. They can change the world.
> >
> >Not if their agenda is so whacked out no one can relate to them....
> >
> >
> >Milt
> >
> >
> >With liberty comes responsibility.
> >
> See http://world.std.com/~mhuben/guns.html
--
W. E. Woods
Milt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:47:13 -0700, "Andrew Northbrook"
> <ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> >How very interesting that you took a thoroughly distorted depiction of
> >Libertarianism as your "evidence".
> >
>
> Jesus, Andrew; all one needs to do to get a depiction of the
> Libertarian Party is to read Usenet. A week of that, and you'll
> realize it's not distorted at all...
You're right, they aren't. You, OTOH...
Apple
BretCahill
Klinton economy, but Montesquieu can:
"It is a *general rule*, that taxes may be
heavier in proportion to the liberty of the
subject, and that there is a necessity for
reducing them in proportion to the increase
of slavery. This has always been and always
will be the case. It is a rule derived from
nature that never varies. We find it in all
parts, in England, in Holland, and in every
state where liberty gradually declines till we
come to Turkey."
Book XIII, Chapt. 12 _Spirit of Laws_ (1748).
Apple
How does this explain it Brett?
I read that quote and it sounds like
all he's saying is:
If a country's relatively free you can
have relatively higher taxes, but if
you take away the people's freedom
you have to lower taxes.
I assume it's because slaves are
less productive than people working
for themselves. Also high taxed slaves
might stage a rebellion.
The problem in America is they are
increasing our taxes at the same time
they take away our personal freedoms.
High taxed slaves might stage a rebellion.
BretCahill
Message-id: <38310299...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>BretCahill wrote:
>> Libertopists cannot explain the high tax
>> Klinton economy, but Montesquieu can:
>>
>> "It is a *general rule*, that taxes may be
>> heavier in proportion to the liberty of the
>> subject, and that there is a necessity for
>> reducing them in proportion to the increase
>> of slavery. This has always been and always
>> will be the case. It is a rule derived from
>> nature that never varies. We find it in all
>> parts, in England, in Holland, and in every
>> state where liberty gradually declines till we
>> come to Turkey."
>
>How does this explain it Brett?
Bush and Klinton raised taxes to the
highest ever and we now have the best
economy ever.
Was this predicted by libertarian
economists?
>I read that quote and it sounds like
>all he's saying is:
>If a country's relatively free you can
>have relatively higher taxes,
Therefore you find high taxes in free
countries.
Is this the libertopic position?
> but if
>you take away the people's freedom
>you have to lower taxes.
Low taxes <=> servitide
Is this the libertopic?
>I assume it's because slaves are
>less productive than people working
>for themselves.
True, but it contradicts the pair of
conservative libertarian economists who
got the Nobel Prize for Economics a few
years ago.
> Also high taxed slaves
>might stage a rebellion.
You know of any successful slave
rebellions?
You consider Hatian Dictator Papa Doc a
libertarian?
>The problem in America is they are
>increasing our taxes at the same time
>they take away our personal freedoms.
This contradicts what Montesquieu wrote.
>High taxed slaves might stage a rebellion.
Most Americans are generally happy with
the high tax Klinton economy.
Much happier than with the low tax Gipper
economy.
Apple
BretCahill wrote:
> Apple <app...@bellsouth.net> in
> Message-id: <38310299...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> >The problem in America is they are
> >increasing our taxes at the same time
> >they take away our personal freedoms.
>
> This contradicts what Montesquieu wrote.
But you are taking his observation andturning it into an economic law.
stuart.park
R. Sumner <Ky...@nospam.nowhere> wrote in message
news:I1.F1.l42w4AA...@nospam.nowhere...
> "Milt" == "Milt" writes:
>
> Milt> On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:00:01 GMT, msi...@tefbbs.com (M.Simon)
> Milt> wrote:
> Milt> >Never underestimate a dedicated minority. They can change the
> Milt> >world.
> Milt>
> Milt> Not if their agenda is so whacked out no one can relate to
> Milt> them....
> Milt>
>
> What seems whacked out about a free market,
- Even economists dont want a 'free market' acknowledging that some goods
and services for example insurance, roads etc could only be delivered by
government. A market can be regulated and still provide all of the benefits
of a free market.
a taxless society,
Because inevitably this means no society - people starving and anarchy. Tax
is required to pay for a fair security and legislature. Or would you rather
return to the person with most money totally dictating the law as they
desire? You walk down the road and are assaulted by the local lords armed
thugs and cant do anything - because the local 'justice' system is owned by
the same lord? Some level of taxation is a fundamental building block to
advance a country socially and economically.
and a
> mostly (proportionately speaking) privatized government, retaining
> law?
What are you meaning by this last statement? I assume you mean a minimal
gov't, which has no authority over the private sphere?
S. Park
Robert N. Newshutz
>
> R. Sumner <Ky...@nospam.nowhere> wrote in message
> news:I1.F1.l42w4AA...@nospam.nowhere...
> > What seems whacked out about a free market,
>
> - Even economists dont want a 'free market' acknowledging that some goods
> and services for example insurance, roads etc could only be delivered by
> government.
>
Insurance and roads are provided by private sources, so your claim that
government can only provide them is false.
The number of services that can only be delivered by a government is
small. Consider, there are private police and courts, private fire
protection, private schools. National defense forces are only required,
because of the existence of other governments.
Which leaves a court of final appeal and its supporting enforcement
structures, which is so small that it is distinctly different than what
is commonly considered a government.
The question is not what goods and services can ONLY be provided by
government, but what goods and services are BEST provided by government.
Which is an opinion based on the subjective personal valuation of what
is BEST.
Libertarians believe many fewer services are best provided by government
than governments "provide" today.
> A market can be regulated and still provide all of the benefits
> of a free market.
If by regulation, you mean the rule of law and punishment of force and
fraud, then libertarians would agree.
The problem arises, in that "regulation" of the market can be severe
enough to to prevent the provision of the benefits of a free market.
The major benefit of a free market, is the continual economic growth and
enrichment of the people. Societies with very limited regulation of the
market have much higher growth than societies with much regulation.
Here is one documentation of this relationship:
http://www.heritage.org/index/execsum.html
The curve fit in this graph from this report would indicate that even
the countries with the most free markets would benefit from a freer
market:
http://www.heritage.org/index/graphics/curve.gif
--
Robert N. Newshutz
"The government solution to a problem
is usually as bad as the problem"
-- Milton Friedman
Ronin
"Robert N. Newshutz" wrote:
> > > What seems whacked out about a free market,
The simple fact that we cannot change human nature. IOW, Utopia is NOT an
Option.
> > Even economists dont want a 'free market' acknowledging that some goods
> > and services for example insurance, roads etc could only be delivered by
> > government.
Silly examples Stuart. You need to get in touch with us. We can help cure your
ignorance,
> <bw snip>
>
> The question is not what goods and services can ONLY be provided by
> government, but what goods and services are BEST provided by government.
> Which is an opinion based on the subjective personal valuation
Not at all Robert. You know that there is a definitive libertarian creed: The
libertarian Guiding Principles. You also know that the libertarian GPs are an
excellent source for solving our probs w/o reducing ourselves to
"......subjective personal valuation."
The problem you and others calling themselves libertarians have and will
always have if you refuse to adopt the GPs is stated above: You have no creed.
Therefore every question is soon reduced to a matter of "..... personal
subjective valuation."
> of what
> is BEST.
>
> Libertarians believe many fewer services are best provided by government
> than governments "provide" today.
Correct.
> > A market can be regulated and still provide all of the benefits
> > of a free market.
Correct Stuart. With few of the dangers of trying to establish a Free Market
(can't be done if statism exists) in a Statist world.
> If by regulation, you mean the rule of law and punishment of force and
> fraud, then libertarians would agree.
True libertarians would agree. Do you agree with the libertarian GPs Robert?
> The problem arises, in that "regulation" of the market can be severe
> enough to to prevent the provision of the benefits of a free market.
A moot point. One cannot have a Free Market in a Statist world. An obvious
contradiction.
> The major benefit of a free market, is the continual economic growth and
> enrichment of the people.
Which you cannot prove: 1) There has never been a free market world. 2) It is
human nature to seek the highest value from the least effort. W/o a proper
creed (libertarian) we are left with the Capitalist creed: Maximize Profits by
Any Means Necessary. Leading us to the foulest form of Statism.... Capitalist
Imperialism.
> Societies with very limited regulation of the
> market have much higher growth than societies with much regulation.
Arguable and irrelevant. There has never been a single free nation on earth.
You cannot prove that what SEEMS to work (I repeat: arguable) in a Statist
world could possibly work for the only free nation on earth.... assuming we
succeed....
OTOH, we can and have proven that Statsm is empowered by Capitalists seeking
Free Trade.
> Here is one documentation<bw snip>
"Figures don't lie. But liars do figure." In your case you present easilfy
refutted argument. Read Korent for REAL look at modern Capitalist Imperialism.
Ronin.
Logical Pike
"stuart.park" <stuar...@newscientist.net> wrote:
>
> R. Sumner <Ky...@nospam.nowhere> wrote in message
> news:I1.F1.l42w4AA...@nospam.nowhere...
> >
> > Milt> On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:00:01 GMT, msi...@tefbbs.com (M.Simon)
> > Milt> wrote:
> > Milt> >Never underestimate a dedicated minority. They can change the
> > Milt> >world.
> > Milt>
> > Milt> Not if their agenda is so whacked out no one can relate to
> > Milt> them....
> > Milt>
> >
>
goods
> and services for example insurance, roads etc could only be delivered
by
benefits
> of a free market.
insurance. Roads. What about toll roads? The government doesn't build
roads. When all is said and done, they contract out to private
construction companies.
> a taxless society,
>
> Because inevitably this means no society - people starving and
anarchy. Tax
> is required to pay for a fair security and legislature. Or would you
rather
> return to the person with most money totally dictating the law as they
> desire? You walk down the road and are assaulted by the local lords
armed
> thugs and cant do anything - because the local 'justice' system is
owned by
> the same lord? Some level of taxation is a fundamental building block
to
> advance a country socially and economically.
women to make babies out of wedlock. That would be a start.
> and a
> > mostly (proportionately speaking) privatized government, retaining
> > law?
>
> What are you meaning by this last statement? I assume you mean a
minimal
> gov't, which has no authority over the private sphere?
>
> S. Park
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Robert N. Newshutz
>
> Greetings.
>
> "Robert N. Newshutz" wrote:
>
>
> Option.
>
> > > and services for example insurance, roads etc could only be delivered by
> > > government.
>
> ignorance,
>
> > <bw snip>
> >
> > The question is not what goods and services can ONLY be provided by
> > government, but what goods and services are BEST provided by government.
> > Which is an opinion based on the subjective personal valuation
>
> Not at all Robert. You know that there is a definitive libertarian creed: The
> libertarian Guiding Principles. You also know that the libertarian GPs are an
> excellent source for solving our probs w/o reducing ourselves to
> "......subjective personal valuation."
>
think they have flaws, as you know. Still your acceptance of your
"Guiding Principles" is a subjective personal valuation. My acceptance
of my libertarian principles is a subjective personal valuation. Our
individual conclusions about the structure and purpose of government
based on those principles may not be subjective, but our acceptance of
those principles is. Even though those principles have a firm foundation
in the nature of human beings, that knowledge is not certain nor
complete.
> The problem you and others calling themselves libertarians have and will
> always have if you refuse to adopt the GPs is stated above: You have no creed.
> Therefore every question is soon reduced to a matter of "..... personal
> subjective valuation."
>
When arguing with a non-libertarian, utility is one approach. Forgive me
if I continue to try to persuade others, and do not emulate your
arrogance.
> > of what
> > is BEST.
> >
> > Libertarians believe many fewer services are best provided by government
> > than governments "provide" today.
>
> Correct.
>
> > > A market can be regulated and still provide all of the benefits
> > > of a free market.
>
> Correct Stuart. With few of the dangers of trying to establish a Free Market
> (can't be done if statism exists) in a Statist world.
>
> > If by regulation, you mean the rule of law and punishment of force and
> > fraud, then libertarians would agree.
>
> True libertarians would agree. Do you agree with the libertarian GPs Robert?
>
> > The problem arises, in that "regulation" of the market can be severe
> > enough to to prevent the provision of the benefits of a free market.
>
> A moot point. One cannot have a Free Market in a Statist world. An obvious
> contradiction.
>
> > The major benefit of a free market, is the continual economic growth and
> > enrichment of the people.
>
> Which you cannot prove: 1) There has never been a free market world. 2) It is
> human nature to seek the highest value from the least effort. W/o a proper
> creed (libertarian) we are left with the Capitalist creed: Maximize Profits by
> Any Means Necessary. Leading us to the foulest form of Statism.... Capitalist
> Imperialism.
>
> > Societies with very limited regulation of the
> > market have much higher growth than societies with much regulation.
>
> Arguable and irrelevant. There has never been a single free nation on earth.
> You cannot prove that what SEEMS to work (I repeat: arguable) in a Statist
> world could possibly work for the only free nation on earth.... assuming we
> succeed....
>
Yes, it does not prove that a free society would have the highest
economic growth. It is indicative that liberalizing the economy from its
current state would improve economic growth, and that a free society
would be a rich one.
> OTOH, we can and have proven that Statsm is empowered by Capitalists seeking
> Free Trade.
>
Which is arguable and mostly off point, as international trade policy is
only one aspect of the evaluation of economic freedom. From the Heritage
evaluation, the Bahamas with the worst trade rating has the same overall
score as the Czech Republic with the best trade rating (both at 22 on
the list).
> > Here is one documentation<bw snip>
>
> "Figures don't lie. But liars do figure." In your case you present easilfy
> refutted argument. Read Korent for REAL look at modern Capitalist Imperialism.
>
If it is so easily refuted, then you should have refuted it rather than
give an incomplete cite without information. As usual your argument is
belligerent and unconvincing.
(BTW, Amazon has not listings for author Korent)
If you are talking about Korten, then he does not contradict the
relationship between economic liberty and economic growth, but rather
proposes that mercantilist policies like limited liability should be
eliminated to limit corporate power. He does not contradict the power of
markets, he justifiably attacks viewing corporations as paragons of
market virtues.
But before one can walk, it is necessary to crawl. A first step for
people drenched in the socialist common wisdom is the realization that
government regulation (beyond the protection of individual rights) hurts
economic growth. Another difficult step is that government is the tool
of large interest groups with corporations in the lead. The following
step that mercantilist policies hinder individual liberty and economic
growth is not a difficult one.
Stuart Dunn
>
> R. Sumner <Ky...@nospam.nowhere> wrote in message
> news:I1.F1.l42w4AA...@nospam.nowhere...
> > "Milt" == "Milt" writes:
> >
> > Milt> On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:00:01 GMT, msi...@tefbbs.com (M.Simon)
> > Milt> wrote:
> > Milt> >Never underestimate a dedicated minority. They can change the
> > Milt> >world.
> > Milt>
> > Milt> Not if their agenda is so whacked out no one can relate to
> > Milt> them....
> > Milt>
> >
>
> and services for example insurance, roads etc could only be delivered by
> government.
private businesses. Insurance already is.
A market can be regulated and still provide all of the benefits
> of a free market.
all, many goods, including gasoline, housing, land, imported goods,
oranges, medicine, peanut butter, etc. cost several times as much as
they would in a free market. Most of the money you spend on beer,
liquor, wine, cigarettes, and even gasoline goes to the government, and
most of the other goods I listed have price supports of one kind or
another.
>
> a taxless society,
>
> Because inevitably this means no society - people starving and anarchy. Tax
> is required to pay for a fair security and legislature.
> return to the person with most money totally dictating the law as they
> desire? You walk down the road and are assaulted by the local lords armed
> thugs and cant do anything - because the local 'justice' system is owned by
> the same lord? Some level of taxation is a fundamental building block to
> advance a country socially and economically.
see why taxes need to be any higher than this.
Ronin
"Robert N. Newshutz" wrote:
> > Not at all Robert. You know that there is a definitive libertarian creed: The
> > libertarian Guiding Principles. You also know that the libertarian GPs are an
> > excellent source for solving our probs w/o reducing ourselves to
> > "......subjective personal valuation."
> >
> I know no such thing.
You know the creed exists. You know it is objective. You don't agree with the
GPs... but this has nothing to do with the existence and substance.
> Your "Guiding Principles" have some merit,
Thanks.
> but I
> think they have flaws,
I have proven that the flaws you referred to existed only from an
anarchistic/statist POV. If one advocates Equal Rights with Freedom and Liberty for
All, then no flaws (uncorrected) have been found by you or anyone else.
Lots of intelligent, learned folk in these NGs (many much more intelligent and
learned than I or anyone in our group).... Still only found four minor flaws.... Go
Figure.
> as you know.
I do not deny that you feel flaws exist.
> Still your acceptance of your
> "Guiding Principles" is a subjective personal valuation.
The ACCEPTANCE thereof MAY be. The GPs themselves offer an OBJECTIVE impersonal
valuation system.
But why play word games Robert? It is a relatively unimportant topic. If we agree
that there are ideologies (statist or otherwise) that offer objective criterion.
> My acceptance
> of my libertarian principles
No such thing. The above is tantamount ot Socialists declaring themselves Liberals.
The Label stuck and we are left with the less definitive label: Libertarian. Which
you and others are now attempting to reduce to a vague and ill formed, essentially
meaningless label.
A good way to divide and conquer is to first deny a group a cohesive and collective
identity. How Nice for you Robert.
> is a subjective personal valuation. Our
> individual conclusions about the structure and purpose of government
> based on those principles may not be subjective, but our acceptance of
> those principles is.
Ok. Is there a point hidden here? All I see is repetition of the above.
> Even though those principles have a firm foundation
> in the nature of human beings, that knowledge is not certain nor
> complete.
We do not claim otherwise. We do assert that our ideology takes human nature into
account, particularly Man's "imperative" to obtain the most gratification from the
least effort expended. This fact of nature is one that anarchists always fail to
acknowledge. Statists attempt to subvert. And Capitalist Imperialists (ie; the
current crop of rnaking Lie-Bertarian members) attempt to hide.
> > The problem you and others calling themselves libertarians have and will
> > always have if you refuse to adopt the GPs is stated above: You have no creed.
> > Therefore every question is soon reduced to a matter of "..... personal
> > subjective valuation."
> >
> When arguing with a non-libertarian, utility is one approach.
I tried this with you and it failed. Just like it fails with other
non-libertarians. No one that I know of ever sacrificed/risked "life, fortune and
sacred honor" for practical purposes. For FREEDOM: Man will risk everything.....
> Forgive me
> if I continue to try to persuade others,
Nope. I can't forgive your spread of disinformation, misinformation and outrights
lies. It is divise. And enpowers the status quo.
You and your ilk are more of a threat to freedom than all the Statists in the world
put together.
Evil is easily recognized and once rooted out can be dealt with. Evil consequences
naturally occurring due to flawed perceptions are difficult to identify and when
noticed it is usually too late to mitigate the great damages done.
Nuff For Now.
> and do not emulate your
> arrogance.
You imply that arrogance is an undesirable trait? Tell you what Robert.... when you
refute 2+2=4 then I will gladly and gratefully accept your chastisement.....
> Yes, it does not prove that a free society would have the highest
> economic growth.
Only if one ignores the fact that the rest of the world being Statist would have to
use every possible means to destroy the free nation. (and if one followed your
flawed ideology... succeed) Economic destruction being easiest and most effective
from a Capilatist Imperialist POV.
> It is indicative that liberalizing the economy from its
> current state would improve economic growth,
BS. This is entirely dependant on:
How we define growth. (ie, Mexico has increased its economic growth but the general
populace is worse off than before NAFTA, see Korten for stats)
What changes are made and how they are implemented. (ie; GATT/IMF/WTO are doing a
great job of defeating trade restrictions. Welcome to Capitalist Imperialism on a
worldwide scale.)
A competent and honest valuation of the goals that the
Multinationals/Transnationals that control worldwide trade. (ie. The Capitalist
creed is devoid of ethical/moral considerations.)
The elimination of favorable legislation which if abolished would not effect free
trade but wold make business owners fully accountable for their actions. (Ie;
abolish Corporate Entity status.)
Nuff For Now.
> and that a free society
> would be a rich one.
See above for rebuttal. All apply.
> > OTOH, we can and have proven that Statsm is empowered by Capitalists seeking
> > Free Trade.
>
> Which is arguable
Only to Statists/anarchists. True libertarians and many non-libertarians seeking
solutions ot our world's economic probs recognize that Capitalists (in general) use
the Free Trade concept to to achieve political power and control over Statist
gubmints. (Ies; GATT, NAFTA,)
> and mostly off point,
IT IS THE EFFING POINT: Free Trade in a Statist world is AT EFFING BEST: Utopian.
> as international trade policy is
> only one aspect of the evaluation of economic freedom.
We have not ever supported restricting internal trade in a free nation beyond the
bounds of the Law as defined by the libertarian GPs. Essentially, as you know, the
GPs allow and encourage full use of property rights... so long as NIoF is
inviolate.
> From the Heritage
> evaluation, the Bahamas with the worst trade rating has the same overall
> score as the Czech Republic with the best trade rating (both at 22 on
> the list)
The Heritage Foundation promotes an agenda incompatible with true libertarian
ideology. They also use "....any means necessary," to spread their propaganda.
Everything they write is suspect and must be double and triple checked.
Caveats given above. All apply.
> > "Figures don't lie. But liars do figure." In your case you present easilfy
> > refutted argument. Read Korent for REAL look at modern Capitalist Imperialism.
>
> If it is so easily refuted, then you should have refuted it
I did so and expand upon it above. And have done so previously. I didn't think you
would resort to Red Herrings. <sigh>
> rather than
> give an incomplete cite without information.
I would have thought you were familiar with David Korten. If not, a good start
would be When Corporations Rule the World. You could also try Nock, Our Enemy the
State. Or numerous other work from Adam Smith to Clarence Darrow to Robert Kennedy
to Gerry Spence and many more. Do you need a suggested reading list with info?
> As usual your argument is
> belligerent
Perhaps if one ascribes to your particular "subjective personal valuation." If so:
The topic (slavery) is one worthy of belligerent opposition.
I am corresponding with a hostile enemy of libertarian ideology. Nuff???
> and unconvincing.
Sure. "It'll never fly." "The Earth is flat." I understand. Might I suggest
mellaril?
> (BTW, Amazon has not listings for author Korent)
Sorry. Typo. Should be: Korten. Got past spellcheck.
> If you are talking about Korten, then he does not contradict the
> relationship between economic liberty and economic growth,
Dat's de statist I referred to. And he does:
Page 9, 2nd paragraph, ".......and believe that there are essential roles for
government and limits to the rights of private property."
Page 11, third para, "These problems stem in part from a fivefold increase in
economic output since 1950 that has pushed human demands on the ecosystem beyond
what the planet is capable of sustaining."
Page 32, third para,"Although an open trading system sometimes advocated as
necessary to make up for the environmental deficits of those who have too little,
it often works in the oposite way -increasing the enviromental deficits of thsoe
who have too little to provide a surplus for those who already that have too much.
Page 39, first para, "Almost frantically I looked for gains to set against these
losses, which in most cases I felt, had to be blamed on growth."
Page 45, second para, "Consider that when family and community members worked
directly with and for one another, there were no tax collectors, managers,
government regulators, accountants, lawyers, stockbrokers, bankers, middlemen,
advertising account executives, marketing specialists, investment brokers, or
freight haulers colecting their share of the output of those that did productive
work. The full value of goods and services produced was shared and exchanged within
the family and the community, among those who actulaly crearted the value. The
result was extraordinary efficinet resources to meet reals needs."
I have iterally dozens of cites. I just chose the first that I found. I don't plan
on posting the whole bloody book. If you have read it then you know Korten:
1) Disputes the notion that free trade produces growth and free trade in general is
economically sound.
2) Feels free traders lie about the actual effects of growth.
3) Promotes govt. intrusion into property rights and especially trade.
4) Feels that certain benefits of free trade are outweighed by the environmental
costs resulting in a net loss not a gain in growth.
5) Feels trade should be limited to small communities and regulation should be used
to enpower the small communities.
In Brief: Korten is opposed to free trade and also argues against growth from every
aspect. Ie; any growth gains are offset by the losses. Ergo: A net loss in growth
due to free trade.
> proposes that mercantilist policies like limited liability should be
> eliminated to limit corporate power.
Correct.
> He does not contradict the power of
> markets,
Didn't say he did. I didn't either. I have asserted the opposite. We live in a
Corporate Oligarchy.
> he justifiably attacks viewing corporations as paragons of
> market virtues.
And you would allow these same Corps (rhymes with corpse) full autonomy to operate
as they see fit. How Nice.
> But before one can walk, it is necessary to crawl
Bovine Excrement from the Lie-Bertarian school of Compromise.
Freedom Now should be our only focus.
Why not just tell the truth.... You mean .... Freedom for someone.... someday?
> A first step for
> people drenched in the socialist common wisdom is the realization that
> government regulation (beyond the protection of individual rights)
Ok.
> hurts
> economic growth.
Growth has already been addressed. 1) It is not often desirable. 2) Growth in one
area often results in losses in another area offsetting any gains. (Korten)
> Another difficult step is that government is the tool
> of large interest groups with corporations in the lead.
And you would allow these Corps (rhymes with corpse) full autonomy to operate as
they see fit.
> The following
> step that mercantilist policies hinder individual liberty and economic
> growth is not a difficult one.
What you attempt to hide, the big crime, by pleading "guilty" to lesser crimes, is
that Free Trade, in our Statist world, can only result in Capitalist World
Hegemony.
> Robert N. Newshutz
>
> "The government solution to a problem
> is usually as bad as the problem"
>
> -- Milton Friedman
BS..... the Statist solution to a problem.....
Please leave the anarchist quotes in the anarchy NGs.
Ronin.
Tony
Ronin, have you heard of a man named Eldon-Gerald:Warman I think he
shares the same views as you. He's web site is
http://www.detaxcanada.org
Robert N. Newshutz
difficult to know where to start.
That you misconstrue the words I write to construct strawmen, makes a
response fruitless anyway.
If you can stop with the insults, accept that we substantially agree,
and actually read what I write, then maybe we can have a discussion.
Ronin wrote:
> <snip>
Your quotes from Korten did not contradict the points I was making.
--
Ronin
"Robert N. Newshutz" wrote:
> Ronin, your reply is so full of insults
Reaaaally? Well here it is again. Since you didn't bother to quote it...
I will:
Ronin wrote:
> Greetings Robert. ....... <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> "Robert N. Newshutz" wrote:
>
> > I know no such thing.
>
> You know the creed exists. You know it is objective. You don't agree
> with the
> GPs... but this has nothing to do with the existence and substance.
> <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > Your "Guiding Principles" have some merit,
>
> Thanks. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > but I
> > think they have flaws,
>
> I have proven that the flaws you referred to existed only from an
> anarchistic/statist POV. <added today>This might be insulting to
> some. But I wouldn't consider it an insult. I've been miscalled a
> statist by you and others. And an anarchist as well. Do you consider
> this one of the MANY insults in this reply?
> If one advocates Equal Rights with Freedom and Liberty for
> All, then no flaws (uncorrected) have been found by you or anyone
> else. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> Lots of intelligent, learned folk in these NGs (many much more
> intelligent and
> learned than I or anyone in our group).... Still only found four minor
> flaws.... Go
> Figure. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > as you know.
>
> I do not deny that you feel flaws exist. <added today> Is this an
> insult?
>
> > Still your acceptance of your
> > "Guiding Principles" is a subjective personal valuation.
>
> The ACCEPTANCE thereof MAY be. The GPs themselves offer an OBJECTIVE
> impersonal
> valuation system. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> But why play word games Robert? <added today> Some might find this
> insulting. Do you? Why? It is a simple question based on my
> "subjective personal valuation" of your debating tactics.
> It is a relatively unimportant topic. If we agree
> that there are ideologies (statist or otherwise) that offer objective
> criterion. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > My acceptance
> > of my libertarian principles
>
> No such thing. The above is tantamount ot Socialists declaring
> themselves Liberals.
> The Label stuck and we are left with the less definitive label:
> Libertarian. Which
> you and others are now attempting to reduce to a vague and ill formed,
> essentially
> meaningless label. <added today> Where are the insults here? Do you
> find my refusal to acept you as a libertarian insulting? If so... I
> doubt that an unbiased party would consider anythng other than a
> difference of opinion.
>
> A good way to divide and conquer is to first deny a group a cohesive
> and collective
> identity. How Nice for you Robert. <added today> Is this an insult? If
> so... I doubt that an unbiased party would consider anything other
> than a difference of opinion.
>
> > is a subjective personal valuation. Our
> > individual conclusions about the structure and purpose of government
>
> > based on those principles may not be subjective, but our acceptance
> of
> > those principles is.
>
> Ok. Is there a point hidden here? All I see is repetition of the
> above. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > Even though those principles have a firm foundation
> > in the nature of human beings, that knowledge is not certain nor
> > complete.
>
> We do not claim otherwise. We do assert that our ideology takes human
> nature into
> account, particularly Man's "imperative" to obtain the most
> gratification from the
> least effort expended. This fact of nature is one that anarchists
> always fail to
> acknowledge. Statists attempt to subvert. And Capitalist Imperialists
> (ie; the
> current crop of rnaking Lie-Bertarian members) attempt to hide.
> <added today> Where are the insults here?
>
> > When arguing with a non-libertarian, utility is one approach.
>
> I tried this with you and it failed. Just like it fails with other
> non-libertarians. No one that I know of ever sacrificed/risked "life,
> fortune and
> sacred honor" for practical purposes. For FREEDOM: Man will risk
> everything..... <added today> Where are the insults here?
>
> > Forgive me
> > if I continue to try to persuade others,
>
> Nope. I can't forgive your spread of disinformation, misinformation
> and outrights
> lies. It is divise. And enpowers the status quo. <added today> Do you
> find this insulting? If so... I doubt that an unbiased party would
> consider anything other than a difference of opinion.
>
> You and your ilk are more of a threat to freedom than all the Statists
> in the world
> put together. Do you find this insulting? If so... I doubt that an
> unbiased party would consider anything other than a difference of
> opinion.
>
> Evil is easily recognized and once rooted out can be dealt with. Evil
> consequences
> naturally occurring due to flawed perceptions are difficult to
> identify and when
> noticed it is usually too late to mitigate the great damages done.
> <added today> Where are the insults here?
>
> Nuff For Now. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > and do not emulate your
> > arrogance.
>
> You imply that arrogance is an undesirable trait? Tell you what
> Robert.... when you
> refute 2+2=4 then I will gladly and gratefully accept your
> chastisement..... <added today> Is this an insult? Or is it a just
> reply to your accusation?
>
> > Yes, it does not prove that a free society would have the highest
> > economic growth.
>
> Only if one ignores the fact that the rest of the world being Statist
> would have to
> use every possible means to destroy the free nation. (and if one
> followed your
> flawed ideology... succeed) Economic destruction being easiest and
> most effective
> from a Capilatist Imperialist POV. <added today> Where are the insults
> here?
>
> > It is indicative that liberalizing the economy from its
> > current state would improve economic growth,
>
> BS. This is entirely dependant on:
>
> How we define growth. (ie, Mexico has increased its economic growth
> but the general
> populace is worse off than before NAFTA, see Korten for stats)
>
> What changes are made and how they are implemented. (ie; GATT/IMF/WTO
> are doing a
> great job of defeating trade restrictions. Welcome to Capitalist
> Imperialism on a
> worldwide scale.)
>
> A competent and honest valuation of the goals that the
> Multinationals/Transnationals that control worldwide trade. (ie. The
> Capitalist
> creed is devoid of ethical/moral considerations.)
>
> The elimination of favorable legislation which if abolished would not
> effect free
> trade but wold make business owners fully accountable for their
> actions. (Ie;
> abolish Corporate Entity status.) <added today> Where are the insults
> above?
>
> Nuff For Now. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > and that a free society
> > would be a rich one.
>
> See above for rebuttal. All apply. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > Which is arguable
>
> Only to Statists/anarchists. True libertarians and many
> non-libertarians seeking
> solutions ot our world's economic probs recognize that Capitalists (in
> general) use
> the Free Trade concept to to achieve political power and control over
> Statist
> gubmints. (Ies; GATT, NAFTA,) <added today> Where are the insults
> here? Do you find my refusal to acept you as a libertarian insulting?
> If so... I doubt that an unbiased party would consider anythng other
> than a difference of opinion.
>
> > and mostly off point,
>
> IT IS THE EFFING POINT: Free Trade in a Statist world is AT EFFING
> BEST: Utopian. <added today> Where are the insults here?
>
> > as international trade policy is
> > only one aspect of the evaluation of economic freedom.
>
> We have not ever supported restricting internal trade in a free nation
> beyond the
> bounds of the Law as defined by the libertarian GPs. Essentially, as
> you know, the
> GPs allow and encourage full use of property rights... so long as NIoF
> is
> inviolate. <added today> Where are the insults here?
>
> > From the Heritage
> > evaluation, the Bahamas with the worst trade rating has the same
> overall
> > score as the Czech Republic with the best trade rating (both at 22
> on
> > the list)
>
> The Heritage Foundation promotes an agenda incompatible with true
> libertarian
> ideology. They also use "....any means necessary," to spread their
> propaganda.
> Everything they write is suspect and must be double and triple
> checked.
>
> Caveats given above. All apply. <added today> Where are the insults
> above?
>
> > If it is so easily refuted, then you should have refuted it
>
> I did so and expand upon it above. And have done so previously. I
> didn't think you
> would resort to Red Herrings. <sigh> <added today> Do you find this
> insulting? Why? It is a simple question based on my "subjective
> personal valuation" of your debating tactics.
>
> > rather than
> > give an incomplete cite without information.
>
> I would have thought you were familiar with David Korten. If not, a
> good start
> would be When Corporations Rule the World. You could also try Nock,
> Our Enemy the
> State. Or numerous other work from Adam Smith to Clarence Darrow to
> Robert Kennedy
> to Gerry Spence and many more. Do you need a suggested reading list
> with info?
>
> > As usual your argument is
> > belligerent
>
> Perhaps if one ascribes to your particular "subjective personal
> valuation." If so:
> The topic (slavery) is one worthy of belligerent opposition. <added
> today> Where are the insults above?
>
> I am corresponding with a hostile enemy of libertarian ideology.
> Nuff??? <added today> You are certainly hostile: Ie; your accusations
> speak for themselves. I do not deny my belligerence. I do deny
> intitiating insults and so far.... none found. AMAZING????
>
> > and unconvincing.
>
> Sure. "It'll never fly." "The Earth is flat." I understand. Might I
> suggest
> mellaril? <added today> Ok, here is one comment many would find
> insulting. ONE EFFING COMMENT. I would say your numeorus accusations
> in this missive and others warrant a humorous "reprisal" of this sort.
> Implies your "views" are twisted. ARGUABLE???? But no more insulting
> than your accusations.
>
> > (BTW, Amazon has not listings for author Korent)
>
> Sorry. Typo. Should be: Korten. Got past spellcheck. <added today>
> Oooops I made a typo. Did you find this insulting also? <lol>
> due to free trade. <added today> Where are the insults above?
>
> > proposes that mercantilist policies like limited liability should be
>
> > eliminated to limit corporate power.
>
> Correct. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > He does not contradict the power of
> > markets,
>
> Didn't say he did. I didn't either. I have asserted the opposite. We
> live in a
> Corporate Oligarchy. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > he justifiably attacks viewing corporations as paragons of
> > market virtues.
>
> And you would allow these same Corps (rhymes with corpse) full
> autonomy to operate
> as they see fit. How Nice. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > But before one can walk, it is necessary to crawl
>
> Bovine Excrement from the Lie-Bertarian school of Compromise. <added
> today> Is this an insult?
>
> Freedom Now should be our only focus. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> Why not just tell the truth.... You mean .... Freedom for someone....
> someday? <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > A first step for
> > people drenched in the socialist common wisdom is the realization
> that
> > government regulation (beyond the protection of individual rights)
>
> Ok. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > hurts
> > economic growth.
>
> Growth has already been addressed. 1) It is not often desirable. 2)
> Growth in one
> area often results in losses in another area offsetting any gains.
> (Korten) <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > Another difficult step is that government is the tool
> > of large interest groups with corporations in the lead.
>
> And you would allow these Corps (rhymes with corpse) full autonomy to
> operate as
> they see fit. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > The following
> > step that mercantilist policies hinder individual liberty and
> economic
> > growth is not a difficult one.
>
> What you attempt to hide, the big crime, by pleading "guilty" to
> lesser crimes, is
> that Free Trade, in our Statist world, can only result in Capitalist
> World
> Hegemony. <added today> Is this an insult?
>
> > Robert N. Newshutz
> >
> > "The government solution to a problem
> > is usually as bad as the problem"
> >
> > -- Milton Friedman
>
> BS..... the Statist solution to a problem.....
>
> Please leave the anarchist quotes in the anarchy NGs.
>
> Ronin. <added today> Where are the insults above?
> and strawmen,
Instead of pointing out that you are avoiding reasoned argument I'll let
you find the non-existent "strawmen" arguments.
> that it is
> difficult to know where to start.
You mean there are NO EFFING insults, no "strawmen" and you can't handle
the FACT that AGAIN i have replied to your error filled post with
"2+2=4" Can't argue with it..... So accuse and run. Why not killfile
me if I am so effing insulting? RIDICULOUS.
> That you misconstrue the words I write
If so... and I notice for the umpteenth time that you fail to cite any
effing examples, then it is inadvertent and you may correct me. I would
be grateful and we could communicate better.
FACT: You often refuse to quote my text. You prefer to effing lie... and
if you find the truth insulting KILLFILE ME. Cause I am very effing
close to doing likewise.
I am not here to waste tiem on the undeserving.
> to construct strawmen,
Where? <lol>
> makes a
> response fruitless anyway.
It is obvious, from this and all the other correspondence I have filed
that you have no logical rebuttal to offer.
> If you can stop with the insults,
You want an example of an insult: Here's one... Fuck off asshole.
<strictly for educational purposes w> Like that one? I have others. BUT
NOT ONE CASE HAS BEEN QUOTED BY YOU YET.
> accept that we substantially agree,
No we do not "substantially" agree. We agree in a few important areas.
> and actually read what I write,
I do. I have. will continue to do so.... if you decide to engage in
honest and reasoned respones. You prefer to indulge your fragile ego.
Coool. Stay ignorant. I am here for discussions with like minds
primarily. To learn and perhaps to teach. Get the point?
I don't give an eff about being ignored/killfiled etc. I am not here to
entertain myself or "be heard" I've said the above many times and most
of you are so effing self centered you don't get it.
We offer a gift. Take it or leave it.
> then maybe we can have a discussion.
Doubtful. It's your choice. I am polite and can even contain my zeal....
with sincere individuals.
> Ronin wrote:
> > <snip>
Snipped cause you couldn't quote one example of insulting and/or
specious debating tactics.
> Your quotes from Korten did not contradict the points I was making.
I feel they did. I also added other points germane to our overall
discussion of Capialist Imperialism. Your lack of response must be taken
as de facto proof of validity.
> Robert N. Newshutz
>
> "The government solution to a problem
> is usually as bad as the problem"
>
> -- Milton Friedman
An anarchist spouting empty rhetoric. Why spread this type of
disinformation? Why not leave it in the anarchy NGs?
Ronin.
Ronin
Volt wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 08:28:19 -0600, "Robert N. Newshutz"
> <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Ronin, your reply is so full of insults and strawmen, that it is
> >difficult to know where to start/
Notice he doesn't effing "start?" He does not quote ANY examples of insulting
and/or specious debating tactics.
See my reply where I quote the full text he refers to. With appropriate commentary.
The above is a prime example of Robert's and his ilk's debating tactics: If you
can't find a reasonable, logical argument to prove your false "position" .... toss
in a lie or two, a few Red Herrigns... hope that the topic is forgotten. Above all
;waste the correspondent's time answering false accusations. Anything to avoid the
effing facts/truth.
Today I have some time to waste.
> >That you misconstrue the words I write to construct strawmen, makes a
> >response fruitless anyway.
But he does respond. He just doesn't reply to the facts I presented which destroy
his BS theories.
> >If you can stop with the insults,
Where, oh where are these many insults? ROTFLMAO.
> accept that we substantially agree,
We do not "substantially" agree.
> >and actually read what I write,
I see. Disagreement and cogent rebuttal is "not reading." Effing Ridiculous.
> then maybe we can have a discussion.
Unlikely... since I insult you sooooo muuuuuch. <still lol> Too bad you can't quote
any insults.
<website snipped> I do not visit sites when they are presented in this manner.
> Knock yourself out.
> Volt
>
> Ecrasons l'infame
How?
Ronin.
Ronin
Tony wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:15:08 -0800, Ronin <ad...@cdsnet.net> wrote:
Ronin, have you heard of a man named Eldon-Gerald:Warman
I have now. <g>
I think he
shares the same views as you.
You think wrongly my friend. Ive visited his site. (thx for the url) and I can safely say that we have nothing in common.
Being against forced taxation (IMNSHO all taxes are coerced) doesn't make us allies.
One may compare views and find certain similarities. But there is a world of difference between our philosophies. Ies; I don't advocate that people break the rules/regs in a manner that guarantees failure. I certainly woud not use statist cites in a vain attempt to prove my point.
I feel the guy is suspect and I am quite sure he is NOT a libertarian. Do not be confused by the fact that some persons hold similar ops in re specific topics. It does NOT mean they have anything of substance in common.
IOW, apples and oranges are fruits. They have certain similarities. They are not interchangeable.
He's web site is
<snip>Finally: Read and study the libertarian Guiding Principles and you will have little trouble teeling the difference between libertarians and others. Even those claiming to be libs.
Ronin.
anarchismus
> If by regulation, you mean the rule of law and punishment of force
> and
> fraud, then libertarians would agree.
> severe
> market.
> The major benefit of a free market, is the continual economic
> growth and
> of the
> market have much higher growth than societies with much regulation.
> http://www.heritage.org/index/execsum.html
> The curve fit in this graph from this report would indicate that
> even
> the countries with the most free markets would benefit from a freer
> market:
> http://www.heritage.org/index/graphics/curve.gif
>
> --
> "The government solution to a problem
> is usually as bad as the problem"
> -- Milton Friedman
It is clear that economists are not of one mind concerning state
intervention in the Free Market. But the ones who do favor intervention
are a prioristically cheerleaders for the State.
War may be 'the Health of the State' but Peace will be the Death of
the State......
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Ronin
anarchismus wrote:
I notice you posted this anarchist propaganda in seeral NGs. NOT ONE OF THEM AN
ANARCHY NG.
Why do you not keep your flawed theories in their proper forum?
> <snipped> It is clear that economists are not of one mind concerning state
>
> intervention in the Free Market.
Correct.
> But the ones who do favor intervention
> are a prioristically cheerleaders for the State.
Bull Shit!
Ronin.
Robert N. Newshutz
>
> Greetings Robert.
> "Robert N. Newshutz" wrote:
>
> > Ronin, your reply is so full of insults
>
complaint. It makes this whole, "Is this an insult?", reply of yours a
strawman.
> Reaaaally? Well here it is again. Since you didn't bother to quote it...
> I will:
>
> Ronin wrote:
>
> > Greetings Robert. ....... <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
> > "Robert N. Newshutz" wrote:
> >
> > > I know no such thing.
> >
> > You know the creed exists. You know it is objective. You don't agree
> > with the
> > GPs... but this has nothing to do with the existence and substance.
> > <added today> Is this an insult?
Yes and it is a strawman. You missread what I wrote, and implied that I
lied. When I correct you, you snip and redirect.
> >
> > > Your "Guiding Principles" have some merit,
> >
> > Thanks. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
> > > but I
> > > think they have flaws,
> >
> > I have proven that the flaws you referred to existed only from an
> > anarchistic/statist POV. <added today>This might be insulting to
> > some. But I wouldn't consider it an insult. I've been miscalled a
> > statist by you and others. And an anarchist as well. Do you consider
> > this one of the MANY insults in this reply?
>
It is a strawman, and your proof is circular. You claim your GPs define
libertarianism, so if one disagrees, one must have an anrachitic/statist
POV.
> > If one advocates Equal Rights with Freedom and Liberty for
> > All, then no flaws (uncorrected) have been found by you or anyone
> > else. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
> > Lots of intelligent, learned folk in these NGs (many much more
> > intelligent and
> > learned than I or anyone in our group).... Still only found four minor
> > flaws.... Go
> > Figure. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
No, it is a strawman.
> > > as you know.
> >
> > I do not deny that you feel flaws exist. <added today> Is this an
> > insult?
> >
> > > Still your acceptance of your
> > > "Guiding Principles" is a subjective personal valuation.
> >
> > The ACCEPTANCE thereof MAY be. The GPs themselves offer an OBJECTIVE
> > impersonal
> > valuation system. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
> > But why play word games Robert? <added today> Some might find this
> > insulting. Do you? Why? It is a simple question based on my
> > "subjective personal valuation" of your debating tactics.
>
Insult, saying I am playing word games, when the discussion was partly
about subjectivity of acceptance of belief systems.
> > It is a relatively unimportant topic. If we agree
> > that there are ideologies (statist or otherwise) that offer objective
> > criterion. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
> > > My acceptance
> > > of my libertarian principles
> >
> > No such thing. The above is tantamount ot Socialists declaring
> > themselves Liberals.
> > The Label stuck and we are left with the less definitive label:
> > Libertarian. Which
> > you and others are now attempting to reduce to a vague and ill formed,
> > essentially
> > meaningless label. <added today> Where are the insults here? Do you
> > find my refusal to acept you as a libertarian insulting? If so... I
> > doubt that an unbiased party would consider anythng other than a
> > difference of opinion.
> >
You are implying that I am deceitful.
> > A good way to divide and conquer is to first deny a group a cohesive
> > and collective
> > identity. How Nice for you Robert. <added today> Is this an insult? If
> > so... I doubt that an unbiased party would consider anything other
> > than a difference of opinion.
> >
> > > is a subjective personal valuation. Our
> > > individual conclusions about the structure and purpose of government
> >
> > > based on those principles may not be subjective, but our acceptance
> > of
> > > those principles is.
> >
> > Ok. Is there a point hidden here? All I see is repetition of the
> > above. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
No, but it is rude and antagonistic. You could have snipped it without
comment if you thought it repetitive.
> > > Even though those principles have a firm foundation
> > > in the nature of human beings, that knowledge is not certain nor
> > > complete.
> >
> > We do not claim otherwise. We do assert that our ideology takes human
> > nature into
> > account, particularly Man's "imperative" to obtain the most
> > gratification from the
> > least effort expended. This fact of nature is one that anarchists
> > always fail to
> > acknowledge. Statists attempt to subvert. And Capitalist Imperialists
> > (ie; the
> > current crop of rnaking Lie-Bertarian members) attempt to hide.
> > <added today> Where are the insults here?
> >
> > > When arguing with a non-libertarian, utility is one approach.
> >
> > I tried this with you and it failed. Just like it fails with other
> > non-libertarians. No one that I know of ever sacrificed/risked "life,
> > fortune and
> > sacred honor" for practical purposes. For FREEDOM: Man will risk
> > everything..... <added today> Where are the insults here?
> >
A strawman. I am not saying that principles have no place, but that they
are not the place to begin persuasion. That your posts are not
persuasive is not the issue.
> > > Forgive me
> > > if I continue to try to persuade others,
> >
> > Nope. I can't forgive your spread of disinformation, misinformation
> > and outrights
> > lies.
Calling me a liar is an insult. You have provided no substantiation. As
far as I can determine, the foundation for this claim of yours is that I
think of myself as a libertarian, and you wish to have exclusive control
of the word.
> > It is divise. And enpowers the status quo. <added today> Do you
> > find this insulting? If so... I doubt that an unbiased party would
> > consider anything other than a difference of opinion.
> >
Yes, we obviously have a difference of opinion. But in the realm of
political thought, our disagreement is small. We disagree on the danger
to a free society of free trade outside that society. We disagree on the
danger to a free society of immigration.
We disagree on the level of agreement needed on principles before we
consider others on our side.
From that you construct:
> > You and your ilk are more of a threat to freedom than all the Statists
> > in the world
> > put together. Do you find this insulting? If so... I doubt that an
> > unbiased party would consider anything other than a difference of
> > opinion.
> >
It seems to me that you are saying I am worse than Hitler, Stalin, Mao,
Pol Pot....
I find that insulting. I am suprised you do not.
> > Evil is easily recognized and once rooted out can be dealt with. Evil
> > consequences
> > naturally occurring due to flawed perceptions are difficult to
> > identify and when
> > noticed it is usually too late to mitigate the great damages done.
> > <added today> Where are the insults here?
You are calling me evil.
> >
> > Nuff For Now. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
> > > and do not emulate your
> > > arrogance.
> >
> > You imply that arrogance is an undesirable trait? Tell you what
> > Robert.... when you
> > refute 2+2=4 then I will gladly and gratefully accept your
> > chastisement..... <added today> Is this an insult? Or is it a just
> > reply to your accusation?
> >
It is a strawman. You complain that I do not emulate your style. I tell
you why I will not emulate your style, and you then tell me I must
refute 2+2=4. This kind of nonsequitor is a perfect example of why I do
not wish to emulate your style.
With you or another libertarian, I could argue principle and
consequences of principle, because we substantially agree on principle.
When I am arguing with someone who thinks insurance can only be supplied
by government: agreement on principle is so distant, it is not the place
to start.
> > > Yes, it does not prove that a free society would have the highest
> > > economic growth.
> >
> > Only if one ignores the fact that the rest of the world being Statist
> > would have to
> > use every possible means to destroy the free nation. (and if one
> > followed your
> > flawed ideology... succeed) Economic destruction being easiest and
> > most effective
> > from a Capilatist Imperialist POV. <added today> Where are the insults
> > here?
> >
It is a strawman. I make a statement about the world as it is, you
misconstrue economic freedom to only mean free international trade (even
though my response clearly contradicted this notion), and extrapolate
well off topic.
> > > It is indicative that liberalizing the economy from its
> > > current state would improve economic growth,
> >
> > BS. This is entirely dependant on:
> >
> > How we define growth. (ie, Mexico has increased its economic growth
> > but the general
> > populace is worse off than before NAFTA, see Korten for stats)
> >
> > What changes are made and how they are implemented. (ie; GATT/IMF/WTO
> > are doing a
> > great job of defeating trade restrictions. Welcome to Capitalist
> > Imperialism on a
> > worldwide scale.)
> >
> > A competent and honest valuation of the goals that the
> > Multinationals/Transnationals that control worldwide trade. (ie. The
> > Capitalist
> > creed is devoid of ethical/moral considerations.)
> >
> > The elimination of favorable legislation which if abolished would not
> > effect free
> > trade but wold make business owners fully accountable for their
> > actions. (Ie;
> > abolish Corporate Entity status.) <added today> Where are the insults
> > above?
> >
Strawmen. All based on misconstruing economic liberty as only free
international trade, and either a misconstrual of my position, or
malassumption of my position.
> > Nuff For Now. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
> > > and that a free society
> > > would be a rich one.
> >
> > See above for rebuttal. All apply. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
> > > Which is arguable
> >
> > Only to Statists/anarchists. True libertarians and many
> > non-libertarians seeking
> > solutions ot our world's economic probs recognize that Capitalists (in
> > general) use
> > the Free Trade concept to to achieve political power and control over
> > Statist
> > gubmints. (Ies; GATT, NAFTA,) <added today> Where are the insults
> > here? Do you find my refusal to acept you as a libertarian insulting?
> > If so... I doubt that an unbiased party would consider anythng other
> > than a difference of opinion.
> >
> > > and mostly off point,
> >
> > IT IS THE EFFING POINT: Free Trade in a Statist world is AT EFFING
> > BEST: Utopian. <added today> Where are the insults here?
> >
Strawman. You do not argue against my position.
> > > as international trade policy is
> > > only one aspect of the evaluation of economic freedom.
> >
> > We have not ever supported restricting internal trade in a free nation
> > beyond the
> > bounds of the Law as defined by the libertarian GPs. Essentially, as
> > you know, the
> > GPs allow and encourage full use of property rights... so long as NIoF
> > is
> > inviolate. <added today> Where are the insults here?
> >
> > > From the Heritage
> > > evaluation, the Bahamas with the worst trade rating has the same
> > overall
> > > score as the Czech Republic with the best trade rating (both at 22
> > on
> > > the list)
> >
> > The Heritage Foundation promotes an agenda incompatible with true
> > libertarian
> > ideology. They also use "....any means necessary," to spread their
> > propaganda.
> > Everything they write is suspect and must be double and triple
> > checked.
> >
> > Caveats given above. All apply. <added today> Where are the insults
> > above?
> >
This is not a strawman nor an insult of me, it is an ad hominem though.
You do not provide any criticism of the Heritage Foundations data, their
methodology, or their definition of economic liberty; you dismiss the
argument, because of its source.
> > > If it is so easily refuted, then you should have refuted it
> >
> > I did so and expand upon it above. And have done so previously. I
> > didn't think you
> > would resort to Red Herrings. <sigh> <added today> Do you find this
> > insulting? Why? It is a simple question based on my "subjective
> > personal valuation" of your debating tactics.
> >
> > > rather than
> > > give an incomplete cite without information.
> >
> > I would have thought you were familiar with David Korten. If not, a
> > good start
> > would be When Corporations Rule the World. You could also try Nock,
> > Our Enemy the
> > State. Or numerous other work from Adam Smith to Clarence Darrow to
> > Robert Kennedy
> > to Gerry Spence and many more. Do you need a suggested reading list
> > with info?
> >
> > > As usual your argument is
> > > belligerent
> >
> > Perhaps if one ascribes to your particular "subjective personal
> > valuation." If so:
> > The topic (slavery) is one worthy of belligerent opposition. <added
> > today> Where are the insults above?
> >
You are claiming I advocate slavery.
> > I am corresponding with a hostile enemy of libertarian ideology.
> > Nuff??? <added today> You are certainly hostile: Ie; your accusations
> > speak for themselves. I do not deny my belligerence. I do deny
> > intitiating insults and so far.... none found. AMAZING????
> >
Not amazing, many have called you to account, and you continue to repeat
yourself.
> > > and unconvincing.
> >
> > Sure. "It'll never fly." "The Earth is flat." I understand. Might I
> > suggest
> > mellaril? <added today> Ok, here is one comment many would find
> > insulting. ONE EFFING COMMENT. I would say your numeorus accusations
> > in this missive and others warrant a humorous "reprisal" of this sort.
> > Implies your "views" are twisted. ARGUABLE???? But no more insulting
> > than your accusations.
> >
If my views are "twisted", then so must yours be, as we substantionally
share the same views. Where we differ in principle, you have made
utilitarian modifications to your GPs. (BTW, GP 11 is not a "principle",
but a dismissal of anarco-capitalism by definition.)
It is not an insult to call your arguments unconvincing, as they do not
seem to have convinced anyone.
> > > (BTW, Amazon has not listings for author Korent)
> >
> > Sorry. Typo. Should be: Korten. Got past spellcheck. <added today>
> > Oooops I made a typo. Did you find this insulting also? <lol>
> >
No, I honestly did not know if there was someone with another name. As
Korten does not contradict the point I was making, I thought you might
have meant someone else.
> > > If you are talking about Korten, then he does not contradict the
> > > relationship between economic liberty and economic growth,
> >
> > Dat's de statist I referred to. And he does:
All of the below is a strawman, because of your basic misconstrual of
economic liberty to be only free international trade.
No, it is continuation of your strawman.
> > > he justifiably attacks viewing corporations as paragons of
> > > market virtues.
> >
> > And you would allow these same Corps (rhymes with corpse) full
> > autonomy to operate
> > as they see fit. How Nice. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
No, I would not, but since you do not actually try to understand what I
write, I suppose I should not be suprised that you substantially
misrepresent my position.
> > > But before one can walk, it is necessary to crawl
> >
> > Bovine Excrement from the Lie-Bertarian school of Compromise. <added
> > today> Is this an insult?
> >
You are calling me a liar.
> > Freedom Now should be our only focus. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
> > Why not just tell the truth.... You mean .... Freedom for someone....
> > someday? <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
> > > A first step for
> > > people drenched in the socialist common wisdom is the realization
> > that
> > > government regulation (beyond the protection of individual rights)
> >
> > Ok. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
> > > hurts
> > > economic growth.
> >
> > Growth has already been addressed. 1) It is not often desirable. 2)
> > Growth in one
> > area often results in losses in another area offsetting any gains.
> > (Korten) <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
Strawman.
> > > Another difficult step is that government is the tool
> > > of large interest groups with corporations in the lead.
> >
> > And you would allow these Corps (rhymes with corpse) full autonomy to
> > operate as
> > they see fit. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
Either an insult or a strawman. You pick. Am I a liar, or is this a
misrepresentation of my views?
> > > The following
> > > step that mercantilist policies hinder individual liberty and
> > economic
> > > growth is not a difficult one.
> >
> > What you attempt to hide, the big crime, by pleading "guilty" to
> > lesser crimes, is
> > that Free Trade, in our Statist world, can only result in Capitalist
> > World
> > Hegemony. <added today> Is this an insult?
> >
No, it is a strawman.
> > > Robert N. Newshutz
> > >
> > > "The government solution to a problem
> > > is usually as bad as the problem"
> > >
> > > -- Milton Friedman
> >
> > BS..... the Statist solution to a problem.....
> >
> > Please leave the anarchist quotes in the anarchy NGs.
> >
> > Ronin. <added today> Where are the insults above?
Strawman, as Milton Friedman is not an anarchist.
>
> > and strawmen,
>
> Instead of pointing out that you are avoiding reasoned argument I'll let
> you find the non-existent "strawmen" arguments.
>
> > that it is
> > difficult to know where to start.
>
> You mean there are NO EFFING insults, no "strawmen" and you can't handle
> the FACT that AGAIN i have replied to your error filled post with
> "2+2=4" Can't argue with it..... So accuse and run. Why not killfile
> me if I am so effing insulting? RIDICULOUS.
>
I do generally skip your posts.
> > That you misconstrue the words I write
>
> If so... and I notice for the umpteenth time that you fail to cite any
> effing examples, then it is inadvertent and you may correct me. I would
> be grateful and we could communicate better.
>
> FACT: You often refuse to quote my text. You prefer to effing lie... and
> if you find the truth insulting KILLFILE ME. Cause I am very effing
> close to doing likewise.
>
I do often snip your strawmen and insults to trim the post to the issue
I wish to reply on.
> I am not here to waste tiem on the undeserving.
>
> > to construct strawmen,
>
> Where? <lol>
>
Everywhere. I have not had one interchange with you, where you did not
claim my view was different than it actually is.
> > makes a
> > response fruitless anyway.
>
> It is obvious, from this and all the other correspondence I have filed
> that you have no logical rebuttal to offer.
>
> > If you can stop with the insults,
>
> You want an example of an insult: Here's one... Fuck off asshole.
> <strictly for educational purposes w> Like that one? I have others. BUT
> NOT ONE CASE HAS BEEN QUOTED BY YOU YET.
>
> > accept that we substantially agree,
>
> No we do not "substantially" agree. We agree in a few important areas.
>
On policy, we disagree somewhat in trade and immigration policy for a
free society, otherwise we agree.
On principle, we disagree on your utilitarian exceptions to principle
and your declaration of anarcho capitalists as enemies.
We disagree on the proper way to conduct ourselves on usenet.
I think the rest qualifies as substantial.
> > and actually read what I write,
>
> I do. I have. will continue to do so.... if you decide to engage in
> honest and reasoned respones. You prefer to indulge your fragile ego.
> Coool. Stay ignorant. I am here for discussions with like minds
> primarily. To learn and perhaps to teach. Get the point?
>
No. I do not understand your point. You seem to be here only to preach
the true gospel according to Ronin. You do not seem to be here to learn,
as you do not try to undertand other viewpoints.
> I don't give an eff about being ignored/killfiled etc. I am not here to
> entertain myself or "be heard" I've said the above many times and most
> of you are so effing self centered you don't get it.
>
> We offer a gift. Take it or leave it.
>
> > then maybe we can have a discussion.
>
> Doubtful. It's your choice. I am polite and can even contain my zeal....
> with sincere individuals.
>
Another insult: insincerity.
> > Ronin wrote:
> > > <snip>
>
> Snipped cause you couldn't quote one example of insulting and/or
> specious debating tactics.
>
> > Your quotes from Korten did not contradict the points I was making.
>
> I feel they did. I also added other points germane to our overall
> discussion of Capialist Imperialism. Your lack of response must be taken
> as de facto proof of validity.
>
Or as lack of interest in responding to insults and strawmen. My
original post was a response to another's call for central planning. I
provided real world data that central planning was conterproductive to
economic growth.
The question of Capitalist Imperialism is largely a question of the
control of governments by large corporate interests or them acting like
a government, and is itself a form of central planning, and violation of
individual rights.
You provided no contrary evidence that economic growth was not related
to economic liberty. You did not attempt to understand what is meant by
economic liberty, and assumed it was only free trade. You persisted in
this misconception even after I pointed it out and illustrated it with
two countries with opposite free trade ratings (Bahamas and Czech
Republic) and the same economic liberty rating.
Your insertion of the question of the good of growth could have been a
topic for debate, if it had not been surrounded by strawmen.
--