Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: February 09 2011 at 22:49
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
^Just by reading, thinking, analyzing, introspectionizing (r) and discussing with people could I liberate myself from the stronghold of the blanket idea of the Mommy State. Only through that will I discover and see if I can really view full privatization of everything as doable in reality (including future, evolutionary reality), though I already agree it is desirable.
I was just joking of course. If you read those articles, you should at least become interested in seriously considering the idea. After that you may or may not deduce that it is possible. The articles should clear up some conceptual stuff and give some nice justifications. The Rothbard article was key to my progress.
I'm pretty sure I'll end right there. I have had dreams of a society like that. Somehow I got very confused by my own ridiculous fears in the process and ended up supporting a totally free society, in which freedom meant "leaving your decisions in somebody else's hands, who would feed you, cure you, give you a roof, and defend you". I don't know where the hell did I miss the part where such a benevolent being that I imagined actually would need to have total control over me and my actions and my goals and my means to achieve them. Well, I guess is every hard socialist's dilemma: for the world to be just like one wants it to be, the one has to become THE One. And as this is impossible, the only way is to support a "WE" that actually eliminates any other different-thinking "one".
I'm heading down the lunacy road...
Most statists are people with the best intentions in mind. This is particularly what makes it so dangerous. The moral certitude which comes with good intentions makes the actions particularly scary.
When "individualism" became a bad word, and somehow got put in the dictionary as a synonym of "selfishness", the battle for the moral ground got kinda lost. Media uses this all the time. Damn, I used it a lot.
The thing is, the libertarian society is the best for BOTH the selfish and the generous one. For the selfish, it allows him to be that way. For the generous, it allows him to be that way, free of forced payments that go wasted, he can devote his resources to help. The socialist society makes the generous one get lazy because he thinks "he's already helping with his taxes", and the selfish... well, he just joins the Party.
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: February 09 2011 at 22:51
I am just stunned that between the five or six libertarians on this site we manage to actually convert someone. That has seriously never happened to me before. I guess strength in numbers, huh?
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: February 09 2011 at 22:58
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
^Just by reading, thinking, analyzing, introspectionizing (r) and discussing with people could I liberate myself from the stronghold of the blanket idea of the Mommy State. Only through that will I discover and see if I can really view full privatization of everything as doable in reality (including future, evolutionary reality), though I already agree it is desirable.
I was just joking of course. If you read those articles, you should at least become interested in seriously considering the idea. After that you may or may not deduce that it is possible. The articles should clear up some conceptual stuff and give some nice justifications. The Rothbard article was key to my progress.
I'm pretty sure I'll end right there. I have had dreams of a society like that. Somehow I got very confused by my own ridiculous fears in the process and ended up supporting a totally free society, in which freedom meant "leaving your decisions in somebody else's hands, who would feed you, cure you, give you a roof, and defend you". I don't know where the hell did I miss the part where such a benevolent being that I imagined actually would need to have total control over me and my actions and my goals and my means to achieve them. Well, I guess is every hard socialist's dilemma: for the world to be just like one wants it to be, the one has to become THE One. And as this is impossible, the only way is to support a "WE" that actually eliminates any other different-thinking "one".
I'm heading down the lunacy road...
Most statists are people with the best intentions in mind. This is particularly what makes it so dangerous. The moral certitude which comes with good intentions makes the actions particularly scary.
When "individualism" became a bad word, and somehow got put in the dictionary as a synonym of "selfishness", the battle for the moral ground got kinda lost. Media uses this all the time. Damn, I used it a lot.
The thing is, the libertarian society is the best for BOTH the selfish and the generous one. For the selfish, it allows him to be that way. For the generous, it allows him to be that way, free of forced payments that go wasted, he can devote his resources to help. The socialist society makes the generous one get lazy because he thinks "he's already helping with his taxes", and the selfish... well, he just joins the Party.
You're preaching to the choir here.
Not to be a libertarian conspiracy nut but do you really think it's just a coincidence that these words have gradually changed in meaning? The libertarian/individualist/freedom lover/hater of state aggression is at a loss of words to even properly express his opinion. Anarchy has become equivalent to chaos. Individualism equivalent to selfishness. Welfare equivalent to charity. Anti-war equivalent to pro-terrorist. You're at a disadvantage from the beginning because of the way words have been twisted.
I think I've posted this over 100 times here but, there is absolutely nothing moral about commanding that money be taken from some people and given to others. You can claim no moral high ground. It's an approach of the lazy who want to feel good without sacrifice.
The question is always asked: How will the poor be helped in a free society? The question is never asked: How are the poor helped in our society? People don't realize that libertarianism tends to be much less selfish in nature than it is empathetic in nature. I went on a tirade before about how I'm not a libertarian because of my personal experience. I belong to a privileged class in the world. I'm a libertarian because of all the faceless victims of governments throughout the history of mankind.
Edited by Equality 7-2521 - February 09 2011 at 22:58
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: February 09 2011 at 22:59
thellama73 wrote:
I am just stunned that between the five or six libertarians on this site we manage to actually convert someone. That has seriously never happened to me before. I guess strength in numbers, huh?
Kind of makes you optimistic doesn't it?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65289
Posted: February 09 2011 at 23:01
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Most statists are people with the best intentions in mind. This is particularly what makes it so dangerous. The moral certitude which comes with good intentions makes the actions particularly scary.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: February 09 2011 at 23:03
Atavachron wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Most statists are people with the best intentions in mind. This is particularly what makes it so dangerous. The moral certitude which comes with good intentions makes the actions particularly scary.
the Oppenheimer Syndrome
Precisely. Scientists are actually the worst.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: February 09 2011 at 23:05
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I went on a tirade before about how I'm not a libertarian because of my personal experience. I belong to a privileged class in the world. I'm a libertarian because of all the faceless victims of governments throughout the history of mankind.
Same here. It enrages me when people think I'm a libertarian just because I don't want to pay taxes or because I want to do things that the government won't let me do. I have been born into a very lucky situation and I will do fine regardless of what brand of government is around. I am a libertarian because I want others, less fortunate than I, to be free and prosperous. In the same way, I argue for things like drug legalization, even though I have no personal interest in them.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: February 09 2011 at 23:11
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Warning Disturbing Content
Horrible. At least I can say I was never a war-mongering militarist or a flag-lover to be honest. I might get to love a flag because the people under it have made me feel at home, have given me opportunities, have welcomed my family. I'm not loving a flag just because I'm told to, or because by default I have to if it goes fighting another flag.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: February 09 2011 at 23:19
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
I am just stunned that between the five or six libertarians on this site we manage to actually convert someone. That has seriously never happened to me before. I guess strength in numbers, huh?
Kind of makes you optimistic doesn't it?
The seed was always there. Come on why would you think I came posting question after question after question? I'm pretty sure the only one I missed was "what's the libertarian view on toilet paper consumption and the preferred texture?"
Every day I open my eyes more and more... A friend of mine puts in his facebook status "If only economists ruled the world instead of politicians". A few months ago when he posted that kind of stuff I got into arguments with him and usually ended up winning by numbers (people supported me), not by reason. But now, damn things change, he's a economics-student who loves money, capitalism and finances. He really wants money, that's all. I used to judge him I still believe money as a goal is quite poor but what the hell it's a valid one after all. Anyway, now I of all people replied "If only nobody ruled the world but a competitive free market" . And then HE is the one that goes a little bit left saying "yes that would be nice but someone would have to write the laws and make them work". I see how even people with a clear economic view are lost in the illusion that men need a group of more powerful men to put a limit to their being men. I had no time for a better argument since I was at work, but just wrote "minarchism man, leads to anarcho-capitalism. read about it". I can't believe that.
Even this friend talked of economists instead of politicians "ruling" the world. People are slaves to the idea of "rulers". It's all a quest for power. I'm sure his love of money is a love for power.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: February 09 2011 at 23:23
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
^Just by reading, thinking, analyzing, introspectionizing (r) and discussing with people could I liberate myself from the stronghold of the blanket idea of the Mommy State. Only through that will I discover and see if I can really view full privatization of everything as doable in reality (including future, evolutionary reality), though I already agree it is desirable.
I was just joking of course. If you read those articles, you should at least become interested in seriously considering the idea. After that you may or may not deduce that it is possible. The articles should clear up some conceptual stuff and give some nice justifications. The Rothbard article was key to my progress.
I'm pretty sure I'll end right there. I have had dreams of a society like that. Somehow I got very confused by my own ridiculous fears in the process and ended up supporting a totally free society, in which freedom meant "leaving your decisions in somebody else's hands, who would feed you, cure you, give you a roof, and defend you". I don't know where the hell did I miss the part where such a benevolent being that I imagined actually would need to have total control over me and my actions and my goals and my means to achieve them. Well, I guess is every hard socialist's dilemma: for the world to be just like one wants it to be, the one has to become THE One. And as this is impossible, the only way is to support a "WE" that actually eliminates any other different-thinking "one".
I'm heading down the lunacy road...
Most statists are people with the best intentions in mind. This is particularly what makes it so dangerous. The moral certitude which comes with good intentions makes the actions particularly scary.
When "individualism" became a bad word, and somehow got put in the dictionary as a synonym of "selfishness", the battle for the moral ground got kinda lost. Media uses this all the time. Damn, I used it a lot.
The thing is, the libertarian society is the best for BOTH the selfish and the generous one. For the selfish, it allows him to be that way. For the generous, it allows him to be that way, free of forced payments that go wasted, he can devote his resources to help. The socialist society makes the generous one get lazy because he thinks "he's already helping with his taxes", and the selfish... well, he just joins the Party.
You're preaching to the choir here.
Not to be a libertarian conspiracy nut but do you really think it's just a coincidence that these words have gradually changed in meaning? The libertarian/individualist/freedom lover/hater of state aggression is at a loss of words to even properly express his opinion. Anarchy has become equivalent to chaos. Individualism equivalent to selfishness. Welfare equivalent to charity. Anti-war equivalent to pro-terrorist. You're at a disadvantage from the beginning because of the way words have been twisted.
I think I've posted this over 100 times here but, there is absolutely nothing moral about commanding that money be taken from some people and given to others. You can claim no moral high ground. It's an approach of the lazy who want to feel good without sacrifice.
The question is always asked: How will the poor be helped in a free society? The question is never asked: How are the poor helped in our society? People don't realize that libertarianism tends to be much less selfish in nature than it is empathetic in nature. I went on a tirade before about how I'm not a libertarian because of my personal experience. I belong to a privileged class in the world. I'm a libertarian because of all the faceless victims of governments throughout the history of mankind.
I'm not privileged. I'm not dirt poor either. I'm becoming a libertarian because it makes sense, because it's moral, realistic, desirable, and yes, because the more government we have, the more chances we have of becoming little pieces in a chess board.
The internet was made for libertarians. If all the other ways of communication are in the hands of either governments or their friends, the internet can give the people the voice to start taking those stupid twisting of words down.
I went on a tirade before about how I'm not a libertarian because of my personal experience. I belong to a privileged class in the world. I'm a libertarian because of all the faceless victims of governments throughout the history of mankind.
Same here. It enrages me when people think I'm a libertarian just because I don't want to pay taxes or because I want to do things that the government won't let me do. I have been born into a very lucky situation and I will do fine regardless of what brand of government is around. I am a libertarian because I want others, less fortunate than I, to be free and prosperous. In the same way, I argue for things like drug legalization, even though I have no personal interest in them.
I am just stunned that between the five or six libertarians on this site we manage to actually convert someone. That has seriously never happened to me before. I guess strength in numbers, huh?
Kind of makes you optimistic doesn't it?
The seed was always there. Come on why would you think I came posting question after question after question? I'm pretty sure the only one I missed was "what's the libertarian view on toilet paper consumption and the preferred texture?"
Cottonelle. 6-8 squares a wipe.
We seriously have tried every brand sold at Wal-Mart. Cottonelle by a longshot.
Worst brand? Angel Soft. Neither soft nor made of angels.
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: February 10 2011 at 07:24
I'm one of those guys who is basically liberal and always will be. There is some overlap in my views with libertarian ones. When it comes to toilet paper, I don't like the stuff that is so soft that it comes apart when you are using it and sticks to you. No brand preferences, just cheap but not too cheap that it scrapes off skin when you use it.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: February 10 2011 at 08:42
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
^Just by reading, thinking, analyzing, introspectionizing (r) and discussing with people could I liberate myself from the stronghold of the blanket idea of the Mommy State. Only through that will I discover and see if I can really view full privatization of everything as doable in reality (including future, evolutionary reality), though I already agree it is desirable.
I was just joking of course. If you read those articles, you should at least become interested in seriously considering the idea. After that you may or may not deduce that it is possible. The articles should clear up some conceptual stuff and give some nice justifications. The Rothbard article was key to my progress.
I'm pretty sure I'll end right there. I have had dreams of a society like that. Somehow I got very confused by my own ridiculous fears in the process and ended up supporting a totally free society, in which freedom meant "leaving your decisions in somebody else's hands, who would feed you, cure you, give you a roof, and defend you". I don't know where the hell did I miss the part where such a benevolent being that I imagined actually would need to have total control over me and my actions and my goals and my means to achieve them. Well, I guess is every hard socialist's dilemma: for the world to be just like one wants it to be, the one has to become THE One. And as this is impossible, the only way is to support a "WE" that actually eliminates any other different-thinking "one".
I'm heading down the lunacy road...
Most statists are people with the best intentions in mind. This is particularly what makes it so dangerous. The moral certitude which comes with good intentions makes the actions particularly scary.
When "individualism" became a bad word, and somehow got put in the dictionary as a synonym of "selfishness", the battle for the moral ground got kinda lost. Media uses this all the time. Damn, I used it a lot.
The thing is, the libertarian society is the best for BOTH the selfish and the generous one. For the selfish, it allows him to be that way. For the generous, it allows him to be that way, free of forced payments that go wasted, he can devote his resources to help. The socialist society makes the generous one get lazy because he thinks "he's already helping with his taxes", and the selfish... well, he just joins the Party.
You're preaching to the choir here.
Not to be a libertarian conspiracy nut but do you really think it's just a coincidence that these words have gradually changed in meaning? The libertarian/individualist/freedom lover/hater of state aggression is at a loss of words to even properly express his opinion. Anarchy has become equivalent to chaos. Individualism equivalent to selfishness. Welfare equivalent to charity. Anti-war equivalent to pro-terrorist. You're at a disadvantage from the beginning because of the way words have been twisted.
I think I've posted this over 100 times here but, there is absolutely nothing moral about commanding that money be taken from some people and given to others. You can claim no moral high ground. It's an approach of the lazy who want to feel good without sacrifice.
The question is always asked: How will the poor be helped in a free society? The question is never asked: How are the poor helped in our society? People don't realize that libertarianism tends to be much less selfish in nature than it is empathetic in nature. I went on a tirade before about how I'm not a libertarian because of my personal experience. I belong to a privileged class in the world. I'm a libertarian because of all the faceless victims of governments throughout the history of mankind.
I'm not privileged. I'm not dirt poor either. I'm becoming a libertarian because it makes sense, because it's moral, realistic, desirable, and yes, because the more government we have, the more chances we have of becoming little pieces in a chess board.
The internet was made for libertarians. If all the other ways of communication are in the hands of either governments or their friends, the internet can give the people the voice to start taking those stupid twisting of words down.
In the grand scheme of things you're probably privileged Teo. I don't mean to speak of your life because I don't know you, but the very fact that you're in America with the free time to post on this board shows that you're one of the privileged class of the world. I didn't grow up with much compared to most people in this country, but in the eyes of most of the world I was certainly privileged.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Just out of curiosity for the sake of context, what do you consider privileged? Just anyone who isn't born into poverty? I have very little money at the moment and have been out of work for sometime now (lay off) and I must say, I enjoy having free time more than money. I am an active musician and I would love to earn enough to live off by not contributing to the sh*t show, but it is rather tricky as you all know. I'm actually more responsible than most people my age with what little money I do come into, so it balances out rather well.
I would much rather help others who actually need HONEST help with things than be tethered to an hourly job which controls my entire schedule. THAT is the absolute epitome of self slavery to me, regardless of what you can do with the money. I've always been the type to view submission to employment (of a job you'd rather not do, this doesn't include GOOD jobs that actually treat you like a human and not a number on a screen) as worse than being broke and losing all your stuff. If you have to be on guard 24/7 just to hang onto sh*t (which you spend most of your time away from to PAY FOR AT WORK), it's self defeating. It's basically a bad business decision; would any business open just to barely make a little more than their overhead? It would be pointless and a waste of time!
Barter your freedom for security; it's the only way! Be thankful for your freedom, people died so you could be here right now! I'm sure the founding fathers are rolling in their f**king graves!
Edited by AllP0werToSlaves - February 10 2011 at 09:03
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Posted: February 10 2011 at 08:59
AllP0werToSlaves wrote:
Just out of curiosity for the sake of context, what do you consider privileged? Just anyone who isn't born into poverty? I have very little money at the moment and have been out of work for sometime now (lay off) and I must say, I enjoy having free time more than money. I am an active musician and I would love to earn enough to live off by not contributing to the sh*t show, but it is rather tricky as you all know. I'm actually more responsible than most people my age with what little money I do come into, so it balances out rather well.
Do you have a place to sleep at night? Do you eat every day?
Just out of curiosity for the sake of context, what do you consider privileged? Just anyone who isn't born into poverty? I have very little money at the moment and have been out of work for sometime now (lay off) and I must say, I enjoy having free time more than money. I am an active musician and I would love to earn enough to live off by not contributing to the sh*t show, but it is rather tricky as you all know. I'm actually more responsible than most people my age with what little money I do come into, so it balances out rather well.
Do you have a place to sleep at night? Do you eat every day?
This is what I figured, and yes. I don't take anything for granted, I was just curious to see what you guys considered privileged to mean, as most equate it to cars etc because they don't understand that being alive in this very moment is the greatest gift you could ever receive.
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Posted: February 10 2011 at 09:09
AllP0werToSlaves wrote:
Padraic wrote:
AllP0werToSlaves wrote:
Just out of curiosity for the sake of context, what do you consider privileged? Just anyone who isn't born into poverty? I have very little money at the moment and have been out of work for sometime now (lay off) and I must say, I enjoy having free time more than money. I am an active musician and I would love to earn enough to live off by not contributing to the sh*t show, but it is rather tricky as you all know. I'm actually more responsible than most people my age with what little money I do come into, so it balances out rather well.
Do you have a place to sleep at night? Do you eat every day?
This is what I figured, and yes. I don't take anything for granted, I was just curious to see what you guys considered privileged to mean, as most equate it to cars etc because they don't understand that being alive in this very moment is the greatest gift you could ever receive.
It can be easy to lose this perspective living in a wealthy nation - you can get caught up in wanting the latest gadgets, or a certain car or house. And I myself have been very fortunate in being able to afford "little" luxuries of the sort, so to speak. But at the end of the day, all I know is my children are sleeping in warm beds with a roof over their head and have been well nourished. Whatever one's circumstance, that's really all that's necessary.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.305 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!
Topic Options
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
