"Freedom" thread or something

Jumping into the fire with your first post.  Respect.

Oh Chester Chester...talk about buying into the lines. "Right wing" eh?
To think conservatives were always the party of power and government, kings and the church and all that good stuff. It was the liberals who wanted limited government, and later free markets. Not that "left wing" and "right wing" mean anything anymore. When both are corporatist it matters not


That is true from the n00b, and it's the type of wealthy I DO dislike. Companies provides goods and jobs, and many people who are wealthy have reached it by contributing to society...but what does Wall Street do? The investors and all that class. I mean they DO serve purposes but honestly they shuffle $$ around for themselves and other wealthy. It's true, and I really don't think they contribute much to society.

Anyway, I really wish libertarianism would focus on the many and quit defending the wealthy. Not that I don't see the points and you are entitled to your beliefs, but it's just a weak point. Why must you always resort to defending wealthy? It's unappealing and really, unpopular. Generally, you'll lose that debate. Like I said, I wish the movement would focus on the good for the 99% and just forget the 1%. Much better way to win people over.


Edited by JJLehto - December 10 2012 at 22:57

The only libertarians I have interest in are the left-anarchists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, ect...

Edited by The Wizard - December 11 2012 at 00:56

I'd say I do those things in spite of private property rather than because of them. 

I'll say this: If didn't disrespect the sacred tenets of private property that are the basis of modern liberal democracy I wouldn't have been exposed to about 90% of the prog music in my life. 

The Wizard wrote: I'll say this: If didn't disrespect the sacred tenets of private property that are the basis of modern liberal democracy I wouldn't have been exposed to about 90% of the prog music in my life.

 

manofmystery wrote: @Doc (guess this is what we're doing now to respond) I caddie at a golf club in which the members are almost all CEOs and corporate presidents.  I'm glad that they have spending money to do things like golf because if they didn't it would put myself and everyone else that works at clubs like mine out of work.  That doesn't mean I like them all and certainly would prefer that they have to compete for their wealth in a truely free market.    I do hate to bring personal examples to such discussions and, frankly, your personal opinion has shown to be too silly to keep acknowledging.  You're desire for selective authoritarianism is nonsensical and impractical, at best, and is a perfect example of way the country was laid out as a republic and not a democracy.  It simply amazes me that you can't see that the reason there is a growing class gap and the dominance of a select few is because government action has limited access to the marketplace.  As long as people like yourself promote government action over consumer freedom the "rich" will continue to get richer and more powerful. Politicians are the worst tippers, by the way.   @The Wiz Racism, patriarchy, and nationalism don't need to be abolished if they are never institutionalized.

Says the man who thinks sweatshops are a good thing for the poor. 

The Wizard wrote: The only libertarians I have interest in are the left-anarchists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, ect... Libertarianism offers a very limited conception of freedom that is weighed down by its obsession with private property. Private property is historically one of the most oppressive institutions to have ever existed and was actively rebelled against from its very inception. Mankind's alienation from their own self-activity by the spheres of the market and the state are cause of social divisions that will manifest violently in forms of racism, patriarchy and nationalism until abolished.

And left-anarchism itself professes violence. Emma Goldman was a thug.

Even in the current IP environment, artists seem to be rediscovering patronage

The Doctor wrote: manofmystery wrote: @Doc (guess this is what we're doing now to respond) I caddie at a golf club in which the members are almost all CEOs and corporate presidents.  I'm glad that they have spending money to do things like golf because if they didn't it would put myself and everyone else that works at clubs like mine out of work.  That doesn't mean I like them all and certainly would prefer that they have to compete for their wealth in a truely free market.    I do hate to bring personal examples to such discussions and, frankly, your personal opinion has shown to be too silly to keep acknowledging.  You're desire for selective authoritarianism is nonsensical and impractical, at best, and is a perfect example of way the country was laid out as a republic and not a democracy.  It simply amazes me that you can't see that the reason there is a growing class gap and the dominance of a select few is because government action has limited access to the marketplace.  As long as people like yourself promote government action over consumer freedom the "rich" will continue to get richer and more powerful. Politicians are the worst tippers, by the way.   @The Wiz Racism, patriarchy, and nationalism don't need to be abolished if they are never institutionalized. Says the man who thinks sweatshops are a good thing for the poor.