Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - "Freedom" thread or something
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed"Freedom" thread or something
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 206207208209210 294>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 09:54
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " 

Amen
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 09:55
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

^^^  That ultimately depends on which way you look at it.  Try telling 500 million people living well below $1 a day that hence forth the govt will be run as per libertarian principles and hence nothing can be done about their lot while the elite can comfortably increase their wealth through speculative investments without adding anything to the gross output of the economy.  

Oh don't worry, some wealthy patron will feed them, they feed their horses all the same.
Never would I recommend a poverty stricken country to move to a libertarian shstem while it is still run by oligarchs. I don't think libertarianism can exist in countries that haven't achieved some order and prosperity first. No studies or stats, just my opinion based on my analysis.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 10:00
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " 

Amen


That quote's a poignant observation of a verifiable truth. And left with an author so that you can judge it on its own merits.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 10:11
Just having some fun, is it okay?
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 10:16
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

"All fixed set patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The truth is outside of all fixed patterns."
- Bruce Lee

"The truth that is outside all fixed patterns is not the ultimate truth"
                                                                                                                      Grasshopper

"Infinite love is the only truth. Everything else is illusion."
- David Icke

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


Deep. Nothing like a meaningless quote from a famous person.


It went along with what rogerthat was saying.  Which I haven't failed to notice has still been unanswered.  By the way, rogerthat, you're my hero.
My 2012 List
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 10:17
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

^^^  That ultimately depends on which way you look at it.  Try telling 500 million people living well below $1 a day that hence forth the govt will be run as per libertarian principles and hence nothing can be done about their lot while the elite can comfortably increase their wealth through speculative investments without adding anything to the gross output of the economy.  

Oh don't worry, some wealthy patron will feed them, they feed their horses all the same.
Never would I recommend a poverty stricken country to move to a libertarian shstem while it is still run by oligarchs. I don't think libertarianism can exist in countries that haven't achieved some order and prosperity first. No studies or stats, just my opinion based on my analysis.

Exactly what I have tried to convey before in this thread too.  You need some measure of social stability to experiment with libertarianism.  
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 10:29
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

^^^  That ultimately depends on which way you look at it.  Try telling 500 million people living well below $1 a day that hence forth the govt will be run as per libertarian principles and hence nothing can be done about their lot while the elite can comfortably increase their wealth through speculative investments without adding anything to the gross output of the economy.  

Oh don't worry, some wealthy patron will feed them, they feed their horses all the same.
Never would I recommend a poverty stricken country to move to a libertarian shstem while it is still run by oligarchs. I don't think libertarianism can exist in countries that haven't achieved some order and prosperity first. No studies or stats, just my opinion based on my analysis.
But Libertarianism was the policy in the early US, before a deeply woven society had stabilized and wealth flourished, just a policy for settler pioneers without (necessarily) previous wealth. I guess that some of you attribute the economical success of many of those pioneers to the fact that the country was ruled under rather Libertarian policies. So now saying that Libertarianism is only fit for societies with a certain level of wealth seems a bit contradictory?
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 10:30
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

^^^  That ultimately depends on which way you look at it.  Try telling 500 million people living well below $1 a day that hence forth the govt will be run as per libertarian principles and hence nothing can be done about their lot while the elite can comfortably increase their wealth through speculative investments without adding anything to the gross output of the economy.  

Oh don't worry, some wealthy patron will feed them, they feed their horses all the same.
Never would I recommend a poverty stricken country to move to a libertarian shstem while it is still run by oligarchs. I don't think libertarianism can exist in countries that haven't achieved some order and prosperity first. No studies or stats, just my opinion based on my analysis.

Exactly what I have tried to convey before in this thread too.  You need some measure of social stability to experiment with libertarianism.  

And along with that, what I've been trying to convey is that I don't think America is currently in the ideal state to experiment in that vein either, as we have too much of an imbalance of power in the hands of wealthy Wall Street investors at the moment.  I believe if we start experimenting with more Libertarianism in this current state, we'll just end up with more power in their hands and they will be our new tyrants.
My 2012 List
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 10:33
In Infinite Love is the Only Truth (2005), Icke introduces the idea of "reptilian software." He says that there are three kinds of people. The highest level of the Brotherhood are the "Red Dresses." These are "software people," elsewhere called "reptilian software," or "constructs of mind." They lack consciousness and free will, and their human bodies are holographic veils.[51]LOL
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 10:52
Is it morally right having a system where people can make fortunes without producing anything? (the stock market as prime example). Sure it takes daring to and taking the risk, but it's a sort of gambling anyway, the bottom line is that you can make profit (and not just a bit, but a lot) without being productive at all for the global society.
And the stock market is just the obvious, there are so many ways of making money via speculation. In my opinion this is basically not right, but on top the higher problem is that it's rarely fair. People with a lot of money have a lot of options for trying to multiply their money with minimum risks, while people with little money can try and some of them can succeed, but they have to take much bigger risks (proportionally) so their likelihood to be able to make a living out of speculation is much much smaller (and in any case making a living out of speculation seems wrong to me, regardless if done by a rich or by a poor).
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 11:23
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Just having some fun, is it okay?


My response was meant to be a tad sarcastic as well.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 11:24
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:



Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


Deep. Nothing like a meaningless quote from a famous person.


It went along with what rogerthat was saying.  Which I haven't failed to notice has still been unanswered.  By the way, rogerthat, you're my hero.


Rogerhat's free to ask me anything he wants. We've already talked about this.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 11:25
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

^^^  That ultimately depends on which way you look at it.  Try telling 500 million people living well below $1 a day that hence forth the govt will be run as per libertarian principles and hence nothing can be done about their lot while the elite can comfortably increase their wealth through speculative investments without adding anything to the gross output of the economy.  

Oh don't worry, some wealthy patron will feed them, they feed their horses all the same.
Never would I recommend a poverty stricken country to move to a libertarian shstem while it is still run by oligarchs. I don't think libertarianism can exist in countries that haven't achieved some order and prosperity first. No studies or stats, just my opinion based on my analysis.

Exactly what I have tried to convey before in this thread too.  You need some measure of social stability to experiment with libertarianism.  


That's true of any governmental system. I mean a social order requires some degree of order by definition.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 14:20
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:



The article only deals with monopolies in public utilities.  These are often created by govt fiat.  I am interested in monopolies attained by a dominant company.  Don't get me wrong, I am interested in competition.  And in my view, for competition to exist,  things like caps on marketshare and a bar on hostile takeovers are necessary to stop big business from misusing its clout.  In other words, maintaining free market conditions may actually require anti-monopoly rules.  Because in the absence of which, there's nothing to stop the big shark from swallowing all the small fish and controlling the entire market.


And what if the "big shark" gains dominance in the market?  If people like their product or service better, if they can offer quality at low prices, then doesn't their dominance just reflect how well they serve their customers?  Can a monopoly be good?

These kinds of "monopolies" don't last, either; contrary to the assertion that libertarians think "greed is good," we don't; we merely recognize the existence of greed, and think that its rewards and consequences will be borne my any who exhibit it.  The greedy corporation gains control of the market in the first place by lowering prices and offering a quality product/service, and the same greed leads it to raise prices and lower quality once it reaches the top of the market, opening the door for competitors to topple it.  No "perfect" competition, but no "robber barons" either.

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


None of the aforementioned have seriously threatened MS's domination in operating system and draft/spreadsheet software.   And that will continue to be the case until somebody, well, acquires Microsoft or it just goes bust on its own (which could take a very long time for a company of its might).  The reason is that MS Office is akin to a common business language today.  Making your documents in any other software just creates hassles for everybody else.  Back in the 90s, we had Lotus Smartsuite on our home PC.  We had no complaints with the software at all and Lotus 1-2-3 was better than the then prevailing version whatever of Excel.  But it was totally useless for any official work dad needed to do on word or excel.   Eventually we had to shift to MS and have stayed with it since then.   More recent versions aren't so bad but in earlier ones, we had to grin and bear its bugs, watch important excel documents getting corrupted for no good reason and we had no choice.  Now, I don't see how any govt legislation could have stopped this happening but all I want to point out is there is nothing in a free market to stop one company from completely gobbling up the market.  I am afraid economic theories - at least the old ones - don't stress the role of finance enough and finance makes all the difference.  The man with the largest purse wins, period - and quality be damned.


Not for long.

This again illustrates the transient nature of "monopolies;" Libertarians don't deny that a quick start in a specific field or a superior product/service to other businesses in the field can cause one company to temporarily dominate a market, but competition, which never ends, will inevitably topple it in the end.  Again, libertarians do not claim that free markets create "perfect competition," as if we could insure that all fields would have several competitors on equal footing at any given time. 

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


I don't know if this will really throw light on the matter but here is a link anyway:

http://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/2012/nov/031112-Jab-Tak-Hai-Jaan-and-Son-of-Sardaar-makers-slug-it-out.htm

Basically, Yash Raj Films signed a deal with distributors typing up the right to show one of their films, Ek Tha Tiger, with an obligation to show the other, Jab Tak Hai Jaan.  In doing so, they shut out another film, Son of Sardaar, releasing on the same Friday as JTHJ.   The matter went to court and Yash Raj prevailed because the distributors had not been actually coerced into signing up for it.  But such practices by their nature are monopolistic and deny a fair chance to the competition to distribute their film.  Yash Raj have been notorious for crowding out other film makers from the market.  And their pockets are deep enough for them to afford it.  Sounds familiar?

Sorry, I just don't see the problem.  I read the article.  Distributors freely signed a contract with Yash Raj agreeing to show both films.  In fact, the article noted that there were also distributors who only showed one.  In every major city but one listed in the chart at the end of the article, SoS was still available for viewing.  There's no monopoly; one company is doing better than the other, that is all.  If there were more demand for the other film, distributors would have showed it on more screens.

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


1)  The MNCs get in there as govt liberalises foreign investment norms to make it easier for them to enter the market.  It's as simple as that.  The more India opens up its economy, the more it is exposed to MNC presence.  It is even touted as something desirable for the economy and I would not say either that it's an entirely bitter pill.

2)  Well, the MNCs need lawyers and accountants to work around the legal system.  If the legal system was more open, i.e., closer to the textbook definition of a free market, it would be even easier for them to set up shop.  After all, who can stop somebody wanting to set up shop and start business in a laissez faire system if he can afford it?  It is only because there are caps on the percentage of FDI that can be invested in a single company venture that they need to pay all these folks to work out the best possible way to get in.  

3)  I am not sure you got it, so let me make it clearer.   Thums Up is still the biggest brand in India.  Right, Coke purchased the brand but they did not kill it.  They simply own the brand and reap the benefits of its popularity in the market.  People still prefer Thums up, it just happens to be a Coke brand now.  The profits that would have once accrued to a domestic company are now in all probability repatriated to Cayman Islands or some other such tax haven, with some tax deduction at source, of course.


From the little reading I did on foreign investment after reading your post I can't say I can disagree with you.  I see free trade as a great safeguard against monopoly in a developed country, but I understand how a government of a country like India would need to regulate foreign entry into the market in order to preserve the local economy.

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


I think America was originally one of the ideal countries for libertarianism, because it was an unexplored landmass to begin with, with vast natural resources to be exploited by zealous immigrants.   Maybe some of that DNA still remains in the country, that I cannot tell.  But some libertarian ideas could be very disruptive in an old and entrenched society like India and would probably serve to fill the pockets of its existing tycoons and landlords (and of course the politicians) even more.  Possibly Gerinski's reservations about libertarianism are also for similar reasons.  The social order is quite different in older societies so the opportunities thrown up by de-regulation cannot be so easily grasped by upstarts.  They tend to get browbeaten by the old boys network eventually.    Communism was most powerful in Russia and it is again an old society with royalty and all that.  People want social, rather than economic, de regulation in such places and, unfortunately, socialism and communism have offered solutions (workable or not) in this regard, not capitalism.  They want the rich to be cut down to size a little bit lest they start believing themselves to be demi gods.  It's not jealousy, which is how Americans often interpret it.  It is simply desperation. 


I see your point; and although I am very much in favor of libertarianism in general, I would not want to completely disrupt a society; incidentally I have similar views regarding libertarian principles being implemented in America; I support the repeal of all alcohol age restrictions, as well as all drug laws, but I would want these things done gradually, not all at once; to suddenly remove all alcohol and drug laws would cause a drastic spike in crime, I suspect.  I see the implementation of libertarian principles in non-American societies in the same way.  Gradual change for the better, not chaotic change all at once.


Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - July 18 2013 at 14:22
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 14:29
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

^^^  That ultimately depends on which way you look at it.  Try telling 500 million people living well below $1 a day that hence forth the govt will be run as per libertarian principles and hence nothing can be done about their lot while the elite can comfortably increase their wealth through speculative investments without adding anything to the gross output of the economy.  

Oh don't worry, some wealthy patron will feed them, they feed their horses all the same.
Never would I recommend a poverty stricken country to move to a libertarian shstem while it is still run by oligarchs. I don't think libertarianism can exist in countries that haven't achieved some order and prosperity first. No studies or stats, just my opinion based on my analysis.
But Libertarianism was the policy in the early US, before a deeply woven society had stabilized and wealth flourished, just a policy for settler pioneers without (necessarily) previous wealth. I guess that some of you attribute the economical success of many of those pioneers to the fact that the country was ruled under rather Libertarian policies. So now saying that Libertarianism is only fit for societies with a certain level of wealth seems a bit contradictory?


The colonies had achieved quite a bit of order and prosperity, though.  They were basically self-governing and had flourishing local economies.

When America first won the war of independence, they established a document called the Articles of Confederation that was quite a bit more libertarian than our current Constitution.  This didn't work; and it was because the US wasn't a unified country yet.  It basically functioned as a loose association of independent states.  Pure libertarianism didn't work because of this; and the founders had to create a less libertarian government in order for the country to survive.  In my opinion, the US would have been well-served to become more libertarian after it had solidified itself as a unified nation.  But due to the evil and greed of politicians, this did not happen.
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 15:07
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 

The colonies had achieved quite a bit of order and prosperity, though.  They were basically self-governing and had flourishing local economies.
So you agree with The T that Libertarianism is only recommendable for societies which have already achieved a certain level of economy and prosperity.
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 15:15
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

In Infinite Love is the Only Truth (2005), Icke introduces the idea of "reptilian software." He says that there are three kinds of people. The highest level of the Brotherhood are the "Red Dresses." These are "software people," elsewhere called "reptilian software," or "constructs of mind." They lack consciousness and free will, and their human bodies are holographic veils.[51]LOL

He is a little strange.  But he's stumbled onto something that is quite interesting when you think about it.  Every single major religion in the world today - EVERY ONE - has the concept within itself that love is what's really important.  And every person on earth struggles to understand love and how to live it out.  And that's what I see as the problem with Libertarianism.  It'll never happen the way the insistent Libertarians here say it should.  Because they look at those who falter in society and say "this is the way of the free market.  Those who are closest to them should lend a hand."  But this is simply callous sounding, and try as they might they cannot convince the masses that it is anything but.  A few people are attracted to this mindset, but it just can't seem to gain traction because there are quite simply too many people moved by compassion who see the poor and destitute and insist they be helped - truth be damned.  And therein we find that the only universal truth is, in fact, love.  And love will always win.
My 2012 List
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 15:24
Lizards.....Love.........Libertarianism.............The new Trinity
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 15:32
I would say to those who falter, "It's my job to help them out."

You have to stop attacking straw men at some point.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2013 at 15:36
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

In Infinite Love is the Only Truth (2005), Icke introduces the idea of "reptilian software." He says that there are three kinds of people. The highest level of the Brotherhood are the "Red Dresses." These are "software people," elsewhere called "reptilian software," or "constructs of mind." They lack consciousness and free will, and their human bodies are holographic veils.[51]LOL

He is a little strange.  But he's stumbled onto something that is quite interesting when you think about it.  Every single major religion in the world today - EVERY ONE - has the concept within itself that love is what's really important.  And every person on earth struggles to understand love and how to live it out.  And that's what I see as the problem with Libertarianism.  It'll never happen the way the insistent Libertarians here say it should.  Because they look at those who falter in society and say "this is the way of the free market.  Those who are closest to them should lend a hand."  But this is simply callous sounding, and try as they might they cannot convince the masses that it is anything but.  A few people are attracted to this mindset, but it just can't seem to gain traction because there are quite simply too many people moved by compassion who see the poor and destitute and insist they be helped - truth be damned.  And therein we find that the only universal truth is, in fact, love.  And love will always win.


I don't insist the poor and destitute be helped.

I do it myself.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 206207208209210 294>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.359 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.