Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > The thread of liberation

Pages: (9) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 >

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,04:42    I still need to read more on this sort of thing, but it appears that during the Spanish revolution and the Paris commune, things were kept going pretty well, from refuse collection to newspapers to clothes manufacturing.   What matters is an interested and fairly cohesive bunch of workers.  The great triumph of the right wing is to convince everyone that there is nobody but themselves and to look out for number one.  Whereas back in the 19th century, a great many working people knew that in unity lay strength, and also the ability to get things done.   What would happen is that the revolution occurs, and everyone gos back to work as normal, but paid the same or whatever mechanism you want to introduce.  Jobs that are unnecessary, such as telesales and much marketing and so on, would decrease in number, and what would happen is that peopel would be pressured to find some sort of work.  Ideally, the working week would decrease due to all these extra people working away on useful jobs instead of pointless bureacratic jobs. I'm not saying that is how it would happen.  It is how I can envisage it, IF you get enough motivated people together.  Heck, even Argentina can do it.  Back when they ahd the crisis a few years ago, a lot of bosses ran away to avoid paying their factory workers.  Who then occupied the factories and recomenced production, selling the goods they made and keeping themselves and their families.  Later on the bosses returned and tried to take the factories back.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,07:16    Quote (Henry J @ May 21 2007,21:56) Are you really serious about wanting the changes you're talking about? Absolutely. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,07:19    Quote   Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 21 2007,18:25)     Quote (phonon @ May 21 2007,10:49) And the answer I keep giving is that it's not ME who draws the line, it's EVERYONE. What I want, is simply to place the entire economy under democratic control, just like the political system. When you say everyone, you really mean the majority. 51% That's what a "democracy" is. Or, if you prefer, a Representative Republic. Then our system is fine. If 51% wanted what you propose, then we'd have it. OR maybe you should support Mike Gravel for president, or at least his 18 year crusade to institute the National Initiative. Personally, I think this is a great idea and it should have been done long ago. I still don't see 51% supporting 'democratic' micromanaging of the economy. I'm really torn lately. I don't even usually bother with presidential elections because you usually get to pick between tweedle dum and tweedle dee, but this time we've got both Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. I think Ron Paul has a better chance of winning despite the fact that media people and the Republican Party itself are trying to sideline him. But I like this National Initiative idea from Mike Gravel. But I also like that Ron Paul says he'll attack the IRS and the Fed. Maybe if one wins their party's nomination he will ask the other to be his running mate. I think though that if either of these men were president you'd have very little chance of this sort of thing happening: http://www.statesman.com/news....rd.html Quote Evolution opponent is in line for schools post Kansas school board member who supports intelligent design might be next leader of national education association. -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,07:23    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 21 2007,18:29) Quote (phonon @ May 21 2007,10:49) The reason that a business owner should be able to make unilateral decisions regarding HIS business is because he OWNS it. He doesn't own the people working for him. They don't have to work for him. Well heck, the King of France literally owneds the country.  He owned the treasury, he owned all the state lands, he owned the military and all its equipment. "L'etat, c'est moi." Furthermore, it was the King's sweat and brainpower that made the country what it was.  He decided matters of war and peace. He set economic policies.  He made laws as he saw fit.  He decided everything.   So who were those uneducated peasants to take the King's country away from him . . . .?  Heck, if the peasants didn't like it, then let them move to England or something.  They don't HAVE to live in France. So maybe comparing business owners to royalty is a bad analogy (I say again). SO originally some warlord (king if you will) fought his way to the top of feudal society and conquered the land and ruled it. He took the risk and made the original "investment" in the venture. But then he passed ownership on to his progeny. Maybe you'd like to allow those who built their businesses to run them as they see fit, but then when they die, the mob decides how the spoils are divided, if at all. -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,07:25    Quote (guthrie @ May 22 2007,04:42) The great triumph of the right wing is to convince everyone that there is nobody but themselves and to look out for number one.   People have also been convinced that capitalism is the "natural order of things" and that human society simply can't function without it.  The truth is, of course, that capitalism itself didn't even exist till the 17th century, and that human society functioned without it for 95% of its existence.   And on top of that, as I pointed out earlier, it is the capitalists themselves (the corporados) who are currently destroying capitalism's holy mantra of "private property" and are replacing it with socialized property.  All *I* have to do is sit back and watch them do it, then, when they are finished, kick them out and place the system that they themselves are creating under everyone's control, rather than theirs. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,07:28    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 21 2007,18:36) Quote (phonon @ May 21 2007,10:49) If you could cut that out without changing the whole system, would that be acceptable? No, because even then, the corporados would still weild more economic and social power than many governments in the world do, and they would do so unilaterally, unanswerable to anyone but themselves (the "stockholders"). People with power over others (whether political power, social power, or economic power) should hold that power only with the consent of those who are subjected to it.  Whether it's the King of France, the President of the US, or the CEO of General Motors. I think democracy is a wonderful thing.  I see no reason why it should end at the workplace door. Those who exercise unelected and unchecked power within the workplace, of course, are all FULL of reasons why democracy should end at the workplace door.  Oddly enough, people who have power are always anxious to tell you why they should have it, and you shouldn't. I don't buy any of their arguments. So any degree of "power" should be checked by the majority. You have the power to keep me off your property and from trespassing in your house. I guess we should take up a vote to see if you should still retain this power. You should only be able to keep us out of your house with our consent. Do you ever listen to http://takingaimradio.com/ brothers and sisters? -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,07:32    Quote (phonon @ May 22 2007,07:19) Then our system is fine. Yes, it is.  As I said before, the corporados are already doing nearly everything that I want to do -- they are eliminating private ownership of industry, introducing socialized ownership, consolidating each industry under a common elected management, and introducing local, regional, national and international economic planning in both production and distribution. All that remains is to eliminate the corporado domination and control of it, and make the whole system democratic. I don't really need to change very much.  The corporados are already doing most of it for me. However, since people who monopolize power don't give it up willingly, I expect, uh, a bit of a fight over it. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,07:37    Quote (phonon @ May 22 2007,07:19) If 51% wanted what you propose, then we'd have it. Well of course if 51% wanted creationism out of schools and evolution in schools, then we'd have it. (grin) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,07:37    Quote (guthrie @ May 22 2007,04:42) The great triumph of the right wing is to convince everyone that there is nobody but themselves and to look out for number one.  Whereas back in the 19th century, a great many working people knew that in unity lay strength, and also the ability to get things done.   What would happen is that the revolution occurs, and everyone gos back to work as normal, but paid the same or whatever mechanism you want to introduce.  Jobs that are unnecessary, such as telesales and much marketing and so on, would decrease in number, and what would happen is that peopel would be pressured to find some sort of work.  Ideally, the working week would decrease due to all these extra people working away on useful jobs instead of pointless bureacratic jobs. I'm not saying that is how it would happen.  It is how I can envisage it, IF you get enough motivated people together.  Heck, even Argentina can do it.  Back when they ahd the crisis a few years ago, a lot of bosses ran away to avoid paying their factory workers.  Who then occupied the factories and recomenced production, selling the goods they made and keeping themselves and their families.  Later on the bosses returned and tried to take the factories back. I don't think you were speaking about libertarianism, but I think people allow themselves to be 'confused' about what libertarianism really means, even people who call themselves that. To say that that you need to look out for number one isn't an ideal, it's reality. Quote Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim.  - Bertrand Russell Usually, though, libertarians believe that in the absence of government social engineering, people would spontaneously organize to solve social problems. To some extent I agree with that, but there would be no guarantee, no safety net. But, I guess under the current system, people still fall through the cracks.   And I think it's funny that the term "right wing" is used to describe libertarians since the term originated to describe those that supported the King of France, of all people. -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,07:42    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 22 2007,07:37) Quote (phonon @ May 22 2007,07:19) If 51% wanted what you propose, then we'd have it. Well of course if 51% wanted creationism out of schools and evolution in schools, then we'd have it. (grin) We do. How many public schools in this country teach creationism? -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,07:45    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 22 2007,07:32) However, since people who monopolize power don't give it up willingly, I expect, uh, a bit of a fight over it. Yes, we are just pack animals and will fight over material resources until everyone is satisfied (which never happens). -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,11:01    Quote (phonon @ May 22 2007,07:37) I don't think you were speaking about libertarianism, but I think people allow themselves to be 'confused' about what libertarianism really means, even people who call themselves that. To say that that you need to look out for number one isn't an ideal, it's reality. Quote Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim.  - Bertrand Russell Usually, though, libertarians believe that in the absence of government social engineering, people would spontaneously organize to solve social problems. To some extent I agree with that, but there would be no guarantee, no safety net. But, I guess under the current system, people still fall through the cracks.   And I think it's funny that the term "right wing" is used to describe libertarians since the term originated to describe those that supported the King of France, of all people. OOps, there are times I forget about the cross Atlantic communications difficulties.   Here in the UK, by using Right wing and referencing things like I have I was talking especially about Thatcher et al.  Their mantra was individualism, but what they practised was closer to state capitalism.  (The gvt actually grew under Thatcher, despite all the work she did in destroying public services)   I should have been more specific about looking out for number one- of course you are the only person who knows what you want and you are in a position to have a better idea of what is good for you in many instances.  However most people (who stop to think about it anyway) also recognise that they are part of society, and therefore there is give and take about exactly they can/ want / would like to do.  What Thatcher et al drove towards was a kind of rampant individualism, in which no emphasis was put on the kind of enlightened self interest previously mentioned. Do you call yourself a libertarian?   The way you have put it sounds rather like anarchism.  Which is not a million miles away from Lennies thing.  But what myself and many of my friends would like is a more socialised set up in which people are not permitted to fall through the cracks.  (Unless they really want to of course).  You see, I can very easily imagine several scenarios involving countries which all somehow get into an anarchic setup, but because of the previous history of each country, will each take a different course in social provision etc.  Look at Europe and the USA.  Putatively similar, but due to different histories, have had interestingly divergent societies in the past 50 years. I have no particular problem with nice libertarians- its just the idea seems to attract "I've got my guns and I'm keeping all this to myself and I don't care who falls through the cracks" kind of individualistic people.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,11:02    Quote (phonon @ May 22 2007,07:45) Yes, we are just pack animals and will fight over material resources until everyone is satisfied (which never happens). Not exactly.  We have negotiated settlements as well, which end up with enough for everyone.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2007,17:52    Quote (guthrie @ May 22 2007,11:01) I have no particular problem with nice libertarians- its just the idea seems to attract "I've got my guns and I'm keeping all this to myself and I don't care who falls through the cracks" kind of individualistic people. Yeah, the libertarians are indeed a strange animal --- part anarchist, part free-market cheerleader. What they want, it sounds to me, is a return to pre-corporate days, where the economy consisted of individual Adam-Smithian small English shopkeepers.  Alas, those days are gone, gone, gone, and they will never return. Of course, I have problems with the very philosophical basis of libertarianism, which is, as I hear it, "individualism is the basis of humanity, and we only form governments to protect our individualism from each other".  Rather a disheartening view of humanity, I think. But then, as I said, the very basis for that is simply wrong.  Humans are NOT atomistic independent rugged individuals.  We are profoundly, deeply and irrevocably, SOCIAL animals.  Indeed, drop any one of us into the woods by ourselves, and we'd die within weeks.  We simply cannot survive outside a social framework.  We are utterly completely unchangeably interdependent upon each other.  Naturally, the very core of capitalist (and, it seems, libertarian) ideology consists of "every man for himself" (and that is indeed a convenient philosophy for a tiny minority of the population that fully intends to control the economic system for their own benefit and to abandon everyone else to their own devices), but that, alas, is not social reality. Individual greed has already proven itself simply an unworkable basis for an effective social system or a successful economy. That indeed is why "free market economics" was largely abandoned half a century ago, after the Robber Barons and the Great Depression gave everyone a good close look at what a "free market economy" is really all about.   We live today in a social economy, and indeed it was the **corporados themselves** who made it that way and indeed continue to make it even MORE socialized. I don't view that as a bad thing.  Indeed, I welcome it.  I say let the corporados go ahead and socialize the entire economy.  It saves *us* the trouble of doing it.  In the end, all we'll have to do is kick them out of power and run it for ourselves. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,08:00    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 22 2007,17:52) What they want, it sounds to me, is a return to pre-corporate days, where the economy consisted of individual Adam-Smithian small English shopkeepers.  Alas, those days are gone, gone, gone, and they will never return. Yes, exactly.  The advances in technology and suchlike that enables them to try and live a more individualistic lifestyle at the same time require greater cooperation and concentration of power.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,08:47    Quote Alas, those days are gone, gone, gone, and they will never return. Completely true, but you try explaining that to an anarchist or a libertarian.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,16:27    Quote How many public schools in this country teach creationism? officially?   gotta be next to none. unofficially? hundreds if not thousands. don't oversimplify the issue.  You damn well know there are hundreds of teachers that teach creationism that simply are left alone. moreover, there are thousands (tens of thousands), who refuse to teach evolution either due to personal bias or because of external pressures from their communities. so, don't oversimplify the issue just in order to argue with Lenny. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,17:45    Oh heck, I dont' mind people arguing with me --- I've gotten pretty used to it over the past 30 years.   What strikes me, though, is the fact that our friends from over the pond know exactly what I'm talking about (and even know about such things as the Spanish Civil War and the Paris Commune), while we Americans know . . . well . . . nothing about any of it.  It is a sad commentary on the US to realize that an entire half of the political spectrum, simply doesn't exist here (and is stamped into oblivion any time it appears).  That is why so many Americans have the idiotic idea that **Hillary Clinton** is a, uh,  "leftist". Note to the rest of the world: PLEASE stop us before it is too late.  PLEASE. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,18:00    Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 23 2007,08:47) Completely true, but you try explaining that to an anarchist or a libertarian. Well, that depends a great deal upon what one means by an "anarchist".  There are two flavors of "anarchists", and they really don't have much to do with each other (or much nice to say about each other).  One is the pseudo-right-wing "individualist" who simply doesn't want to be told what to do by anyone (especially by the government).  The libertarians and the free-market apologists seem to fit into that wing.   Then there are the collectivist anarchists, who want a socially-oriented system in which nobody has power over anyone unless that power is elected and revocable. They are radical democrats (with a small "d")  -- it's not "the government" that is their enemy, but "unchecked hierarchy", in any form. Indeed, the political outlook which I have been advocating in this thread is "syndicalism", which is also known widely as "ANARCHO-syndicalism".  Its most famous proponent was the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, the "Wobblies").  Of which I have been a member for decades, and have served as Co-Chair of the General Executive Board.   -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,18:21    Quote Oh heck, I dont' mind people arguing with me just to be clear, it wasn't my intention to stem argument, rather not to let an oversimplified point be used simply for the sake OF argument. It just caught my eye.  I'm sure there have been many oversimplified points in this thread already. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,18:31    Quote Indeed, the political outlook which I have been advocating in this thread is "syndicalism", which is also known widely as "ANARCHO-syndicalism".   ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Whose castle is that? WOMAN: King of the who? ARTHUR: The Britons. WOMAN: Who are the Britons? ARTHUR: Well, we all are. We are all Britons, and I am your king. WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective. DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes-- WOMAN: Oh, there you go bringing class into it again. DENNIS: That's what it's all about. If only people would hear of-- ARTHUR: Please! Please, good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle? WOMAN: No one lives there. ARTHUR: Then who is your lord? WOMAN: We don't have a lord. ARTHUR: What? DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,... ARTHUR: Yes. DENNIS: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting... ARTHUR: Yes, I see. DENNIS: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,... ARTHUR: Be quiet! DENNIS: ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major-- ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet! WOMAN: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh. ARTHUR: I am your king! WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you. ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings. WOMAN: Well, how did you become King, then? ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,... [angels sing] ...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king! DENNIS: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. ARTHUR: Be quiet! DENNIS: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! ARTHUR: Shut up! DENNIS: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away! ARTHUR: Shut up, will you? Shut up! DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. ARTHUR: Shut up! DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed! ARTHUR: Bloody peasant! DENNIS: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,18:48    For anyone who's spent some time with the Left (the REAL Left, not the goddamn Democrats), "Life of Brian" is absolutely the funniest movie ever made. "BRIAN: Thank God you've come, Reg. REG: Ahh, yes. Well, I think I should point out first, Brian, in all fairness, that we are not in fact the rescue committee. However, I have been asked to read the following prepared statement on behalf of the Movement. Uh, 'We, the People's Front of Judea, brackets, officials, end brackets, do hereby convey our sincere fraternal and sisterly greetings to you, Brian, on this, the occasion of your martyrdom.' BRIAN: What? REG: 'Your death will stand as a landmark in the continuing struggle to liberate the parent land from the hands of the Roman Imperialist aggressors, excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture, and any other Romans contributing to the welfare of Jews of both sexes and hermaphrodites. Signed on behalf of the P.F.J., etcetera.' And I'd just like to add, on a personal note, my own admiration for what you are doing for us, Brian, at what must be, after all, for you, a very difficult time. " -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,09:43    Quote (guthrie @ May 22 2007,11:01) OOps, there are times I forget about the cross Atlantic communications difficulties.   Here in the UK, by using Right wing and referencing things like I have I was talking especially about Thatcher et al.  Their mantra was individualism, but what they practised was closer to state capitalism.  (The gvt actually grew under Thatcher, despite all the work she did in destroying public services) Oh, right wing in the US also tends to be used to describe that type of thing. It's just that the term itself originated with a different meaning. And what Thatcher did sounds like what Reagan started, but Dubya perfected. Grow gubmint while destroying regulation and social services.   Quote I should have been more specific about looking out for number one- of course you are the only person who knows what you want and you are in a position to have a better idea of what is good for you in many instances.  However most people (who stop to think about it anyway) also recognise that they are part of society, and therefore there is give and take about exactly they can/ want / would like to do.  What Thatcher et al drove towards was a kind of rampant individualism, in which no emphasis was put on the kind of enlightened self interest previously mentioned. Oh yes, this went on in the US too. Remember the 80s was the "greed is good" period and everyone was part of the "me generation."   Quote Do you call yourself a libertarian?   No. I don't like to classify myself, but I think I'm probably closest to a classical liberal. I'm definitely a civil libertarian in that laws should merely protect rights and not enforce a certain culture or try to keep people from harming themselves (e.g. the "nanny state"). But I also believe in environmental and corporate regulation, which I see as a way for the government to protect individual and collective rights. this is where I deviate from libertarians and classical liberals.   Quote The way you have put it sounds rather like anarchism. Letting business owners keep their property sounds like anarchism?   Quote Which is not a million miles away from Lennies thing.  But what myself and many of my friends would like is a more socialised set up in which people are not permitted to fall through the cracks.  (Unless they really want to of course).  You see, I can very easily imagine several scenarios involving countries which all somehow get into an anarchic setup, but because of the previous history of each country, will each take a different course in social provision etc.  Look at Europe and the USA.  Putatively similar, but due to different histories, have had interestingly divergent societies in the past 50 years. I have no particular problem with nice libertarians- its just the idea seems to attract "I've got my guns and I'm keeping all this to myself and I don't care who falls through the cracks" kind of individualistic people. Yes, well, obviously people should be allowed to keep their guns. And yes, if someone owns something that is not violating the rights of others, they have the right to keep it. Also, a "true" libertarian may say "I don't care who falls through the cracks," but most of them are humans with compassion. They just don't think it's the government's job to provide a safety net and that any social safety nets should be provided through private organizations, like church's and charities. The main argument is that the government is too inefficient and tends to use force to solve problems, which leads to even bigger problems. -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,09:47    Quote (guthrie @ May 22 2007,11:02) Quote (phonon @ May 22 2007,07:45) Yes, we are just pack animals and will fight over material resources until everyone is satisfied (which never happens). Not exactly.  We have negotiated settlements as well, which end up with enough for everyone. True. But the pack that settles within itself will eventually find another pack to battle with. -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,09:51    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 22 2007,17:52) Quote (guthrie @ May 22 2007,11:01) I have no particular problem with nice libertarians- its just the idea seems to attract "I've got my guns and I'm keeping all this to myself and I don't care who falls through the cracks" kind of individualistic people. Yeah, the libertarians are indeed a strange animal --- part anarchist, part free-market cheerleader. What they want, it sounds to me, is a return to pre-corporate days, where the economy consisted of individual Adam-Smithian small English shopkeepers.  Alas, those days are gone, gone, gone, and they will never return. Of course, I have problems with the very philosophical basis of libertarianism, which is, as I hear it, "individualism is the basis of humanity, and we only form governments to protect our individualism from each other".  Rather a disheartening view of humanity, I think. But then, as I said, the very basis for that is simply wrong.  Humans are NOT atomistic independent rugged individuals.  We are profoundly, deeply and irrevocably, SOCIAL animals.  Indeed, drop any one of us into the woods by ourselves, and we'd die within weeks.  We simply cannot survive outside a social framework.  We are utterly completely unchangeably interdependent upon each other.  Naturally, the very core of capitalist (and, it seems, libertarian) ideology consists of "every man for himself" (and that is indeed a convenient philosophy for a tiny minority of the population that fully intends to control the economic system for their own benefit and to abandon everyone else to their own devices), but that, alas, is not social reality. Individual greed has already proven itself simply an unworkable basis for an effective social system or a successful economy. That indeed is why "free market economics" was largely abandoned half a century ago, after the Robber Barons and the Great Depression gave everyone a good close look at what a "free market economy" is really all about.   We live today in a social economy, and indeed it was the **corporados themselves** who made it that way and indeed continue to make it even MORE socialized. I don't view that as a bad thing.  Indeed, I welcome it.  I say let the corporados go ahead and socialize the entire economy.  It saves *us* the trouble of doing it.  In the end, all we'll have to do is kick them out of power and run it for ourselves. Cooperation derives from individual survival instincts. When will people realize that libertarianism is NOT anarchism? Of course we are social animals. Of course we live in an interdependent society. It's just that this society is composed of individuals with their own desires and drives and these desires should only be hindered by force if they interfere with others' rights. I don't think libertarians want to return to any particular time in our history. I think they want something that has never really existed. -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,09:57    Quote (Ichthyic @ May 23 2007,16:27)   Quote How many public schools in this country teach creationism? officially?   gotta be next to none. unofficially? hundreds if not thousands. don't oversimplify the issue.  You damn well know there are hundreds of teachers that teach creationism that simply are left alone. moreover, there are thousands (tens of thousands), who refuse to teach evolution either due to personal bias or because of external pressures from their communities. so, don't oversimplify the issue just in order to argue with Lenny. Well, then lets apply your realism to Lenny's proposal. Even if we had perfect democratic control over our economy, what's to stop some people from circumventing it? EDIT: I was just reading back through this thread and I had to add that keeping creationism out of schools has little to do with democratic action (except electing school board members) and everything to do with legal action to enforce a constitutional provision. If that provision weren't there, then you would likely see creationism spring up all over the place in public schools through democratic action. -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,09:59    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 23 2007,18:48) "Life of Brian" is absolutely the funniest movie ever made. One of, for sure. -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,10:09    Quote (phonon @ May 24 2007,09:51) It's just that this society is composed of individuals with their own desires and drives and these desires should only be hindered by force if they interfere with others' rights. I don't think libertarians want to return to any particular time in our history. I think they want something that has never really existed. Hang on, I thought that was what anarchists were on about as well?  No restrictions on people unless they interfere with others rights?   The one thing I think all "isms" have in common is a drive towards some sort of ideal.  That this ideal has never really existed in the first place is besides the point.  Before the NHS we never had free at point of use universal health care in the UK, it was an ideal to be striven for.  Furthermore all sorts of nasty things were said about it before it happened, as if it would be impossible or if implemented, would lead to the collapse of society.  Now we've had it for decades, everyone takes it for granted and would fight its destruction. (Except is is being destroyed right now, by stealth)

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,12:32    Quote (guthrie @ May 24 2007,10:09) Quote (phonon @ May 24 2007,09:51) It's just that this society is composed of individuals with their own desires and drives and these desires should only be hindered by force if they interfere with others' rights. I don't think libertarians want to return to any particular time in our history. I think they want something that has never really existed. Hang on, I thought that was what anarchists were on about as well?  No restrictions on people unless they interfere with others rights?   The one thing I think all "isms" have in common is a drive towards some sort of ideal.  That this ideal has never really existed in the first place is besides the point.  Before the NHS we never had free at point of use universal health care in the UK, it was an ideal to be striven for.  Furthermore all sorts of nasty things were said about it before it happened, as if it would be impossible or if implemented, would lead to the collapse of society.  Now we've had it for decades, everyone takes it for granted and would fight its destruction. (Except is is being destroyed right now, by stealth) No, not as I understand it. An anarchist would say no restrictions on people and you defend your own rights, or organize locally to defend your rights as you define them. There will be no central government to defend them. -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,13:00    Whoops, yes, no central gvt at all.   Which reminds me of something I read in a chomsky book a few weeks ago.  An argument between Marx and (I htink) Bukhanin, and the difference came down to Marx thinking there could be a state for a while, having been taken over by the proletariat, and Bukhanin saying that a state was a really bad idea in any form you like. The thing is, I can see how both are correct.

Pages: (9) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard