Libertarianism, In Theory and Practice

A Primal Nut

Nazism is not, in any way, synonymous with the word Ideology. Thats probably the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. I know plenty of people inspired by an ideology who are certainly not Nazis.

I'm not going to patronise you by telling you to look up the definitions but I'm trying to understand how you can say you understand why japperbacky suggested that Libertarians should go to a Stormfront website even though the two ideologies have nothing in common. Or maybe its just Godwin's Law in action!

jabbertalky

Just read Donegalfella's posts going on about the strong willed and the weak willed, no such thing as society, survival of the fittest, you name it. That's total Nietzche talk. And we all know Nietzche inspired the Nazis, there's even a film about it.

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche_and_the_Nazis

That's why I said he would be far better off on Stormfront with his neo Nazi friends.

Offalycool

Not exactly. Nietzsche would have fundamentally disagreed with ideology of any description. For him, to believe in the absurd (for him, Christianity), is to negate, or ignore the reality of the world. This he referred to as ‘nihilism’, the belief in nothing (believing in Christianity, Nazism, whatever is not real). Disclaimer: Just describing Nietzsche’s POV, so don’t blame me.

Offalycool

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Nazism is not, in any way, synonymous with the word Ideology. Thats probably the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. I know plenty of people inspired by an ideology who are certainly not Nazis.

I'm not going to patronise you by telling you to look up the definitions but I'm trying to understand how you can say you understand why japperbacky suggested that Libertarians should go to a Stormfront website even though the two ideologies have nothing in common. Or maybe its just Godwin's Law in action!

Look, that's fine, whatever.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Offalycool

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

LOL

Akrasia

A Primal Nut wrote: »

A corporation can be and often is a cooperative structure. Its generally in everyones interest that the company does well.

Corporations are not the same as cooperatives. Cooperatives are run democratically by the workers, one worker, one vote. Corporations are run as dictatorships by the majority shareholders. Now there may be some horizontal communication structures and bonus packages that encourage 'intrapreneurship' but when it comes down to the big decisions, (eg, will we shut down the irish division and relocate it to India) these are made by the board room and the workers have absolutely no input. They might have a shareholding through profit sharing mechanisms, but these are never more than a small percentage of the capital base (in rare instances such as nationalised state companies, the share holding can be up to 20%, but still nowhere near a controlling interest)

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are constantly conflating collectivism and totalitarianism.

In an anarchist collective the decision to go to war would be a collective one (everyone would vote) and individuals would be free to opt out if they didn't agree with the reason or the strategy. This is completely different from a totalitarian state (left wing or right wing) conscripting soldiers to fight for them. Also, anarchist militia would be run voluntarily with commanders elected amongst the militia rather than chosen from an officer class.

Of course, those who chose not to participate in the war effort might face social castigation for not participating or for cowardice, and you might consider this 'coercion' but I imagine your answer to the question of consctiption in libertarianland is "there would be no wars"

Again, it comes down to psychology. The weak person falls naturally into the collective, deriving his sense of self from it. His politics are everyone else's politics; his decisions are everyone else's decisions; his life is lived according to someone else's script.

Bollox. In a democratic collective, it is the opposite, the individual is empowered to participate in the decision making process. In representative democracy that power is surrendered, and in libertarianland, you freely admit that there is 'no need for democracy'

the crafty power-hungry person works out how to exploit the power of the collective; he appeals to it with guileful rhetoric. "As an individual, you are meaningless, but as part of the masses, you can achieve anything!" he tells them. "Baaaa!" go the sheep.

In libertarianland, the crafty powerhungry person doesn't even have to try to convince the 'sheep'. He just buys the decision making power and rules by decree.

This destructive, corrosive logic of groupthink means that no collectivist can ever be truly human. His frail ego cannot exist as a solitary thing; it needs constant bolstering from others, constant reinforcement from the herd. This is a travesty wreaked on mankind. It turns human beings into mindless followers of each other, their heads filled with wooly rhetoric and received ideas, their sense of everything limited by what is "socially acceptable." It's sad, really, but if this trend doesn't reverse itself, one wonders what a "human being" will be five hundred years hence.

Here is the true spirit of donegalfella, he doesn't just disagree with socialism, he is an evangalist for his own cult and can not tolerate anything that might challenge it. His powerful paragraph above is dripping with hatred for the idea that people [shock] might make decisions in groups [/shock] rather act 100% of the time, purely in their own selfish self interest.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jabbertalky

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course you think Nazis should be able to do whatever they want, that would be predictable coming from a right wing fascist. As for complaining about the mods giving you infractions, this is not a fascist website, in case you haven't noticed. Go over and try out Stormfront, it's a better place for the neo-Nazi fanboys.

jabbertalky

Akrasia wrote: »

Here is the true spirit of donegalfella, he doesn't just disagree with socialism, he is an evangalist for his own cult and can not tolerate anything that might challenge it.

Yup, that's right, the cult of fascism. Get the right wingers out, that's what I say. We've had enough of George Bush and his kind.

turgon

jabbertalky wrote: »

Yup, that's right, the cult of fascism. Get the right wingers out, that's what I say. We've had enough of George Bush and his kind.

A bit obsessed with fascism it seems.

And right-wingers, naturally enough.

Dudess

jabbertalky wrote: »

Of course you think Nazis should be able to do whatever they want, that would be predictable coming from a right wing fascist. As for complaining about the mods giving you infractions, this is not a fascist website, in case you haven't noticed. Go over and try out Stormfront, it's a better place for the neo-Nazi fanboys.

Where did he say he believes neo nazis should be able to do whatever they want? He just means they are entitled to free speech - if hateful views like that are brought out into the open, they can be challenged. I'm not 100% in agreement with the "free speech for everyone" thing (what about incitement to hatred? Poisoning others' minds?) but I can see where he's coming from.

As for Donegalfella being a right-wing fascist, neo nazi fanboy... well he does hold some conservative views that I don't agree with all right, but how these make him a right-wing fascist is beyond me.

jabbertalky

turgon wrote: »

A bit obsessed with fascism it seems.

And right-wingers, naturally enough.

Oh very smart, going through linking to my other posts. Not obsessed at all, I just believe in fighting the right before they destroy the world. No harm in me stating my opinion on things, is there?

jabbertalky

Dudess wrote: »

Where did he say he believes neo nazis should be able to do whatever they want? He just means they are entitled to free speech - if hateful views like that are brought out into the open, they can be challenged. I'm not 100% in agreement with the "free speech for everyone" thing (what about incitement to hatred? Poisoning others' minds?) but I can see where he's coming from.

As for Donegalfella being a right-wing fascist, neo nazi fanboy... well he does hold some conservative views that I don't agree with all right, but how these make him a right-wing fascist is beyond me.

Well Dudess, thats exactly what people like Donegalfella want the freedom to do, poison others with their extreme right wing views. Hitler would be right behind him there. Look at Germany back in the 30s and what Hitler did with his 'free speech', before you knew it he was taking over half of Europe and shoving the Jews into gas chambers. I don't agree with free speech for fascists, I don't agree with free speech for Nazis, I don't think people with his Nietzchean Neo-Nazi views should have free speech either. The world has said NO to Hitler and NO to George Bush and NO to the Lisbon Treaty and it's clear we just don't want this kind of talk in our world anymore.

SHUT THE NAZIS DOWN NOW.

sceptre

Jabbertalky's taking a two week holiday from the Politics section for repeated personal attacks despite two earlier infractions which were roundly ignored. Politeness is cheap.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

jabbertalky wrote: »

I don't agree with free speech for fascists, I don't agree with free speech for Nazis, I don't think people with his Nietzchean Neo-Nazi views should have free speech either.

Either you are for free speech or you are not, and being for it means being for it for people who you disagree with, and indeed the more strongly you disagree the more strongly you should support their right to hold that view. You are clearly not for free speech, and are therefore much closer to the fascists you hate than you probably realise.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Offalycool

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just my opinion... The thing about Hitler and Stalin, and perhaps Thatcher, is that they were extremists. I think it is a mistake to take pride in being so far away from them, if this means having extreme views yourself. Extremism is not rational. Ideology proposes the answers to all problems, both past and future.

"If Germany had always been pure, we would not have become week, therefore when we purify Germany we will be strong again" or "If we had not let our sovereign rights be taken from us yesterday, we would be sovereign, therefore, when we take our sovereign rights back we will be sovereign"..... It's irrational.

Sure, the world needs human rights. But we don't need outdated rights based on outdated theories, that Libertarians take liberty in interpreting. The world has not been in intellectual decline since the Enlightenment, indeed there is much discovered and much more to be discovered. We dont need the end of history, we need to change our whole concept of what history is!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Offalycool

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe so... but I still think she had extreme views that made her a poor politician. I believe the best politician will look for compromise, without resorting to ideology.

I don't see how wanting people to be as free as possible can be described as "having extreme views"!

We will force you to be free!

I don't see why the ideas of Locke, Voltaire, Bastiat, and other classical liberals should be regarded as "outdated." That implies that they have been supplanted by something better or more advantageous in the meantime, but they haven't.

It isn't so much that the have been outdated, more that assumptions they held have proved to be problematic, requiring modification, if their principles are to be realised in everyday life.

If one looks at the general state of cultural, scientific, and political awareness in the West today, it's hard to avoid the overall impression of intellectual decline. The Harry Potter phenomenon aside, people under the age of 25 today spend less time reading, less time studying, less time being exposed to important ideas, art, and literature. They spend more time watching TV and hanging out on "social networking" websites, chattering incessantly with similarly uninformed peers. This is all leading to a collective loss of historical memory, and an inability to participate effectively in the democratic process.

The decline of culture is destructive. Much of this can be blamed on the poor recycling of cultural for profit through entertainment. How many times has Beowulf been ripped off with and without acknowledgement? However, more children in the west receive a primary education than ever before. They know the earth revolves around the sun. Science too has much to offer. It has enabled man to retain a memory, and if not dismiss myth, understand ourselves better through analysis of our myths.

So what is history?

I don't have all the answers.. but I'm OK with admitting that. What history is not is an inevitable march to the summit. Process history, the idea that progress is inevitable blinds people to the danger of extremism, and the possibilities of today.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Offalycool

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Whatever

I don't think the assumptions of classical liberalism have proven to be all that "problematic," to be quite honest. Liberal values work well for more people, more of the time, than any alternatives.

Liberal values and Liberal theory are two different things. We rarely justify our values, we are justifiably challenged to justify our theory's.

I don't think the "recycling" of culture is the issue. It's more that today's young people know everything about Britney Spears, Jade Goody, and Matt Damon, and nothing whatsoever about Michelangelo, Handel, or Wordsworth. For them, the dark distant past is the 1970s.

The connection between art and entertainment, as far as the end result of the 'Art' is concerned is for the most part entertainment. I agree art can be so much more than entertainment, but art requires creativity and this is not easy, or as profitable as Britney Spears. On the other hand, entertainment is necessary too, to an extent that it alleviates the toil of everyday life. The reason there is so much more entertainment than art today, there is more profit in entertainment.

Yes, but what are they actually learning, if anything, in all these years of state-provided education? From USA Today:

All this proves is that education is difficult, and the method in the classroom is what's important.

At present, we have before the Irish people a lengthy, complex text called the Lisbon Treaty. It's quite obvious from the debates on the issue that majority of the people, even the so-called "educated," simply do not have the ability to read this treaty—or even understand a summary of it. You can't have freedom and democracy unless you have a populace that has a reasonable degree of education.

The document is almost incomprehensible, due to the fact it makes countless references to other documents, and is written in such a way that one requires specialist training to interpret it.

Isn't that something that a 4-year-old child can understand?

Maybe so, but it took Copernicus a while to work it out, and convince everybody else.

But most people have appalling scientific and mathematical literacy, too.

Because it's hard to learn, and rarely taught well.

That's true—but I don't know that libertarians believe in any "inevitable" outcome of history. For the Marxist, history is a dialectical process of unfolding class conflict that will inevitably end in the overthrow of capitalism communist utopia. I don't believe libertarians have an ultimate historical "goal," given that they generally see history as the outcome of millions of people's interacting choices, preferences, decisions, and actions—and thus susceptible to a high degree of unpredictability.

Oh' but you do. You believe that once the Marxist fail, Libertarianism will be the result.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So what, the new guy might have some fresh ideas, might not be stuck in his ways like the older guy. Also, it's not like there would be a coup by all the new arrivals who would throw out all the experienced people and start doing things arseways

Shareholders are now dictators?

If there is a 51% shareholder, he can appoint the board of directors, he can dictate the direction of the company.
Within the company there is no democracy.

And that, quite honestly, is exactly as it should be. The workers are hired to work, and the managers are hired to manage, and the executives are there to make the really big and important decisions about the direction and future of the company. I know that this is the "hierarchy" you so detest—but it's also been established as the most efficient and productive way of doing things.

It's the most profitable for the executives and the shareholders, but cooperatives have been demonstrated to be at least as efficient and productive as corporations. I can get the links later on if you like, do you have any evidence that proves corporations are more efficient or productive than any other mode of organisation?

You and the other socialists on this thread have pointed to instances of self-managed workers' collectives, but posters have repeatedly noted that your model doesn't scale up. Do you really believe that a multinational corporation, such as Microsoft or Nike, could exist as a self-governing workers' collective?

Mondragon cooperative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you know what the word 'might' means?

Why not? It seems to be the socialist mantra—out with the tried and trusted way of doing things, and in with faddish new experiments.

good argument, not (see we can both play like that, won't make for a good discussion though)

A privately owned company has no reason whatsoever to run itself as a "democracy." It runs itself according to whatever principles best lend themselves to efficiency and profitability.

This is a political theory forum, we're dealing in normative discussion. Your ideology promotes domination and dictatorship, yet pretends to desire freedom, Anarchists promote cooperation and democracy, and you oppose it at every turn.

The cooperative and corporate models are comprehensively compared in N. Scott Arnold's book The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study (Oxford University Press, 1994). I won't spoil the surprise by telling you which model comes out overwhelmingly on top.

I haven't read that book, but it does appear to be quite theoretical. Here's a much book that uses case studies to directly compare cooperative and non cooperative industries in several regions around the world and the conclusions are generally that cooperatives are no less 'efficient' (in capitalist terms) than the corporations, and that the decision making and management is actually much more effective in the cooperatives than in the equivilent corporations. (see chapter 8 specifically)
studies "Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory & Labor-Managed Firms" (published by emerald insight) http://info.emeraldinsight.com/products/books/series.htm?PHPSESSID=apkvrfjionq6mq87ae1aq9uhr4&id=0885-3339

Joycey

While browsing around one of the other threads on a related topic, I stumbled across this quote, one which I think adequately sums up Libertarianism, in theory and practise:

Donegalfella wrote:

Anyone who enters onto my private property with the intention of harming me or stealing from me will be shot. No question about it.

An inspired summary of Libertarian ideals IMO

ChocolateSauce

Joycey wrote: »

While browsing around one of the other threads on a related topic, I stumbled across this quote, one which I think adequately sums up Libertarianism, in theory and practise:



An inspired summary of Libertarian ideals IMO

Firstly, what would you suggest instead? Let them harm you? If a person breaks into my house and attacks me, they forfeit their right to expect not to be met with force. Besides, he didn't say shoot to kill, did he?

Secondly, can you please explain what exactly self-defense has to do with the socio-economic philosophy of libertarianism? Please, I'd like to know, because try as I might I can't some up with one, unless you are suggesting that living in a social democracy like say, Norway, means you don't have the right to defend yourself.

Joycey

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Firstly, what would you suggest instead? Let them harm you? If a person breaks into my house and attacks me, they forfeit their right to expect not to be met with force. Besides, he didn't say shoot to kill, did he?

He said harm or steal, and I dont think he would feel that he did anything wrong if he did shoot to kill so thats not an adequate response.

Secondly, can you please explain what exactly self-defense has to do with the socio-economic philosophy of libertarianism? .

You are not = to your property. Hence defending your property is not self-defence.

Secondly, I think that any political ideology which places a higher value on someones porche then they do on a human life is not one whose proponents I would consider mentally well-adjusted.