Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 07:35:42 PM
I agree.  One troubling tendency I have noticed with many Tea Party people and conservatives in general could only be described as "founders worship".  It seems that many of them, probably including keyboarder, think that the founding fathers were almost infallible, that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence represent the pinnacles of human thought and progress, never to be surpassed.

To the contrary, I think that the Classical Liberalism that emerged from the Enlightenment Era with thinkers like John Locke represents only the starting point in the study of human liberty.  The study of free markets and liberty has progressed far beyond anything that the founders imagined.  The Austrian School of economics greatly improved upon the rather rudimentary understanding of economics that the founders had to work with.  Thinkers like Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe, and many others have corrected many of the errors of the Classical Liberals and have given us a far more consistent and ethical basis for a society based on human liberty, private property and free markets.

That is not to say that we should not continue to derive value from the writings of the best of the founders, but we should not hold back in our criticisms either.  I don't think their capitulation and compromise on the issue of slavery, not to mention the vicious personal brutality that some showed towards their own slaves, should be taken lightly.  It is hard to see how a generation that owned slaves, murdered Native Americans by the thousands and oppressed women can ever provide the foundation for a truly free society.

Rather we should look at the American Revolution as a rough first attempt at creating a society with a limited, voluntary Republic.  And the record should be clear that it was a complete failure.  They violated the Constitution the minute the ink was dry. 

We can do far better than that.  We don't need to cling to some romantic notion of the founding generation and the Constitution, when we have libertarian thinkers and scholars that are far more accomplished whose work we can base a truly free society on.

Want some professional advice from a grey head?
Suggest you learn, very quickly, to make your point
w/an economy of words. If you think posters are going
to wade through your endless verbiage, you're delusional;
particularly w/your level of grammar and syntax.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 03:51:20 PM
You may say you are not a "neo con" but you do sound like you get a lot of your information from people who are.  Do you listen to ANY of the following people or institutions:

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Krystol, Charles Krauthammer, Bill O'Reilly, David Frum, Fox News, National Review?

These people would love for you to continue believing that Islam is responsible and we need to declare war on the entire Muslim world in response to 9/11.  Have you read any books by Michael Scheuer?  He was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit from 1996 through 2005 or so.  He knows more about the motivation behind the attacks than anyone.

Barbary Pirates. Ring a bell?
It's literally the reason we have a Navy, they were created to protect American interests abroad.
That's right, were freakin Capitalists, and will do whatever it takes to protect said interests.

You can be as passive as you please, but if one nation is blockading our ships from trade with others, that's aggression and will be met with even harsher aggression.
And no, I seldom catch any radio and turned the TV of years ago.

QuoteThere is no question that radical Islam is comprised of violent people, but the reasons they have for attacking the United States are real and substantive.  They object to our foreign policy of imperialism, of sanctions and propping up puppet dictators in the Middle East and overthrowing elected leaders.  They object to our blind support for Israel and military support for the subjugation of Palestinians.  These grievances resonate throughout the middle east, even among moderates and very decent, moral people.

So what? We wanted to trade with peaceful nations, and propping up a puppet is all part of the game of capitalism.

QuoteScheuer makes the case that bin Laden and Al Qaeda would lose all their support and become marginalized in the Muslim world if they couldn't constantly point to our military occupations and dead children that we create with our sanctions and drone strikes.  A million Iraqi's died as a result of Bill Clinton's sanctions and Madeleine Albright said on national television that it was "worth it". 

Scheure is a freakin idiot too! Ever heard of Wahhabism?These people have been preaching and teaching young minds for going on 40 years, death to America and Jews, and you really think you can actually reason with people that want to return to the 7th century?

QuoteWhat if a foreign nation did to us what our government has done to countries in the middle east?  Would you not want to take up arms against the occupying force?  You wouldn't want revenge against the people who killed your family?

Who do you think the Marxist in the WH is? He's a fuckin commie plant, we are already under assault.

QuoteThere is no justification for the attack on 9/11 but I believe the each and every one of the more than one million Iraqis that have died because of the actions of the US government have just as much value as the 3000 people killed in the twin towers. 

You can continue to believe that all "those" people are savages, are worthless and that we are at war with Islam but I reject such xenophobic and offensive views that devalue human life.

Wait, you're under the impression, that with the ability of hindsight, I think it was a good idea?

Personally, I think we should have taken out Iran as well, and occupied the damn place and installed a dictator, because that's all those people understand, trading one dictator for another.
As evidenced by history!
If I had my way, we'd yank all interests out of the M/E and never look back, let the animals slaughter one another, they've been at it for years.

Let me guess, you're in your late 20s, and after voting for Hussein, realized you'd made a huge mistake and took up the LIBertarian cause? Don't lie!

Quote from: Walter Josh on August 01, 2014, 07:54:36 PM

Want some professional advice from a grey head?
Suggest you learn, very quickly, to make your point
w/an economy of words. If you think posters are going
to wade through your endless verbiage, you're delusional;
particularly w/your level of grammar and syntax.

This seems a bit like a deflection.  I admit I can be wordy when I express myself but I don't think anything on this thread has been over the top.  Whether or not you care to read what I write is entirely up to you.

Is this a pithy enough post for you?

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 08:01:59 PM
This seems a bit like a deflection.  I admit I can be wordy when I express myself but I don't think anything on this thread has been over the top.  Whether or not you care to read what I write is entirely up to you.

Is this a pithy enough post for you?

Actually you'd do well to heed his words. Don't take them as an insult, but rather blunt advice, people eventually get your drift as a repetitive point and simply pass on reading your replies.
It's just human nature.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 08:01:59 PM
This seems a bit like a deflection.  I admit I can be wordy when I express myself but I don't think anything on this thread has been over the top.  Whether or not you care to read what I write is entirely up to you.

Is this a pithy enough post for you?

You did well; now keep it up.
See, it ain't hard.

Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2014, 07:56:39 PM
Barbary Pirates. Ring a bell?
It's literally the reason we have a Navy, they were created to protect American interests abroad.
That's right, were freakin Capitalists, and will do whatever it takes to protect said interests.

You can be as passive as you please, but if one nation is blockading our ships from trade with others, that's aggression and will be met with even harsher aggression.
And no, I seldom catch any radio and turned the TV of years ago.
So what? We wanted to trade with peaceful nations, and propping up a puppet is all part of the game of capitalism.
Scheure is a freakin idiot too! Ever heard of Wahhabism?These people have been preaching and teaching young minds for going on 40 years, death to America and Jews, and you really think you can actually reason with people that want to return to the 7th century?
Who do you think the Marxist in the WH is? He's a fuckin commie plant, we are already under assault.
Wait, you're under the impression, that with the ability of hindsight, I think it was a good idea?

Personally, I think we should have taken out Iran as well, and occupied the damn place and installed a dictator, because that's all those people understand, trading one dictator for another.
As evidenced by history!
If I had my way, we'd yank all interests out of the M/E and never look back, let the animals slaughter one another, they've been at it for years.

Let me guess, you're in your late 20s, and after voting for Hussein, realized you'd made a huge mistake and took up the LIBertarian cause? Don't lie!

I AM in my late 20s but that is beside the point.  And no, I never voted for Barack Obama.  I've been a libertarian at least since 2005-2006.  I supported Ron Paul in the primaries in 2008 and 2012 and I voted for Gary Johnson in the general. 

I don't mean to be presumptuous but if I had to bet, I'd say you've studied next to nothing about the history of the middle east.  Have you studied ANYTHING about the history of suicide terrorism and Al Qaeda?  Are you familiar with the term "blowback"?

One book you ought to read is called "Dying to Win" by Robert Pape.  It is one of the best and most comprehensive studies on the motivations for suicide terrorism ever assembled.  The conclusion of his studies revealed that it is foreign occupation that is the motivating factor for suicide terrorism.  Once the foreign occupier leaves, the incidents of suicide terrorism stop.

I don't know if you said we should have "taken out" Iran in jest, but your support for such aggression is unconscionable. 

There was a time when the United States was beloved throughout the middle east.  Sure, they had there ongoing conflicts and religious fanaticism, but they did not consider us an enemy.  What changed?  Half a century of military occupation, imperialist aggression, sanctions and puppet dictators will change just about anyone's mind.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
I AM in my late 20s but that is beside the point.  And no, I never voted for Barack Obama.  I've been a libertarian at least since 2005-2006.  I supported Ron Paul in the primaries in 2008 and 2012 and I voted for Gary Johnson in the general. 

I don't mean to be presumptuous but if I had to bet, I'd say you've studied next to nothing about the history of the middle east.  Have you studied ANYTHING about the history of suicide terrorism and Al Qaeda?  Are you familiar with the term "blowback"?

One book you ought to read is called "Dying to Win" by Robert Pape.  It is one of the best and most comprehensive studies on the motivations for suicide terrorism ever assembled.  The conclusion of his studies revealed that it is foreign occupation that is the motivating factor for suicide terrorism.  Once the foreign occupier leaves, the incidents of suicide terrorism stop.

I don't know if you said we should have "taken out" Iran in jest, but your support for such aggression is unconscionable. 

There was a time when the United States was beloved throughout the middle east.  Sure, they had there ongoing conflicts and religious fanaticism, but they did not consider us an enemy.  What changed?  Half a century of military occupation, imperialist aggression, sanctions and puppet dictators will change just about anyone's mind.

Wow, the ignorance abounds, and I don't mean that as an insult, honestly.
I'm not even going to bother anymore, you are literally a product of a liberal education, and there is no way I'll ever convince you that you're wrong on so many levels.

The only thing that will change your mind, is time, and and travel. Spend some time in a third world country, the culture may be of your liking, but the politics will really open your eyes.

There's a reason these people have produced nothing in the last 1000 years, see if you can figure out why.

Edit: FWIW< I too was a libertarian at one time decades ago, but realized it was in total conflict with human nature.
I'm sure you too will eventually come to this conclusion.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 07:47:15 PM
Well, they were closer to left anarchists, sometimes called libertarian socialists.  Some of them are actually quite well read.  I could see how some people would be persuaded of their arguments on a superficial level.  They too oppose the State and want to get rid of it.  They oppose war and civil liberties abuses.  Where they differ from libertarians (and conservatives) is that they oppose workplace hierarchy.  This is a stupid and untenable position, I know.  They say that you can have private property, but it is based on use.  Your personal items, your home, your car, all things of that nature are your property and no one should be permitted to take them without your permission.  But they say that once you hire workers, you must enter into a "partnership" and you cannot "exploit" them by making profits off of their labor. 

The contradiction is how they plan to enforce such a system without a State.  In a system of anarchy, if I sign a contract with a worker and he agrees to work for me and I am permitted by contract to make a profit, then who is going to stop us from this voluntary economic transaction? 

One difference between antistate Marxist and anarcho captitalists is that we would permit voluntary Marxism.  You could proselytize and convince other workers to form non hierarchical coops where each owns the means of production.  No one would be permitted to use violence against them for forming that arrangement. 

However, they MUST accept the right of some institution, whether the State or just a gang of workers, to use violence against me if I voluntarily hire workers and they voluntarily accept the conditions laid out in the contract.

They get kind of vague when I bring up this contradiction.  But it is fun to debate them nonetheless.

I have also been engaged in a back and forth with people from this point of view. And the discussions turn on just the issues you raise, ie Marxian value theory, surplus value, alienation theory, the labor theory of value, etc

These are many times honest and well read individuals, as you say, but they have failed to understand the lessons of the marginal revolution, as it pertains to the distribution of incomes across the production structure, where processes are at work such that each factor tends to earn its discounted marginal value product. Nor do they understand the nature of interest, of rent and profit, not to mention capital theory.

But they do have a thing to teach those big "L" libertarian supporters of corporatism and crony capitalism, who think arguments for free markets apply to the status quo.

The center for the stateless society has done noble work exposing this hypocrisy, in my view. Though it is a charge that can hardly be laid at the feet of anyone connected with the Mises Institute.

Quote from: Walter Josh on August 01, 2014, 07:54:36 PM

Want some professional advice from a grey head?
Suggest you learn, very quickly, to make your point
w/an economy of words. If you think posters are going
to wade through your endless verbiage, you're delusional;
particularly w/your level of grammar and syntax.

Here's the word you want. Your on-point advice was received as you probably expected.

Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2014, 08:26:11 PM
Wow, the ignorance abounds, and I don't mean that as an insult, honestly.
I'm not even going to bother anymore, you are literally a product of a liberal education, and there is no way I'll ever convince you that you're wrong on so many levels.

The only thing that will change your mind, is time, and and travel. Spend some time in a third world country, the culture may be of your liking, but the politics will really open your eyes.

There's a reason these people have produced nothing in the last 1000 years, see if you can figure out why.

Edit: FWIW< I too was a libertarian at one time decades ago, but realized it was in total conflict with human nature.
I'm sure you too will eventually come to this conclusion.

Again with the human nature argument against libertarianism.  That line of argumentation really is not persuasive.  I've already stated the reasons why in a previous post.

I am not a product of "liberal" education, by which I assume you mean public schooling.  When I was very young I was home schooled, then I attended private schools.  I probably had no more than a year of public schooling my entire K-12 education.  And, believe me, I have heard all these conservative arguments about how the "muslims" are our enemy, how we need to fight this "war on terror" and promote democracy and all the rest of it.  I never fully bought into it but once I actually read something about it, like the aforementioned book by Robert Pape as well as works by Michael Scheuer and others, I fully rejected that view.

There are interests within our government and in the military industrial complex that stand to profit greatly from fomenting conflict and taking us to war.  The reasons given by their media mouthpieces are scarcely ever consistent with reality.

It is not that I think all the problems in the middle east are the fault of the United States.  Far from it.  I think we have exacerbated the already existing conflict, but we should simply stay out of it.  The dysfunction in that part of the world would remain an internal problem from the Muslim world to deal with on their own.  We don't have to incite them and incure the wrath of the jihadists who otherwise would not be able to garner the popular support to target us and our allies.

Unless a bin Laden character can point to actual grievances, destroyed families, corpses piled up due to US sanctions or bombing campaigns and the like, then he could never have gained so many new recruits.

You think tons of young Arabs would be willing to lose their life because we have women in the workplace?  Because we have liberal views and are Christians?  Contrary to what you may have heard, they don't "hate us for our freedom". 

With all due respect, I'd rather trust the informed, expert opinions of people like Scheuer and Pape over your generalizations and stereotypes.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM

If aggression is immoral and cannot be justified, then we should oppose aggression and therefore oppose the existence of the State.

You still don't get it, do you?

Here is the conundrum that you have to deal with, and what I (and others) have been trying to explain to you.

You and all of your anarchist friends see the "state" as an immoral institution. You want to oppose it and to end its power. In fact, you want to destroy it.

First, you have to know what a "state" is before you can hope to oppose it.

A "state" is nothing more or less that a group of people working towards a common goal. That goal may be noble, or it may be ignominious - it really doesn't' matter. It may take many forms, and can become quite complex, but when you strip all the B.S. away, this is what a "state" is.

Now, how are you going to oppose something like that? Are you going to do it as individuals? You can, but it is unlikely that you will succeed. No, the most effective way to mount a resistance to the "state" is to grab a bunch of your Anarchists buddies and organize yourselves into a cohesive group to oppose and hopefully defeat the hated "state".

Guess, what you've just done! You've organized like minded people for the purpose of achieving a common goal.

Congratulations! You've just created "state".

Now, you have two "states". One you support and one you oppose.

But... but... but... but... your "state" wasn't formed via "aggression", you protest. Perhaps so, but will it stay that way?  Do you think the leaders you voluntarily invested with power over their fellow citizens will willing give up that power if you demand they do so? Some will, others will not!

How will you deal with that when it happens?

-Darth

A voluntary group of freely associating equals is not a state, for it lacks the vertical or hierarchical relation that characterizes governments.

The way to beat the state is not through opposing it violently, with your own state, but by undercutting its popular support.

Then it will collapse of its own weight.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2014, 10:34:30 PM
A voluntary group of freely associating equals is not a state, for it lacks the vertical or hierarchical relation that characterizes governments.

The way to beat the state is not through opposing it violently, with your own state, but by undercutting its popular support.

Then it will collapse of its own weight.

You're dealing is semantics, but even so, even non-violent resistance, to be effective will need to be organized. There will be leaders and there will be followers and not all of the followers will approve of who gets to be the leaders.

If the leaders are elected democratically, it is unlikely their election will be unanimous. Will the ones who did not vote for the chosen leaders of the resistance be free not to participate in the resistance against the state? And if they are, is it fair for them to share in whatever benefits that the fall of the state might bring to those who opposed it and took action to bring it down?

-Darth

Obviously youve never had to deal with rape, robbery, murder...  the childish nature of anarchists and the left is that they imagine real problems away...  I had to deal with an "anarchist" who cut off the finger of an 80+ year woman to get the ring for pawn.  So... how exactly would you handle this?  You cannot imagine it, or them, away.  GROW UP. 

Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2014, 08:07:15 PM
Actually you'd do well to heed his words. Don't take them as an insult, but rather blunt advice, people eventually get your drift as a repetitive point and simply pass on reading your replies.
It's just human nature.

Remember: pithy WORKS!

Alternately: draft your comment in a document and then kill a third of it through merging repetitions. It's brutal and it works. Write tight if you want to be read.