Something For XEL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCI5opHrf_8&mode=related&search=

Xel, reading a number of your statements, I can see that you aren't very big on libertarian PRINCIPLES, and that you are buying into utilitarian ideas.  I'd like to take the time to point you in the direction of this little video I found on youtube here...

Pay attention to what he is saying about principles & utilitarianism, as I think this is a crucial difference between the way you think, and the way I think. 

If you and I agree on something, say, the legalization of drugs, but we disagree with each other on WHY drugs should be legalized, there will likely be other ways in which we don't see eye to eye. 

You may also want to hear what he says about regulation of the economy, libertarianism, crime, etc.

lol!! Xel is being sent to a re-education camp. One more unorthodox opinion and he'll be purged.

I simply believe that there is inevitable friction between private interests and a sustainable situation for the public. That accumulates. And that government and it collecting taxes beyond that neccesary for the night-watcher state is not intrinsically ethically inferior to the market catering instead. I know what happened when racist farmers tried to underpay japanese workers in the 20's - the japanese workers worked harder and could go to better employers.

"Uh, slavery is also utilitarian there are some principles, uh..." Oh duh, really. What a... Basic person this appears to be. Well, I do not accept the current system for health-care, and at the same time I do not believe it is *pragmatically feasible* to give it all to the market.
I do not pursue an end by all means, either. I do not believe that corporations would be better off just because the government retreats.

I do not believe that economics are static, either, but I believe that capital accumulates and that while social justice is impossible, putting society's fate in intrinsicalities of the market is not something I will allow my fellow men to do.

I do not trust government. I do not trust capitalism. I value social liberties as much as financial liberties but I pragmatically value the former if I can.

Stop throwing scruffy college students at me. I've read Johan Norberg, for fuck's sake.

>>2 More like boredom camp.

Xel is wrong because it is stupid, not because it is a utilitarianist.

>>4 I can't be wrong because I am stupid, nor can I be wrong for being a utilitarianist, which I only am to a very unsocialist degree. Both the former and the latter states of mind may increase the chances of making the wrong conclusion. I can be wrong for making statements that do not comport with reality or at least a superior approximation of reality.

Also, if I am an "It", then who are you? A "Wednesday"?

>>5
Xel, the point was to ask you what your principles were.  On WHAT do you base your political positions? Utilitarianism?

This is why I sent you this video.  I want to challenge the principles upon which you base your political framework.  For example, I have to disagree with your utilitarian principles.  If,  for example, it was somehow utilitarian to reinstate slavery, should it be done? If the reinstating of slavery resulted in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, should it be done? 

My answer, is no, it should not.  Slavery is wrong in my opinion because it violates my political principles which basically amount to a large degree of respect for human rights.  I believe, for example, that all humans should be entitled to rights to life, liberty, and property.  To reinstate slavery would be wrong because it would deny these fundamental human rights (individual rights) to the enslaved portion of the population.  Whether or not this resulted in happiness for a larger number of people or not, this would, in my opinion, be wrong - based on my principles.  Would you still stand by utilitarianism in this situation? Are you being consistent with your principles? Should your principles be re-evaluated?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=utilitarianism

"If the reinstating of slavery resulted in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, should it be done?" There are limits to my utilitarianism, but you were so set on popping some baloon you envisioned me holding that you didn't see it is far from hollow. My point: Unneccesary taxation, i.e. taxation that does not level the playing filed and makes your society more meritocratic, is partial slavery. Forcing people to start off in a valley on a non-level playing field is to use their initially poor position to keep them away from competing with you - also subjecting them to partial slavery.

So we find a non-ideological solution that actually comports with libertarian logic and ethics rather than making up monikers for one another and humming and umming into a webcam.

>>3
"I do not trust government. I do not trust capitalism. I value social liberties as much as financial liberties but I pragmatically value the former if I can."

You can try and divide liberties into different camps or sects if you like, but really when you think about it, no liberty is possible without 'economic' liberty.

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Phoenix-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264017/sr=8-2/qid=1165448284/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-4668493-6087905?ie=UTF8&s=books

>>7
"There are limits to my utilitarianism, but you were so set on popping some baloon you envisioned me holding that you didn't see it is far from hollow. My point: Unneccesary taxation, i.e. taxation that does not level the playing filed and makes your society more meritocratic, is partial slavery."

If your principles aren't pure, don't you think you should re-examine your principles, firstly?

Anyway, how can one form of taxation equate to slavery, yet another doesn't? If you enslave someone to make a society more meritocratic, is it somehow different from enslaving them for some other purpose, motive, or goal?

"Forcing people to start off in a valley on a non-level playing field is to use their initially poor position to keep them away from competing with you - also subjecting them to partial slavery."

I see little reason to think laissez-faire capitalism, anarcho capitalism, or a generally 'libertarian' society would not be socially mobile. 

"So we find a non-ideological solution that actually comports with libertarian logic and ethics rather than making up monikers for one another and humming and umming into a webcam."

I don't see how slavery of any kind for any reason comports with libertarian logic and ethics.

"I can't be wrong because I am stupid"

anarcho capitalism NEVER WORKS

  laissez-faire capitalism is a very beutiful thing and should be what we strive for. i like reading posts like this but please dont try to argue for both anarcho capitalism and laissez-faire capitalism using the same philosophy it fails very hard, they are totally different. just look at the history of the FCC(when and why it was created) for the most recent example of its failure.
  laissez-faire capitalism is no doubt the best form of government ever to be concieved and i hope to one day see it but it will never happen if people keep pushing anarcho capitalism along with it

>>11
(cont)

Also this debate will fail soon, you’re both evading the true issue: weather the government’s power includes legal use of force (aggressive not defensive). That’s the only issue you should be working with at this time. start small and work up.

>>8 "You can try and divide liberties into different camps or sects if you like, but really when you think about it, no liberty is possible without 'economic' liberty." Economic liberty means free transactions without modulations or interceptions by an arbitrary entity, loosely defined. That has nothing to do with who I put my dick in or what I can see on the internet. Also, economic liberty is not legit or desirable unless it is accompanied by social liberty *and vice versa*. One of the reasons I deplore many in the libertarian party is that they are faux-social liberals, or at least completely egocentric on a non-pragmatic or even ethical level.
>>9 "Anyway, how can one form of taxation equate to slavery, yet another doesn't?" In a non-meritocratic society a degree of economic redistribution is a must on an ethical and economical level.
"I see little reason to think laissez-faire capitalism, anarcho capitalism, or a generally 'libertarian' society would not be socially mobile." That's because every orthodox libertarian is completely addicted to ignoring environmental determinism, the possible problems of accumulated capital, non-meritocratic forces surviving a laissez-faire shift and other intrinsical or possible factors.
"I don't see how slavery of any kind for any reason comports with libertarian logic and ethics." It doesn't. But not all taxation that exceeds that needed for a night-watcher is slavery.

"you’re both evading the true issue: weather the government’s power includes legal use of force (aggressive not defensive). That’s the only issue you should be working with at this time. start small and work up." Well, I'm stumped. I can't entrust government to keep itself in line regarding taxation and handling its duties better than mercantile forces, so where do I, or Rand or Friedman for that matter, draw the line in a consistent way... I like this conundrum. I shall look into it.

This is just a discussion about how much money is taxed and spent on something other than national defense or law enforcement by the government.

Libertarians need to realise in a democracy people are going to vote in a government which taxes the rich if 1% of the population owns 99% of the wealth or whatever.

Utilitarians need to realise that laissez faire capitalism is an economic system that touches off a few concepts which are logically infallible considerring the circumstances and what we are capable of. The effects are superior to any bureaucracy the human mind could generate.

HARD communists such as Xel enjoy sucking on the throbbing marxist idea that civilisation is steadily getting more nationalised and evolving towards a super happy wonderful communist system. Don't ask me why socialists specifically use language denoting thick lengthy pipe-like objects, they are quite unusual people. Anyways if you apply logic and reasonning to the situation instead of... whatever communists used to come up with their ideas... you will find the truth and the future is a little more complex.

After basic liberties are established there will be a steady increase in other liberties and a subsequent decrease in corruption and economic improvement due to increased criticism and economic freedom. If there is inequality the poor will vote to tax the rich etc.. That's a given and has nothing to do with socialism. It doesn't take a genius, just a bunch of people voting for populists to change the law. No worker's uprising. Corruption includes welfare which does not aid people in finding work, unfortunately such welfare will accompany non-corrupt welfare that funds orphanages etc..

As the society becomes more meritocratic with a larger proportion of new citizens enterring on a level playing field, equality will be the organic result of the free-market and welfare will decrease in favour of more efficient private alternatives. Demand for unskilled labour would be so high that even a mentally and physically disabled ex-con drug addict could get a job and live a middle class lifestyle.

Frankly, I don't see why people deny these irrefutable facts.

>>13
"Economic liberty means free transactions without modulations or interceptions by an arbitrary entity, loosely defined."

I disagree.  Economic liberty much more simple than that.  Private property rights. 

"That has nothing to do with who I put my dick in or what I can see on the internet."

It actually has EVERYTHING to do with things like that.  If your dick is your property, for example (libertarian principle:  self-ownership), you can put it where you want, so long as you aren't infringing upon another individual's rights.  That means, so long as the other person is in agreement, it is their property and your property, and you are engaging in a private agreement.  You are doing something with something that, from a libertarian perspective, is your private property, and THUS, your private business.  Without private property rights, no other individual rights are possible.

"Also, economic liberty is not legit or desirable unless it is accompanied by social liberty *and vice versa*."

I agree - but you have to understand that so-called 'conservatives' can't really be in favor of 'economic liberty' if they aren't in favor of the most simple and basic form of economic liberty and private property rights that there is - self-ownership.  If they won't support your private property right to your own body, they don't support private property rights in its most basic form, and are imposters.

"One of the reasons I deplore many in the libertarian party is that they are faux-social liberals, or at least completely egocentric on a non-pragmatic or even ethical level."

The libertarian party is more socially liberal (in a classical liberal sense of the word) than the actual democratic party, so I can't see what you are saying, to be truthful.  Don't believe me? Just take a look at their platform - or go listen to some libertarians... in fact, I have a video of one here in which he elaborates some key differences between liberals and libertarians: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCLpDb65TVM

Also, you might be interested in this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s88kJwtNMTM&watch_response

Start it at around 1:30 if you want, since that's when he gets going.

"In a non-meritocratic society a degree of economic redistribution is a must on an ethical and economical level."

Again, principles.  Which is more important to you, individual rights, or meritocratic values? I'll take individual rights, especially seeing as how social mobility tends to come with them anyway.

"That's because every orthodox libertarian is completely addicted to ignoring environmental determinism, the possible problems of accumulated capital, non-meritocratic forces surviving a laissez-faire shift and other intrinsical or possible factors."

Accumulated capital, non meritocratic forces, etc, are more or less resultant from government policies that hamper people and stall or prevent social mobility.

"It doesn't. But not all taxation that exceeds that needed for a night-watcher is slavery."

How is some taxation slavery, and others isn't? If some taxation is slavery, and other taxation for other purposes is not, well, aside from the logical contradictions (that really doesn't make sense to me, and its just not cohesive), where are you going to draw the line, since you won't stand by any solid principles?

"Well, I'm stumped. I can't entrust government to keep itself in line regarding taxation and handling its duties better than mercantile forces, so where do I, or Rand or Friedman for that matter, draw the line in a consistent way... I like this conundrum. I shall look into it."

Laissez-faire capitalism, or something near that. 

>>1
wow, after watching that video a second time I have decided to rethink my stance on several issues.
furthermore, I have decided to cease "namefagging" in an attempt to give my opinions more weight- after all, the entire point of political discussion via an anonymous medium is that the emphasis is on presenting logical arguments, not creating a mainstream-politics-esque "personality cult" in order to give a speaker more credit than he is due.

I suck cocks.

>>16
me too

>>16
>>17

i loled, hard

Wow, the Libertarians are Socially Liberal? Horseshit, I don't see strong support for the legalization of Marijuana, Strong support for abortion, strong support for gay rights, strong support for abolishing American Imperialism (Yes, it exists, and it doesn't run on laissez-faire, cunts), strong support for fucking anything that could be called "liberal".  Libertarians are just republicans without the hail jesus fervor.  They don't support a "free" or as the republicans call it "decadent" society.

Besides.  I thought that since government is utilitarian, why is it that the tax cuts for the rich have lead to economic growth, while the income disparity has widened and is eliminating the middle class.  If a high tide raises all boats, why is it that the rich are much richer, the poor are much poorer, and the middle class is becoming polarized?  A "free" market will NEVER exist without a global hegemon government, and even then, local sovereignity would require enormous effort to crush.

You bitch about how saying "some taxes are slavery, some aren't", when you won't acknowledge that one nations' "free trade" is anothers' "mercantilism"

Like Xel said, libertarians ignore environmental determinism, which, despite the bleeding hearts who champion and claim the strength of consciousness and the human spirit, continue to ignore SCIENTIFIC evidence that humans behave in systematic, predictable, reactionary, programmed ways.  Consider all the evidence that has pointed towards genetics affecting intelligence.  Consider the evidence of how thought processes in poverty culture are different from those in wealth cultures.

This thread has a little too much "American Dream" in it.  Enjoy the rat race kids.

>>19
Wow, you are such an ignorant little shit, I don't know where to begin. 


"Wow, the Libertarians are Socially Liberal?"

With a few small exceptions, absolutely.  In fact, moreso than the actual liberals, typically.  Libertarians support the right of gays to get married, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right to keep what you earn, the right to view pornography, the right to do with your body whatever you want (including selling sex), the right to use any drugs you want (provided you can control your 'high'), the right of the people to privacy, the right to say whatever you want, the right to view whatever you want, the right to print, type, or air whatever you want, you name it.  Libertarians are really about the most socially tolerant party there is.  I think you are confusing libertarianism with conservatism.  Conservatives support economic liberty, but not personal liberty.  This view of freedom is really very narrow, constrained, and inconsistent.  Libertarians support all liberties - both economic, and personal.

Here's a few links that might help you understand a little more about libertarianism: 

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

http://www.quiz2d.com/

http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml

http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

"Horseshit, I don't see strong support for the legalization of Marijuana, Strong support for abortion, strong support for gay rights, strong support for abolishing American Imperialism (Yes, it exists, and it doesn't run on laissez-faire, cunts), strong support for fucking anything that could be called "liberal"."

Well apparently you've been walking around with your eyes shut and your ears covered. 

The libertarian party wrote up an exit strategy to pull US troops out of Iraq YEARS ago, before the democratic party was even discussing it.  Democrats and republicans (you may as well call them republicrats, since they have become so similar recently) in the senate have bent over backwards trying to look 'tough' on terror, and nearly all of them voted to roll back your civil and economic liberties by passing the patriot act, and supporting wasteful and expensive overseas adventures all around the world.

Libertarians strongly support the legalization of drugs - especially and firstly marijuana.  Take a look: 
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#drugwar

Regarding gay marriage: 
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#sexgend

Regarding abortion: 
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#reprodright

Actually, especially since this recent election, democrats have been bending over backwards attempting to look more and more red, and less blue.  Many democrats have been bending over backwards to appear more conservative, and have rolled back civil liberties, declared themselves pro-life, have called for amending the partyline to oppose abortion, have supported the 'war on terror' (yeah, everything from the patriot act, to removal of habeus corpus) the list goes on and on - the democrats are giving massive ground.  Libertarians are now and were far more socially liberal than the actual democrats themselves.

"Libertarians are just republicans without the hail jesus fervor.  They don't support a "free" or as the republicans call it "decadent" society."

Libertarians support all freedoms.  See above.

"Besides.  I thought that since government is utilitarian, why is it that the tax cuts for the rich have lead to economic growth, while the income disparity has widened and is eliminating the middle class."

Bush is not a libertarian presidnet.  Republicans are not libertarians.  This administration has doubled the size of the federal government.  This administration has essentially burned hte constitution (or what was left of it) to bits.  Bush does NOT = libertarian. 

"If a high tide raises all boats, why is it that the rich are much richer, the poor are much poorer, and the middle class is becoming polarized?"

That's a very complex question, and we could get into a whole big debate on economics over it, but to be short and blunt, I blame the government, and I blame other governments. 

"You bitch about how saying "some taxes are slavery, some aren't", when you won't acknowledge that one nations' "free trade" is anothers' "mercantilism""

Don't have a clue what you are talking about.

"Like Xel said, libertarians ignore environmental determinism, which, despite the bleeding hearts who champion and claim the strength of consciousness and the human spirit, continue to ignore SCIENTIFIC evidence that humans behave in systematic, predictable, reactionary, programmed ways."

Again, if humans are just computers or robots (essentially) that behave as life 'programs' them, then everyone raised in a similar situation would turn out the same - which is not the case.  Environmental determinism is bullshit.

"Wow, the Libertarians are Socially Liberal? Horseshit, I don't see strong support for the legalization of Marijuana, Strong support for abortion, strong support for gay rights, strong support for abolishing American Imperialism (Yes, it exists, and it doesn't run on laissez-faire, cunts), strong support for fucking anything that could be called "liberal".  Libertarians are just republicans without the hail jesus fervor.  They don't support a "free" or as the republicans call it "decadent" society."

umm are you insane? they support }{}{}{}{}{ALL}}{{{{}{}{} of those things. the only thing with some argument is gay rights This is because under a libertarian government the church has the right to marry whatever it wants, the government would not have the right to force the church to marry gays for any reason.
But at the same time all government incentives for marriage would be destroyed so marriage might just become a thing of the past anyways.

>>19
also the rest of your post is total garbage and you have no idea wtf your talking about. im loling irl at your science, gb2 1950 before all that was overturned

>>21
I'm not quite sure what you are saying.  Libertarians fully support the right of gay people to marry if they want.

>>23
they do under this system, but not under the system they want to impliment (total seperation of church/state)

>>24
How would the libertarians separating church & state prevent gay folks from getting married?

Marriage is a religious term, and is inextricably tied up with the various holy men issuing it.

>>26
To libertarians, marriage is just a contract essentially.  In a libertarian society, you'd still be able to get married.  So would gay people.

>>27
Yes but it wouldn’t be called marriage. That term would only belong to the church, and for the church it’s not just a contract. You would be able to get married by the church but im sure the government would have something of equal value that acts purely as a contract. I personally would like to see the government drop marriage but to many bible thumpers would flip

>>25
Because marriage is function of the church, if you want gay marriage you must support government interference with a private organization. BUT you can justify gay marriage now as the government provides tax benefits and the like for marriage. Under a libertarian government however, they would remain separate

yeah it's a discussion of the church whether gay people should be able to be wed in church, it's a discussion of the government whether same-sex couples should have the same judicial rights as other couples (that is, "marrying" in the legal sense).

>>29
Truth. I'm gay libertarian and I completely agree. Churches are private institutions and what they do is up to them, but gay people should have right to legalise their union. I mean in legal sense, not in religious sense. I also support total separation of religion and state(ie. removing tax cuts for religious institutions).

>>30
I am also gay and I hate democrats, they are an embaressment. I don't deny that some gays are stupid and assholes, but they tend to vote democrat.

>>31
Hey, I hate democrats too. I think problem is that they're not just well enough informed and that sadly most modern gays are repulsive FAB5 type gays. I don't honestly know where those kind of gays suddenly came, but IMO they're disease of gay scene. They're also very intolerant despite that they claim to be tolerant. Also my hate of them has nothing to do with their "feminine" style as I'm crossdressing and very submissive myself, but that they're bigots.

>>32
"Hey, I hate democrats too."

I have to agree here. 

the only reason to vote dem is to purge the US of conservatives. i honestly dont know any intelligent person(s) that vote dem out of principle.

>>32 Without any kind of quantigfication statements like these are useless. You are irrelevant.

Also, I'm upset about gay marriage, not because I think churches should be forced to bless every couple that approaches - that is up to the individual priest, but because governments give hetero couples perks but not gay couples. That if anything should get the LP in a ruckus but then again many members are faux-social liberals who only care about the financial side of things.

>>30 "I also support total separation of religion and state(ie. removing tax cuts for religious institutions)."

Collecting taxes on religious institutions would create a beaurocratic nightmare.  The government, precisely in order to SHOW separation of church and state, would have to absolutely prove each and every year that no religion was taxed more than any other.  Removing these institutions from the tax code entirely is precisely what separates church and state.

>>14
You sir, haven't been reading a damned thing in this forum at all if you accuse Xel of being a pinko.

you fail at /newpol/

>>36

By the government NOT taxing religion it shows special treatment that a PRIVATE organization would never receive. You're argument is for a flat-tax, not against a tax on religion. Do you even have any underlying basis for your views or is it a big melting pot of bullshit unchecked ideas? You seem to have no congruity when determining what ideas you agree with and instead decide to hammer home the point THAT you’re right and not WHY you are.

"Also, I'm upset about gay marriage, not because I think churches should be forced to bless every couple that approaches - that is up to the individual priest, but because governments give hetero couples perks but not gay couples. That if anything should get the LP in a ruckus but then again many members are faux-social liberals who only care about the financial side of things."

You don’t understand libertarians do you? We are more concerned about ending the government perks altogether not adding more to save face in the eyes of minorities/gays/whatever. Why would we get all uppity and add perks to gays when we're against the perks altogether? You’re fighting the wrong battle if you've chosen that route.

And why would one even join the LP if they didn’t believe in social liberty? We have nothing to offer to people that don’t follow our ideas. I mean we have no power, anyone that’s only concerned about the economic side of it would be better off in the republican party and anyone only concerned about the social side of it would join the dems. We have nothing to offer anyone that doesn’t believe in liberty.

>>34
"the only reason to vote dem is to purge the US of conservatives. i honestly dont know any intelligent person(s) that vote dem out of principle."

The only reason to vote republican is to purge the US of liberals.  I honestly don't know how any intelligent person(s) could vote dem out of principle.

>>37
"You sir, haven't been reading a damned thing in this forum at all if you accuse Xel of being a pinko."

Xel wants socialized medicine.