Democratic Libertarian Party HQ

[Pandemoniak]

Explain to me why, exactly, I should read one fo your books?

Cause you want to be clever, I assume ?

I know the kind of stuff that's in them

so you dont need to be read them cause you know whats in ?
Hey, guess what, I dont need to read "The Chironian Moby D'ick", I know its about a big sealurk...

----
"The Chironian Moby D'ick", a great book by Mr. Svensgaard, New Suez National Editions, only 14 mikrocredits !

Edit : lol, it cut the D'ick

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Cause you want to be clever, I assume ?

That would seem to be an arguement for him to *not* read them. He can already refute every statement in them by rote. Hearing the same fallacies again and again won't convince him they're the truth.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
so you dont need to be read them cause you know whats in ?
Hey, guess what, I dont need to read "The Chironian Moby D'ick", I know its about a big sealurk...

----
"The Chironian Moby D'ick", a great book by Mr. Svensgaard, New Suez National Editions, only 14 mikrocredits !

Edit : lol, it cut the D'ick

Irrelevant analogy. Fiction to.....well, it's true that all these communist propaganda books really should be classified as fiction, but for the purposes of this debate here, they can be considered non-fiction.

[Pandemoniak]

Irrelevant analogy

Pleonasm.

All analogies are irrelevant, but it never bothered any of our scientist and philosphers.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

Pleonasm.

ple·o·nasm
n.

The use of more words than are required to express an idea; redundancy.
An instance of pleonasm.
A superfluous word or phrase.

How is it Pleonistic?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
All analogies are irrelevant, but it never bothered any of our scientist and philosphers.

Fault in logic. Analogies aren't always irrelevant. However, your analogy was. You were comparing apples and oranges.

EDIT:Here's a nice definition of analogy for you. You obviously need it.


a·nal·o·gy
n. pl. a·nal·o·gies

Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.
A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.

[Pandemoniak]

And you dare sign you speak the truth ?

[Drogue]

GT: (originally posted on Rec Commons in answer to Archaic's post)
Thank you for the link. When taken in context, he was talking about the drone situation and that something should be done, if not the governor, then the people, ie. the people should go on a march for better facilities, or even build them themselves, rather than wait for the governor to act.

That post was also made as a pledge to the people to vote never. To take "egalitarian democracy" into their own hands, and to choose to vote never to FM. In that sense it was also a speech, to rally CCCP and STEP sympathisers to vote in the FM poll, much like my first post.

And GT, your translation seem to be a distinct strawman representation of Pande's actually position and meaning. In think his words speak for themselves, without a misleading translation from one of his opponants.

[Pandemoniak]

I think his words speak for themselves, without a misleading translation from one of his opponants.

Thanx for the clarification I wasnt even able to make myself.

[lucky22]

Thanks for the link... the only thing I can say is...

What they said- the only actual call to action was "vote".

And on another old matter-

ideology: liberal individualism
political system: democracy

In general that's how "ism"s and "acy"s coexist.

With a full revolution, we'd be another faction altogether.

[Pandemoniak]

With a full revolution, we'd be another faction altogether.

(ooc) That would be spme real fun rp, but much problematic ! (ooc)

[Maniac]

To not longer pollute Hercules' party thread, I'll take some of the discussions from the STEP thread to here.

Some points I touched have already been answered by others, so I learned after writing it...

Archaic:

Would you really now? Somehow I doubt this if you understood the economic theory behind social cost. Free Market monopolies can actually achieve better social equilibriums than State Monopolies, even though monopolies are a "Market Failure" in a Free Market, failures that the government can step in to fix (See below) if the market cannot fix it itself.

Well unfortunately I do not know that theory (yet - next year I have one hour economics per week - too little I think - perhaps I'll take some more economy classes myself after I got my main degree). Forgive me if don't believe you on your word and keep my opinion for now.

You do understand though that state monopolies aren't meant to make as much profit as private monopolies and that their succes mustn't be measured by that method? Their succes needs to be measured by whether or not they perform their public function of (in the case of public transportation) transporting as much people as possible, also those who normally don't have the money for that kind of mobility. Can you really claim private monopolies better achieve that goal??

No. Social Democracies have far too much governmental interferance. Governmental interferance in the market should be limited towards preventing market failures, nothing more. Absolute minimum.

So no equal minimum chances (no public education, transportation, medical care etcetera) as you told in the STEP thread?
Q: a corporation is polluting the water and air of a heavily populated region. Do you consider that a market failure which should be corrected by the government? Or do you believe this pollution will correct itself automatically by your "invisible hand" of the market that will eventually and automatically lead us to the ultimate good? (Quite a teleological belief I must say...)

The "invisible hand" of the market place is basic economic theory. It's really a metaphor. Basically, participants in a Free Market economy are motivated by self interest, and that the "invisible hand" of the market place guides this self interest into promoting general economic wellbeing.

Free Markets serve the populace by making the self interests of the populace serve others. A basic example. People provide services for others (Serving the populace) in exchange for wealth (The accumulation of which is in th persons self interest.)

That *theory* is not proven by *facts*. Seven of the eight (not all eight - that's why populist right liberals sometimes claim the gap is decreasing...) parameters to measure poverty and the gap between the rich and the poor show poverty is increasing. So wealth does NOT siffle down to the lower classes. Free market does NOT lead to the general economic wellbeing of all people, but only a certain portion of the population.

The key to preventing people from doing something out of ignorance is to prevent such ignorance being a factor, through strong public education. Goals should be achieved by giving the people the intelligence to make decisions for themselves rather then through putting a law in place that's just begging people who like to bend the rules to break it. The people can never be truly free until their mind is free. That's what I intend to create.

I'm glad you at least support a strong public education, something more than minimum government interference as said before. (You constantly seem to doubt what you consider acceptable for the government to organize. Why?)

Anyway, your idea is idealistic, Mr. Realist. You make the same big fault as Pandemoniak. If you mean what you just said, you believe you can create the perfect rational intelligent self-deciding human who always knows what's best for himself/society by education. As you like to say tell yourself so often: It's against human nature!! Humans are not rational, and short-sighted both in determining the consequences of their actions on the global level and on long term. Nor can they be educated on every subject. So laws are needed to force people to do things they can't/don't know are best for the entire society.

Public Services would be publically owned companies that would be run as any normal corperation. They wouldn't be funded by the government whatsoever. They would be expected to turn a profit, or at the very least break even, while remaining competitive with other private sector firms.
There's also the possibility that such public services could be sub-contracted out to private sector firms on a time limited basis with the proviso that the government could revoke the contract at any point if the firm wasn't doing a satisfactory job.

I don't plan for people to have equal chances either. Just equal minimum chances, through the public schooling system and through the "Work for the Dole".

You're right. We don't agree on anything after all. Public service companies (let's say public transportation) should get compensation from the government when they allow people with a small income drive along at a smaller price. This to ensure equal chances for all classes, to ensure society can come closer to a meritocracy instead of a society still determined for a big part by birth.

I leech off the system, getting a youth pension for doing absolutly nothing, while still living at home. That pension is being paid for me by mainly the upper classes taxes. The money they have earned through their hard work is going to me when I've done nothing to deserve it. Is this fair? No.

Tss. How unfair. My heart is bleeding for those poor poor upper classes. Why don't you stop your education then if you don't like to abuse them??

The problem with socialistic programs is that the lower classes derive a benifit from them, while the upper classes are the ones essentially paying for them.

The upper classes gain the most of society, so it's only logical they also contribute the most to it... Anyway, it's in their own advantage if the talented people they need to create their wealth can work themselves up due to socialistic programs.

Libertarianism *IS* the best socio-economic system for everyone.......

Sorry, I couldn't help when I read that.

You assumed I was upper class. Upper class usually go to Private Schools, which, usually, are higher.

Only in countries where the government doesn't have enough money to provide good public education...

Don't accuse me of an Appeal to Authority.

So you don't call your repititous referral to your holy economics course first year first semester an Appeal to Authority?

I question and doubt anything unless it comes backed by hard evidence, as you'd find if you ever tried me on a topic like religion.

Okay, let's try you... First question: Do you believe in the absolute truth of the Libertarianism religion?

Capitalism still has its faults, but it is by far a better system than any other we have at this point.

I agree. Capitalism nuanced by socialistic points would improve it.

Oh, BTW, Marx was a philospoher, who dabbled in politics, of which Economics was a subset Social Science at the time. His ideas are *VERY* flawed, partly because he simply just doesn't understand human nature. Indeed, his whole system, if it were to succeed, would require humanity to completly supress its nature. Along with all the other flaws in his system, it's foolish to consider it anything but unworkable.

So did or did you not read Marx' "Das Kapital"??? Do you have a correct rough idea what you're talking about?
His ideas about human nature may be flawed - at least some of them; together with Max Weber and Emile Durkheim is Karl Marx the name I've heart most often in my studies (especially sociology as several people have pointed out) until now - but I believe he wrote about other things besides that. Didn't he make an analysis of the capitalistic system?

Perhaps. Though it's be a logical fallacy to assume that somewhere between our two methods would be the best to reach that goal. I believe mine reaches it quicker and more efficiently, and can stay at that goal easier, because the people aren't being forced into it by law and regulation, but through their own self interests, the strongest determining factor behind any human's decisions.

No system is perfect or can last forever. There need to be checks and balances to correct where it fails. Hence laws and regulations.

How is uneven distribution of wealth undesirable? Uneven distribution of wealth is rather Eudamonic afterall. People are not made equal, and one cannot truly become equal to another through training. Uneven distribution of wealth rewards those who make the effort to improve themselves, and those who have those special talents we all look for. It also rewards their decendants. It might be a slow process to work your family up from the lowest social rank to the highest, but with determination and effort, given an equal mimimum chance to everyone else, it's possible within 1 generation.

I agree with the first part of what you're saying, until:

It also rewards their decendants.

This goes against my goal of meritocracy (=eudaimonia IMHO), which is the most efficient system to use human resources, and which puts everyone at the position they deserve by their talents and effort. The best should be at the top, not the children of the best.

IMO, Noreena Hertz gives a very one sided view in most of her books I've read. She argues one side, and either tries to crush the other side with rebuttals (mostly very far fetched) or ignores it completely. I myself was convinced that Globalisation was the worst thing imaginable, until I read a few articles by the head of the World Bank at the time (can't remember his name) and realised there are many pros to it too.

Good you told me. Now I won't waste my time reading one of her books in some future. Anyway, globalization IS positive, but the danger is when economic globalization doesn't happen paired with political globalization, such as now. Multinationals then become the real rulers of the world, and we end up in a corporate dictatorship. Probably most people won't even realize it if those multinationals also control the media. Classical example I always give is Silvio Berlusconi's Italy, where all the TV broadcasting corporations are under his control. Together with Bush & the USA he represents all I don't stand for.

Archaic: I could recommend reading 'Mutual Aid : A Factor of Evolution' by Peter Kropotkin. He is a libertarian, and uses Darwinism to argue for a lax Government and more freedom, but argues for leftist co-operation aswell.

Social Darwinism sucks. It assumes talents are always passed on to children, which is all but true. Hence my plea for meritocracy and equal chances instead of social darwinism.

Voltaire:

To quote John Stuart Mill: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

I completely agree actually. In the examples I gave society as a whole suffers from the actions of individuals. Society suffers when individuals pollute the environment. Society suffers when they have to pay the medical cost of drug use and smoking.

[Maniac]

Hmm, I can't edit my post anymore. Apparently there are too many [img] tags in it. Anyway, just wanted to say I also said something to Drogue in my above post.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Maniac
I completely agree actually. In the examples I gave society as a whole suffers from the actions of individuals. Society suffers when individuals pollute the environment. Society suffers when they have to pay the medical cost of drug use and smoking.

In the first case I’d agree; as for the second I’m split on the decision of banning substances such as tobacco, since on the one hand you are correct society does suffer due to the medical costs that society has to pay for these individuals, but on the other hand why not let everyone have the option of smoking if they wish to do so, but qualify that they will have to give up their privileges such as healthcare if they choose to do as such. Granted for the purpose of efficiency and convenience outlawing non-medicinal drugs would be desirable.

[Maniac]

but on the other hand why not let everyone have the option of smoking if they wish to do so, but qualify that they will have to give up their privileges such as healthcare if they choose to do as such.

That is indeed by many presented as the best solution, and, at least in my country, is in a way implemented by putting high taxes on tobacco products, to pay for the extra health care costs caused by lung cancers. So the smoker already pays for the lung cancer he's gonna get. Still, something is nagging is inside me. If people could be taught off the bad habit of smoking, imagine what could be done by the money that no longer needs to be spent on lung cancer health care!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
Good you told me. Now I won't waste my time reading one of her books in some future. Anyway, globalization IS positive, but the danger is when economic globalization doesn't happen paired with political globalization, such as now. Multinationals then become the real rulers of the world, and we end up in a corporate dictatorship. Probably most people won't even realize it if those multinationals also control the media. Classical example I always give is Silvio Berlusconi's Italy, where all the TV broadcasting corporations are under
his control. Together with Bush & the USA he represents all I don't stand for.

Actually, you could argue that a corporate world is a democratic one. In a sense, you are 'voting' for which companies will become large and powerful, by what you spend your money on. It is obviously not a perfect democracy (if I ever believed in such a state) but nor is it a "corporate dictatorship". The media is another matter however. I agree with you that media control by one corporation is a very bad thing.

She's not that bad, and if you want to read 2 books on it, she gives a good argument for one side, but do not base your whole opinion on it.

Originally posted by Maniac
Social Darwinism sucks. It assumes talents are always passed on to children, which is all but true. Hence my plea for meritocracy and equal chances instead of social darwinism.

Well, it doesn't mean always passed on, but there is a strong correlation between attributes of the parents and those of the children. I agree with equal chances, which Darwinism has (a Darwinian Meritocracy is much of what that book's ideal is). I want a meritocracy too, but one where someone gets the rewards for their success, of which being able to provide a good life for their children is one.

Originally posted by Maniac
I completely agree actually. In the examples I gave society as a whole suffers from the actions of individuals. Society suffers when individuals pollute the environment. Society suffers when they have to pay the medical cost of drug use and smoking.

Exactly my thoughts. Smoking, being a demerit good, should be taxed very heavily IMHO. We need to persuade people not to start, and give those that are addicted an incentive to stop. And though it is hard to estimate the actual monetary cost to healthcare of people smoking, by many accounts it is far more than has ever been charged for tabacco in a Free Market economy. I think we should also, if we go to FM (if we stay on Planned then it would be done by controls and quotas) raise taxes on Fossil Fuels (at least until we get clean synth fossil fuels).

[Pandemoniak]

I dont like very much to argue with people that are already convinced and wont change their mind and listen to what you have to say, but I know Maniac and Voltaire arent like that...

His ideas are *VERY* flawed, partly because he simply just doesn't understand human nature.

About that I dont think it was very flawed : he had ideas that included the best of the human nature, and ignored the worst. I think it is better than a system who's only built on the worst of human nature (greed, selfish, individualist, ignorance and totalitalitarian system) : modern capitalism.