British Imperialism And Proletarian Internationalism

[crazy davie]

My doctoral research theme will be: "Japanese imperialism: decaying and parasitic capitalism".

Is capatlism decaying? It seems to be as srong as ever.

[sigesige00]

Is capatlism decaying? It seems to be as srong as ever.

 

Don't you know that capitalism is in financial crisis worst ever since 1929?

[crazy davie]

Don't you know that capitalism is in financial crisis worst ever since 1929?

A blip. We get them from time to time...

[Woodstock Jag]

Sorry, folks, was away over New Year and only just come back to this

 

Oh dear, so much to address in there... I'll have a stab with some of these points made above:

 

In our idealist, Libertarian state, nation, society or whatever it might be called, what powers would the prevailing Libertarian legislature exercise - assuming it had bitten the bullet and used democratic means to attain 'power' - to prevent the development of big business monopolies? Would it intervene, or would it already have legislated against this eventuality? Contradictions abound, it would seem.

 

There are only contradictions if you buy into the assumptions that the best way to get business to run effectively and sustainably is to tell them what to do and to legislate the hell out of them. Legislation is parasitic and coercive. The banking crisis is not evidence that more regulation is needed, but that less government intervention is needed. The banks should have been allowed to collapse so the bondholders instead of honest taxpayers take the rap.

 

Ok, the stupidity of the organised working class: I'm sorry but this is true guff you talk here, mate

 

Except I didn't say "stupidity of the organised working class". I said the IDEA of an organised working class is a stupid and conservative one.

 

since the industrial revolution, all societal progression - eg the NHS, free education system (uh oh, here we go again), retirement pensions and the exponential rise in life expectancy - has been delivered precisely as direct result of the interventions of the organised working class, via the formation of Trades Unions and the creation of a Party of Labour. Not to see this is wilful blindness.

 

I would marketise healthcare like they do very effectively in Germany. I would marketise education as competition drives up standards, while comprehensive schooling preserves geographical inequalities and caters to the lowest common denominator. I would phase out state-supported pensions and abolish the retirement age. It is ridiculous that the state should socially condition people into when they should and should not work. It should be an individual choice and by not taxing people as much they would then be able to make their own choice whether to save for retirement or to work longer.

 

I would also contend that actually these developments of which you speak did not come about because of interventions from the organised working class. They came about because of a Keynesian post-war consensus, brought about by the impact of conflict on the absolute basic infrastructure. The state pension was also brought into being by Lloyd George's Liberals, following the Beveridge Report, might it be pointed out.

 

To refuse to recognise the factuality of Marx and Engels' Dialectics work simply requires you to spend some time reading up on it. I took two or three weeks to get my head round it, so I'm sure a bright young academic like yourself will crack it in a day or two. The only thing missing, though, is the will to do so and the abandonment of any fears that you might've been wrong hitherto.

 

I am familiar with the works of Marx and Engels, and also Hegel in this field, and I fundamentally reject it. The idea that the division of Labour has substantial social consequences is hugely overplayed, and the premise of efficiency is not "riddled with contradictions". I take the view the likes of Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard share, which is that the division of labour is merely a primitive step towards the growth of efficiency in capitalism. It is the withdrawal of government and power structures that then gives rise to a market that is free, rather than mixed or managed.

 

Absolutely - because the Daily Mail and those on the right never do this with regards to people on benefits.

 

Tu quoque fallacy.

[i@n]

Sorry, folks,

 

Got it in one

[Meister Jag]

My doctoral research theme will be: "Japanese imperialism: decaying and parasitic capitalism".

 

... and it will no doubt be lifted straight from "Fundamentals of Marxism Leninism, Manual 250(2):Imperialism Is Parasitic or Decaying Capitalism". Are you for real or just a pi** taking wind-up merchant of the highest order?

 

If it helps, in his masterful analysis of the capitalist system Lenin suggests that it was victorious over feudalism under the banner of "liberty, equality and fraternity” and that bourgeois democracy, as a new form of political domination, met the needs of pre-monopoly capitalism. However, the situation changed with the transition to imperialism. The formation of monopolies meant a transition from relations of free competition to relations of domination and the coercion associated with it. Monopolies through the banks, oil corporations and other multi-nationals then became the rulers of economic life. In layman's terms when they make an ar** of it we all suffer e.g. the cuts that are planned due to the so-called "deficit" caused by the banks.

 

As they say, know your enemy. All very relevant to the problems we are facing today. When I recall Lenin's teachings I am reminded that, if anything, he had his eye on the ball and fully understood the nature of those who exist only to exploit for profit.

 

Stick the above into your doctoral dissertation and win a season ticket for Firhill Dr Sigester indeed.

[Meister Jag]

Tu quoque fallacy.

 

Woody, when your attacks start to take the form of Ad hominem abuse then I fear you have lost the argument. Shame, because you were doing so well...

 

"Brutes have risen to power, but they lie!" Charlie Chaplin

Edited January 3, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

Woody, when your attacks start to take the form Ad hominem abuse then I fear you have lost the argument. Shame, because you were doing so well...

 

"Brutes have risen to power, but they lie!" Charlie Chaplin

 

There is nothing ad hominem or indeed abusive about flagging up a tu quoque fallacy...

[Meister Jag]

There is nothing ad hominem or indeed abusive about flagging up a tu quoque fallacy...

 

Woody, remember that we're discussing one comrade Blackpool Jag's posts and I'm defending his comments. He's obviously more than capable of fighting his own corner but all Marxists together and all that...

 

As I understand it and as explained to me during my time at Socialist Sunday School - where we were taught to be good socialist citizens and to challenge life with open minds, part of the Tu Quoque used by capitalist oppressors was a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the argument (critique) back against the accuser. When analysed, this is a classic red herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. But when used as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend his / herself against the accusation. So what I'm saying is that you're basically having a go at my Blackpool comrade.

 

All very clever; but we have the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky to light our path. Remember my young friend: "Capital is dead labour, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks." A wee bit of old Karl there for you... When you understand this - and we are providing you with the tools of enlightenment, you too will be free. I give you a few more weeks and then you too will be happy to be called comrade. But remember, the class struggle is no picnic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

... and if that doesn't pull your chain the probably nothing will!

Edited January 3, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

Woody, remember that we're discussing one comrade Blackpool Jag's posts and I'm defending his comments. He's obviously more than capable of fighting his own corner but all Marxists together and all that...

 

No, I said Vladimir Putin's "but but but the Daily Mail are sensationalist too" post was tu quoque and a fallacy for legitimising the original point made by Blackpool Jags.

 

As I understand it and as explained to me during my time at Socialist Sunday School - where we were taught to be good socialist citizens and to challenge life with open minds, part of the Tu Quoque used by capitalist oppressors was a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the argument (critique) back against the accuser.

 

Socialist Sunday School... that must be even worse than ACTUAL Sunday School!

 

When analysed, this is a classic red herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. But when used as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend his / herself against the accusation. So what I'm saying is that you're basically having a go at my Blackpool comrade.

 

You've obviously misunderstood what I was saying then. I was ACCUSING Vladimir Putin of carring out this so-called "capitalist" deviant trick of tu quoque retort when I accused, if anything, Blackpool Jags of a straw man fallacy by misrepresenting using extremities. We libertarians despise logical fallacy with every bone in our skeleton.

 

All very clever; but we have the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky to light our path. Remember my young friend: "Capital is dead labour, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks." A wee bit of old Karl there for you... When you understand this - and we are providing you with the tools of enlightenment, you too will be free. I give you a few more weeks and then you too will be happy to be called comrade. But remember, the class struggle is no picnic.

 

 

We are naturally free. Statist coercion and tyranny of the masses f***s up that natural freedom. Marx is fantasist. When I read the Communist Manifesto (cover to cover) I actually physically recoiled after some sections because they were just so factually wrong, or at least logically absurd.

 

... and if that doesn't pull your chain the probably nothing will!

 

Curses

[_mm_]

to Woodstock Jag...

 

am i to assume that you own a copy of Fountainhead bound in the leatherized foreskins of Ayn Rand's former lovers? (or would like to attain such an item were it to exist) i'm in the States and tripping over randy little Randians all over the place, but wanted to make sure before i engaged you as such. needless to say, i have my issues. and that's without getting into my opinion of her.

 

i just caution against and get nervous around proclamations such as humans being "naturally free," as it a) fails to differentiate between positive and negative freedoms and uses the loaded terminology of "natural." the term natural is bandied about mainly to either discredit another person's stance (ie. "that's not natural") or to embolden one's own position (ie. "it's the natural way of things")

 

that statement also hinges an the acceptance of a particular epistemology and engendered reasoning (look at me and my fancy words). what i find interesting about many who profess a (politically) libertarian stance is that their world view is actually totally objectivist. that there is one reason, one reality and from that and the individuals perception of that stems the methodology for interaction with others. at the basis is a dogmatic acceptance of what is real and what isn't real. isn't that ultimately just as coercive? doesn't having one accepted and proper rationality require conformity with the world at large and accepted reason? even if self-realized and based solely on the individual's perception, it would seem to be borne of the same Christianized normative impulses that cause the associations of man to terrorize the individual with tyranny and the like.

 

to be glib, it seems that a lot of libertarians are folk pay some taxes they don't want to (join the club) and start throwing the baby out with the bathwater. in doing so, they seek to replace a government bureaucracy with a private bureaucracy. personally, both get on my t!ts.

[Blackpool Jags]

WJ, I think the reason that a few on here see your radical views as disturbing is that you seem cold to the implications of what you're, in effect, proposing: an end to universal healthcare; education; social services; and council services, regardless of how hard this would hit the needy.

 

You propose a world where the rich could become fantastically more rich, unhindered by the burden of taxation, or at least where tax is voluntary or something along those lines.

 

You revere the antichrist, Thatcher, saying something to the effect that her only fault was getting the job done too soon.

 

You need to know that people’s political views are forged through life experience and not lifted from this or that book, important as academic theory is. People who have been on strike and on a picket line defending themselves against attacks from their employers; people who were involved in the anti-Poll Tax campaign; and countless others whose life experiences have shaped the way they see the world – they are the people with real, tangible political views. Even the wee Jakie who sits in the corner of the pub, on his tod, putting away the halfs and half pints, will more than likely have some wee nugget of wisdom to offer from his life’s travails.

 

At the risk of sounding patronising – and I don’t want to do that – you need to get into a bit of real life if you’re to avoid being seen as some sort of Viz character who churns out obscure rantings lifted from the works of fringe academics whose philosophies mean nothing to the man in the street. There’s no short cut to this; long-term views are shaped by the many boots in the baws that life dishes out to you over the years and decades.

 

You seem an otherwise decent enough young bloke who’s just got carried away with something he’s got into at Uni. The real world is more than capable of knocking that out of you. I hope so anyway.

[Woodstock Jag]

to Woodstock Jag...

 

am i to assume that you own a copy of Fountainhead bound in the leatherized foreskins of Ayn Rand's former lovers? (or would like to attain such an item were it to exist) i'm in the States and tripping over randy little Randians all over the place, but wanted to make sure before i engaged you as such. needless to say, i have my issues. and that's without getting into my opinion of her.

 

Can't stand Rand. Objectivism is completely contrary to liberty.

 

i just caution against and get nervous around proclamations such as humans being "naturally free," as it a) fails to differentiate between positive and negative freedoms and uses the loaded terminology of "natural." the term natural is bandied about mainly to either discredit another person's stance (ie. "that's not natural") or to embolden one's own position (ie. "it's the natural way of things")

 

I believe positive freedoms are procured by action in a world where negative freedoms are absolute. They are largely aspirational.

 

I use the word natural very cautiously too. I mean that the human's innate capacity to reason can only lead him to the conclusion that the laws of nature are the limits to his liberty. Liberty is natural because if we are not free, we are mere animals: this comes close to the bone of a lot of the gripes I have with Rand's Objectivism. Liberty exists because every individual must rationally want it to exist. My liberty only exists because your liberty exists. Objectivism doesn't accept this premise. It really IS victory to he with the biggest stick, which is no liberty at all.

 

that statement also hinges an the acceptance of a particular epistemology and engendered reasoning (look at me and my fancy words). what i find interesting about many who profess a (politically) libertarian stance is that their world view is actually totally objectivist. that there is one reason, one reality and from that and the individuals perception of that stems the methodology for interaction with others. at the basis is a dogmatic acceptance of what is real and what isn't real. isn't that ultimately just as coercive? doesn't having one accepted and proper rationality require conformity with the world at large and accepted reason? even if self-realized and based solely on the individual's perception, it would seem to be borne of the same Christianized normative impulses that cause the associations of man to terrorize the individual with tyranny and the like.

 

No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. Reason is merely a gateway between the mind and the laws of nature. The laws of nature are not exact. Further, their existence is independent of everything, society and social interaction included. Libertarians aren't dogmatic about what is real and what is not at all. Indeed that is another gripe we have with objectivism. It is arbitrary and final (just like the laws of a coercive state). Thus coercion of all kinds are to be rejected, and reason merely used to ridicule the wrong.

 

There is no one accepted reason because humans are primitive pathetic creatures capable only of approximation. People purporting to be applying reason who then use it to justify the creation of coercive structures like state and taxation are dogmatic, and must be fought tooth and nail to preserve the innate liberty of living things as qualified by the laws of nature.

 

The role of religion is relevant in some brands of libertarianism, but not mine. I hold it to be completely irrelevant, and regard any sort of tyranny and coercion to be indefensible. I'm sure I've said before, but within the libertarian family I am nowhere near the objectivist wing and sit more comfortably among market anarchists and autarchists.

 

to be glib, it seems that a lot of libertarians are folk pay some taxes they don't want to (join the club) and start throwing the baby out with the bathwater. in doing so, they seek to replace a government bureaucracy with a private bureaucracy. personally, both get on my t!ts.

 

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what true libertarians are. We want an end to all taxes, end to all bureaucracy and to remove all coercion. We want of society's associations to be perfectly voluntary, and to eliminate punishment as a means of coercion. More recently I have argued there is greater merit in restorative justice than punitive justice, for example, as its basis is one less of coercion and more of dispassionate prioritisation of the liberty of those who might otherwise be put at risk by an individual's violent coercive tendencies.

 

I'm also a realist though. I know that there are simply too many statist and coercive fantasists to end state and to end taxation. I am content to see it withdraw from as much as possible and to open up the free market, the single most effective and efficient economic model to have been conceptualised and attempted to be put into practice. Wherever it has "failed" (please note a recession is not itself a failure in a free market) I see it being a product of government intervention. Even Marx admitted that the role of competition in the free market made it more efficient than any model in which government managed and intervened with idiotic things like bank bailouts.

 

WJ, I think the reason that a few on here see your radical views as disturbing is that you seem cold to the implications of what you're, in effect, proposing: an end to universal healthcare; education; social services; and council services, regardless of how hard this would hit the needy.

 

That's just not true at all. Why is it assumed that only the state can provide universal healthcare, education, social services, other public services?

 

Do doctors and nurses suddenly cease being qualified to diagnose infection just because they don't work for the NHS? No.

 

Do teachers suddenly cease being qualified to impart information, knowledge and innovation just because they don't work for the local comprehensive? No.

 

Can bus services only be run if someone has the tender from a local council? No.

 

The poor would be MUCH better off if the state left them alone and did not tax them through the nose. People could establish public services on a not-for-profit basis, with the rich being able to make a larger contribution to subsidise if they WANT to and not because they are COMPELLED to. THAT is fair.

 

You propose a world where the rich could become fantastically more rich, unhindered by the burden of taxation, or at least where tax is voluntary or something along those lines.

 

What is wrong with that? Seriously? What is wrong with people becoming really really rich?

 

You revere the antichrist, Thatcher, saying something to the effect that her only fault was getting the job done too soon.

 

Well she's not an antichrist. Her only major fault WAS that she tried to do too much too quickly in shifting society from a statist coercive dependency to an individualist free aspirational one. Some parts of the country were ready, whilst others simply weren't.

 

Edit: I feel I should also add that her party's attitudes towards things like homosexuality, immigration were hugely backward when she was in power, and completely contrary to liberty.

 

You need to know that people’s political views are forged through life experience and not lifted from this or that book, important as academic theory is. People who have been on strike and on a picket line defending themselves against attacks from their employers; people who were involved in the anti-Poll Tax campaign; and countless others whose life experiences have shaped the way they see the world – they are the people with real, tangible political views.

 

This is just patronising shite. Sorry, but it really is. Political views are forged by innate world-view, which is merely influenced by experience. To suggest that my political views are somehow only theoretical and not valid is utterly coercive and dogmatic.

 

Even the wee Jakie who sits in the corner of the pub, on his tod, putting away the halfs and half pints, will more than likely have some wee nugget of wisdom to offer from his life’s travails.

 

The wee Jakie who sits in the corner of the pub on his tod putting away the halfs and half pints probably can't string a sentence together, never mind have a coherent and logical set of political views.

 

At the risk of sounding patronising – and I don’t want to do that – you need to get into a bit of real life if you’re to avoid being seen as some sort of Viz character who churns out obscure rantings lifted from the works of fringe academics whose philosophies mean nothing to the man in the street. There’s no short cut to this; long-term views are shaped by the many boots in the baws that life dishes out to you over the years and decades.

 

Well sorry, but it is coming across as nothing but patronising. I am not going to pretend that I haven't been fortunate in my upbringing and that others will have fallen on hard times and that have shaped completely their world view. What that doesn't mean, though, is that my world-view, which is any more shaped by Freidman/Rothbard/Smith/Locke than yours is by the writings of Marx, Engels and Hegel. They have had an impact, absolutely, but largely in reflecting my ideas and impressions of the world and providing them with clarity. I'm sure the irony is not lost on you, patronising me with this "if you think that you clearly don't understand dialectic materialism" on this very thread whilst then criticising me for citing other academics in explanation of my politics.

 

You seem an otherwise decent enough young bloke who’s just got carried away with something he’s got into at Uni. The real world is more than capable of knocking that out of you. I hope so anyway.

 

I don't question for a minute the personal qualities of individuals on this thread. What I question (and there's a hint of it even there) is this very conservative acceptance of coercion and a quite dogmatic "right answer" theorem that somehow people will be enlightened to a leftist statist way of thinking by "life experience". Unlike those who frequently impute this, I accept that it is perfectly possible through a combination of political education and life experience, to reach perfectly validly completely different conclusions about economics and provision of public services, and on the nature of liberty.

 

What I don't accept is that the conclusion the mere majority reach is validly imposed upon the rest of us. Those who want to organise provision of services collectively should be allowed to... among those who expressly consent to it. Those who do not want to organise such provision of services collectively but individually, should be allowed to do so without being forced to contribute to something they don't approve of, don't want, or don't use.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[GrantB]

zzzzzzzzz

 

I take it Woddy never got his Nat King over the festive period then.....

[hamiltonjag]

Say what you like about folks on the far right who profess to be liberal........ they do make exceedingly long posts....... Very handy for those times when you just can't get over to sleep and the Horlicks ain't kickin-in

[Meister Jag]

Woody, I have to say that I'm struggling with all lot of what you're saying so won't multi-quote. My posts are verbose enough without rehashing the full exchange.

 

Anyway and to try to gain an understanding of where you're coming from, I think I'm right when I suggest that libertarians often insist that human beings are radically autonomous agents, who should be uninfluenced in any respect by the behaviour that is expected from the average punter in the street; this ranges from the poor to the super-rich. To my mind - you will no doubt correct me, this view tends to suggest that you have a somewhat laissez-faire political philosophy, since if people are mostly self-made, there is little society can, and by definition should, do to alleviate the difficulties of those who are unlucky in life. I find such a view to be lacking in any basic compassion; but each to his own.

 

Meanwhile and I guess this is crucial in understanding your mind set, those who are born advantaged get to enjoy all of the privileges that their parent's wealth can buy. How does this fit in with a truly libertarian outlook on life; or is it simply that your basic philosophy is that the strong will survive, so let the weak go to the wall? If so, doesn't this contradict what your view of the Libertarian new world order?

 

How all of this fits in with current Lib-Dem thinking (I know it changes by the second and depends on what their political masters tell them to think), I don't know. I thought the classic liberal philosophy was one of recognising the importance of individual liberty and equal rights for all. What you suggest often hints at removing any equal rights and leaving everyone exposed to free market forces i.e. if you're fortunate enough to find a job then you'll be okay (but god knows what your pay will be like); if not, nae luck and away and beg.

 

For guys like me there will always be scope for those with too much to give a little more; but that's another discussion for another day.

[jaggybunnet]

can we not all agree that you are all deluded and start getting on with real life insted of this fantasy life that you are all after

 

oh and happy new year Meister Jag

[alx]

The acid test! How many times in your life have you changed your opinion on stuff? I've changed mine loads of times, it's called -a- getting old - b- being more experienced -c- more senile, take your pick, BANZAI!

 

(that's a joke for the comedically challenged who only understand smilies)

Edited January 4, 2011 by alx

[Woodstock Jag]

Anyway and to try to gain an understanding of where you're coming from, I think I'm right when I suggest that libertarians often insist that human beings are radically autonomous agents, who should be uninfluenced in any respect by the behaviour that is expected from the average punter in the street; this ranges from the poor to the super-rich.

 

No. Libertarians certainly believe that individuals are autonomous agents, but they do NOT believe that others should have no influence on their behaviour. The issue here is coercion. The idea of a universally expected behaviour is a very dubious one. The only "expected" behaviour is respect for the life, liberty and property of others. Beyond that it is the prerogative for someone to be as nice, or as much of a ******* as they want, and the freedom of the individual to associate and disassociate with anyone and anything ought to make it rational for people not to be ********. The choice should always be there, though.

 

To my mind - you will no doubt correct me, this view tends to suggest that you have a somewhat laissez-faire political philosophy, since if people are mostly self-made, there is little society can, and by definition should, do to alleviate the difficulties of those who are unlucky in life. I find such a view to be lacking in any basic compassion; but each to his own.

 

You keep fudging the state and society. I happen to hold they are completely distinct. Certainly with respect to the state, I believe it shouldn't exist, and if it must exist a laissez-faire attitude towards people is certainly what I would expect of it. As for society, it is for individuals to decide whether they want to mitigate the suffering of others. If they don't want to, they shouldn't be forced to. If they want to, they should be applauded. I don't think that's lacking in compassion at all.

 

What the state does is remove the choice and doesn't even begin to solve the problem. It's like a lead bandage. It might kill the infection, but it gives you lead poisoning.

 

Meanwhile and I guess this is crucial in understanding your mind set, those who are born advantaged get to enjoy all of the privileges that their parent's wealth can buy.

 

Nothing wrong with that. The rational motive behind wealth accumulation is for the benefit of those you value.

 

How does this fit in with a truly libertarian outlook on life; or is it simply that your basic philosophy is that the strong will survive, so let the weak go to the wall?

 

If there is no desire among society to prevent the weak from going to the wall, then they should go to the wall. If there is a desire to prevent it, those who want to prevent it should have no impediment (save that which invades the life, liberty or property of others) to act in such a fashion. I for one intend to act in such a fashion when the situation allows it, but I'm not going to force others to do so.

 

If so, doesn't this contradict what your view of the Libertarian new world order?

 

Not really. The whole point of libertarianism is that it is deeply critical of "order" by definition.

 

How all of this fits in with current Lib-Dem thinking (I know it changes by the second and depends on what their political masters tell them to think), I don't know.

 

It correlates with the priority of individual liberty.

 

I thought the classic liberal philosophy was one of recognising the importance of individual liberty and equal rights for all. What you suggest often hints at removing any equal rights and leaving everyone exposed to free market forces i.e. if you're fortunate enough to find a job then you'll be okay (but god knows what your pay will be like); if not, nae luck and away and beg.

 

What rights have I suggested "removing"? You cannot have individual liberty without a free market.

 

For guys like me there will always be scope for those with too much to give a little more; but that's another discussion for another day.

 

There's no such thing as someone with too much. I don't necessarily disagree that there is virtue in those with more acting out of philanthropy to help those less fortunate. I don't think it's for you, for me, or for an arbitrary thieving coercive state to force them to do it with the force of imprisonment as a punitive threat. It should be their choice.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[B.C.G. JAG]

The trouble is, a lot of us don't trust the right wing to have any compassion. Just read some of JaggyBunnet's posts!

 

The world you describe WJ is one where the elderly and the unemployed and the ill must rely on the generosity and compassion of others, but you only have to scan the headlines of the Tory red tops to see how much the right wing despise anyone who is seen as needing a 'handout'. Perhaps you have more faith in humanity than I but I really don't see the Bullingdon Club sharing the wealth they make with those whose backs it is made on - they operate enough tax dodges as it is now. Why would it get better when you offer them the choice to pay less? I don't believe that with a new found freedom to choose how generous to be that they would exercise it with anything remotely near what is required of them. People would fall through the cracks, but you seem to be OK with that.

 

You're studying politics - don't they teach you that it's probably not going to be too popular arguing for a horrible barbaric future of despair and misery where the weak are abandoned and the workers are completely at the mercy of those with money?

[Woodstock Jag]

The trouble is, a lot of us don't trust the right wing to have any compassion. Just read some of JaggyBunnet's posts!

 

It has been drummed out because they have been worn down by having their money stolen from them year after year by the state.

 

The world you describe WJ is one where the elderly and the unemployed and the ill must rely on the generosity and compassion of others

 

No it isn't. The elderly would rely on building up their own savings throughout their life, free from government stealing it in tax.

 

The unemployed would be helped by these people called employers, who would be able to hire more people as their business grows free from government intervention. Just remember that for every job created in the public sector, at least one is taken from the private sector in lost resources.

 

The ill would have this wonderful thing called health insurance. It could even be organised collectively by wonderful socialists like yourself. The difference is that you couldn't force people who don't want to benefit from that specific collectivist scheme to contribute if they didn't want to. That's choice. That's fair.

 

but you only have to scan the headlines of the Tory red tops to see how much the right wing despise anyone who is seen as needing a 'handout'. Perhaps you have more faith in humanity than I but I really don't see the Bullingdon Club sharing the wealth they make with those whose backs it is made on - they operate enough tax dodges as it is now.

 

There's a difference between philanthropy and a STATE hand-out. The former is a move of generosity from those who desire to help others. The latter is a bunch of elites stealing the hard-earned money of Joe Bloggs and giving it to those who aren't even working for it to compensate them for their predicament. State organised work related benefits create a workless underclass by disincentivising employment. If people don't want to share their wealth, that's their prerogative. Tax avoidance should be actively encouraged as I've said before. Tax avoidance is like keeping your car in a locked garage instead of leaving it unlocked with the doors wide open and the key in the ignition in the middle of Maryhill Road. It's about making it harder for someone to steal your money. Philanthropy in this analogy is like offering someone a lift to Firhill or giving a second car you don't use to someone who needs it more. It's your car to give away, not someone else's to tell you to give someone a lift to or to dispense with.

 

Oh and the rich don't make wealth "off the backs" of others. They pay their workers for their labour: often above its true value once exorbitant work-related taxes like NI are taken into account.

 

Why would it get better when you offer them the choice to pay less? I don't believe that with a new found freedom to choose how generous to be that they would exercise it with anything remotely near what is required of them. People would fall through the cracks, but you seem to be OK with that.

 

It would get better because it is rational for them to continue to contribute to valued services. Nothing is "required" of anyone towards society. If people fall through the cracks, it is because society doesn't care enough. And if society doesn't care enough, then that's just life.

 

You're studying politics - don't they teach you that it's probably not going to be too popular arguing for a horrible barbaric future of despair and misery where the weak are abandoned and the workers are completely at the mercy of those with money?

 

I'm not arguing for a "horrible barbaric future of despair and misery where the weak are abandoned and the workers are completely at the mercy of those with money".

 

I am arguing for a non-coercive, philanthropic future of freedom and choice, where the weak are helped not because the elite demand that everyone help them but because individuals actually want to help them. I am arguing for a world where employers provide suitable terms of employment not because of government diktat but because it is rational to have a motivated and efficient workforce.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[jaggybunnet]

The trouble is, a lot of us don't trust the right wing to have any compassion. Just read some of JaggyBunnet's posts!

 

The world you describe WJ is one where the elderly and the unemployed and the ill must rely on the generosity and compassion of others, but you only have to scan the headlines of the Tory red tops to see how much the right wing despise anyone who is seen as needing a 'handout'. Perhaps you have more faith in humanity than I but I really don't see the Bullingdon Club sharing the wealth they make with those whose backs it is made on - they operate enough tax dodges as it is now. Why would it get better when you offer them the choice to pay less? I don't believe that with a new found freedom to choose how generous to be that they would exercise it with anything remotely near what is required of them. People would fall through the cracks, but you seem to be OK with that.

 

You're studying politics - don't they teach you that it's probably not going to be too popular arguing for a horrible barbaric future of despair and misery where the weak are abandoned and the workers are completely at the mercy of those with money?

 

sorry B.C.G. JAG, for all I like the banter, that (pretty much all of it) is rubbish and just shows that chip on your shoulder again.

 

socialism doesn't work and this has been proved time and time again, even to the extent that the workers party (labour in case you forgot) had to change just to be voted in. no one (with any sense) wants it.

 

as I said before, where will your compassion be when we are bankrupt paying for an over bloated NHS and Public sector.

 

Scotland is full of (to honest) stupid people who seem to have very (allegedly) good long term memories and very (def) bad short term memories.

 

students who are too stupid to realise that no they aren't that badly off with the new system and that the millions spent policing and fixing the damage they cause could be spent on better things.

 

I am just sick of reading all this fantasy life we could be living when the rest of us have to get on with the real world in stead of listening to the Blahh Blahh Blahh Blahh that come out of all the left wing mob and the bleeding heart liberals

 

sorry rant over

[_mm_]

I believe positive freedoms are procured by action in a world where negative freedoms are absolute. They are largely aspirational.

 

I use the word natural very cautiously too. I mean that the human's innate capacity to reason can only lead him to the conclusion that the laws of nature are the limits to his liberty.

 

 

i would like you to back that up more, please. negative freedoms are also procured by action, and hinge on someone else exercising his or her positive freedoms to do what they please. i don't act towards attaining the negative freedom of not being conked over the head for my food, if they other actor doesn't assert his freedom to conk me over the head. next - how are you defining reason? innate ability to synthesize conclusions from perception? are we going deductive? are you equating it with logic? are we adopting Kant's definition? then given your definition of reason, what troubles me is your assertion that the only conclusion (to what question?) based on reason (which you haven't defined) is that nature limits liberty. which "laws of nature?" wee beasties in the grass? gravity? the limitations of our bodies? do you mean nature as in "nasty, brutish and short?"

 

 

whatever your definition of reason is, you assert that it is innate to humans and that it leads only to a particular conclusion. you follow this by saying...

 

There is no one accepted reason because humans are primitive pathetic creatures capable only of approximation.

 

so...there is no one single reason (am i to assume you believe that rationality can be engendered by perception?), but the capacity to adhere to some sort methodology is exclusive to humans and has as its logical conclusion that liberty is in constant strife with nature? you present nothing to back that up. you are just asserting it is so.

 

Reason is merely a gateway between the mind and the laws of nature. The laws of nature are not exact. Further, their existence is independent of everything, society and social interaction included. Libertarians aren't dogmatic about what is real and what is not at all.

 

you're using baseless assertions (or at least axioms which you have yet to properly qualify) and stating them as universals to make the point that you're not dogmatic.

 

Indeed that is another gripe we have with objectivism. It is arbitrary and final (just like the laws of a coercive state). Thus coercion of all kinds are to be rejected, and reason merely used to ridicule the wrong

 

that's not a logical conclusion whatsoever. how does "coercion of all kinds are to be rejected" follow thusly from the broad assertion that precedes it? also, are you saying that reason (here i am assuming you mean deductive reasoning) has as its sole purpose, ridicule?

 

 

The role of religion is relevant in some brands of libertarianism, but not mine. I hold it to be completely irrelevant, and regard any sort of tyranny and coercion to be indefensible.

 

i was speaking more of the push for normative impulses and borrowing from Nietzsche's critiques of post-enlightenment western science as exhibiting a christianized impulse in looking for solitary and unchallengeable answers. i hold to that though, in that adhering to a particular epistemology (even if one accepts the existence of others) and consequent philisophy still requires some sort of normative axiom. in the current case - reason is innate and reason concludes that we yearn for liberty from the world around us; therefore liberty = good/right; coercion and interference = bad/wrong. adherence to all of any of this still requires that you accept and profess certain axioms and espouse a right and wrong. your concept of one logical conclusion from reason arguably falls under this. that opinion notwithstanding, that the theorists and philosophers you cite and quote are Western and from within a specific time frame, points to a particular cultural bias.

 

I'm sure I've said before, but within the libertarian family I am nowhere near the objectivist wing and sit more comfortably among market anarchists and autarchists.

 

you probably have, but i was rudely not paying attention. i did what i said i didn't want to do which was assume you were and objectivist and then engage you as such. sorry about that.

 

i actually lived for a fair chunk of time in a part of Oregon in the Pacific Northwest that is fairly well known for its anarchist communities of all shapes and sizes - primitive anarchists, eco-anarchists, the black clad mob who harassed shoppers in the battle of seattle. consequently, i am better versed in a lot of libertarian philosophies than you might think. so, as a market anarchist (or close approximation thereof), i know see what i am dealing with. now is this a theoretical alignment, or do you engage in the fringe market practices? if you don't mind me asking - do you subsistence farm or squat or anything?

 

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what true libertarians are. We want an end to all taxes, end to all bureaucracy and to remove all coercion. We want of society's associations to be perfectly voluntary, and to eliminate punishment as a means of coercion.

 

i said i was being glib... my point is less what libertarians want, and more the consequences thereof. in my experience, infrastructure conducted privately on the free market is no less bureaucratic than public infrastructure. it still takes office workers and paper shufflers making decisions effecting me and due to the size requirements of it being effectual and worth me buying, my choices become limited. i can't get my health insurance through some guy running a policy out his backroom because he can't provide me the coverage i need. i have to go through a major insurance provider to ensure i can get covered. this insurance provider is going to be comprised of countless fat arsed paper shufflers who determine how sick i actually am. if i am lucky, the doctor i go to will accept that insurance provider. if i am even luckier, the hospital he works for will also accept it. if i am unlucky (as i was a year ago), i end up in an emergency room in a hospital that does recognize my insurance, with a doctor who does not, who orders diagnostics that my insurance provider doesn't recognize. free market healthcare is a gem.

 

I'm also a realist though. I know that there are simply too many statist and coercive fantasists to end state and to end taxation.

 

well, not with that kind of an attitude you won't! the works don't break without a spanner!

 

Wherever it has "failed" (please note a recession is not itself a failure in a free market) I see it being a product of government intervention.

 

in the states - the investment banks merged with savings banks because they could and they used the money on deposit to leverage the financing of their "dabbling" in the derivative markets because they could. the states (for example) spent most of the latter half of the 19th century in economic turmoil and it was interventionist measures (like the anti-trust act, creation of the federal reserve, labor standards, food standards) that put this country on an equal footing with the rest of the world. it wasn't until the late seventies that the people of a certain bent asserted stronger influence in government and started aggressive deregulation that we started running at a deficit and started having widespread collapses (savings and loan, the crash in 89). would the collapse have been catastrophic without prior intervention? well, i wouldn't be enjoying the affluence i do without it. it would likely be more of the same boom and bust panics that the US had in the 19th century. (as a side note: if you have not already, do some reading on the upsurge in radicalism in the states around that time. truly fascinating stuff. you seem like you might be interested)

 

in my opinion, the true failing in government intervention in the west has been both the right and left neglecting to adjust infrastructure spending to a post-industrial economy. they've either bought themselves a generation of people who can't work in a modern world or created a caste of undereducated and replaceable low wage workers all in favor of not spending enough on retraining etc. that is not to say it shouldn't have intervened, it just should have done a better job.

 

The wee Jakie who sits in the corner of the pub on his tod putting away the halfs and half pints probably can't string a sentence together, never mind have a coherent and logical set of political views.

 

here is where i likely alienate myself from you and a load of other people on this forum...

having been a working stiff in three different decades, i can attest to my experience being that some people are so completely and utterly useless and so completely and utterly miserable as workers, that we are better off as a society to pay them to just not mess anything up. it's a trade in its own right...

[Meister Jag]

can we not all agree that you are all deluded and start getting on with real life insted of this fantasy life that you are all after

 

oh and happy new year Meister Jag

 

Welcome back comrade Jaggy and happy New Year to you too. In truth, I was getting worried about you and feared that your gout had been playing up - overdoing the port and pheasant again. I also feared that your manservant had perhaps done a runner and had hidden the key to your wine cellar. It even crossed my mind that you'd had an accident with a shotgun at a New Year's day shoot - actually witnessed a neighbour being carried into his house after such an event. Hunting and shooting-types p!shed with shotguns; a deadly combination.

 

Good to see you're back on form and denying what you know to be right. Whatever happened about caring and fair conservatism? Meanwhile, the bad boys of UK Business, the Banks, continue to try and gain a better image with the Joe Public by announcing under the leadership of the British Banking Association, they are looking to cut bonuses this year. A suggested figure has been a collective cut from £7 Billion to £4 Billion, how can you sit and slag-off ordinary working people when these b******* continue to take the proverbial p***? Cut bonuses down to a bare minimum and have them off-set against the so-called deficit. They'll still earn quite a lot and doesn't the tax-payer own most of the banks anyway?

 

Oh and interesting to see that The International Monetary fund have said the cuts are rubbish and are going to cause more damage than good. Not in so many words, of course. But what do they know and why let their expert advice stand in the way of attacking the public sector: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2010/CAR060710A.htm

 

With any luck that should set the old BP racing; but don't take it out on your servants!

Edited January 5, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Meister Jag]

 

I am arguing for a non-coercive, philanthropic future of freedom and choice, where the weak are helped not because the elite demand that everyone help them but because individuals actually want to help them. I am arguing for a world where employers provide suitable terms of employment not because of government diktat but because it is rational to have a motivated and efficient workforce.

 

Woody will keep this short and to the point. I think Marx was correct when he succinctly said: "The way people get their living determines their social outlook." What you're suggesting, for many people, removes choice. In your ideal world there is no level playing field and it strikes me that you really don't give a toss about those who'll you'll have to step over on your way to the bank. Chomsky summed it up nicely and I guess this applies to so-called libertarians; especially those with little or no life experience: "Education is a condition of imposed ignorance!"