if I am understanding you correctly Freakdaddy, you think a free society will be a bad outcome since people are inherently greedy and will act too selfish. Is this correct?

The reply to that is that those who are AC believe that morals, values, etc are included in preferences. It's not only money and/or greed that motivates.
If you are correct, and men are truly that selfish, than what makes the men in charge immune to that trait of selfishness? In a world where men are bad, why would we want to give some men monopolistic power over security, police, courts, etc?

Ah, so libertarians want to denounce worldly positions and put others before themselves? Cool... I didn't know that.

I know which section you're talking about in the Tao te Ching, but that's not an exact quote of course. The point was a little larger then perhaps what you are intending.

I guess forcing people to eat bubble gum ice cream is pretty cruel. What about rocky road instead?

What are you then?

I can't distinguish most of what you are writing from really super standard, anti-capitalist, socialist rhetoric. Maybe I am missing something because I don't know a ton about philosophy.

Did you read any of Mises? He claims that:

So you seem to be making a huge leap by talking about the ego and such.

Your statements about the cause and proper remedy for the recent bubble seem so blatantly wrong that I can't tell if you understand what Austrian economics is or how the science of economics should be approached.

I need to find a really good piece on epistemology tomorrow, so hang tight. I am curious how you feel about this section from Mises' introduction and this short piece by Block.

Why must you force people to do anything?

I can dismiss this book with a few simple facts.

There is one colony left in South America (Fr. Guiana). All other countries are independent.

Guess which country has the highest per capita GDP ($17,336 in 2006) on the continent? Right. Imperialism, it seems, has been good for at least one place in South America.

What!?! Socialist/authoritarian/whatever ruler Chavez would try to spread ideas that fly in the face of simple logic for his own benefit? Que estupido cabron EMO.

1.) I'm sure many libertarians do want to do those things. There is no conflict. I certainly don't see how imposing your beliefs on others through force has anything to do with putting others before yourself.

2.) That said, "denouncing worldly positions and putting others before yourself" is a very poor summary of Taoist philosophy. There are many many passages in the Tao Te Ching to the effect of: "if you are a rich man, find the Tao as a rich man; if you are a poor man, find the Tao as a poor man". I also can't recall any passage that specifically recommends putting others before oneself (or oneself before others for that matter). Imo Lao Tse would view such a question as entirely beside the point.

Unless you can read ancient Chinese (and even if you can, really), there are no exact quotes, so let's not bother with all that, but feel free to elaborate on the significance of the context. I agree there is much more to it than just that line. Of course, there are many many more passages that exhibit a libertarian philosophy, both in direct political terms like in the passage I quoted, and in terms that advise nonviolence on more of a spiritual level. Tbh, it doesn't seem possible to me that someone could give Lao Tse a fair reading and not notice his generally hands off, nonviolent, libertarian-oriented approach to life, including political life, even if that isn't the reader's political persuasion.

Shall we come up with lame jokes or have a real discussion?

It isnt? I dont know much about South American history, but it seems pretty clear to me that our war on drugs, support of dictators and coup d'etats of democratically elected leaders have made South America a much worse place to live.

I'm lactose intolerant, I find this post offensive!

Please cite.

Why? Government-sponsored corporate cronyism is what tends to promote monopoly. Monopolies in a free market could only come about through a partnership out-competing all rivals, which would require that they operate extremely efficiently and that their goods or services sell extremely well.

Why are these the alternatives? What the hell does "because of the interconnection that exists between all humans" mean? Why does the voting system need to be a democracy? Could you try actually explaining your position with respect to socialism rather than making blanket statements and setting up false binaries?

This is just insulting. I used to be a big government socialist, dude. Then I realized it was inconsistent with my own values to use the state to violently and coercively force others to do what I want. I still agree with the traditional left's ends on almost all social issues, I just do not believe violence and coercion are morally acceptable, or that it is acceptable for 51% of people to take away the rights of the other 49%.

C'mon man, he's spelled it out for you already. FreakDaddy is a religious mystic. That's why you're not going to get anything satisfactory out of a discussion with him. He's on a higher plane of existence, you see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

I find it unfair that the libertarians/ conservatives on this board can so easily label Obama a socialist. His brand of socialism is just as much corporatist socialist as it is free market corporatist. Perhaps socialism is corporatist in nature but it is still an unfair to label only rightist reforms as corporatist. Not to mention these acts of leftist reform which you view as world slipping further into chaos, from a historical perspective, aren't that far left.

As for the book I was thinking about buying it. The subject matter is definitely interesting to both ends of the spectrum. I believe Latin America to be a truly interesting case study on corporatist reforms. Just because you privatize resources doesn't imply that you allow for free market reform. The government simply uses these reforms as corporate handouts meanwhile increasing poverty and unemployment. Thus allowing a guy like Chavez to come back into power and enable socialist reforms.

The questions I still have that has kept me from jumping the liberal/libertarian fence is: given central planning as a horribly inefficient system is CP more effective for growth of developing nations then corporate exploitation? Or as applied to advanced nations given a forever expanding government would i prefer to promote socialist or corporatist ideals? When choosing between these forms of coercion(perhaps unfair but realistic) I believe the answer is easy.

yeah hes on the fascist side of socialism. State control of corporations for the common good etc.

wat

Yes, reject both.

Look around the world. Which countries are better off? Those with the most free enterprise or those without?

The more free enteprise; the more tolerant, wealthy, free, equal and prosperous the people.

Countries like Sweden aren't exceptions. They went through periods of almost laissez-faire capitalism which accounts for much of their current prosperity.

One striking thing about poor countries around the world is just how many of them have burdensome regulations and requirements on the books from socialist eras of yore.

To be fair to socialism, many countries that were officially communist or socialist were little more than kleptocracies that used communism as a means to expand power, and the kleptocracies were their real downfall (Southern & Central Africa come to mind). Then again, the ability for the all-powerful, violent monopoly it requires to be so easily bastardized is a significant drawback to socialism.

Meh. Too busy reading Jeff Hwang's Omaha book.

what's the 8/b section like?

I believe I speak for all the libertarians here when I say that I hate corporatism, too. We are advocating a free market, not crony capitalism, and most if not all of us oppose limited liability corporate form.

Again, none of the libertarians here are defending corporatism. What most of us would advocate for developing nations would be free market anarchy with no corporate form. Given only the false binary option between corporatism and central planning (kind of weird since the two usually go hand-in-hand), I don't know how I come out. Some might say the former is probably preferable since it at least allows the market to kind-of sort-of function, but again, neither of those alternatives is what any libertarian here would call for.

"free market corporatist "

Perhaps i was viewing corporatism as the same thing as Neo-Corporatism. By Corporatism I mean the relationship between government, labor and capital. Socialist policies such as protectionism and wage laws fall in line with the government- labor relationship. "Free market" policies such as free trade agreements and limited deregulation fall in line with government-capital relationship. To conclude that these "free market" reforms are truly representative of the free market is naive. It is simply a way for government to better chose the winner. Latin America serves this example. Limited free market reforms along side a government-capital skewed relationship, what i refer to as free market corporatism, has led to exploitation not growth for much of Latin America.

Hope that makes it somewhat clearer. As for the reject both ideologically that fine but it's currently unrealistic



edit: read your post Dr modern and I understand that libertarians hate both sides. However, I believe we have an obligation to abandon our ideology and try to chose the better of both sides. Perhaps I'm wrong though because after using such logic to vote for Obama I feel disgusted with every step the government takes to bankrupt the nation.

Justin,

Why is rejecting corporatism and central planning unrealistic?

because people believe government is necessary. People are sheep and like to be led. It's been this way for thousands of years. The idea of the state as the ultimate defender of the people is too widely believed. Possibly if the state implodes upon itself then people may realize how unnecessary it is. Even then however I believe some entity will step up be is fascist or socialist and fill the power void by blaming the other side. Latin America is a perfect example of this as they are now all turning leftist again after the debt crisis that was formed from the corporatist agenda. America as well with our new deal II program

This is just an is-ought fallacy. "Atheism is unrealistic because most people are religious."

Yes yes, just don't pretend that dissing GWB means anything. That's the typical Republican propoganda line these days.. oh GWB was bad sure, and Obama is awful too!!

Lol @ your 'what party is that' comment, when you pop in with the Republican 'Obama and Chavez are dirty socialists' comment. Why not read the book, you might learn something besides what you see on FoxNews and LGF.