Grandpa; Your Sig Line

[The Dunedan]

I'd like an explanation for this particular bit of nonsense, if you please, as I find it to be a deliberate and insulting mischaracterization.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves

Let's hash this apart, shall we?

anarchists

Sometimes, but not always.

who want police protection...

No thank you, most of us are more than content to largely or totally ditch formalized law-enforcement, with the rest being in favor of drastically reigning it in. As for "protection", we'll protect ourselves, thanks. The cops ( if any remain employed ) can bring a mop, a bucket, and a bodybag.

from their slaves.

THIS is what I'd like some explanation of. How is it that we believe in Slavery, in your worldview? We believe that Rights are universal ( no good if you believe in slavery! ), including the Right to be armed ( DEFINITELY no good if you believe in slavery! ); that Individuals have the Right to resist with lethal violence all attempts to coerce them into bondage ( how does this translate to supporting Slavery, again? ), and most if not all of us view our entire political exercise as an attempt to stave off Slavery. How, then, do you ( or the author you quote ) reach and support the conclusion that Libertarians desire to own Slaves? Does a Slavemaster arm his Slaves, or allow them to arm themselves? No.

And don't spout some rhetoric about how Capitalism Equals Slavery. Capitalism is the antithesis of Slavery, because Capitalism is based upon mutually beneficial voluntary exchange. Corporate Mercantilism may be said to equal Slavery, but Mecantilism and Capitalism are antithetical to one another, with Mercantilism being more closely akin to Fascism.

[tman_ndsu08]

He thinks that all material goods are valueless and that value is just a scheme that we came up with to keep people poor and working, etc.

[brien]

Quote by: The Dunedan I'd like an explanation for this particular bit of nonsense, if you please, as I find it to be a deliberate and insulting mischaracterization. Let's hash this apart, shall we? Sometimes, but not always. No thank you, most of us are more than content to largely or totally ditch formalized law-enforcement, with the rest being in favor of drastically reigning it in. As for "protection", we'll protect ourselves, thanks. The cops ( if any remain employed ) can bring a mop, a bucket, and a bodybag. THIS is what I'd like some explanation of. How is it that we believe in Slavery, in your worldview? We believe that Rights are universal ( no good if you believe in slavery! ), including the Right to be armed ( DEFINITELY no good if you believe in slavery! ); that Individuals have the Right to resist with lethal violence all attempts to coerce them into bondage ( how does this translate to supporting Slavery, again? ), and most if not all of us view our entire political exercise as an attempt to stave off Slavery. How, then, do you ( or the author you quote ) reach and support the conclusion that Libertarians desire to own Slaves? Does a Slavemaster arm his Slaves, or allow them to arm themselves? No. And don't spout some rhetoric about how Capitalism Equals Slavery. Capitalism is the antithesis of Slavery, because Capitalism is based upon mutually beneficial voluntary exchange. Corporate Mercantilism may be said to equal Slavery, but Mecantilism and Capitalism are antithetical to one another, with Mercantilism being more closely akin to Fascism.

These statements from Granpa are as confusing as those that came from the Oracle of Delphi. He just doesn't understand Libertarianism and the statements you highlight validate this to those who really do understand the ideology.

[Osborn F Enready]

Granpa also thinks you can have such a thing as "libertarian socialism".

That is like having a non-racist kkk member..... you can't.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Granpa also thinks you can have such a thing as "libertarian socialism".

You can and do. You can't have a libertarian who supports big government, but socialism does not necessarily equate to big government. I have explained this several times to people on this board, yet still the message appears to have evaded attention.

Libertarian Socialism

Capitalism is the antithesis of Slavery, because Capitalism is based upon mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.

Capitalism protects property from the clutches of the majority and keeps those rights in the hands of an elite minority. The vast majority of people, are kept by capitalism, in a position of economic disenfranchisement, with zero options but to other than conform to the society which caters only for this elite minority. Which accounts for the expression 'wage slave'. That is what capitalism is and always will be, a method for the rich to protect them selves.

[Osborn F Enready]

yada yada yada?

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready yada yada yada?

If you have nothing to say; don't post. "yada yada yada", is utterly worthless and contributes nothing. If you take issue with the content of my post, then debate it, don't bring down the level of quality on this board with rubbish like your last post. This is not a chat room.

Do not reply to this message withing the thread, and complaints or queeries can be addressed via PM with a member of the moderator team of Sean.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Dunedan We believe that Rights are universal ( no good if you believe in slavery! ), including the Right to be armed ( DEFINITELY no good if you believe in slavery! )

Not in my experience. In capitlism you buy your rights. You have the right to obey narrow interests or likely end up starving in the streets. Then, if you ar a worker and reject the low standard of living demanded of you, you'll face the freedom of privte or even government police. That's how it happened in the United States and how it will likely keep happening. Capitalism exists to protect a small minority who benefit at the expense of others--so the use of force to create poverty is practical in such a belief system.
The fact that you believe in people owning weapons doesn't alter the other points.

Quote by: The Dunedan

Quote by: The Dunedan ; that Individuals have the Right to resist with lethal violence all attempts to coerce them into bondage ( how does this translate to supporting Slavery, again? ) , and most if not all of us view our entire political exercise as an attempt to stave off Slavery.

,

Good luck with that ambition when capitalism relies on class division, intervention, ignorance, chains of command, the creation of "risk," fear and intimidation, oneupmanship, low wages, threats and insults, inequality of bargaining power, etc.

Quote by: The Dunedan How, then, do you ( or the author you quote ) reach and support the conclusion that Libertarians desire to own Slaves? Does a Slavemaster arm his Slaves, or allow them to arm themselves? No.

I suspect some poor people might be hired to keep the rabble in line.

Why do you think people around the world speak of ways to fight global capitalists?
Even if guns are banned, it's not as though rebels cannot find weapons.

Quote by: The Dunedan And don't spout some rhetoric about how Capitalism Equals Slavery.* Capitalism is the antithesis of Slavery, because Capitalism is based* upon mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.*

No, capitalism is based upon creating authoritarian relationships, centralized authority and profit. Profit is, by definition, not mutually beneficial. It is exploitative so as to gain the upper hand.

Quote by: The Dunedan Corporate Mercantilism may be said to equal Slavery, but Mecantilism and Capitalism are antithetical to one another, with Mercantilism being more closely akin to Fascism.

It seems to me that strong autocratic control is the natural result of capitalism.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 He thinks that all material goods are valueless and that value is just a scheme that we came up with to keep people poor and working, etc.

No, I've said vlues cannot be adequately quanitified, as they are constantly in flux.
I value things. But the part about capitalism existsing to keep people poor is true, though I think people would work without being held down.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: brien These statements from Granpa are as confusing as those that came from the Oracle of Delphi. He just doesn't understand Libertarianism and the statements you highlight validate this to those who really do understand the ideology.

Actually, I'm a left Libertarian. So I do understand Libertarianism in the broad sense of the word.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chris the Chees You can and do. You can't have a libertarian who supports big government, but socialism does not necessarily equate to big government. I have explained this several times to people on this board, yet still the message appears to have evaded attention. Libertarian Socialism Capitalism protects property from the clutches of the majority and keeps those rights in the hands of an elite minority. The vast majority of people, are kept by capitalism, in a position of economic disenfranchisement, with zero options but to other than conform to the society which caters only for this elite minority. Which accounts for the expression 'wage slave'. That is what capitalism is and always will be, a method for the rich to protect them selves.

I've posted that link here more than once. It makes me wonder if anyone ever looked at it.

Grandpa h.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Chris the Chees You can and do. You can't have a libertarian who supports big government, but socialism does not necessarily equate to big government. I have explained this several times to people on this board, yet still the message appears to have evaded attention. Libertarian Socialism Capitalism protects property from the clutches of the majority and keeps those rights in the hands of an elite minority. The vast majority of people, are kept by capitalism, in a position of economic disenfranchisement, with zero options but to other than conform to the society which caters only for this elite minority. Which accounts for the expression 'wage slave'. That is what capitalism is and always will be, a method for the rich to protect them selves.

Interestingly enough, from what I've seen, when others present counter-arguments to your thesis, you fail to make any significant rebuttal. I would think that, if your position were so secure, it would be but little effort for you to prove wrong those who disagree with you. :rolleyes:

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: The Dunedan We believe that Rights are universal ( no good if you believe in slavery! ), including the Right to be armed ( DEFINITELY no good if you believe in slavery! ) Not in my experience. In capitlism you buy your rights. You have the right to obey narrow interests or likely end up starving in the streets. Then, if you ar a worker and reject the low standard of living demanded of you, you'll face the freedom of privte or even government police. That's how it happened in the United States and how it will likely keep happening. Capitalism exists to protect a small minority who benefit at the expense of others--so the use of force to create poverty is practical in such a belief system. The fact that you believe in people owning weapons doesn't alter the other points.

Perhaps you can tell us more about your experience, then? Furthermore, can you elucidate on the rights which, according to you, can only be bought under capitalism? (Do not say "all of them". I'm asking for a complete answer here. If you say "all of them" anyways, I will warn you.) Finally, I'd like to know just how likely it is for one to "end up starving in the streets" in the United States at the present time. Thanks in advance.

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: The Dunedan

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: The Dunedan ; that Individuals have the Right to resist with lethal violence all attempts to coerce them into bondage ( how does this translate to supporting Slavery, again? ) , and most if not all of us view our entire political exercise as an attempt to stave off Slavery. , Good luck with that ambition when capitalism relies on class division, intervention, ignorance, chains of command, the creation of "risk," fear and intimidation, oneupmanship, low wages, threats and insults, inequality of bargaining power, etc.

You did not answer his question. Please do so or admit that you cannot. Thanks in advance.

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: The Dunedan How, then, do you ( or the author you quote ) reach and support the conclusion that Libertarians desire to own Slaves? Does a Slavemaster arm his Slaves, or allow them to arm themselves? No. I suspect some poor people might be hired to keep the rabble in line. Why do you think people around the world speak of ways to fight global capitalists? Even if guns are banned, it's not as though rebels cannot find weapons.

Do you have proof for such a suspicion? Are "global capitalists" really such, when managed-trade organizations such as the WTO, IMF, and World Bank exist?

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: The Dunedan And don't spout some rhetoric about how Capitalism Equals Slavery.* Capitalism is the antithesis of Slavery, because Capitalism is based* upon mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.* No, capitalism is based upon creating authoritarian relationships, centralized authority and profit. Profit is, by definition, not mutually beneficial. It is exploitative so as to gain the upper hand.

Interesting. Can you share with us your proof of how the definition of "profit" implies (explicitly or implicitly) the lack of mutual benefit? Furthermore, can you explain to us exactly what you mean by "the upper hand"? Finally, is it your contention that wealth is a zero-sum game? Thanks in advance.

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: The Dunedan Corporate Mercantilism may be said to equal Slavery, but Mecantilism and Capitalism are antithetical to one another, with Mercantilism being more closely akin to Fascism. It seems to me that strong autocratic control is the natural result of capitalism.

More support (i.e. proof) is required here if we are to take your position in any way seriously. Thanks in advance.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: grandpa No, I've said vlues cannot be adequately quanitified, as they are constantly in flux. I value things. But the part about capitalism existsing to keep people poor is true, though I think people would work without being held down.

Is it really necessary for values to be adequately quantified? I would say no. Otherwise, I agree with you that they cannot. Also, I'd like to add that, from what I understand, values vary from individual to individual. Hence there can be no objective standard with which to quantify them.

Can you explain to us what you mean by "held down"? Of course, we've heard your position a thousand times already, that capitalism exists to keep people poor. Yet you've failed to provide a sufficiently coherent definition of "poverty", preferring instead to invoke the vague notions of "basic needs" and "natural circumstances", as if you expect those terms to be self-evident to the rest of us -- which, I assure you, they are not. Furthermore, although a commonly-held set of definitions is essential for continuing debate, it is foolish to expect (let alone demand or assume) that everyone else already agrees to the definitions that you yourself hold to.

While you may well think that people would "work" without being "held down", do you have any proof to back up your assertion? Otherwise, we may well be obliged to treat it as no more than a platitude.

- Rob

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Chris the Chees but socialism does not necessarily equate to big government.

Maybe not "big" government, but certainly government.

Socialism is having all the means of production owned by the state.

Capitalism protects property from the clutches of the majority and keeps those rights in the hands of an elite minority.

Let's try that again.


Capitalism protects property from the clutches of those who don't own that property and keeps those rights in the hands of those who do own that property.


Much better.

The vast majority of people, are kept by capitalism, in a position of economic disenfranchisement, with zero options but to other than conform to the society

A lot of people in this country own capital assets. Most, actually.

Everyone has the oppertunity to own as much as he/she desires.

That is what capitalism is and always will be, a method for the rich to protect them selves.

Capitalism is no more a method for anything than a sink is a method for washing dishes.

If desired, washing dishes can take place in a sink. In fact, a sink is probably the one of the best environments for dish washing to happen in, if you desire to wash dishes.


Capitalism merely provides the environment for those who want to work hard and save what they've earned.

For those who want to be lazy and buy lots of drugs/alcohol with welfare money, it's not the best environment.

[RVonse]

Quote by: grandpa But the part about capitalism existsing to keep people poor is true, though I think people would work without being held down. Grandpa h.

I can see your point but I do not believe people would want to work without some sort of motivation. Even the people who are working in the career that they love still have to be motivated to get out of bed. Human beings are just smart mammels and when it comes to motivation we share a lot in common with the seals and dolphins at Sea World. Visit Sea World in Florida if you want a lesson in the motivation of mammels and other sea creatures. Do you think the seals would still jump through the hoop if they did not get a fish at the end of their performance? Its exactly the same thing with humans. Somebody has to give us a fish (compensation) or we won't be motivated to do anything productive. Thats just how the brains in all mammels are wired.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Autolykos Perhaps you can tell us more about your experience, then? Furthermore, can you elucidate on the rights which, according to you, can only be bought under capitalism?

Quote by: Autolykos Finally, I'd like to know just how likely it is for one to "end up starving in the streets" in the United States at the present time. Thanks in advance.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/fe.../homeless.html
http://www.solutionsforamerica.org/t...elessness.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeles..._United_States

Quote by: Autolykos You did not answer his question. Please do so or admit that you cannot. Thanks in advance.

Implied is that all those factors together create a climate of submission and exploitation.

Quote by: Autolykos Do you have proof for such a suspicion? Are "global capitalists" really such, when managed-trade organizations such as the WTO, IMF, and World Bank exist?

Such institutions exist to better uphold what corporate owners want, just like private police exist to better uphold what corporate owners want.

Quote by: Autolykos Interesting. Can you share with us your proof of how the definition of "profit" implies (explicitly or implicitly) the lack of mutual benefit? Furthermore, can you explain to us exactly what you mean by "the upper hand"? Finally, is it your contention that wealth is a zero- sum game? Thanks in advance.

First, one obvious point is how capitalists in this very forum call my ideas of mutual benefit naive (or whatever). Corporate rulers don't want certain demands to to get in the way of profit. When they are able to call the shots against the interests of their workers, it means they have the "upper hand," or a position of advantage and control (AKA authority).
Your theory must account for this, not mine.

Quote by: Autolykos More support (i.e. proof) is required here if we are to take your position in any way seriously. Thanks in advance.

The proof is simple. If a business owns the means to life, then people must rely on the chain of command in that business to survive. That is an authoritarian setting.
It creates a climate of unquestioning obedience.

Grandpa h.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Autolykos Perhaps you can tell us more about your experience, then? Furthermore, can you elucidate on the rights which, according to you, can only be bought under capitalism?

Well?

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Autolykos Finally, I'd like to know just how likely it is for one to "end up starving in the streets" in the United States at the present time. Thanks in advance. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/fe.../homeless.html http://www.solutionsforamerica.org/t...elessness.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeles..._United_States

Thanks. I will look into those.

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Autolykos You did not answer his question. Please do so or admit that you cannot. Thanks in advance. Implied is that all those factors together create a climate of submission and exploitation.

Spare us the implication, and be explicit. Otherwise, you are simply speaking in propagandistic platitudes which accomplish nothing as far as the rest of us are concerned.

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Autolykos Do you have proof for such a suspicion? Are "global capitalists" really such, when managed-trade organizations such as the WTO, IMF, and World Bank exist? Such institutions exist to better uphold what corporate owners want, just like private police exist to better uphold what corporate owners want.

You failed to see my point. Free trade needs no organizations to manage it. Therefore, the fact that organizations exist to manage trade on a global level means that there is no global free trade.

Tell me this: Do you believe that using force in self-defense is morally wrong?

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Autolykos Interesting. Can you share with us your proof of how the definition of "profit" implies (explicitly or implicitly) the lack of mutual benefit? Furthermore, can you explain to us exactly what you mean by "the upper hand"? Finally, is it your contention that wealth is a zero- sum game? Thanks in advance. First, one obvious point is how capitalists in this very forum call my ideas of mutual benefit naive (or whatever). Corporate rulers don't want certain demands to to get in the way of profit. When they are able to call the shots against the interests of their workers, it means they have the "upper hand," or a position of advantage and control (AKA authority).

You did not answer all of my questions -- in fact, you only answered my question about what you mean by the "upper hand". Please answer the remainder of my questions or admit that you cannot. Thanks in advance.

Quote by: grandpa Your theory must account for this, not mine.

Red herring.

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Autolykos More support (i.e. proof) is required here if we are to take your position in any way seriously. Thanks in advance. The proof is simple. If a business owns the means to life, then people must rely on the chain of command in that business to survive. That is an authoritarian setting. It creates a climate of unquestioning obedience.

Wrong. People never "must" do anything. They choose to do things. Furthermore, for a business to control "the means to life" would mean implementing totalitarianism on a scale not yet seen in real life. (If you would like me to explain in more detail, I would be happy to.) Also, if a business were to have such a level of control, it would, by definition, cease to be a business and become a government.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

I may not contribute anymore.....


I don't want to be WARNED again by the BIASED MODERATOR.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Autolykos Is it really necessary for values to be adequately quantified? I would say no.

So why suggest that capitalist attempts at doing so are truly necessary?

Quote by: Autolykos Otherwise, I agree with you that they cannot. Also, I'd like to add that, from what I understand, values vary from individual to individual. Hence there can be no objective standard with which to quantify them.

Hence, I do not think abstract considerations should be granted realness. Prices exist both because you imagine they are there and because you are forced to abide by them.
That is hrdly ny kind of political position--it is an automatic truth. Hence, people should really challenge the system if it mandates potential threats to our livelihoods.