How do you feel about next November?

[LiberalVichy]

Hey LiberalVichy I would like to know more about your way of thinking/your philosophy. Is there any good reading on it on the net?

Probably more than most people could absorb in a lifetime. Here is a big source:
Ludwig von Mises Institute - Homepage has a ton of stuff (audio, articles and pdfs) but it's a huge mixture of economics, political economy and political philosophy, not all of which is anarcho-capitalist but all libertarian leaning.
Freedomain Radio - Home has a lot of audio-books and some pdfs (as well as a good forum) centered around anarcho-capitalism and rational individualism, mostly by Stefan Molyneux.
Hoppe: Selected Topics
Hans-Hoppe is not the altogether originator, but he is one of the most developed from a libertarian perspective. He is also a good economist, but that's secondary to the philosophy.
StephanKinsella.com has several good articles and arguments about legality and ethical norms from a private property perspective.
WalterBlock.com free enterprise, capitalism, laissez faire, free markets, private property, law and economics, environmentalism, economics and religion, freedom index, minimum wage, rent control, unions, discrimination, Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Walter Block is one of my favourites.
The last three are all good to look up on Ludwig von Mises Institute - Homepage, especially in the media/audio section, as they have a lot of good lectures covering the ethical theories, their basis and their logical conclusions.
I am a huge fan of econ myself (since it's a logical-deductive science and thus natural for me to follow from philosophy), but none of that is really necessary for understanding the ethical positions.

 

[Obdurate]

What's your definition of anarchy/anarchism?

 

[LiberalVichy]

I consider it the only consistent and logical form of rationality possible, and also unavoidable. This results in private property free exchange. It can properly be deemed 'anarchy' since it prohibits the initiation of force, which is an inescapable fact of the state (and thus all politics), and anarchy simply means without political rulers. If other connotations have been put into it (mostly socialistic), that is not my problem since - from my perspective - private property violation is the inevitable and defining characteristic of coercion vs. freedom, of the State vs. civil society and that no other standard or norm can be coherent, presupposing by argument the very thing it seeks to repudiate.
Or, to simplify it, it's not my fault people misunderstand or misuse words.

http://www.offtopicz.net/30881-moral-imperative.html Here is my own take on the imperative and logical nature of morality, presuming familiarity with argumentation ethics and the legal principle of estoppel, both of which are well explained in two thinks in the article.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

It can properly be deemed 'anarchy' since it prohibits the initiation of force, which is an inescapable fact of the state (and thus all politics)

Sooooooo......are you saying that private people, private enterprise or private whatever have not been known to use or initiate force and/or scare tactics to achieve ulterior motives?

 

[Obdurate]

lol Anarcho-capitalism is anarcho-statism.

It goes against what anarchy was originally opposed to (and still is opposed to) , hence, the very principles that anarchy/anarchism was built on have been violated by people who want to be anarchist but don't want to actually be anarchists.

 

[LiberalVichy]

I don't give a damn what anyone thinks anarchy is 'supposed' to be, I care about what is moral. If in some way you consider me not to be an anarchist because of that, I am frankly unconcerned, all that I am concerned with is that I myself, before and more importantly than anyone else, do not engage in any behaviour which I consider evil.

 

[Minor Axis]

I don't vote. I refuse to support or legitamize the State in any way

Your ideal system would require an organization who functions like the State to maintain order. I understand you think all States, or is it all authority is corrupt... but again, whatever organization you expect to maintain order, it will be made up of people, just like the current centers of power are.

 

[Minor Axis]

I don't give a damn what anyone thinks anarchy is 'supposed' to be, I care about what is moral.

Well, it is your definition of moral.

 

[Obdurate]

That's great LV, because real anarchists wouldn't care about your philosophy if you didn't attach 'anarcho' to it. You're discrediting the entire movement, by opposing some of the very views that it was founded on, including complete freedom. You come in here and spout 'anarcho'-statism, trading one slavery for another. Just stop calling yourself an anarchist.

And that's all for me, I've said my piece.

Have fun Minor and LV, lol

 

[LiberalVichy]

Your ideal system would require an organization who functions like the State to maintain order. I understand you think all States, or is it all authority is corrupt... but again, whatever organization you expect to maintain order, it will be made up of people, just like the current centers of power are.

I consider this idea extremely fallacious, but that is irrelevant. The maintainance of order is not my goal, any more than the increase of industry or promotion of opium use. My sole goal is to correctly ascertain, behave and evaluate people and situations with a correct view of morality. Whatever situation might arise from following moral imperatives is by definition just, and any violation of moral imperatives would be by definition unjust. However you, I or anyone else may evaluate the specific developments in a situation of morality is irrelevant to their justice, and the behaviour of others is entirely out of my control and totally secondary to the concern that my own behaviour be just and moral.
To put to pasture what I consider totally irrelevant consequentialist arguments, let me quote Leo Tolstoi, "It may well be that government was necessary and is still necessary for all the advantages which you attribute to it. I only know that on the one hand, government is no longer necessary for ME, and on the other hand, I can no longer carry out the measures that are necessary to the existence of a government."

 

[Minor Axis]

Hermit sounds like your ideal way to go.

How about when a company or group by it's business/manufacturing practices pollutes all the ground water in an area- what authority would deal with this under your ideal system? Or would everyone be poisoned? I guess at that point they have been violated, time to go steal something?

I'm not making fun of you. I just don't see your system functioning well with a large group of people. Frankly the world of humans does not only circle around property rights.

 

[LiberalVichy]

Private property rights and homesteading (first-use). This is endlessly answered, far better than I could or want to, on mises.org. The most common arguments (roads, pollution, education, defense and law) are answered in a number of books and lectures available on mises.org and dozens of websites around the internet. All it takes is a little bit of clicking around and a fair amount of reading.

 

[Minor Axis]

Private property rights and homesteading (first-use). This is endlessly answered, far better than I could or want to, on mises.org. The most common arguments (roads, pollution, education, defense and law) are answered in a number of books and lectures available on mises.org and dozens of websites around the internet. All it takes is a little bit of clicking around and a fair amount of reading.

Actually I was hoping for your summary. I'm not interested enough to devote studies to it.

 

[LiberalVichy]

Basically, if someone was pouring cianide into the affected area BEFORE anyone was there, he's homesteaded it. If he does it afterward, then he either has to stop or come to some agreement with the people that live there.
Most pollution is caused by government, most (all) enviromental laws exist to protect big business from upstart competition.
See what the Soviets did to Kazikhstan. Turned what was one of the largest lakes in the world into a wasteland.

 

[Minor Axis]

I just added this book to my read list Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism by Kevin Phillips.

From the USA Today Article (6/16) Author:Capitalism Has Run Amok by Russ Juskalian.

Important quotes from this article:

The most worrisome thing about the vulnerability of the U.S. economy circa 2008 is the extent of official understatement and mistatement- the preference for minimizing how many problem there are and how interconnected they are.

Oil, borrowed money and the politics of deceit all play starring roles. But the biggest problem we face is what Phillips calls the financialization of the U.S. economy; drastic declines in manufacturing coupled with an increased reliance on an "overgrown and overextended financial services sector.

As a percentage of gross domestic product, manufacturing, which once made up the bulk of industry, is now only 13%, compared with 21% for financial services. In short: We're not making stuff anymore, and this damages our economy.

Financialization is what happens for example, when debt is sliced up and repackaged as securities. Such securities can end up invested in arcane financial vehicles that obscure a bank's debt exposure and guard it from the peering eyes of U.S. regulators, Unfortunately, some of these arcane vehicles were the final resting place of so many mortgage-backed securities, which are at the heart of the sub-prime mess.

Using money to make money the hallmark of financialization is akin to voodoo, makes hedge fund managers richer when it works and the rest of us poorer when it fails.

Ameria is shipping its wealth overseas with each barrel of oil we consume- and the process is near the tipping point.

Bad Money is sobering. The financial crisis set off by the subprime loans and the housing bust was decades in the making. And political leaders with the power to make changes seem more beholden to special interests than to individual taxpayers. Politicians seem blind to the big problems that threaten to unravel the American experiment.

Both parties can be blamed but most recently, specifically for the last 7 years, the Republican party has been the cheerleader for reckless economic decisions and supporting the type of corporate nonsense that threatens to sink the country. I'm not saying all corporations are bad. I'm saying that enough corporations are more than happy to wheel and deal themselves to greater profitability by shipping YOUR job overseas, by engineering the mortgage crisis for short term profits, and other dubious practices and these practices are hurting the majority of people in this country. Not so much the rich people, but the middle class and working class who are going to take it on the chin when the American dream turns into a something less.

 

[Minor Axis]

Newsweek 063008- [McCain's Boeing Battle Boomerangs. Government officials and lobbyists, business as usual?

exerpt:
But last week, McCain's subsequent effort to redo the tanker deal was dealt a setback. Government auditors ruled that the Air Force made "significant errors" when it rebid the contract and awarded the $35 billion project to Boeing's chief rival, partners European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (or EADS) and Northrop Grumman. It's likely the Air Force will have to redo the bid yet again, which analysts say will delay the replacement of the fleet's 1950s-era refueling tankers. The auditors' ruling has also cast light on an overlooked aspect of McCain's crusade: five of his campaign's top advisers and fund-raisers—including Tom Loeffler, who resigned last month as his finance co-chairman, and Susan Nelson, his finance director—were registered lobbyists for EADS.

Critics, including some at the Pentagon, cite in particular two tough letters McCain wrote to Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England in 2006 and another to Robert Gates, just prior to his confirmation as Defense secretary. In the first letter, dated Sept. 8, 2006, McCain wrote of hearing from "third parties" that the Air Force was about to redo the tanker competition by factoring in European government subsidies to EADS—a condition that could have seriously hurt the EADS bid. McCain urged that the Pentagon drop the subsidy factor and posed a series of technical questions about the Air Force's process. "He was trying to jam us and bully us to make sure there was competition by giving EADS an advantage," said one senior Pentagon official, who asked for anonymity when discussing a politically sensitive matter. The assumption within the Pentagon, the official added, was that McCain's letters were drafted by EADS lobbyists. "There was no one else that would have had that level of detail," the official said. (A Loeffler associate noted that he and Nelson were retained by EADS after the letters were drafted.)

 

[LiberalVichy]

Newsweek 063008- [McCain's Boeing Battle Boomerangs. Government officials and lobbyists, business as usual?

exerpt:
But last week, McCain's subsequent effort to redo the tanker deal was dealt a setback. Government auditors ruled that the Air Force made "significant errors" when it rebid the contract and awarded the $35 billion project to Boeing's chief rival, partners European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (or EADS) and Northrop Grumman. It's likely the Air Force will have to redo the bid yet again, which analysts say will delay the replacement of the fleet's 1950s-era refueling tankers. The auditors' ruling has also cast light on an overlooked aspect of McCain's crusade: five of his campaign's top advisers and fund-raisers—including Tom Loeffler, who resigned last month as his finance co-chairman, and Susan Nelson, his finance director—were registered lobbyists for EADS.

Critics, including some at the Pentagon, cite in particular two tough letters McCain wrote to Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England in 2006 and another to Robert Gates, just prior to his confirmation as Defense secretary. In the first letter, dated Sept. 8, 2006, McCain wrote of hearing from "third parties" that the Air Force was about to redo the tanker competition by factoring in European government subsidies to EADS—a condition that could have seriously hurt the EADS bid. McCain urged that the Pentagon drop the subsidy factor and posed a series of technical questions about the Air Force's process. "He was trying to jam us and bully us to make sure there was competition by giving EADS an advantage," said one senior Pentagon official, who asked for anonymity when discussing a politically sensitive matter. The assumption within the Pentagon, the official added, was that McCain's letters were drafted by EADS lobbyists. "There was no one else that would have had that level of detail," the official said. (A Loeffler associate noted that he and Nelson were retained by EADS after the letters were drafted.)

Yeah, market anarchists have been saying that government is a conspiracy by large businesses and politicians to rob productive people. For that matter, the New Left are still saying it and it's just starting to trickle into the Neo-Liberals, once it's been suitably spun into Pro-State. Dude, every politician is totally in on this. Not just McCain. All of them. They don't get elected otherwise. They might not get alive otherwise.

 

[Minor Axis]

Fascism (link) is a political system which commonly promotes statist nationalism,[1] and government-directed economic practises such as corporativism and national syndicalism.[2

 

[Minor Axis]

Interesting reading at the Liberals Like Christ site. I always have promoted vote you interests. But if you are labor, you are without doubt shooting yourself in the foot when you vote Republican. A large percentage of Republicans (I won't say all) view employees not as assets but primarily as expenses. As an employee many conservatives don't believe you have any rights to assert yourself other than what the boss deems appropriate. As an employee you need to think hard about the tradeoff you make when you vote Republican.

I don't expect this post to have any effect on our hardcore conservative forum members. They will be responding with their usual accusations about the communist unions and the poor multinational corporations who have been forced to take their jobs overseas, a huge economic snow job if you believe that. BTW, take a look at the job growth chart under Republican vs Democratic Presidents.

The most glaring disparity between the parties is regarding organized labor. Sixteen different labor unions provide ratings of Congressmembers' voting, and all 16-- every last one-- found that the Democratic Party voted in favor of the interests of the working men and women that they represent, while the Republican Party voted against those interests. In fact, the most common rating individual Democrats in Congress received from labor unions was a perfect 100 percent-- voting with that union every time. In stark contrast, the most common rating any individual Republican received was a perfect zero, never voting with that union even once. For example, of the 261 Democrats in Congress that the United Food and Commercial Workers union rated in 2001, 206 received a perfect 100 percent rating. In contrast, of the 269 Republicans in Congress the UFCW rated in 2001, 232 received an unqualified zero. It's as if the Republican Party has declared outright warfare on working people in this country.

"But what about business?" might come the rejoinder. When that general charge has been expressed more narrowly, it translates to: "The Democrats and the Republicans are just two branches of the Business Party." The facts show how totally untrue that charge is, and coming at this matter from opposite points of view, business and labor both say the same thing, i.e. that Republicans favor business interests, while Democrats favor workers interests.

 

[LiberalVichy]

Fascism (link) is a political system which commonly promotes statist nationalism,[1] and government-directed economic practises such as corporativism and national syndicalism.[2

Or Mercantalism, Corporate Liberalism, Progressivism. FDR, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, all of them were corporatist, protectionism, neo-mercantalist, "American System" Big Business types. Bismark also innovated Corporate Liberalism's 'State Socialism', or 'bread and circuses'. A minimal amount of entrapping poor relief combined with massive propaganda and expansion of both the State and overcapitalised, subsidized firms. The modern States have generally done all they can to cartelize and protect big business concerns who, of course, help enforce their control and get them elected.
However, the business unions and State unions are totally subserviant to these same interest groups. Most socialists and other radicals were well aware of this at least 100 years ago.