thefugitivesaint

please people, libertarianism has has much influence on most peoples political viewpoints as does anarchism. that amount being close to nothing even if we all assume that most people could adequately define the two examples given.

most of us are knowledgable but we do not, and i am not being elitist thinking this, represent the average. generally, we represent a small percentage of the population who is not only interested in matters most people find, at best, boring but we are concerned enough to attempt to put these interests into some kind of concrete, practical action.

i've been trying to do more action while minimalizing my time on these and other boards. but, i have no problem using the computer here at work while i am on the clock.

makTHRAX:
while i once agreed with August concerning Adam Smith and how i felt he would have rejected the modern version of Capitalism, ( a thesis part of me still stands by) upon closer reading of Smith i have determined that he would probably be thrilled with the state of Capitalism with only some slight reservations.

I will expand on this if you would like but i have not the time right now.

BTW, Adam Smith wasn't really the father of Capitalism. There was economic writers who addressed the same issues commented on by Smith before he ever put pen to paper. One of Smiths contemporaries addressed the same issues as Smith but did not possess Smiths flowery use of language. This contemporary was another Scot but i do not recall his name right now. He addressed the issuses of "primitive accumulation" and the rising of the "middle class" with a blutness that did nothing to sell the process to those who were affected by it. wait, James Steuart was the lads name. Steuart argued that state intervention was necessary to separate working people from their subsistence, forcing them into the labor pool basically by undermining their self-sufficient lifestyle (what Smith addressed, in part, as the 'moral economy'). Other early writers vied for the position as voice for the early middle class but Smith was the most elegantly stated and publicly palatable version. Hence, his reputation as the "founder of Capitalism."

my rambling is done. but, you all know i do this from time to time. back to work for me.
bone crushing hugs to all
-theSaint

John Hancock

What the fuck are they?

Rusting Car Bumper

This speaks precisely to my original point.

DC

emphryio

Are there ANY libertarians out there who would like to explain exactly why they are libertarians? I at least am not holding a bit stick getting ready to bash you over the head.

ksagnostic

Actually, I think that is a good thing about libertarians.

The idea of a libertarian commune is perhaps the funniest thing I've read all day. An excellent oxymoron.

MM, here's to you.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

elwoodblues

By principle. Social liberalism is all about giving people the right to exercise as much individual freedom as possible, dependent on their ability and choices. Gay marriage, free speech, drug legalization, that all falls under this.

By the same principle, I support economic freedom. That means lower taxes (nonexistent, if at all possible), as few restrictions as possible, less beuracracy, privatization of governmental monopolies.

I can't, in my eyes, support the one application of the value without supporting the other. It would be hypocritical of me. Either it is good for men to determine their own course in this world, and have the freedom to do so, or it is not.

Before the beatings ensue, I know full well that this isn't how most of you see things. Well aware of it.

Autonemesis

What does a libertarian society do when economic values collide with other values like freedom of speech? Even if nothing is done by government, or society, somebody is going to see themselves as deprived of money or liberty, or worse. How does libertarianism address libel, or copyright or patents? Are such things necessary in a libertarian society?

elwoodblues

Roughly? You have the right to free speech. But you don't have the right to use my printer to make leaflets. You don't have the right to stand on my property and yell.

I would definitely agree to some trimming of the 'rights' of corporations. That entire concept has gotten rather out of hand.

I won't be going any further into this. Neither the time nor the place.

elwoodblues

Pardon me, but bullshit. Freedom of speech could just as easily be interpreted as the government being banned from barring your speech. It does not give anyone else the right to use my printer, it does not give the intellectually lazy the right to say intelligent things. Just so, the 'freedom to work' IS just that; interpreting it in some odd way changes nothing. And I'd like to loosen regulations so that is made easier. It's way too damned tough to start a business these days.

No. I'm done. That's it. Way too many finals to study for.

August Spies

deleted before you posted. I still think your confused on semantics, but dont' want to get into it here and I was too tired in my last post.