Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 12-15-2002, 05:33 AM

("Seatless Bike" calling "RED DAVE" a collectivist...)

Collectivist as in an employee of a big business?

A common counterargument is that one gets paid to act in collectivist fashion, but that's a prostitute's philosophy.

**makTHRAX** · 12-15-2002, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies:
[QB]Libertarians are so annoying. Jefferson would not support you. Get a clue. He railed against corporations and banking institutions. And while we are at it, Adam Smith would not support you. Stop trying to co-opt everyone dead person you can.

/QB]

Could you please support your claim? Could these corporations have been British monopolies? Now Adam Smith, father of capitalism, seeing as most libertarians (at least the brand I am speaking of) are strict capitalists I don't see how he wouldn't. And I am going to keep co-opting dead people, like Ricardo, he was a libertarian too. Bah...go to <a href="http://www.cato.org" target="_blank">www.cato.org</a> and see who their 'mascot' is, I'll give you a clue, its the 3rd President of the United States.

thx,
makTHRAX

**makTHRAX** · 12-15-2002, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Krieger:
[QB
Personally, I'd just like the ruling class to stop hiding behind their smiling politicians.[/QB]

Sorry for the dbl post,

I could not agree more. Personally I would like to see the same thing, politcians representing all people not the ones that bankroll them. Unfortunately, getting rid of a ruling class is impossible, a classless society is merely a dream,because there is always going to be someone out there that wants to better his peers, beat the pack. Its human nature, and yes, it sucks, but we have to live with it. As for politicians, they support the ruling class becasue the ruling class provides a means for their survival: money and power.

thx,
makTHRAX

August Spies · 12-15-2002, 09:19 AM

you don't see how he wouldn't. Let me ask you a question, have you read Adam Smith?

Anyways Adam Smith was talking about small artisan capitalism. It bears little, if any, relatin to modern day capitalism. Regardless Smith talks about how centralizations of wealth (like large multinational corporations) distort the market. Libertarianism in practice has always lead to large monopolies, something smith hated.

August Spies · 12-15-2002, 09:21 AM

Max= someone who wants to be better than their peers does not have to equal a ruling class. by any means.

If you have a group of writers that work together all of them want to be the best. It does not mean 2 of them get to have political power and control everythig.

Kuu · 12-15-2002, 12:12 PM

I dislike Libertarianism.

Mainly because libertarians of other boards have called me a thief because I have been on welfare. They reckon I have stolen taxpayers money. This is despite the fact that no Australian has ever criticised me for being on welfare as I was a deserted wife raising 3 children (two of whom are handicapped)

Libertarianism cannot see past their own beliefs. Australians believe in a welfare system that looks after people in need though most of them complain about the abuse of the system. If Australians are happy with the government looking after those in need why do these American Libertarianism complain so much about our system (and that of Canada, Sweden, the UK etc). On one board they continious post any article they can finding the smallest fault with the British, Canadian, Swedish system. Our system arent perfect but it is what the majority of the population want.

**makTHRAX** · 12-15-2002, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies:
<strong>you don't see how he wouldn't. Let me ask you a question, have you read Adam Smith?

Anyways Adam Smith was talking about small artisan capitalism. It bears little, if any, relatin to modern day capitalism. Regardless Smith talks about how centralizations of wealth (like large multinational corporations) distort the market. Libertarianism in practice has always lead to large monopolies, something smith hated.</strong>

I am not a very good economist, but I also know that monopolies must behave like a perfectly competitive firm if they intend to maximize profits. Marginial cost = marginal revenue. A monopoly that does not behave this way is not maximizing profits, and since maximizing profits (or minimizing costs) is what everyone seems to be doing these days, monopolies do the same. Further, monopolies are eventually made inefficient by technological discoveries and are eventually unseated, unless, of course, they behave like a perfectly competitive firm and research technologies and employ them make their monopolisitc firm perfectly competitive. It really makes sense for monopolies to behave like competittive firms even if they have complete market control. Anyways, I could stretch my JUSTICE AND PROTECTION theory to cover anti-trust, but I don't think that is neccesary, you can logically piece it together. Remember Adam Smith was just a founder, and probably the reason he argued against monopolies is because he created capitalism to kill off mercantilism, which naturally results in monopolies. Why do you ask me if I have read Adam Smith?

thx,
makTHRAX

**makTHRAX** · 12-15-2002, 01:00 PM

In another dble post,

When did I ever say that Adam Smith was a libertarian? If I did woes on me.

thx,
makTHRAX

Gurdur · 12-15-2002, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kuu:

I dislike Libertarianism.

Hiya Kuu, and join the club !

Quote:

Mainly because libertarians of other boards have called me a thief because I have been on welfare. They reckon I have stolen taxpayers money.

I am sorry to hear of your experiences. I assume the people who attacked you were either Americans or Canadians - as you point out here, you don't often get that kind of prejudice from Australians or Brits.
It may have something to do with secular puritanism and ideologically-driven world-views; you may be interested in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=002203" target="_blank">my humble analyses of those problems here</a>.

Alternatively, visit <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=002243&p=" target="_blank">AspenMama's coffeehouse for a spot of lighter conversation</a>.

Quote:

This is despite the fact that no Australian has ever criticised me for being on welfare as I was a deserted wife raising 3 children (two of whom are handicapped)

I am sorry to hear of your situation.

Quote:

Libertarianism cannot see past their own beliefs.

Yeeeeesss, it's amazing how many times in the last 3 days (I haven't been active hitherto, and I'm only sporadically on this board) that I have had to ask a Libertarian to justify his statements with a well-reasoned argument and/or evidence. Usually my request was in vain.
Such is life, eh ?

Quote:

Australians believe in a welfare system that looks after people in need though most of them complain about the abuse of the system. If Australians are happy with the government looking after those in need why do these American Libertarianism complain so much about our system (and that of Canada, Sweden, the UK etc). On one board they continious post any article they can finding the smallest fault with the British, Canadian, Swedish system. Our system arent perfect but it is what the majority of the population want.

Precisely. And it works.

I wouldn't worry too much; despite being so vocal here and on other internet BB's, Libertarians are still an insignificant minority inside the USA - and that's the only country they amount to any size in, and it isn't much.

Thatcherism, a reasonably similar phenomenon, has been rejected in the UK, NZ and is dying back in Australia - and it never got a foothold anywhere else.

Is Libertarianism a growing trend ? No --- in the USA, foreign affairs now drives the political menu, and that militates against Libertarianism - mind you though, it's a bit between the Devil and the deep blue sea, between Libertarians and those who want to see frank American imperialism, no ?
Still, I reckon on the evidence both strands will slowly wither.

August Spies · 12-15-2002, 02:03 PM

makTHRAX

Your analysis of monopolies is both wrong and irrelevant to what was being discussed.

"When did I ever say that Adam Smith was a libertarian?"

I said libertarians need to stop pretending all these past historical figures like Smith and Jefferson would support their policies.
You challanged me to show why smith would not.

I asked you if you had actually read smith (ill assume you haven't since you dodged the question) for 2 reasons.
1. I find that most libertarians dont' really read their supposed theorists or even their enemies. Just wanted to see if it was still holding true
2. I wanted to see if you actually knew smith and then had a real reason to disagree with me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-15-2002, 05:33 AM	#11
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	("Seatless Bike" calling "RED DAVE" a collectivist...) Collectivist as in an employee of a big business? A common counterargument is that one gets paid to act in collectivist fashion, but that's a prostitute's philosophy.

12-15-2002, 09:19 AM	#14
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	you don't see how he wouldn't. Let me ask you a question, have you read Adam Smith? Anyways Adam Smith was talking about small artisan capitalism. It bears little, if any, relatin to modern day capitalism. Regardless Smith talks about how centralizations of wealth (like large multinational corporations) distort the market. Libertarianism in practice has always lead to large monopolies, something smith hated.

12-15-2002, 09:21 AM	#15
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	Max= someone who wants to be better than their peers does not have to equal a ruling class. by any means. If you have a group of writers that work together all of them want to be the best. It does not mean 2 of them get to have political power and control everythig.

12-15-2002, 12:12 PM	#16
Kuu Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Tasmania Posts: 710	I dislike Libertarianism. Mainly because libertarians of other boards have called me a thief because I have been on welfare. They reckon I have stolen taxpayers money. This is despite the fact that no Australian has ever criticised me for being on welfare as I was a deserted wife raising 3 children (two of whom are handicapped) Libertarianism cannot see past their own beliefs. Australians believe in a welfare system that looks after people in need though most of them complain about the abuse of the system. If Australians are happy with the government looking after those in need why do these American Libertarianism complain so much about our system (and that of Canada, Sweden, the UK etc). On one board they continious post any article they can finding the smallest fault with the British, Canadian, Swedish system. Our system arent perfect but it is what the majority of the population want.

12-15-2002, 01:00 PM	#18
makTHRAX Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 51	In another dble post, When did I ever say that Adam Smith was a libertarian? If I did woes on me. thx, makTHRAX

12-15-2002, 02:03 PM	#20
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	makTHRAX Your analysis of monopolies is both wrong and irrelevant to what was being discussed. "When did I ever say that Adam Smith was a libertarian?" I said libertarians need to stop pretending all these past historical figures like Smith and Jefferson would support their policies. You challanged me to show why smith would not. I asked you if you had actually read smith (ill assume you haven't since you dodged the question) for 2 reasons. 1. I find that most libertarians dont' really read their supposed theorists or even their enemies. Just wanted to see if it was still holding true 2. I wanted to see if you actually knew smith and then had a real reason to disagree with me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.