If I understand correctly, then the answer would be yes. Sorry things didn't work out. However, I promise to tell my comrades to go easy on you in the inevitable libertarian Nuremberg trials*. *light-hearted attempt at sarcasm.
On the flip side, if we ever end up on a deserted island together, I may oppress you, but I'll at least sell you water at a reasonable price -- unless you're the guy with the filter, in which case you're as good as dead.
What you have said encompasses a moral principle---cool. yay you're against theft and coercion. now tell me how it works. If you can't, you lose, sad to say. Oh, you might win on the Internet---but your views will never take hold in actual policy positions. Probably for the best--- wildcat banks was a reference to the following--- Refer back to your quote. and a bloody good job they did! One then considers financial stability a public good--- http://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/press/koen_2012/ko121014a.htm/ http://www.centralbank.gov.cy/media/pdf/SPEE_GOVSPEECH_011112.pdf ---and I hope you follow the argument now. There's a reason the world moved on from the 1850s. (also, I could have just said the argument falls flat on its' face based on the things you can justify with it, but that would have been boring. But come on---it was done before, and it's being done in other countries, so it should be done now? wut. apply that to slavery, child labor etc.) Anyways, if you would rather have a conversation live, let me know. In a week it will be hell and impossible, but it's possible now, and I do love discussing ideas live. I'll be probably trying to sneak in a stream of the Rockets while looking like I'm paying attention on Skype, which probably doesn't beat the real thing, so have fun (you lucky).
Thank you for your posts. Very interesting stuff. I am inclined to agree with the critics that this seems like a good moral philosophy but one difficult to apply to practical governance. That said most moral philosophies have the same problem. I don't have a chance to read through all of the links but how would you different your views from Rand?
The problem with economic libertarianism is that it doesn't stay a moral philosophy. Instead it wraps its' head around and around until it convinces some people that it could be sensible economic policy. In fact, it becomes most people's introduction to economics (I cannot count the number of people who spout off about comparative advantage, deadweight loss, and supply and demand clearing with Micro 101 graphs, then pronounce themselves satisfied). Therein lies the danger. Even if one were to accept libertarianism as morally righteous (a contentious preposition in of itself), the highway to hell is paved with good intentions. What use is moralizing about this and that if the implementation of the principles leads to more harm than good?
As opposed to blowhards who like to make up controversies and fake outrage...all the while continuously bragging about all the money they supposedly make.
To deem anything as good or bad, you first have to decide on a set of goals and then compare and contrast the possible options by their costs and results. Libertarians seem to define their goals in the terms of the self and "statist" tend to define their goals as the greater good for sustaining society. The first thing you have to do is decide your point of view, am I about me or are we about us? Therein lies the difference.
Thanks for all the responses! My opinion is that Clutch Fans is relatively liberal because of how young most people are on here. Honestly, I don't care if you are completely liberal or conservative - I just wish that everyone would quit attacking each other. Conservatives and Liberals both have principles that they are probably never going to renounce.
The bolded is just plain wrong. If you actually spent time on here reading this forum, you would find that there are posters from a wide range of age groups, especially those that lean "liberal" in your eyes.
This is an example of appropriating terminology where that appropriation by definition subverts the terminology. Free market anarchism is just bizarre and oxy-moronic. Anarchism is a libertarian socialist theory of social contract through direct democracy and cooperation. Rothbard and more recent "free market anarchists" are all about buying into contracts with corporate entities that are by nature fascistic in structure and profit driven. Social action and motivation are indirect and far from cooperative or communal. The carrot is always a notion of choice but ignores the reality of so many people not being born into opportunities for economic and physical mobility. Who doesn't like the idea of liberty and freedom? I just can't buy this line of thought as rational, desirable, or even well intended. When I think of liberty and freedom I don't look to 19th and early 20th century banking as a model.
yes -- the youth certainly plays a part in it, especially the "dogpile liberals" I fully agree with your point about stopping the attacks. I've long argued for others to stop personal insults around here. Remember when you have to resort to insults, it just means you've lost any argument. You just have to be the bigger man and not respond back with insults. That's how I operate around here and I wish others would adopt that approach.
“Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit.” Forgive me if you can, but I simply had to do it. A really excellent post, rimbaud.
