Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Finally, you are either portraying a potential justice system in anarchy as intentionally simplistic in order to prop up your point of view, or else you have a very elementary understanding of it.

Arbitration and Common Law were far more advanced in the Dark Ages than what you seem to attribute to the potential of an anarchic justice system.

Hmmmm .... I'm not sure but are you trying to refer to the Dark Ages as a superior socio-political model? If not ... what exactly are you trying to say here?

I've said that such extremist legal models have long been discarded, and you seem to confirm it by having to reach back to the Dark Ages for some example.... Maybe you can clarify here, as to what you wanted to convey :dunno:

Quote:

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanseFrom what I've seen, the free market extremists constantly rant on and on about how "the market" (AKA society) encourages the best strategies to emerge through competition, yet they ignore the glaringly obvious fact that the economic strategy that society has evolved is NOT any sort of extremist free-market design -- in fact, societies across the world have pretty soundly rejected the adoption of extreme market anarchism. The libertarian crowd seems to variously chalk up this plain fact to some sort of grand conspiracy, but I find it somewhat amusing that free market libertarianism can't even produce an attractive alternative when tried with virtual societies.

The problem with your analysis is that you assume competition is allowed to take place. All bets are off when force comes in to play. That is the root of my problem with anarchism. Once a group of people claim a monopoly on sanctioned force in a geographic area then they are a government. That is, in fact, the definition of government. Further, this group of people are invariably the sanctioning body as well as the executive body.

Who says that people are overtly "forced?" There would not necessarily need to be any known "force" (by Rothbardian standards) in order for the guys with the best guns to take over. The profit-driven mechanics that Rothbard naively suggests almost demands that people would hand over much of their autonomy to the corporate thugs.

You might be a fan of libertarian ideals. Did you have any comment on the substandard society that free market extremism seems to have encouraged in that link....?

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on July 18, 2009 3:01:30 PM]

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Attempts at splitting the power into a variety of branches, ala, the legislative, executive, and judicial, invariably collate into a blob agency with the distinction being in name only.

You seem to suffer from a common issue in that you function from a "Divine Right" point of you view as it regards government.

Not really.

Quote: Earlier you stated that

Quote: while the other hypothesizes that allowing the groups with the strongest guns to emerge and eventually legitimize their enforcement of the law would be best. The latter is pretty dumb (see Russian mafia after the government collapsed)

not realizing that you are describing all government in existence today.

Respectfully, that is clearly false. I'm pretty sure I can even find signatures of people who happily accepted a law-making body with nothing that would reasonably be construed as "force" or terror. There's simply no comparison to the rackets that sprung up in Russia. In one case, you have intelligent free-thinking people accepting rule without the need for any violence, and in the other case, you have people relying gun-toting groups who are driven solely by profit. We can see the profit motive in action throughout the anarchy in Somalia, and have a picture of what really happens when people are forced to turn to the "free-market" to protect their rights. The people relying on the ones-with-the-guns don't seem to exactly have a superior system to alternatives with democratic elements such as that in the US.

Quote: Mentally you've created a "super-citizen" that the government embodies, and excuse from it all that you scoff at in theory.

I haven't done that.

Quote: I also take issue with your use of the term "free market extremists."

The ability to enter voluntarily into a consensual agreement with anyone else, under agreed upon terms doesn't strike me as extreme.

That's because you've only described the sugar-coated bit, leaving out all of the inane implications of a society which allows no alternatives.

Quote: Perhaps a less nebulous term that has some degree of accuracy would prompt better responses from the people reading you.

For describing a person who takes the ideas of a free market to extremes, "free market extremist" seems fairly concise and accurate to me.

Quote:

Quote:
When I've thought about it, this seems inevitable when you cater to the lowest common denominator for so many facets of life... but perhaps all those who protest how "the mob is taking their freedumz" will put down their teabags and actually put together a superior society (that lasts more than a few years) and prove me wrong.

If you were arguing against democracy then this would be a valid criticism. Democracy does in fact cater to the lowest common denominator. For right or wrong the founders were as afraid of mob rule as we should be today.

Almost by definition, a mob of multiple people would not be able to reach the truly lowest common denominator -- at least, certainly not the depraved lows that distinct single individuals could sink to. Pretty obviously, it's much harder to get any majority group to agree to something, whereas it's pretty simple to find a single individual who would. So again, you've tried to turn my critique of market extremism towards democracy/government, and it simply does not apply.

Quote:
I agree with this. Both that market forces are a tool that should be used and that it is not wise to make ones political philosophy into a dogma.

Cool

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on July 18, 2009 6:41:37 PM]

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by LessBread
It will support some of his policies, those that line up with theirs.

I think that's what pretty much the same thing Maelstrom said with:

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
It will support his policies, so long as it lines up with their own.

If that's so then why did he botch the grammar? He moved from the plural (policies) to the singular (it lines up). Now, if English was a second language for him, I'd cut him some slack on that, but I don't think that's the case.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
If that's so then why did he botch the grammar? He moved from the plural (policies) to the singular (it lines up). Now, if English was a second language for him, I'd cut him some slack on that, but I don't think that's the case.

Meh... the antecedent is somewhat ambiguous, I suppose. Perhaps he meant "it" to refer to "the WSJ's acceptance of the policies"......?

Oh well ... in any case, looks like you guys came to the same conclusion about the WSJ.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
It will support some of his policies, those that line up with theirs. Your lack of nuance makes it sound like they support all of his policies, which is far from the case. Did they support the GI Bill, the extension of SCHIP, or the stimulus? No. Do they support cap and trade or the public option on health care? No.

thus the "so long as it lines up with their own" in my statement.

That doesn't explain the botched grammar. If you're gonna claim they support any of his policies, at least get the grammar straight. A few examples would be nice too, but we can't expect you to back up your statements with facts can we? ...

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
She may have been a war monger, but in my experience, scratch a Libertarian, find a fan of Ayn Rand. "Rand's fiction has had such an energizing effect on millions, including almost every significant figure in the American libertarian movement." Ayn Rand at 100: "Yours Is the Glory". "My very first exposure to libertarianism was provided by Ayn Rand, whose 100th birthday is being celebrated today." Ayn Rand Introduced Me to Libertarianism. "I don't know how many objectivists voted for Ron Paul, but all I knew was that him running was almost like being able to witness Ayn Rand running for President" Ayn Rand: The missing Libertarian Ingredient, the secret Ron Paul ingredient. "Without Ayn Rand, the libertarian movement would not exist." David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party Praise for Ayn Rand [Note: This quote is backed up with a book citation, but the web site is clearly a fan page, so ...] "Ayn Rand was a wonderful philosopher." Michael Badnarik

Completely incompatible? I'm sorry, but either you don't know what "completely" means or you don't know what "incompatible" means. Ayn Rand does not equal Libertarian, but she's a major influence on Libertarianism and there's no point in denying it.

Have you ever read Justin Raimondo's account of meeting Rand? If not you should check it out. I think it's at Taki's site.

Again your google-fu has failed you. It just shows that a competent use of a search engine does not an education make. Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead deal locally between an ubermensch and "The State". At no point in either book is there a conflict between two states. Thus there is no exposition of the conflict between libertarianism, specifically of the Rothbardian persuasion, and Objectivism.

A more studious approach shows gaping differences in ideology. The modern personification of the two schools would be Coulter and Rockwell, or less apt but better known Coulter and Ron Paul.

You're conflating Chomsky and Coulter and saying they're the same philosophy.

The search engine merely supplied the evidence to support what I already knew. Rand remains a major influence on libertarianism. Foreign policy differences don't change that. The nolanchart link explores the conflict between Rothbard and Rand, but along theological lines, not foreign policy lines. That's still not enough to erase her influence. It's wishful thinking at best, purposefully misleading at worst, to claim that the ideological gap between Rand and Rothbard is in any way comparable with the ideological gap between Coulter and Chomsky. The notion is preposterous on it's face. Rothbard was involved with Rand's inner circle for a time (An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard). He attended her first lectures on Objectivism (Reisman on Meeting Rand). And years later Rothbard took clear steps to distance himself from her: "Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune." (The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult). He would not have needed to write that if Rand wasn't a major influence on libertarianism. Interestingly enough, I made a similar criticism of Objectivism in another thread, without ever having read that polemic. Chomsky and Coulter have probably never even been in the same room together, let alone had the pedagogical relationship that Rothbard and Rand had for a time. You're running away from the truth about the origins of libertarianism.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
The key to my statement was "these days" which has nothing to do with pronouns. A large part of the difficulties the Republicans have these days is that they are unable to get past the neocon thinking that defined them during the Bush years. Pat Buchanan is a paleocon, but after his stint with the Reform Party can he truly be considered a Republican? And Ron Paul is not in the mainstream of the Republican party. He doesn't have the popularity with Republicans that Sarah Palin has or Rudy Giuliani has or that Mitt Romney has. The Republican party pretty much banned him from their national convention last year.

Your need to parse the Republicans affirms my statement that it depends on to whom your pronoun refers. It would have been simpler to just agree.

That's not parsing, that's responding to your bringing up Buchanan and Paul.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Joe Lieberman. The neocons probably are pleased with Obama's approach to Afghanistan. They weren't pleased with his approach to Iran during their election crisis or with his approach to Israeli settlements. They probably weren't pleased with the bailout of GM and Chrysler, which could as easily be deemed Hamiltonian instead of fascistic.

To be clear I'm not calling Obama a facist, just as your generally strong approach to civil liberties doesn't make you a libertarian. I'm stating a simple fact. The solution used regarding GM is facism. This by definition:

Quote: In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism. This was to be achieved by a form of government control over business and labour (called "the corporate state" by Mussolini).

Whereas profits are private and costs are public. Whereas in exchange for this arrangement government exerts additional control on said business.

It sure looks like you're implying that he a fascist. Who uses fascistic solutions? Fascists! At any rate, by your logic a firetruck is an apple.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Obama and McCain may agree on a few things, like cutting the F-22, but they don't agree on everything. McCain would have taken us to war with Russia over Georgia. McCain would have praised the coup in Honduras rather than calling it illegal. McCain would have responded to the election crisis in Iran with a lot more bellicosity. McCain would never have said that it's up for Iranians to decide things for themselves.

The problem with lumping them all together is that it covers over the truth rather than expose it to the light.

The problem with your statement is that it is entirely speculative. Neither of us know what McCain may have done and God willing, we never will.

We know what McCain has said about Russia viz. Georgia. My other statements contrasted what McCain has said with what Obama has said, so no speculation required.