Enjoy!

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

Comments

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Good ones.

I thought Libertarianism was just Republicanism for potheads.

= )

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that one is a little over the top -- US Libertarians are really just selectively anti-govt -- but I get the spirit behind the cartoon. :)

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

US Libertarians, at least corporate libertarians, envision a world in which they can rule as merchant barons over a population of consumer-workers with no way for those consumer-workers to legally organize against the merchant barons, that is, no government to oversee the merchant barons' activities. The merchant barons would hold whatever level of power they could defend by hiring private mercenaries and since there would be no government armies, the consumer-workers would be essentially denied the right to defend themselves against the merchant barons.

At least that's the way I figure it.

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree with you.

The social agenda of legalizing drugs and prostitution, I agree with.

But part and parcel with that comes a weird fascination with getting the US onto the gold standard, hatred of government regulation like consumer product safety inspections and the Food and Drug Admin (the market will always ensure our food, products, etc., are safe), workplace safety regulations, environmental controls, labor laws like minimum wage and overtime laws (and I would assume child labor laws are out the window), and more.

So, I can be for drug decriminalization and legalization of consensual sexual relations without accepting this boatload of crap. And thus, not a Libertarian.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

Sounds like to me that such a situation would quickly evolve into a dictatorship rather quickly, if it isn't one already. Removal of the state would just result in the powerful setting up their own ones.

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

Okay, how about Somalia?

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

It was a legitimate question, and that was a textbook non-answer.

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

There is no state power in Somalia.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

I don't recall stating whether I believe modern societies to be run by the powerful.

I said that anarchy will naturally resolve itself into a system of states. You remove the state we have then you leave it open for something/someone else to fill the power vacuum.

Hence the only sensible pursuit of liberty is to exercise control over who has that power and what checks and controls are placed on them when they have it.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

I think you're feeling defensive and could do with a calmer look at what I wrote. The totality of what I said in that comment was that the situation described by unnamed525 would quickly become a state. I think you've read a lot more into it.

"The accusation I laid is that the state also (and in my opinion exacerbates) has this problem."

This statement seems vague, because the nature of the state in question is left unspecified. I do believe there is risk of dictatorship in any state that needs to be guarded against. I don't believe that modern western democracies are more at risk than an anarchy.

Regardless of where most power lies in today's 'democracies',I'd have to say that more power and rights are accorded to the individual than in an anarchy, where the average person has little power and no rights beyond those they can defend by their own means. I think that's a much better position to be in to fend of dictatorship.

As it happens I do personally believe that the preservation of liberty ought to be the core value of any state, although I by no means interpret that in the class-biased way associated with 'libertarianism'.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

The only time I actually mentioned libertarianism is in my last remark, and was independent of the hypothetical in question.

That being said, popular variants of 'libertarianism' are class-biased. Relaxing state power does not, in itself, generate liberty, and can in fact just create a vacuum for others to move in to.

In the case of popular forms of libertarianism, even although they are not as extreme as painted before in the hypothetical, a lot of that power goes to the rich and does not benefit the average individual.

Hence why, despite believing that the state should be based on the preservation of liberty, I think the 'less state = more liberty' type thinking seen a lot in 'libertarian thought' is naive, especially given that the relaxation tends to only apply to those areas that the rich benefit least from.

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

Depends on your definition of power, because in most cases it does.

Does relaxing the state power of enforced child labor laws, min. wage laws, enviornmental laws, overtime laws, workplace safety regulations laws result in greater "liberty"?

If so, how, and please define "liberty."

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

I don't see how allowing a child to work is "removing" liberty - by definition it increases it.

So India, where child labor laws were recently technically enacted much to human rights' groups delight everywhere, is on the path to tyranny. Got it.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

I'd say it.

Laws that prevent people from murdering other people increase liberty.

It's what the state does. Remove certain liberties in order to create liberties elsewhere.

One of the most obvious cases where it does this is in how it limits our liberty in the use of physical force. What you're seeming to not accept is that it can do the same with economic power.

Also, the difference between 'paid labour' and slavery becomes rather slim when the differences are essentially 'no choice' and 'choice between the labour and extreme poverty'. Either way the workers are essentially -forced- into their position, in the former by legal means and the latter economic means.

This is why the state needs to be involved, to stop the unjust use of power.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"That's not what I said, but good try. Murder, itself, prevents action. That's why it's murder. We're not talking about an action forced upon others. Your analogy is disingenuous."

You said: ""I want to know how removing laws that prevent action results in an 'increase' of liberty.""

Murder is an action. We have laws that remove our liberty to murder people. This results in an increase of liberty. As you said, the action of murder removes a person's choice of action rather drastically.

Removing people's ability to act in certain ways can increase liberty, otherwise law would make no sense.

The problem is that you are not recognising that this applies just as much to actions regarding employment as much as anywhere.

"You're equating "force" with "agreement". The flaw is yours."

'Agreement' means nothing without choice.

I can 'agree' to do what someone who is threatening me says, but it doesn't mean I had a free choice.

If someone's choice is between an unfair wage and extreme poverty, that's not much of a choice either.

In either situation, having someone's agreement is not really an excuse for anything.

"If there's "extreme poverty" then a chance at betterment is exactly what they need. This is why sweatshops arise from poor economies as people move from worse forms of survival to better forms of survival. This is also why sweatshops go away once the economy starts to become more productive. This is empirically verifiable, mind."

I could believe that sweat shops benefit the economy, but that is no justification. It's interesting that this certainly becomes an issue after your originally individual-focused viewpoint.

"Certainly the state does not unjustly use power either"

Same fallacy you've raised before.

I am not required to defend every bad thing a state has done in the whole of history in order to support a state of a particular kind.

"You still have not responded to my challenge: if those who are in power via capitalism are naturally going to be "evil", what prevents those who are in power via democracy from being the same?"

I responded to that on the thread you raised it on.

The long of short of it is that someone who is elected democratically and whose powers have checks and controls on them can be trusted more than someone who has not been elected and who, thanks to a hypothetical introduction of free-market libertarianism, has no checks and controls imposed on him/her.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

Sounds like another false dichotomy.

Let's take another example: Prostitution.

As a liberal I believe that prostitution should be legal. Even if it's hard to believe that many people want to be in that line of work I still believe that it's their choice to be made.

However, that doesn't mean their not in a vulnerable situation where they can be exploited and taken advantage of, hence their rights as a sex worker need to be protected by the state and the state needs to perform some level of regulation of the industry.

No choice removed, just ensuring they are not exploited.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"Depends on your definition of power, because in most cases it does."

And how exactly does this happen? What stops other people jumping into the vacumn of power without the state there to protect it?

The simple issue is that the more people have to fend for themselves, the better the position for the individually powerful. In order for the masses to have power, they need to express thier power through organisations, most classically trade unions and democracy.

"Not really - examples?

And, again, a state entity allows a concentrated avenue for these nefarious rich people which everyone thinks the world is populated with to consolidate and more adequately control such power."

Free-market libertarianism is just a big example in itself.

One big issue would be work and pay regulations. Due to employers and employees having vastly different levels of power, the poor person does not have the power to negotiate a fair deal (most notable example: sweat shops). In order to be able to fairly negotiate a fair deal, the poor need to work as a group, most notably done through either trade unions or the state (essentially acting as arbitrator). The clash is clearly between the liberty of the masses and the liberty of the rich, yet self-identified libertarians tend to come down on the side of the rich.

The other big issue would be education. Privatisation of education certainly is helpful to the rich, but deprives a good quality of education from the poor. The effect of disparate levels of education can only remove power from those unable to attain it and give more power for those with the power to attain it in abundance. Again, self-identified libertarians tend to favour the more immediate increase in choice that privitasation brings whilst ignoring it's affect on the liberty of the masses.

Just because the state can be used by the rich and powerful against the interests and will of the people doesn't make it rational to cut back on the state and give the rich and powerful free reign instead.

"Then you don't understand libertarian philosophy, because such disparate "relaxing" is not libertarian - it's corporatism. This is a modern, and unfortunately, common fallacy, because for years and years people have called initiatives "deregulation" and "free market" when it is in fact not, or at the very most is a bastardized form of such ideals."

Unfortunately, this doesn't feel much different from someone telling me Soviet Russia wasn't actually communist. It doesn't really change what the self-identified communists were actually up to, regardless of what the ideology they identified with actually says.

As stated, I am happy to agree that the state should be based on the preservation of 'liberty'. When I call myself a 'liberal' I mean it in the original sense, it just so happens that I believe a big and healthy state is best at achieving liberty for the masses. If the libertarian movement had gone another way maybe I'd self-identified, but it didn't.

As it stands, it's actually a rich man's ideology, the common policies that are supported under the name of libertarianism are based in the personal interests of the rich, who would no doubt convince themselves of their libertarian ideals the moment that they stop being useful (as suggested in one of the cartoons)

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"First we're getting into muddy waters because I think you and I have a conceptual difference of the term "State". If we're talking about legal actions then the complete removal of the State naturally increases actions as "legal" no longer has any meaning."

I think my point is that decreased state power means nothing to me if that power simply falls into other hands that aren't my own. At least with the state I have some democratic influence, with dictators or the rich I have none.

"You seem to imply that there will be "another power" to fill this "void". Even granting that (because the American Indians naturally had a large central government?) for purely discussion purposes, you're assuming that (1) there's only going to be 1 "power" and (2) you're assuming it's going to be worse. These are pure assumption and hence your objection becomes a non-issue."

It's absurd to assume otherwise. You create a gap for someone to step into then someone will step into it, that's basically how the state forms in the first place.

"Did you know most US sweatshops were largely non-existent by the time such laws were passed? China is seeing this now - as overall economic conditions improve "sweat shops" become more and more anachronistic. They are a growing pain of an economy and I'd challenge it's worse to impose rigid standards on an economy that can't handle them."

So, to get this straight, you don't think sweat shops should be/should have been banned?

Once again, a nice convenient ideology for rich people, less so for poor people.

It's madness to think of the people in sweat shops as anything other than taken advantage of. That ought not be surprising because the owners and the workers had very different levels of power, and where they is a power imbalance there will be an unfair deal being made. That's why the state is required.

"This is false, but a common misconception. Libertarians "come down" on the "side" of the individual."

That's the rhetoric. The actual side they come down on is the rich, as in the above example. Please remember that you actually just defended sweat shops.

"Again, conjecture. Scholarships, school/work agreements, tuition reimbursement, etc. all exist right now and there's no reason to believe that a lack of public funding would mean "better" education. I'll grant you maybe - maybe - more pervasive. Apparently there's not a lot of people from the UK in here, so I can't comment as to that, but let me tell you that the US public school system is a joke."

Oh, and what a surprise, now you're attacking state education.

Regardless of any flaws in the system that need to be addressed, privatised education can only result in different parts of society (id est, different 'classes') receiving different levels of education (in some cases, little to none) and this will affect the level of power each part gets.

The type of 'liberty' this provides is of little use to the poor, who suddenly find their choices and freedom of action to be rather shitty under such an order.

"Good, because they're very much the same. Any rational assessment of Russia shows that it wasn't following Marxist-type policies. I have a very staunch Socialist of my friend's list who would love to tell you all about it. "

But that misses the point.

I'm not attacking the idea of basing the state on liberty, I'm attacking the way that's interpreted and the policies that ride on it's back by rich and privileged people who identify as libertarian.

"So if I support killing puppies under the name of "Democrat" it means Democracy is flawed? If you want to engage a philosophy, engage it on its philosophical basis."

Except that you've just demonstrate yourself that you sweep in at least two class-biased policies under your own 'libertarianism'.

Now, if someone wants to forward a notion of 'libertarianism' that doesn't include such ideas, then I'll have such a harsh judgement, but at the end of the day the philosophical basis used to justify the ideology doesn't change that the end result is a class-biased ideology designed (whether consciously or not) to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"I suggest educating yourself on libertarian thought instead of picking and choosing what you think it's about by the actions of people who I'm sure don't represent libertarian thought."

Just to add that this type of class-biased thinking is by no means a modern invention.

I remember loving the first part of John Stuart Mills 'On Liberty', I think that on a number of issues it was very insightful, but of course it starts to swerve more and more into ideas that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

Shouldn't surprise, people in general are remarkably good at convincing themselves of moral and political ideas that just coincidently happen to be the best for themselves.

Is why I don't bother doubting whether a person is genuine in the belief that their politics/morality is really for the good of all; I'm quite sure they've managed to convince themselves of the fact. That doesn't change the fact that it all tends to come down to self-interest anyway.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I know we've had our differences but....
[Tips hat.]

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

Thank you :o)

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

You do know that I befriended you when you beat me in argument.
Be cool and have fun.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

I think it's hard to consider Mills anything other than a liberal in the straight sense. In any case, that free-market libertarianism he set the groundwork for has hardly gone anywhere, and it's pretty much what I'm criticising.

I'm not sure I'd put my criticism of people quite that way. I do believe people can be moral, but they tend to (a) internalised morals that are convenient for them and (b) be selectively moral according to self-interest. I guess for our purposes that's more or less the same thing.

I do think checks and controls need to be placed on people placed in positions of authority. That being said, I'd rather they be placed in positions of power by democratic means (where checks and controls can be put in place also) rather than simply exist outside of a democratic state where such checks and controls can't be put into place.

Regardless of the flaws of the state, I'd much rather have it there to help balance out my lack of power when it comes to dealing with people or groups of people with more power than me, whether that be a mob of people physically superior to me or an an employer (who is in an economically better superior position to me).

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

The Rosetta Stone for unlocking US Libertarian rhetoric is "Public sector bad, private sector good."

Everything they say is just so many different ways of re-formulating that thesis.

Child labor laws are "the state," so out they go. Wokrplace safety regulations - "the state." Away with them.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"Remember when I asked you when the last time you approved an drug for public consumption? Your thesis of, "We should concentrate power to prevent abuse" is flawed."

I think we're getting tripped up in the idea that citing particular examples of where the state fails to protect my liberty is somehow showing the state in general to be a bad idea.

For example; it's true that some democratic states have failed to protect sexual liberties, such as homosexuality, and this is a big flaw of those specific states. Yet, without any state protection homosexuals would have no protection of those sexual liberties from homophobes (whether we be talking the violent kind or the kind that won't employ you because of your sexual orientation). Noting the flaw in the former situation does not make the latter situation less attractive.

So I really don't think your criticism applies to the state in general, just certain instances of it. As far as this discussion goes, I have not made and statements as to how I think drugs should be regulated so it's not really damaging to my argument for you to criticise state regulation of drugs.

"Besides, the whole point of libertarian philosophy is to prevent "a" power from doing that - to maximize the liberty on the individual level. So the argument about a despotic monarch is a straw man."

But free-market libertarianism fails because it tries to convince itself that because the power isn't held by the state but by the rich instead that this is somehow better in someway, which it no doubt is... if you are rich.

But if you're poor and working in that sweat shop that you have defended, well, it sucks and you're going to start wishing you had a more interested state around to help balance out your lack of power (and hence liberty)

"You know what else sucks? Subsistence farming, which I'd imagine is what most of the individuals who work in "sweatshops" used to do. People engage in work like that because they have weighed their economic situation and found sweatshops to be better than what they had. Think about that for a moment - spending 12 hours a day making shoes for rich American pricks is better. Imagine what life was like before."

Pointing out that the manner of exploitation before was worse than what they have now isn't really changing the issue that it's exploitation.

"Economic advancement borne by "sweatshops" eventually makes such sweatshops obsolete."

I rather doubt that's much comfort to the individuals who worked in them.

"The actual side they come down on is the "individual" - you're working off a flawed assumption and a misinterpretation of libertarian philosophy"

This is not true. I'm simply saying that when a power imbalance is in society it opens the door for exploitation of the weaker person, and hence the state is required to make sure that everything stays just.

Free-market libertarianism suggests that the state should not perform this function when it is the rich exploiting the poor, which is very obviously falling down on the side of the rich.

"How dare I? That's a highly funded public service that has shown to be critically flawed - I don't see how bringing it up is an error."

because it's an attitude which, if put into place, would increase the imbalance of power between the rich and the poor.

"Happens already, so that must mean the state system is flawed."

This is the same false dichotomy I mentioned elsewhere.

I have not claimed that the state is perfect and without flaws. Stating that the state fails to achieve everything is should do or would ideally do does not really affect my defence of some of the things the state does at the moment and the other things I think it should do more of (or do better)

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"But your mere hypotheticals based on flawed knowledge of a non-existent world are enough to show my theories fundamentally flawed?"

I don't consider it to be at all non-existent.

Many of the sort of laws I support are already in place in many parts of the world, including my own, and doing no damage either.

The introduction of minimum wage laws in the UK, for instance, if anything helped the economy as well as protected individual workers.

Meanwhile, in order to accept the reality of what your theories would mean, we have to defend sweat shops and similar.

"Always with the emotionally charged examples. Is it OK to cite Saudi Arabia here, or are we just dealing with your idealized version of the State and any comments to the contrary are flawed because they don't represent the perfect? Again with the double standards."

Bizarre comment.

My comment clearly recognised that the state can either criminalise homosexuality or protect their rights, it did nothing to pretend that it was always the latter and never the former. Both situations are very emotionally charged and thus rather cancel each other out.

The reason I mentioned the two situations is because you kept pointing out how states can do things that violate people's liberty rather than protect it. The examples I raise clearly acknowledge that it can do both. My point being that pointing out the former does not invalidate the latter.

"WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS "THE RICH" THING?! Seriously, sorry for the vehemence, but you keep saying that the rich are going to assume power as if they are heir apparent via some cosmic means."

If you're imagining some coup where they take the office of government, then you have failed to understand what I have written (which is unfortunate, because you've made similar remarks before and I've attempted to avoid such an impression)

The rich are already in a position of power. In nations like my own, the only thing that is doing anything to limit the degree to which they are using it unjustly is government. Free-market libeterianism is simply a suggestion that we should remove what checks and balances we have on thier power already.

Essentially, they gain in power the moment those laws are removed. There is no need for action on thier part.

"Please tell me why you're working there in the first place."

When a person can only choose between bad and unjust situations, they will choose the best of the worst.

If I live in an anarchic society where the local authorities are gang leaders I might find myself needing to submit to one of them in order to survive. I have the choice of not doing so but the consequences of doing so are so grim that it is not unfair to say I find myself -forced- to agree to submit. I can make such an agreement whilst wishing there was a state to protect me.

The current situation is not nearly so grim, but the agreement not worth much more. I live in a society where in order to live any kind of decent life I need to agree to be exploited by one of a number of employers. The alternative is not quite as unpleasant as above, but still rather grim. Thus I submit to one of the employers and allow myself to be exploited. I make this agreement but still wish there was a better state around that would protect me.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"More than before; that's the whole POINT. Sweatshops (rather, cheap labor) is a necessity of economic development"

Now that's a claim that I don't accept.

I can quite believe that sweat shops are good for the economy and there are long-term benefits for having them about rather than nothing at all. That makes sense and is almost obvious.

That they are a necessity? That is not something I find at all obvious.

"You're assuming the state doesn't have or create or encourage these imbalances to an equal or greater degree."

See my opening remarks.

You seem to be suggesting there is one 'The State' that all the crimes and flaws of all states can be ascribed to. I have no doubt that some states have done what you describe. The state I live under spent a long time as monarchy so it would be bizarre to claim otherwise. Yet progress has been made and should continue to be made.

"Free market libertarian states that you should GTFO of my business. If you want to help the poor or save the whales, go ahead. Get together with some friends and hire some - hell, I'll chip in. If you want to support Natural Family Planning over condom usage, by all means - just don't try to enforce it on me - do not dictate to me how YOU want to spend MY money or time."

Tough.

In certain circumstances, dictating to people about how to behave/not behave and how some of their money will be spent is necessary for the liberty of us all.

Admittedly, I fail to see how saving whales can be justified on those grounds. Free provision of sexual protection, abortion and sti tests (as is the case in my nation) is easier to justify given it's positive effect for us all to live the lives we would choose to but otherwise couldn't.

Given your previous justification on the basis of economics I'm quite surprised you're not keen to tackle the issue of unwanted childbirth, which can't be said to really have a great effect on society in general (and hence you the individual). Please not this justification is based on how it impacts your ability to live the life you want, not on moral concern for other people.

You may not agree. I know someone who shares the same nation with me who doesn't either, but to a more radical degree. He'd quite like the laws that you are happy to agree to removed because he does not want them forced on him. I don't feel any guilt in supporting those laws being forced on him anyway.

"No but you have stated it is "better" as compared to some weird amalgamation of incorrectly reflective thoughts you have that were used to create what you "know" would happen in a libertarian world. Pardon if there's no defense against someone arguing from an assumed hypothetical."

We've discussed plenty of examples of policies that can be identified as libertarian, and there are nations where they have and have not been put into effect.

As mentioned, state education and work regulations being the two primary ones. In a number of cases (due to improving laws) I've lived in a society that has lacked these laws (as libertarianism suggests) and that has these laws (as I suggest). There's not much hypothetical about that.

Naturally, a more involved discussion would delve into detailed exploration of specific policies and their recorded impact on the nations they've been applied to (and likely detailed analysis of those impacts). That would probably be a very important discussion and well worth having, but if I'm putting time aside for that I'm afraid it won't be here. Not only is there likely betters places to have it but my use of livejournal is primarily recreational.after all.

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

So how does the stateless region we call Somalia factor into this reasoning?

It's a serious question. If you can't answer it, just say so.

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

Let's start at the beginning. The civil war in Somalia started when people got tired of the centralized, authoritarian U.S.-backed government led by Siad Barre. An example of how "peaceful" life was back in those days can be gleaned from his obituary (http://www.netnomad.com/barregrnfldobit.html).

"The complex security paraphernalia and the paramilitary organizations so typical of all repressive states, whether of the right or the left (and Somalia was a confused mixture of both), were installed. The new National Security Service (NSS) began to run its own interrogation and detention centers and even courts. Prison conditions for a growing number of political and other prisoners were uniformly harsh and torture was rife."

After Barre got the old heave-ho, Somalia went into civil war (which, I remind you, is not synonymous with libertarianism) which disrupted the food supply and caused famines. Then the U.N. (the freewheeling, laissez faire organization it is) sent troops in to battle the various warlords, leading to civilian casualties. The Somalians didn't appreciate this and other times the task force got in the way of rebuilding the country, hence the famous images of U.S. soldiers being paraded down the street.

When the U.S. and U.N. pulled out, the clan leaders started to make peace. Let's stop with the history lessons for a moment and address your original point. Has Somalia been a lawless hell-on-earth since the collapse of the official government? No, actually. By African standards, post civil-war Somalia wasn't a half-bad place to live (http://www.worldbank.org/afr/findings/english/find254.htm). Private enterprise in the region seems to have gone on just fine without the state.

Of course, things weren't so fine when, starting in 2006, the U.S. decided to funnel aid and gunship support to warlords and the Ethiopian army so they could tear up the place (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/08/somalia-war-crimes-devastate-population).

So, to recap:

1:Somalia's lack of a government stemmed from the public's disgust with a brutal dictatorship.

2:Somalia has done well in some years without building a new centralized regime (which, given Somalian tendencies towards clan loyalty, would probably be just as arbitrary and ham-handed as the last one).

3:Most of the really bad things which have happened in the region have been due to meddling or outright invasion by other governments.

All of these three facts point to one conclusion: Somalia isn't a good argument against minarchism or even against anarchism. It may serve as a sound example on the evils on interventionism (a common activity of governments in general and the U.S. government in particular), but that's it.

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

Somalia isn't a good argument against minarchism or even against anarchism.

Not exactly a great argument for "anarchism," either.

Right wing minarchism, which is something really-existing capitalist corporations and institutions have no interest in, internet philosophy pipe dreams to the contrary, always finds a way to make empirica facts fit into its rote "public sector bad, private sector good" dogma.

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

What are you trying to tell me? That the World Bank is controlled by people who generally oppose centralized banking and internationalism? If any link I posted contains false information, feel free to show some sources which point these errors out. Otherwise, your propping up of Somalia as a scarecrow against self-determination and non-interventionism has nothing backing it, save your own words.

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

How do you propose to get the leaders of real-world capitalist institutions, the really-existing heads of transnational corporations, to sign onto your program of right-wing minarchism?

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

You're not even on topic anymore. Anyway, I hope that reason and facts are used to get people in general to reject government intervention, at home and abroad. That's won't happen while imbeciles like you insist that people dumbly follow the government, using Somalia as an example of the "evils" of individual liberty even though that region's problems are mostly due to modern-day imperialism.

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

I've never suggested folks "dumbly follow government." People have to be vigilant, and I think it's not only their right but their duty to hold power to account, whether it's governmental power, as in the case of something like the Drug War, or the private unaccountable tyrannies known as "corporations," another type of power that tries to crush folks' liberties.

I just asked how Somalia factored into the state = bad, private power = good mantra.

If your definition of "government intervention" is "minimum wage law," then I am for government intervention, thanks. Same goes with the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

If your definition of government intervention means the government intervenes to produce the legal framework necessary to make corporations structured how they are - which the state does -- then I am against government intervention. It's not a blanket thing.

[epikaste.livejournal.com]

I always thought it was Republicanism for privileged white guys in general, but... yea.