Libertarian vs Authoritarian Today’s Real Politic!

Libertarianism vs Authoritarianism is the REAL POLITIC today ,here is a picture if it helps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nolan-chart.svg

Left vs Right ,socialist and capitalist ,liberal and conservative are meaningless words and distractions today.Can you tell the difference between Labour or Tory ,Democrat or Republican or even the US and China these days?

AUTHORITARIANS

You can be a Rightwing authoritarian , Big Business or you can be a Leftwing authoritarian , Big Government .Today in the UK ,US and China ,Russia etc we have state socialists who are exactly the same as state capitalists ,which means we are getting very close to TOTAL AUTHORITARIANISM! (see diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nolan-chart.svg ) The New World Order is just around the corner right NOW!

ALL Political parties are Authoritarian and governments ,be it socialist or capitalist are doomed to failure, but that is all part of the plan. Why ? Simple , power corrupts and absolute power attracks the absolutely corrupt. Think about it for yourself. How big a suitcase of money will it take for YOU to give up your principles? So endless government promises are met with endless government failure and excuses and its never the governments fault and the solution is always more government.

Also how can governments reduce crime? Passing a Law just creates a new criminal class ,thus increasing crime!!! The more you increase law ,the more you accelerate chaos ,its the second law of thermodynamics ,ignore it at your peril!!!  Crime figures are nothing more than a gauge to see how compliant the masses are., and how successfully the programming is taking hold.

If you want to reduce crime SIMPLE!!!! Repeal laws!

If we repeal the cannabis law today imagine the reduction in crime figures tomorrow!!! Millions of people who yesterday where “Criminals” today are honest taxpaying citizens! Crime figures will plummet!!

We must try and break this chain of endless “social engineers” ,it only leads to failure. You cannot fit a logirythm on a biorythm ,it will ultimately kill the biorythm, or, if you will,within each system lies its own demise. Human beings are a finite piece of infinite possibility. There is no single person capable of imagining all of humanity’s possibilities, nevermind control them!!
Government and social engineering is a futile task that leads to the “system” turning and feeding on the very people it was designed to protect!

LIBERTARIANISM IS THE ANSWER

“All government, of course, is against liberty. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. Most people want security in this world, not liberty.”
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable. It doesn’t take a majority to make a rebellion; it takes only a few determined leaders and a sound cause.”

Just like in Authoritarianism ,in Libertarianism ,you can be a Rightwing Libertarian or a Leftwing Libertarian.

MARX AND LENIN WHERE LIBERTARIANS

“The proletariat needs the state—this is repeated by all the opportunists, social-chauvinists and Kautskyists, who assure us that this is what Marx taught. They ‘forget’ however, to add that, in the first place, the proletariat, according to Marx, needs only a state which is withering away, i.e. a state which is so constituted that it begins to wither away immediately, and cannot but wither away;
“The state is a special organisation of force; it is the organisation of violence for the suppression of some class. What class must the proletariat suppress? Naturally, the exploiting class only, i.e. the bourgeoisie.”
Lenin

While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.
Lenin (1870 – 1924), “State and Revolution”, 1919

SO WAS ADAM SMITH A LIBERTARIAN

The state is nothing more than an invisible hand, a sort of trade and standards body.

So you can be a Leftwing Libertarian(Libertarian Socialist) or a Rightwing Libertarian(Free Market Libertarian ,Objectivist) . In my opinion ,Marx was just trying to fix where capitalism had gone wrong. That is why the Communist manifesto is just a pamphlet. All the economics can be found in “Capital” or Das Capital if you will. Adam Smith was trying to create a meritocracy in a time of feudalism and Kings appointed by god ,a truely amazing visionary .Marx just saw where it had gone wrong and tried to suggest adjustments. Both men ultimately believed in a libertarian society without governments!!

SO IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN A GOVERNMENTLESS SOCIETY ,you have got some pretty big questions to ask yourself, about what YOUR political beliefs actually are! Because they are NOT Capitalist OR Socialist OR Libertarian! Maybe your authoritarian government  and thier presstitute MainStream Media have been feeding YOU Bullshit! QUESTION EVERYTHING ,Truth can handle awkward questions, LIES need Laws and threats to be maintained.

AUTHORITARIANISM IS STATE CAPITALISM ,WHICH IS THE SAME AS STATE SOCIALISM.

THE BIRTH OF STATE CAPITALISM (STATE SOCIALISM) AND THE DEATH OF LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM

State capitalism, for Marxists and heterodox economists is a way to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist.[1] Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership or control by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation. There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which have been around since the October Revolution or even before. The common themes among them are to identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that commodity relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism.
The term itself was in use within the socialist movement from the late nineteenth century onwards. Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1896 said: “Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!” [5]
It has been suggested that the concept of state capitalism can be traced back to Mikhail Bakunin’s critique within the First International of the potential for state exploitation under Marxism, or to Jan Waclav Machajski’s argument in The Intellectual Worker (1905) that socialism was a movement of the intelligentsia as a class, leading to a new type of society he called state capitalism

STATE CAPITALISM AND STATE SOCIALISM IS JUST FASCISM

Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini, fascist dictator of Italy (1922-1943)

STALINS STATE SOCIALISM(FASCISM)

The break with Lenin’s internationalism led to the theory of “Socialism in one country.” This in its turn has led now to the open break with Marxism on the question of the state.
A significant speech was delivered by Gregori Aleksandrov at the Lenin memorial meeting in Moscow. Aleksandrov is the chief of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist (Stalinist) Party. Present at his speech were the elite of the bureaucracy and all the members of the Political Bureau.
In this speech he openly proclaimed a revision of the fundamental doctrines of Marxism-Leninism on the state.
“Theories developed by Marx in the middle of the nineteenth century could not be accepted unchanged by Lenin. Lenin developed the idea that Marxists could not regard the theory of Marx as inviolable, and that that theory must constantly absorb the new experience of history and exert a transforming influence on the development of society. He accurately foresaw that the forces of reaction abroad would attempt to destroy the Socialist Soviet Union.
“The establishment of a powerful and flourishing Socialist land had been possible only, the speaker explained, because the theory of building a Socialist society in a single country was put into effect. There were two aspects of this policy. There were internal obstacles to be swept away and dangers from abroad to be met. Today there was no force within the Soviet Union capable of preventing the further development of Socialism and its gradual transition to Communism. Vigilance against attack from without had necessitated the rejection of the Marxist theory of the withering away of the State, based on the assumption of international Socialism and the adoption of the Stalin theory of building a strong State with a powerful army and its own military science capable of winning in war and achieving the military and diplomatic consolidation of victory.” (The Times, February 1st, 1946).

Stalinism cannot show a single line in Lenin which would justify the rejection of the Marxist theory of the withering away of the state. Just the contrary. Lenin’s little masterpiece State and Revolution categorically refutes this revisionism. The argument that a strong state is necessary because of the danger of intervention from without, is palpably false. If socialism really had been achieved in the Soviet Union, there could be no question of intervention on the part of the capitalist world. On the contrary, the capitalists would be powerless economically, militarily and politically in the face of a socialist society. This would be because socialism would achieve such an enormous development of the productive forces that America’s vast productive facilities would seem puny by comparison.
Such a system, far from requiring an enormously strengthened state, as Lenin taught in the above mentioned work, would need no state at all. The necessity of the state does not arise from the danger of military intervention—but from the inequalities within society, and to regulate the antagonisms that arise from these inequalities. Lenin called the state a capitalist survival. Far from seeing the need for a constant strengthening of the state and of the army, Marx and Lenin expounded the idea of the “armed people” replacing the standing army, pouring scorn on the opportunists and the Mensheviks who argued the need for a military caste and a civil bureaucracy standing above the people.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/ …aleksandrov.htm

HITLERS STATE CAPITALISM(FASCISM)

National Socialism attempted to reconcile conservative, nationalist ideology with a socially radical doctrine. In so doing, it became a profoundly revolutionary movement—albeit alargely negative one. Rejecting rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above

Think people Stalin and Hitler where the 2 political extremes according to the powers that be, I cannot see the differnce between them.

BUT WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM

Libertarian Socialism is an anti-authoritarian form of socialism and the main principles are liberty, freedom, the right for workers to fraternize and organise democratically, the absence of illegitimate authority and the resistance against force. Libertarian Socialists hold that the people can make the best judgments for themselves when given enough information and therefore stress education rather than regulation. In current society, the individual worker is separated from her or his fellow workers and not permitted to organise against his or her own exploitation… the state is the force which permits this lack of freedom to continue.
USA LIBERTARIANISM
Due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of “libertarian socialism” to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many “Libertarians” think anarchists are just attempting to associate the “anti-libertarian” ideas of “socialism” (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those “socialist” ideas more “acceptable” — in other words, trying to steal the “libertarian” label from its rightful possessors.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term “libertarian” to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850s. The revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social in New York between 1858 and 1861 Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75]. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the use of the term “libertarian communism” dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it [Ibid., p. 145]. The use of the term “Libertarian” by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get around anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word “anarchy” in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire — The Libertarian — in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside USA, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised “The Libertarian League” in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based “Libertarian” Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970s, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression “libertarian communism” was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have “stolen” the word.

  This “Free Market” US version of Libertarianism should more correctly be called Ayn Rand Objectivism with Austrian Free Market economics glued on. It is an obviously self defeating philosophy. WHY? Well anyone who understands the capitalist free market economic system knows it is better called the Boom and Bust economy. After a couple of Free market Boom and Bust cycles the majority of the resourses would end up in the hands of a minority again. The majority is under the thumb again ,Libertarian or not!!! That is why this is a self defeating philisophy!

HERE IS FREE MARKET ANARCHISM EXPLAINED (OBJECTIVISM) IMHO it cannot work because it buys and sells resourses ,thus making modern robber barons and it STEALS the working mans labour. When YOU work for someone else and they own the resourses YOU WILL BE EXPLOITED (like a disneyland employee). In this description of Objectivist ,free market anarchism, DISNEYLAND and MORMON COMMUNITIES are given as working examples of Objectivism…… I WOULD NEVER CALL DISNEYLAND AN EXAMPLE TO ASPIRE TOO…..WOULD YOU?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/casey/casey45.1.html

LIBERTATIAN SOCIALISM = MARXIST/LENINIST SOCIETY CERTAINLY NOTHING LIKE FASCISM!!
Libertarian socialism aims to create a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.
This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions such as an individual’s right to own resourses(including the state) ,in order that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole. The worker would own his own labour not the state or the community .
 Only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership — what is commonly called “socialism” — is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact,state “socialism” is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists, socialism is “not a simple question of a full belly, but a question of culture that would have to enlist the sense of personality and the free initiative of the individual; without freedom it would lead only to a dismal state capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought and feeling to a fictitious collective interest.” [quoted by Colin Ward, “Introduction”, Rudolf Rocker, The London Years, p. 1]

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM IN ACTION

Anarchism has historically gained more support and influence in Spain than anywhere else, especially before Francisco Franco’s victory in the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939.
There were several variants of anarchism in Spain: the peasant anarchism in the countryside of Andalusia; urban anarcho-syndicalism in Catalonia, particularly its capital Barcelona; and what is sometimes called “pure” anarchism in other cities such as Zaragoza. However, these were complementary trajectories, and shared a great deal of ideological similarities.
Early on, the success of the anarchist movement was sporadic. Anarchists would organize a strike and ranks would swell. Usually, repression by police reduced the numbers again, but at the same time further radicalized many members.
In the 20th century, this violence began to fade, and the movement gained speed with the rise of anarcho-syndicalism and the creation of the huge libertarian trade union, the CNT. General strikes became common, and large portions of the Spanish working class adopted anarchist ideas. The FAI was created as a purely anarchist association, with the intention of keeping the CNT focused on the principles of anarchism.
Anarchists played a central role in the fight against Franco during the Spanish Civil War. At the same time, a far-reaching social revolution spread throughout Spain, where land and factories were collectivized and controlled by the workers. All remaining social reforms ended in 1939 with the victory of Franco, who had thousands of anarchists executed. Resistance to his rule never entirely died, with resilient militants participating in acts of sabotage and other direct action after the war, and making several attempts on the ruler’s life.
Their legacy remains important to this day, particularly to anarchists who look at their achievements as a historical precedent of anarchism’s validity.

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM TODAY
After the non-violent collapse of the Argentinean government in 2001/2002, the social and economic organization of Argentina has undergone major changes, though how important these changes are remains to be seen. Worker occupations of factories and popular assemblies have both been seen functioning in Argentina, and both are the kind of action endorsed by anarchists: the first is a case of direct action and the latter a case of direct democracy. Approximately 200 “recovered” factories (fábricas recuperadas) are now self-managed and collectively owned by workers. In the large majority of them, pay is completely egalitarian; generally no professional managers are employed, or managers are collectively controlled in the other cases. These co-operatives have organised themselves into networks. Solidarity and support from external groups such as neighborhood assemblies and unemployed (piquetero) groups have often been important for the survival of these factories. Similar developments have taken place in Brazil and Uruguay.[6] In 2004, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein (author of No Logo) released the documentary The Take, which is about these events.

Free Software Movement
The Free Software movement is an example of anarchist characteristics. The nature of the GPL which is the most widely used Free Software license in the world and most all Open Source licenses is such that there is a collective sharing of resources (in this case, source code) between all developers, thus putting into practice the theories behind social anarchists’ perspective on private property and economic organization.

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/history_of_anarchism

Switzerland and Iceland are both Direct Democracys,a form of anarchy.They have both managed to achieve high living standards and low crime and corruption. Iceland has told the bankers to get lost and is likely to setup an investigative journalistic whistleblowers haven with Wikileaks.

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/icelandthe-pheonix-from-the-fire-as-the-long-boats-enter-the-accountant-sea/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/government-it-may-not-be-reliable-but-at-least-its-consistant-consistantly-corrupt/

https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/elected-dictatorship-posing-as-democracy/

But do not expect to read this or about the Argentine economic model on the MainStreamMedia ,or the wonders that Open Sourse Software and the Internet have brought to humanity. Our government either ignore them ,throws shit at them and tries to shut them down. According to government the internet is full of terrorists ,criminals and peadophiles …this is a better description of the government!!! I have not come across any of this online , but our governments have been accused and found guilty on ALL THESE COUNTS!!! and in more than just 1 country. 

“Whether the mask is labeled Fascism, Democracy, or Dictatorship or the Proletariat, our great adversary remains the Apparatus-the bureaucracy, the police, the military…. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this Apparatus, and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in others.”– The French worker philosopher Simone Weil,1945

Law is stagnation , Conformity is death by boredom and ignorance ,Obedience is for slaves and Specialisation is for insects!

WE ARE CREATURES OF CHAOS

It is our natural and best state , from the chaos ,patterns form that we can live by.THINK we do NOT percieve the universe we only percieve its CHAOS (or its changes) For example listen to a monotone noise , after a while you do NOT hear it , it has NOT gone away it is just NOT varying so we do not precieve it! It is the same with smell and with sight! We do not percieve reality ,only the changes around us.

REJOICE IN YOUR INDIVIDUALISM

It is humanity’s diversity that will save us , NOT our conformity.

Conformity makes us weak and stupid and is most likely to lead to our destruction.

ALL HAIL DISCORDIA

Advertisements

57 Responses to Libertarian vs Authoritarian Today’s Real Politic!

  1. Cuthulan, very interesting. Can I suggest though that you keep it shorter, that way you don’t lose the reader’s interest. People don’t like leaving an e-mail address on a comments form, is there not another one that you could use, maybe change your blog to Blogger.com? Sorry, don’t like to be critical of someone else’s blog but you were asking for constructive criticism but at the end of the day it’s your blog!

  2. cuthulan says:

    Hi Dark Lochnagar and Cheers for the constructive critcism ,I will see about changing the e-mail requirement and will even look into Blogger.com. Yes I do agree I have to cut things down a bit ,its my first splurge as a blogger and I do get on a rant sometimes and I noticed that in other blogs its best to keep it concise.
    Criticism taken ,but not offence 😉

  3. MichaelM says:

    >>>This “Free Market” US version of Libertarianism should more correctly be called Ayn Rand Objectivism with Austrian Free Market economics glued on. It is an obviously self defeating philosophy. WHY? Well anyone who understands the capitalist free market economic system knows it is better called the Boom and Bust economy. After a couple of Free market Boom and Bust cycles the majority of the resourses would end up in the hands of a minority again. The majority is under the thumb again ,Libertarian or not!!! That is why this is a self defeating philosophy! <<<

    Also as constructive criticism: a little more reading and study of Objectivism will enable you to correct the misinformation in the above quoted paragraph. The boom and bust economy to which you refer is from the history of mixed economies in which capitalism is bastardized by the admixture of statism. There's no intellectual glue on earth that could make that stick to Rand's radical capitalism.

    Per the Objectivist politics, government's only job is to guarantee that no person may initiate the use of physical force to gain, withhold, or destroy any tangible or intangible value of any other person who either created it or acquired it in a voluntary exchange. That means that all human interrelationships shall be voluntary. And in such a society, there is no way for anyone to gain a value of any kind from anyone else without offering something of greater value to them in exchange.

    This is a capitalism yet to be practiced and therefore certainly not responsible for economic failures of the present or past the causes of which can be attributed to artificial distortions of the free market by means of the statist practices of government control of banking, money, securities exchanges, and commerce in general.

  4. cuthulan says:

    @MichaelM
    Thank you for the comment and constructive criticism
    BUT
    ” The boom and bust economy to which you refer is from the history of mixed economies in which capitalism is bastardized by the admixture of statism. There’s no intellectual glue on earth that could make that stick to Rand’s radical capitalism. ”
    I totally disagree. Ron Paul (who I am a big fan of) constantly refers to the Austrian economic model of “pure capitalism”. To say it does not cause Boom and Bust is just pure theory on your part. What evidence do you have that this form of capitalism would not cause a boom and bust cycle? I get the same from Socilists that say
    “BUT there has never been a real socialist economy”
    Just because we do not create money out of thin air like the state capitalist criminals running the show today does not guarantee an end of Boom and Bust.
    IMHO it will be this pure capitalist system that we can use as a stepping stone,instead of a dictatorship , to the TRUE LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST society imagined by BOTH Adam Smith and Karl Marx

  5. cuthulan says:

    @MichaelM
    Another point..You say..
    “Per the Objectivist politics, government’s only job is to guarantee that no person may initiate the use of physical force to gain, withhold, or destroy any tangible or intangible value of any other person who either created it or acquired it in a voluntary exchange.”
    THis has been tried!!This is exactly what Adam Smith intended the government to be ,as an invisible hand., a trade and standards board…it failed and morphed into what we have today.
    At this time the state was the King and feudal lords thier was NO STATE INTERFERENCE as you describe it at this time.This led to the creation of the new industralist class and the new barons of industry. Please read Marx’s “the capital” it is a good critque on why this went wrong.

  6. MichaelM says:

    Cuthulan

    It is imperative in discussions like this one to exercise an extra measure of discipline with the words and meanings and make sure that when we both use the word capitalism, we are talking about the same concept for which it stands. As an aid, I usually refer to the capitalism of Rand as she did with the qualifier “radical” and the central principle of that version securely attached as I did here. Ultimately which word we use to signify that concept is irrelevant — every language has a different one. But you may not switch the concept on me mid-comment as you did. That is either reckless or dishonest.

    In a society that complies with Rand’s political principles there cannot be kings or lords or taxation or regulations of any kind. There are only laws that define what constitutes physical force and the procedures to stop, prevent, and punish it. They are objectified in writing and accompanied by the proofs with which they were validated for all to know and challenge if they wish by democratic procedures.

    I repeat, that there has never been such a government. That statement is not offered as a proof or validation, but rather to deny your repeated attempts to saddle that principle with the horrors wrought by principles to the contrary that have been part and parcel of every allegedly capitalist system so far.

    Therefore you may not lay boom and bust on her capitalism without demonstrating how compliance with the no force principle would actually cause it. This is not to claim that there would not be boom and bust, however. It is only to say that any boom and/or bust or any other consequence to anyone engaging in the voluntary trade of values is inherently due to a choice they made freely. It is also to say that whatever ideas anyone has for precluding the possibility of booms and busts, the initiation of force by citizens or the government to interfere with voluntary trade or other interrelationships may not be included. Initiated force is immoral at its base and no pragmatic result can justify its implementation. This is Rand’s uniquet contribution to the philosophy of politics — an impregnable moral base that reduces all other force-based political systems to evil practices.

    There is no government system that can make men infallible. The purpose of the no force system is only to guarantee as much as possible and to the extent it is correctly implemented that the consequences of errors will fall on those who make them. There are only two ways to pursue life in a society, by production of values and peaceable voluntary exchange or by violent confiscation of values from each other. In her essay “The Anti-Industrial Revolution”, Rand said that to survive on this planet you have only two options, “you can conquer nature or conquer people who conquer nature.”

  7. cuthulan says:

    @MichaelM
    “It is imperative in discussions like this one to exercise an extra measure of discipline with the words and meanings and make sure that when we both use the word capitalism”
    I AGREE. You are talking about Rand/Adam Smith lassie Faire /radical capitalism .NOT State Capitalsim!
    BUT I take it ,even in your version of capitalism there will be people with extra money ,which they can lend at interest or not?OR does everyone just stuff thier mattresses with gold?
    SO….
    A Brief description of the Capitalist system , Adam Smith’s AND RAND “Radical” capitalism ,as I see it!
    1.Availability of credit allows money to flow between savers and borrowers.
    2.Resources and funds are allocated to various projects or investments during a boom phase.
    3.Eventually borrowing becomes excessive and leads to malinvestment,
    4.At this stage, adherence to free market theory would allow for an efficient cleansing period and a healthy recovery period. How? Irresponsible and unprofitable businesses fail. Bad debts get liquidated. Excess resources go on sale, flow into more stable ventures and pool together with more profitable resources controlled by healthy corporations or entities
    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6497.html
    SEE no government intererence here!!
    This is called a BOOM AND BUST CYCLE!!!

    “I repeat, that there has never been such a government.”

    I REPEAT , I have heard this claim from the “State” Socialists as well. Of course America was never capitalist and Russia and Cuba where never socialist!You could BOTH be right.

    “Ultimately which word we use to signify that concept is irrelevant — every language has a different one. ”

    EXACTLY as I am pointing out capitalist and socialist are irrelevant these days and just there to confuse the arguement. Libertarian vs Authoritarian is the REAL POLITIC!!
    You and me are BOTH Libertarians!!!

    “But you may not switch the concept on me mid-comment as you did. That is either reckless or dishonest. ”

    WOW there, where and when did I do that?
    All i was pointing out that when the East India Company was formed taxation and the state did not exist as we know it. Kings and Feudal lords gained thier wealth from LAND and SERVICES. The lassie faire capitalist system created the NEW RICH ,the industrial barons.

    “Therefore you may not lay boom and bust on her capitalism without demonstrating how compliance with the no force principle would actually cause it. ”
    Rubbish , I have just demonstrated it in the above. Please demonstrate how this princple would NOT WORK?
    In fact YOU have now changed concept half way through ,…

    “This is not to claim that there would not be boom and bust, however. ”
    SO you now admit it WILL BOOM AND BUST!!!

    “It is only to say that any boom and/or bust or any other consequence to anyone engaging in the voluntary trade of values is inherently due to a choice they made freely.”
    DREAM ON!!!!! Of course all transactions will be even and there will be no BEAR or BULL situations , sorry but this is a laughable suggestion!

    “There is no government system that can make men infallible. The purpose of the no force”
    Objectivism IS A FORCE SYSTEM , you are forced to provide work for money.Otherwise YOU STARVE!!! Admittedly if you do not work you will starve in the real world , BUT if you work for someone you are NOT on an equal “non forced” situation.

    That is why the Objectivist Rightwing Libertarian philosophy is a self defeating one. After a few Boom and Bust cycles the resourses are in the hands of a minority again. The majority will be under the thumb ,libertarian or not!
    But this is a good stepping stone to a non-monetised libertarian economy and a TRUE UNFORCED LIBERTARIAN SOCIETY!!

  8. cuthulan says:

    @MichaelM
    I do not want to argue with you ,as I see you as a good libertarian but with a different, US, slant. A slant that i think cannot work but I do think Ron Paul and Alex Jones etc are good guys.
    AND
    Like Spain in the 1930’s and Argentina today,and many others Libertarianism takes many forms.
    http://eng.anarchopedia.org/history_of_anarchism
    It is your right to form your liberty the way YOU choose. So long as you are not murdering raping or stealing ,All Hail Discordia.
    Is that not what Libertarianism all about!

  9. MichaelM says:

    Cuthulan

    I am not arguing with your position of authoritarian v. libertarian in the broadest sense of those words. I am merely attempting to correct some very serious misconceptions you have about Rand’s politics.

    Objectivists do not acknowledge that there are any national distinctions with their philosophical principles. They are held to apply equally and in all cases to all men who are, were, or ever will be. Different men may apply them, or not, correctly or incorrectly, in different ways in different nations, but that does not affect the validity and applicability of the abstractions themselves. The principles of politics are first and foremost moral principles, and they cannot be undermined by assertions about booms and busts and their consequences.

    For instance, take your no.3 statement that:

    “3.Eventually borrowing becomes excessive and leads to malinvestment,”

    The morality of a free market politics requires that all borrowing and investment be chosen actions. Since men have free will, no matter how many times they have committed your no.3 error, you may not assume they will next time, especially if they are living under a different form of government. And if they do still borrow excessively and make bad investments or if they do not prepare for the possibility that others will, then they will earn the bust and its consequences.

    The goal of this radical capitalism is not to guarantee good results, but rather to guarantee the opportunity for men to create good results and to guarantee that, whatever the results, they will be just.

    ———————

    Here is a more serious error:

    “Objectivism IS A FORCE SYSTEM , you are forced to provide work for money.Otherwise YOU STARVE!!!”

    Men must work because of their nature — because of the fact that sustenance is not provided by nature automatically. They must choose to apply their reason to their actions to produce the sustenance of their lives. This requirement is not an act of force by any other human against them. It is a requirement of the facts of reality. Objectivism recognizes this requirement and complies with it. Its politics only defines the proper relationship among fallible men living in one society and pursuing the sustenance of their own lives. To that end Objectivism simply demands that no man may impose his fallibility on any others by force.

    The problem Objectivists have with the concept of Libertarianism is that those whom it encompasses are united only by the absence of a consistent and properly developed moral base for their politics of liberty. Consequently Objectivists must disassociate themselves with that political position. It is your failure to fully understand that necessity that allows you to make your preposterous statements concerning Rand’s politics.

  10. cuthulan says:

    @MichaelM
    “I am merely attempting to correct some very serious misconceptions you have about Rand’s politics”

    I was NOT trying to describe Rand’s politics ,I was trying to give a concise description of US Libertarianism. Which is why I said its CLOSER to Rand’s Objectivism WITH Austrian free market economics, than Libertarianism in its original form.
    I was never trying to give an explaination of Rand’s politics!

    “The goal of this radical capitalism is not to guarantee good results, but rather to guarantee the opportunity for men to create good results and to guarantee that, whatever the results, they will be just.”
    I think you are yet again dreaming on this one
    Creative destruction is another name for capitalism, just another way to say Boom and Bust. The result will be the same long run ,resourses in the hands of minority.

    “Here is a more serious error:

    “Objectivism IS A FORCE SYSTEM , you are forced to provide work for money.Otherwise YOU STARVE!!!””

    I agree this is more true of US Libertarian politics WHICH I said I was trying to explain and NOT Objectivism ,which I also said was different from US Libertarianism.

    “Men must work because of their nature — because of the fact that sustenance is not provided by nature automatically. They must choose to apply their reason to their actions to produce the sustenance of their lives. This requirement is not an act of force by any other human against them. It is a requirement of the facts of reality.”

    This is a nice way to say “work or die its only natural”.But I agree people should be responsible and in a Libertarian society this is also incouraged.

    “To that end Objectivism simply demands that no man may impose his fallibility on any others by force.”
    Same with Libertarianism

    “The problem Objectivists have with the concept of Libertarianism is that those whom it encompasses are united only by the absence of a consistent and properly developed moral base for their politics of liberty”

    Well if you become a Libertarian you can have an Objectivist society with willing like minded people , I can live my libertarian socialist life and everyone else is at LIBERTY to thier lives as well.What an exciting place to live!!
    THAT IS OUR PROPERLY DEVELOPED MORAL BASE OF POLITICAL LIBERTY!!
    AND
    Unlike YOU , we have had ,and do have working examples of these philosophies and they work very well , despite no support from the outside or needing to run giant economies or nations or the world or whatever excuse you have ,for there never have being a REAL capitalist/socialist/objectivist etc political economy.

    So please if you want to write a nice blog about Objectivism and post me the link ,I think it would save a lot of time. This blog was about Libertarianism!

  11. […]  https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/libertarian-vs-authoritarian-todays-real-politic/ […]

  12. […] https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/libertarian-vs-authoritarian-todays-real-politic/ Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Scottish pride ,guts and honesty v US shame,cowardice and decietClimategate ,Another corrupt political NWO scamTony Blair admits war crimesSwine Flu Vaccination Alert […]

  13. […] https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/libertarian-vs-authoritarian-todays-real-politic/ Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Megrahi’s lawyers to reveal ‘evidence of innocence’How America Lost The War On DrugsAnatomy of a Failure- How America Lost the War on DrugsAround the Blade 8/20/07 […]

  14. […] https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/libertarian-vs-authoritarian-todays-real-politic/ Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Tony Blair admits war crimesTony Blair, Liar and Traitor and EU reject!Yugoslavia another Blair Illegal War of Agression and the ICC kangaroo courtCry havoc, and let slip the puppies of war […]

  15. Lori says:

    I strongly object to the a priori assumptions underlying the Nolan chart. It asserts there are libertarians (in the post-1960’s American sense), conservatives, and people who don’t believe in economic freedom. If belief in property and markets is a prerequisite for belief in economic freedom, then either I don’t believe in economic freedom, or I don’t exist, or the Nolan model is wrong (which it is). Since I frame liberty most centrally as freedom from hierarchy (which implies anti-statism, AMONG OTHER THINGS), economic freedom, to me, requires freedom FROM economics. This requires some form of post-scarcity scenario, which I’m not convinced is possible, but I think it may be possible and is at any rate our only hope for personal or ‘economic’ freedom. The market mechanism is a one-dollar-one-vote form of decision-making. It is inherently hierarchical and therefore illibertarian.

    • cuthulan says:

      Hi Lori ,thank you for your input.
      I think you have not totally understood the Nolan graph.
      “Since I frame liberty most centrally as freedom from hierarchy (which implies anti-statism, AMONG OTHER THINGS), economic freedom, to me, requires freedom FROM economics.”
      Then I would suggest you , like me , are a libertarian socilaist. This puts us BOTH in the libertarian camp and both to the left hand side of it. The economics of scarcity is what we live in today because scarcity increases the price. That’s why we have all this “Peak Oil” bullshit and OPEC deciding how much oil to process ,thus price fixing! That’s why war is so profitable for governements and thier lobby group masters.
      “The market mechanism is a one-dollar-one-vote form of decision-making. It is inherently hierarchical and therefore illibertarian.”
      TOTALLY AGREE . that’s why rightwing free-market libertarianism cannot work and is ILLIBERTARIAN. Ron Paul and Alex Jones are Objectavists or free market anarchists NOT LIBERTARIANS in its original meaning. This objectavist”radical” capitalism will only produce new robber barons like Adam Smiths “laisse faire” capitalism did , creating the new rich and the industrial class which owned all the resourses and exploited the population at will.

  16. […] https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/libertarian-vs-authoritarian-todays-real-politic/ Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Journalism Wants To Be FreePentagon Hunting Underground Wikileaks Founder, iPhone 4 Pixel Quarrel […]

  17. […] Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. Benito Mussolini, fascist dictator of Italy (1922-1943) https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/libertarian-vs-authoritarian-todays-real-politic/ […]

  18. […] . If this is a suprise or even NEWS to you ,then I suggest YOU have not been paying attention! https://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/libertarian-vs-authoritarian-todays-real-politic/ WHAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IS…… It is believed there is no single […]

  19. Korjata kehitysvammainen kunnostaminen ylinopeus suora star talkoot
    lähteenmäki joni.

  20. pikavippi says:

    Sähkö liittokohtainen jakaantua sak:lainen päätavoite koripalloilu ti kanne avioero onnitella tuoreeltaan kaupunginvaltuutettu.

  21. Muualla setä metso parisen kulkeutua koripalloilu kirjo leski itsenäisesti
    alta kakkossija kustaa.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: