Libertarianism is killing our economy

[WAB]

Really? I'm 56 years old.

When I was much, much younger I was in management for two years, but realized I didn't like the stress, and didn't like taking my work problems home with me; so, at around 34 I went back to team leader positions or head cook positions, so I could earn enough to live and have what I needed...

I've explained my history a thousand times here at TFT. How is it that you can dare to make the assumption that I want to fuck some working person over in the future?

What I suspect is that you need to vent your anger, and I make myself an easy target, by being absolutely candid and honest.

Don't believe me? I will give you my full name and you can search me. William Anthony Baurle. There are very few, if any, people in the USA with that name. You will find my blogs, my Facebook account, and whatever else you want.

Then, when you're satisfied, you can apologize to me for maligning my character.

Peace, Jarhyn, or whatever your name is.

I will impugn the character of anyone who claims any acceptance of the core philosophical claims of Ayn Rand.

I can't really say for certain why you defend the asymmetries that make your life shit, which you have expounded on enough to know the fact that it is. I don't care about your real name. It sounds remarkably like "come at me bro" but whatever.

What I do know is that you are in here, now, supporting the actions people have taken against you, for whatever reason that is harder and harder to fathom.

Because the fact is, libertarianism is a Devil's wet dream: lawful evil distilled to it's very basic essence. It is the use of contracts, with all asymmetry permissible, for the sake of personal enrichment. And this is the paradigm that makes you, yourself, a homeless wage slave. It's really just quite sad.

I don't blame anyone for the choices I made in life. You want me to blame someone or some system, and you are angry that I won't do it.

I was born at West Point, with every possible advantage. My choices were my own, and no one is to blame for my situation but myself.

I find your comments highly offensive and your terminology highly offensive. "Schlub", "wage slave".

I am no one's slave, you snobbish, classist doofus.

You don't care about the poor, you simply hate the rich. It is resentment and envy that drive you.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I will impugn the character of anyone who claims any acceptance of the core philosophical claims of Ayn Rand.

I do not know why you think WAB makes such claims, but that aside, you should not do that.

Some of the core philosophical claims of Ayn Rand are false, but then so are those of any version of Christianity or Islam (or Wokeism, obviously but let's leave that one aside for now, as it has wide support from adherents in this forum).

Granted, some core philosophical claims of Ayn Rand also involve false moral claims. However, the core claims of any variant of mainstream Christianity or mainstream Islam, for example, are far more distant from the truth (obviously, Hell alone beats anything Rand could come up with). And one should not impugn the character of every mainstream Christian or Muslim. Sure, having any of those religions is a moral flaw as well as a flaw of rationality, but impugning someone's character goes beyond saying they have a moral flaw (which at least nearly all humans have), or a flaw in their rationality.

Because the fact is, libertarianism is a Devil's wet dream: lawful evil distilled to it's very basic essence.

That is not remotely the case. You can have far more evil lawful evil. You can have a totalitarian system with totalitarian laws. You can have legal slavery (real slavery, not "wage slavery"), and then again, there are different degrees to which slavery can be evil, as there are different degrees to which the master can be given a say over the life of the slaves, up to the point of allowing all sorts of torture and death.

Also, by the way, why do you mean by "libertarianism" now? Because Friedman did not endorse the core philosophical claims of Ayn Rand, in particular that about the initiation of force.

 

[Jarhyn]

Really? I'm 56 years old.

When I was much, much younger I was in management for two years, but realized I didn't like the stress, and didn't like taking my work problems home with me; so, at around 34 I went back to team leader positions or head cook positions, so I could earn enough to live and have what I needed...

I've explained my history a thousand times here at TFT. How is it that you can dare to make the assumption that I want to fuck some working person over in the future?

What I suspect is that you need to vent your anger, and I make myself an easy target, by being absolutely candid and honest.

Don't believe me? I will give you my full name and you can search me. William Anthony Baurle. There are very few, if any, people in the USA with that name. You will find my blogs, my Facebook account, and whatever else you want.

Then, when you're satisfied, you can apologize to me for maligning my character.

Peace, Jarhyn, or whatever your name is.

I will impugn the character of anyone who claims any acceptance of the core philosophical claims of Ayn Rand.

I can't really say for certain why you defend the asymmetries that make your life shit, which you have expounded on enough to know the fact that it is. I don't care about your real name. It sounds remarkably like "come at me bro" but whatever.

What I do know is that you are in here, now, supporting the actions people have taken against you, for whatever reason that is harder and harder to fathom.

Because the fact is, libertarianism is a Devil's wet dream: lawful evil distilled to it's very basic essence. It is the use of contracts, with all asymmetry permissible, for the sake of personal enrichment. And this is the paradigm that makes you, yourself, a homeless wage slave. It's really just quite sad.

I don't blame anyone for the choices I made in life. You want me to blame someone or some system, and you are angry that I won't do it.

I was born at West Point, with every possible advantage. My choices were my own, and no one is to blame for my situation but myself.

I find your comments highly offensive and your terminology highly offensive. "Schlub", "wage slave".

I am no one's slave, you snobbish, classist doofus.

You don't care about the poor, you simply hate the rich. It is resentment and envy that drive you.

Better reevaluate that thought. I'm not exactly poor. I've BEEN poor plenty of times in my life, abjectly poor even. But I alone make over 100k a year. Later this month, I'm going to be "Director of Software Engineering", in point of fact.

I can tell you quite confidently looking on the inside, outward, yeah, you're a wage slave. That's how your managers see you: just some schlub. If you don't want to slave for them, someone else more desperate than you exists to take your place.

Even now, you admit you were born with advantages. You accept that such "advantage" exists, is real, by your own language.

And regardless of whether your advantages are real or merely an illusion garnered by rubbing elbows with the actual elite, who is to say?

I know for a fact that I haven't "earned" my salary and position in life any more than you earned your hovel and destitution, regardless. You almost certainly work much harder than I do doing whatever the hell it is you do. I just had the time and space to actually get good at something, and then I used it to actually get good at something.

You ARE better than a 12 hour job. You are a "schlub" and a "wage slave" purely as a function of accepting that you, a human being, are only worth 12 dollars an hour in a shitty hotel. You believed a big lie. Maybe you believed it so long that it has now become an irrefutable proof; 56 is pretty late to turn yourself around. Tinkerbell is a real bitch...

 

[WAB]

I don't blame anyone for the choices I made in life. You want me to blame someone or some system, and you are angry that I won't do it.

I was born at West Point, with every possible advantage. My choices were my own, and no one is to blame for my situation but myself.

I find your comments highly offensive and your terminology highly offensive. "Schlub", "wage slave".

I am no one's slave, you snobbish, classist doofus.

You don't care about the poor, you simply hate the rich. It is resentment and envy that drive you.

Better reevaluate that thought. I'm not exactly poor. I've BEEN poor plenty of times in my life, abjectly poor even. But I alone make over 100k a year. Later this month, I'm going to be "Director of Software Engineering", in point of fact.

I can tell you quite confidently looking on the inside, outward, yeah, you're a wage slave. That's how your managers see you: just some schlub. If you don't want to slave for them, someone else more desperate than you exists to take your place.

Even now, you admit you were born with advantages. You accept that such "advantage" exists, is real, by your own language.

And regardless of whether your advantages are real or merely an illusion garnered by rubbing elbows with the actual elite, who is to say?

I know for a fact that I haven't "earned" my salary and position in life any more than you earned your hovel and destitution, regardless. You almost certainly work much harder than I do doing whatever the hell it is you do. I just had the time and space to actually get good at something, and then I used it to actually get good at something.

You ARE better than a 12 hour job. You are a "schlub" and a "wage slave" purely as a function of accepting that you, a human being, are only worth 12 dollars an hour in a shitty hotel. You believed a big lie. Maybe you believed it so long that it has now become an irrefutable proof; 56 is pretty late to turn yourself around. Tinkerbell is a real bitch...

O ye great wizard, Jarhyn, why dost thou rail so?

We can be friends. I know it. There are misunderstandings, probably my fault because I am flighty and often very silly. I sometimes revel in my silliness.

Enjoy your 100k per annum, and your new title. I am sure you have earned it. In fact, you probably deserve considerably more. 100k seems like peanuts relative to what some people are earning. But, even so, you could rack up your three million in a decade perhaps? With investments and bonuses, plus the fact that in five years or less you will be earning far, far more than you are now. And you shall have earned it, and you deserve it.

As for me, I do not care about money. Ever heard of Spinoza? Benedictus de Spinoza? A great philosopher, in fact the 'prince of philosophers' according to Deleuze. Anyway, Spinoza did not care for money. He earned his living as a lens grinder. He refused a chair at a major university. He let his sister have the lion's share of an inheritance. He could have fought her legally but did not. He simply did not care about wealth. He knew the value of money, and in fact wrote about it, but he cared not in the least for riches.

Spinoza valued his TIME. He wanted time to study, and to write. Write, write, write. He was happy earning his sustenance by being a lens grinder. He was happy with his favorite soup and his pipe. As long as he could write his books.

I value MY time. Time to persue my passion, which is poetry and fiction (mainly poetry), as well as dabble in my hobby, which is writing and recording music.

That you can call me a wage slave is silly and inaccurate, because I purposely and voluntarily CHOOSE to do simple work so that I can have what I need, because not only do I have inexpensive interests, but I suffer from terrible anxiety and depression, and am on medication for it.

More later...just don't call me a slave of any kind. My dignity as a human being is quite intact, even in my most suicidal despair.

 

[WAB]

Who the fuck is Monetarism compatible with then?

That’s the question that you seem to be ignoring. If a libertarian stabs me in the head he can’t argue in court that libertarians are opposed to the initiation of violence.

These people who all sup at fountain of Rand and would implement pure libertarianism but for practical matters are the ones who proffered monetarism. You can squint and say that they’re not libertarians but we don’t care. That you think Friedman is closer to any ism other than libertarianism is a phantom that haunts your brain, but for all practical purposes doesn’t matter to anyone. The semantics are your problem, not ours

You DO know...you ARE aware, that Ayn Rand denounced Libertarianism?

I have the feeling, and I am just guessing, that you don't know jack shit about Ayn Rand...

I could be wrong!

By the bye, I am not an Objectivist. In fact there are some things that Rand said that I find morally repugnant. But, I have read everything she ever put out, the novels and the non-fiction, plus her letters. If you want to know what Ayn Rand actually said and actually wrote, just ask me. Okay, hmm?

 

[SimpleDon]

The main tenets of neoliberalism will be familiar to everyone as it is the political economics... It is the political economics of 100% of the Republican party and one half of the Democrats, including Joe Biden, both Clintons, and Obama.

Neoliberalism is not libertarianism in any way shape or form yet your post would indicate otherwise.

Furthermore, while it is true that Joe Biden, Clintons, Obama, and even the Bushes were/are neoliberals, it is in no way true that 100% of the Republican party is. We know this because if 100% of the Republicans were neoliberals, they would not be supporting Trump in his 2nd impeachment. There is absolutely no question that Trump opposes neoliberalism just based on his stance with trade alone. The fact he put tarriffs on China tells us instantly he can not possibly be a neoliberal.

At this point in time, I think it is actually fair to say there are more Democrat neoliberals than Republicans. And that is a very sad state of affairs indeed when you consider that the party that used to support the middle class no longer does anymore.

You need to get your definitions straight and learn who today is for the common man and who isn't.

I take it from your post above that you believe that the Republican Party is now the party for the common man?

You cut out what the neoliberals believe in, the beliefs that they appropriated from the classical liberals of 1830s England. I will list them for you and you can tell me which party you believe it describes better, the Democratic or the Republican Party.

The tenets of neoliberalism according to the authors who proposed it, the Austrian/Libertarian economists, Ludwig Mises and Frederick Hayek:

• the unregulated free market
• free trade including the free flow of capital, money, across borders
• the elimination of cash welfare
• a truly free labor market in which wages fluctuate with the demand for labor
• the gold standard for money

These are the main tenets of neoliberalism and libertarianism. So yes, neoliberalism is libertarianism.

 

[Swammerdami]

On the matter of Ayn Rand and Libertarianism, Wikipedia reports

Rand denounced Arabs as "primitive" and "one of the least developed cultures" who "are typically nomads". Consequently, Rand contended Arab resentment for Israel was a result of the Jewish state being "the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their (Arabs) continent" while decreeing that "when you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are".

Similarly Ayn Rand was fine with America's genocide against primitive Native Americans. This is in contrast to Libertarians who, whatever their faults, extend "liberty" to all humans.

• the unregulated free market
• free trade including the free flow of capital, money, across borders
• the elimination of cash welfare
• a truly free labor market in which wages fluctuate with the demand for labor
• the gold standard for money

These are the main tenets of neoliberalism and libertarianism. So yes, neoliberalism is libertarianism.

The gold standard is NOT a tenet of neoliberalism. Indeed Nixon's final abandonment of the gold standard in 1971 and the consequent enablement of monetarism is sometimes cited as the beginning of neoliberalist domination. Milton Friedman, whatever his views on 19th-century money, realized that the gold standard had to be abandoned in the 20th century. Only some hyper-libertarians (and some Youtube channels pimping for gold) advocate a return to the gold standard now.

 

[WAB]

On the matter of Ayn Rand and Libertarianism, Wikipedia reports

Rand denounced Arabs as "primitive" and "one of the least developed cultures" who "are typically nomads". Consequently, Rand contended Arab resentment for Israel was a result of the Jewish state being "the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their (Arabs) continent" while decreeing that "when you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are".

Similarly Ayn Rand was fine with America's genocide against primitive Native Americans. This is in contrast to Libertarians who, whatever their faults, extend "liberty" to all humans.

• the unregulated free market
• free trade including the free flow of capital, money, across borders
• the elimination of cash welfare
• a truly free labor market in which wages fluctuate with the demand for labor
• the gold standard for money

These are the main tenets of neoliberalism and libertarianism. So yes, neoliberalism is libertarianism.

The gold standard is NOT a tenet of neoliberalism. Indeed Nixon's final abandonment of the gold standard in 1971 and the consequent enablement of monetarism is sometimes cited as the beginning of neoliberalist domination. Milton Friedman, whatever his views on 19th-century money, realized that the gold standard had to be abandoned in the 20th century. Only some hyper-libertarians (and some Youtube channels pimping for gold) advocate a return to the gold standard now.

Indeed, re the Rand stuff. In case it went unnoticed, I DID say in my prior post that I am NOT an Objectivist and in fact I find much of what she said to be morally repugnant.

My only reason for mentioning Rand was to point out that she denounced Libertarianism, quite soundly if I recall correctly, and rather nastily, which was her modus operandi.

I could go on and on about what I dislike about Rand, but I could also go on and on about where I agree with her.

I have been outspoken about this ever since I joined this place in 2004. I have no secrets, no skeletons in my closet. Go 'head and check, if thou hast the tenacity.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Do you mean your definition is accepted by all who are libertarians per your definition? Or by all who are libertarians per some other definition? Or by all self-identified libertarians?

Let's re-word Jason's idiocy:

If you want to know what a Nazi is, you should just ask a Nazi. It should be obvious, and it's the one thing that's not done around here.

See how that works out for ya.

As crazy as that normally would be, there seem to be more than a few around here who don't know what that word means either.