The Religion Of Libertarianism

[Bomb#20]

Um, do you tell ugly people they're ugly and think that's civil?


Can you run that by me again? I'm pretty sure I don't have moderator privileges on this board. And I have no idea how to actually do it, even if somebody authorized me to edit your posts and didn't tell me. In any event, your post says Last edited by whollygoats; 09-10-2018 at 08:16 PM. If I'd edited emphatic language from your post it would probably say Last edited by Bomb#20; 09-10-2018 at 08:16 PM.

Are you one of those people who thinks he's been censored when other people write what they want instead of writing what you wanted them to write?

LOL...

<staff edit>

I'm surprised, at how fast that turned nasty, and for so little reason. Why are you making scurrilous accusations? <staff edit>

No moderator was involved in changing my text when you responded to it....you had to do that.

Changing your text? Your post #2 still says what it said when you wrote it. When I edited the scatological language you term "emphatic", I edited it from my post. I didn't edit it from your post. You call the text I changed "my text". Do you think you own words in my post because you wrote them first and I was only quoting? Do you feel such ownership of them should give you the right of veto over my decisions as to which of the words in your post I choose to repeat and which of them I choose not to repeat? Do you feel I am a communication medium owned by you so when I stop myself from printing your dirty words that's analogous to me stopping you from operating your own printing press? Is that why you say "Are you a censor?".

I think it amusing.

Really? You don't seem amused. You used a few too many over-the-top pejoratives to come off as amused. You're coming off as a guy who can't take a joke. ("I consider myself a libertarian, but a civil one." was a clever way to call yourself a civil libertarian; I took "civil" the other way because that's how improv works.)

And small-minded. But then, again, I'm not surprised.

You're having a cow over me choosing not to echo your cussing, and I'm the small-minded one?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is simply what happens when you leave people alone. Is leaving people alone a delusional lie?

If we'd ever make a reality of libertarianism we'd open up the door to a totalitarian take-over. Because there'd be nothing to stop it. I'm convinced that the inevitable result of libertarianism is a fascist government nightmare.

I'm against libertarianism because I like to keep our freedoms. I believe statism is a necessary protector of our freedoms.

I think they're as naive as communists. It's the same head-in-the-sky utopian and delusional thinking.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Since post 51 is directly contrary to what I wrote in this thread, as is evident to anyone (except you) who reads this thread, then by offering this thread as support I demonstrate to everyone (except you) that post 51 does indeed say otherwise.

You keep repeating the same claim without offering any support.

I wrote that everyone except you would see it, and I was right. Every post I've written in this thread is support, and you will not be able* to see it.

My prediction in post 52 was spot on as well.


*For a sufficiently loose definition of "be able" that includes "doesn't want to."

 

[laughing dog]

I wrote that everyone except you would see it, and I was right......

You cannot possibly know what everyone would see, so you are in no rational position to make such a claim.

Your response does not answer

What do you think in post 51 is directly contrary to what you wrote in this thread, and how is directly contrary?

So, you have not presented any support other than "cuz I say so". Using the fact you have had to numerous opportunities topresent what you think in post 51 is directly contrary to what you wrote and to present why you think it is directly contrary but have failed to do so, I will employ your reasoning to conclude that everyone except you can see your claim is driven by a hissy fit not facts and reason.

 

[lpetrich]

Colin Woodard, in his book "American Character", notes that individual liberty can be taken too far. One need not go to Somalia to see what happens when governments are weak. That has happened in other places, and what one gets is domination of society by some oligarchy that is very jealous of the privileges that it has granted itself. Thus giving themselves the most freedom, with everybody else having much less freedom. Places like medieval Hungary, some Latin American countries, and the antebellum US southeastern states.

Southern state governments did not have much by way of public services. Northern states were far ahead of them in setting up public schools, and law enforcement was often in the hands of vigilantes and private militias. Such wimpy governments are a libertarian wet dream. Those governments, however, often censored criticism of slavery.

The plantation oligarchs were not willing to do very much to defend their land and their way of life. They were not willing to hire out slaves to build fortifications, they preferred growing cotton to growing food for the Confederate soldiers, their Vice President objected to the military draft, and there was a fun episode about James Henry Hammond, a plantation owner who defended slavery as very beneficial to the slaves. When a Confederate army officer came by to requisition some grain, he tore up the requisition order, threw it out a window, and wrote about it that it was like "branding on my forehead: 'Slave'".

Meanwhile, in the northern states, Abraham Lincoln raised taxes, supported railroad construction, supported land-grant colleges, and supported a big land giveaway to small farmers (the Homestead Act). Part of his legacy was a more powerful Federal Government.

Medieval Hungary fell to the Ottoman Empire, and was ruled by the Ottomans for 150 years. The South feel to the North.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Anyone ever read the book Jennifer Government? It's a tongue-in-cheek novel about a cop in libertarian society.

The basic storyline is that a Nike executive hires some people to kill some customers who'd just bought their new line of sneakers and steal the shoes, in order to give the shoes some street cred and boost sales. The cop goes around trying to get the relatives of the victims to raise some money to fund an investigation by the police into the murders.

Later on, the Nike executive rents a mortar and bombards a Reebok product launch in order to disrupt their roll out.

It's a pretty funny book and worth a read by anyone who either loves or hates libertarianism. If you're ambivalent about libertarianism, you'll probably miss most of the jokes.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Anyone ever read the book Jennifer Government? It's a tongue-in-cheek novel about a cop in libertarian society.

The basic storyline is that a Nike executive hires some people to kill some customers who'd just bought their new line of sneakers and steal the shoes, in order to give the shoes some street cred and boost sales. The cop goes around trying to get the relatives of the victims to raise some money to fund an investigation by the police into the murders.

Later on, the Nike executive rents a mortar and bombards a Reebok product launch in order to disrupt their roll out.

It's a pretty funny book and worth a read by anyone who either loves or hates libertarianism. If you're ambivalent about libertarianism, you'll probably miss most of the jokes.

Yeah, pretty funny. I like how both the villains are called John Nike (people adopt their employers' names as surnames) and spout the same platitudes about individual freedom.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Colin Woodard, in his book "American Character", notes that individual liberty can be taken too far. One need not go to Somalia to see what happens when governments are weak.

I love the Somalia example. It is so misused.

Before the Somali government fell, it was one of the most corrupt and keptocratic governments in the world. It was one of the reasons some people started using the phrase "fourth world" to describe countries too awful to be third world. The thugs in charge stole everything that wasn't nailed down, and ruined everything else, forgetting the single most important lesson of government: the parasite should not kill the host.

Once the country was brought to absolute complete rock bottom, as far as it could possibly go and still have people living there however meagerly, then the government collapsed.

Of course as soon as it collapsed, people looked at the awful state of the country and said the awful state was due to a lack of government. It was actually due to the government that had existed just before said government collapsed.

They've been rebuilding since then, but since they were brought so far down they have a very long way to go.

The government of Somalia destroyed Somalia. This is supposed to be some sort of object lesson about libertarianism.

 

[untermensche]

The lessons about Libertarianism were learned in the late 1800's in the US when the government kept it hands out of business.

Slave child labor and unsafe sweatshops.

Labor costs were nice and low.

That is Libertarian nirvana.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The lessons about Libertarianism were learned in the late 1800's in the US when the government kept it hands out of business.

Slave child labor and unsafe sweatshops.

Labor costs were nice and low.

That is Libertarian nirvana.

Hm, interesting.

So before the industrial revolution, basically everyone worked on the farm. Including the kids. Long grueling hours in rough conditions. Untermensche's nirvana. Although people were starving and poor, people were equally starving and poor.

When the industrial revolution happened, some people switched from other jobs to factory jobs. That includes both kids and adults. Suddenly the industrial revolution invented child labor.

 

[untermensche]

The lessons about Libertarianism were learned in the late 1800's in the US when the government kept it hands out of business.

Slave child labor and unsafe sweatshops.

Labor costs were nice and low.

That is Libertarian nirvana.

Hm, interesting.

So before the industrial revolution, basically everyone worked on the farm. Including the kids. Long grueling hours in rough conditions. Untermensche's nirvana. Although people were starving and poor, people were equally starving and poor.

When the industrial revolution happened, some people switched from other jobs to factory jobs. That includes both kids and adults. Suddenly the industrial revolution invented child labor.

Those that defend the deliberate torture of children for profit will defend any injustice.

They are not moral people.

They have no moral compass.

It is impossible to discuss morality with them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The lessons about Libertarianism were learned in the late 1800's in the US when the government kept it hands out of business.

Slave child labor and unsafe sweatshops.

Labor costs were nice and low.

That is Libertarian nirvana.

Hm, interesting.

So before the industrial revolution, basically everyone worked on the farm. Including the kids. Long grueling hours in rough conditions. Untermensche's nirvana. Although people were starving and poor, people were equally starving and poor.

When the industrial revolution happened, some people switched from other jobs to factory jobs. That includes both kids and adults. Suddenly the industrial revolution invented child labor.

Those that defend the deliberate torture of children for profit will defend any injustice.

Nice, now talk about the people in this thread instead. Unless you are discussing the pre-industrial farming culture.

The system you defend, which is pre-industrial, includes harsh conditions for the children.

 

[untermensche]

Those that defend the deliberate torture of children for profit will defend any injustice.

Nice, now talk about the people in this thread instead. Unless you are discussing the pre-industrial farming culture.

The system you defend, which is pre-industrial, includes harsh conditions for the children.

It was not a system set up to deliberately torture children for profit.

Industrialization did not have to include torture of children for profit.

That was a deliberate choice by capitalist scum.

They have not changed, only the laws have.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Those that defend the deliberate torture of children for profit will defend any injustice.

Nice, now talk about the people in this thread instead. Unless you are discussing the pre-industrial farming culture.

The system you defend, which is pre-industrial, includes harsh conditions for the children.

It was not a system set up to deliberately torture children for profit.

Industrialization did not create child labor, it inherited it from your pre-industrial system.

Industrialization did not create child labor, but it did get rid of it.

Is that why you hate capitalism?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The lessons about Libertarianism were learned in the late 1800's in the US when the government kept it hands out of business.

Slave child labor and unsafe sweatshops.

Labor costs were nice and low.

That is Libertarian nirvana.

Hm, interesting.

So before the industrial revolution, basically everyone worked on the farm. Including the kids. Long grueling hours in rough conditions. Untermensche's nirvana. Although people were starving and poor, people were equally starving and poor.

When the industrial revolution happened, some people switched from other jobs to factory jobs. That includes both kids and adults. Suddenly the industrial revolution invented child labor.

It's not true. Pre-industrial farm life back then was pretty chill. Strong communities, everybody knew their place. Few things to worry about. Strong safety nets within communities. Typical working hours were short. Plenty of free time to eat, drink and be merry.

There was a combination of factors that led to the horrific factory system. But the take away is that people were forced into it. Due to diseases the cities were death traps. Still continually attracted many people. They wouldn't have gone if they had any other options.

 

[untermensche]

It was not a system set up to deliberately torture children for profit.

Industrialization did not create child labor, it inherited it from your pre-industrial system.

Industrialization did not have to include the widespread torture of children. That was a deliberate choice of US capitalists.

Capitalism was simply a cheaper form of slavery where you did not own the slaves and therefore you did not have to care about their welfare.

It was a more brutal form of slavery where the slaves were entirely expendable. If they got hurt or sick that was entirely the problem of the slave. You simply threw them away and got a replacement.

Industrialization did not create child labor, but it did get rid of it.

Capitalists had no problem with the widespread torture of children for profit. They loved it.

When the3 children rose up to try to improve their conditions they were violently attacked by capitalists.

It was unions and the government that stopped the widespread torture of children for profit, not capitalists.

If it were up to capitalists it would still be going on.

Capitalists seek the places where workers can be paid the least and treated the worst.

They have not changed. the evil exploitative system has not changed.

The laws have changed, that is all.

Capitalists are the same scum they always have been. Look at the poster boy for US capitalism, the president. Total scum.

 

[untermensche]

The lessons about Libertarianism were learned in the late 1800's in the US when the government kept it hands out of business.

Slave child labor and unsafe sweatshops.

Labor costs were nice and low.

That is Libertarian nirvana.

Hm, interesting.

So before the industrial revolution, basically everyone worked on the farm. Including the kids. Long grueling hours in rough conditions. Untermensche's nirvana. Although people were starving and poor, people were equally starving and poor.

When the industrial revolution happened, some people switched from other jobs to factory jobs. That includes both kids and adults. Suddenly the industrial revolution invented child labor.

It's not true. Pre-industrial farm life back then was pretty chill. Strong communities, everybody knew their place. Few things to worry about. Strong safety nets within communities. Typical working hours were short. Plenty of free time to eat, drink and be merry.

There was a combination of factors that led to the horrific factory system. But the take away is that people were forced into it. Due to diseases the cities were death traps. Still continually attracted many people. They wouldn't have gone if they had any other options.

Yes.

Farm life was vigorous but not tortuous like the industrial life these children were forced into.

You were not chained to a workstation.

Industrialization did not have to include the widespread torture of children.

That is just something inherent to capitalism.

It is an immoral system of exploitation and torture.

It has been made livable by the actions of unions and through government protections.

All of which was resisted violently by capitalists.

 

[marc]

It was unions and the government that stopped the widespread torture of children for profit, not capitalists.

If it were up to capitalists it would still be going on.

To quote Newt Gingrich:

Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising.

 

[Sarpedon]

Also, on a family farm, the child worker is supervised by his or her own parents, rather than a hired supervisor who only cares about cutting corners.

What idiot would try to draw an equivalence here?

 

[Rhea]

nm - already covered by the time I responded.

Carry on...