It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NAZI GREENS - An Inconvenient History • Martin Durkin

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Trying to make the plan work will not automatically cause it to work.

Never said it would. I was mearly pointing out that the motive is the same as the one given for the Austrian School theory.


True



Or they can be fooled into thinking something is in their best interest. In the end both threats and trickery work.


True


Praxeology assumes that people will act, using their brains, to alleviate their discomforts or gain new good feelings. When are people not doing that?[SC quote]


They do it all the time but that does not guarantee the the Austrian School plan will work.


The Austrian method is not a plan, it is the absence of a plan, as in Anarcho-Capitalism or Minarchism.

It worked. The Industrial Revolution is proof.
edit on 29-9-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Praxeology holds that people will choose the means that they think has the best chance at achieving a goal.


Correct. They will lie, cheat and steal if they believe it will achieve their goals. This is why government is necessary. Capitalism is based on a zero-sum game and deteriorates into the tyranny of the haves over the have nots if left unregulated. Capitalism literally brought slavery to the United States in the colonial period.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Praxeology assumes that people will act, using their brains, to alleviate their discomforts or gain new good feelings. When are people not doing that?


When they are misinformed. When they are masochistic. When they are stupid. When they are presented with too many choices and not enough information. When they are fallible. When they are human. Homo economicus does not exist.


I think this encapsulates the major point of contention between those who believe in individual freedom and those who don't.

I do not concern myself with what you choose to do with or to yourself as long as it doesn't adversely affect me directly.

Austrians and even Keynesians don't believe in homo economicus either.
edit on 29-9-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Praxeology holds that people will choose the means that they think has the best chance at achieving a goal.


Correct. They will lie, cheat and steal if they believe it will achieve their goals. This is why government is necessary. Capitalism is based on a zero-sum game and deteriorates into the tyranny of the haves over the have nots if left unregulated. Capitalism literally brought slavery to the United States in the colonial period.


Capitalism is based on decision making. Decision making is easier and more suited to the human mental process with private ownership making the situation simpler. Capitalism has a record of increasing the pie. The zero sum trope is about dividing spoils, the socialist dream.

Individuals cooperate to produce more than can be produced by isolated individual activity. In a social environment of cooperation-- lying, cheating, and stealing would be ostracized, and so curtailed to the maximum.

Slavery was a social effect from the valuation of people as property, not Capitalism.


edit on 29-9-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
It worked. The Industrial Revolution is proof.

You seem to flip flop on the idea that any government is bad when it suits your argument. The industrial revolution was not AC or even Minarchy.

You can't point at any moment in history where anarchy even existed let alone "worked".
edit on 29-9-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
I think this encapsulates the major point of contention between those who believe in individual freedom and those who don't.

I do not concern myself with what you choose to do with or to yourself as long as it doesn't adversely affect me directly.

And when it does what will you do?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
I think this encapsulates the major point of contention between those who believe in individual freedom and those who don't.

I do not concern myself with what you choose to do with or to yourself as long as it doesn't adversely affect me directly.

And when it does what will you do?


I will concern myself with you.




posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Among native American tribes a semi- anarchist system existed and they did quite well.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
Among native American tribes a semi- anarchist system existed and they did quite well.

Semi is semi.

Even a single family living in the middle of nowhere has a power structure and ususally corporal punishment.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

We are talking anarchy here not nihilism. They didn't have a centralized government. It is really quite interesting and had a major influence on the founding fathers.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
It worked. The Industrial Revolution is proof.

You seem to flip flop on the idea that any government is bad when it suits your argument. The industrial revolution was not AC or even Minarchy.

You can't point at any moment in history where anarchy even existed let alone "worked".


You don't know what you are talking about.

During the Industrial Revolution, the Federal government was the tariff and the post office. The IR government was Minarchism except for the high tariff and the post office.

Individualism is new. So is the industrial level of life which had never happened before either.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
We are talking anarchy here not nihilism. They didn't have a centralized government. It is really quite interesting and had a major influence on the founding fathers.

Anarchy is anarchy. Any formal rules is not anarchy. Any tribe council is government.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
During the Industrial Revolution, the Federal government was the tariff and the post office.

How american-centric. You did mean the industrial revolution that started in europe?


The IR government was Minarchism except for the high tariff and the post office.

See what I mean? The government in the US at the time of the IR was not even minarchist let alone anarchist. You flip flop when it suits you.


Individualism is new. So is the industrial level of life which had never happened before either.

I don't even know what you think you are saying here.



edit on 29-9-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
During the Industrial Revolution, the Federal government was the tariff and the post office.

How american-centric. You did mean the industrial revolution that started in europe?


The IR government was Minarchism except for the high tariff and the post office.

See what I mean? The government in the US at the time of the IR was not even minarchist let alone anarchist. You flip flop when it suits you.


Individualism is new. So is the industrial level of life which had never happened before either.

I don't even know what you think you are saying here.




You mean started in England. The most free market country in Europe. Why did you say Europe?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Why are you splitting hairs? England is in europe.

Either way, it wasn't succesful because of the US "federal" government.
edit on 29-9-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

There are many forms of anarchist thought. Perhaps trying to shoe horn their system (NAs) into a western system of thought causes us to miss something. They didn't use a system of currency, they had decentralized government which would meet periodically.

This is hardly authoritative but the following is from the website The Daily Anarchist.


History has shown that the great majority of people do not voluntarily drift toward a powerful centralized government if given the ability to choose for themselves. A splendid example is that of the Native Americans, who migrated to the Americas many thousands of years ago. There was no preexisting government, no bureaucracy or group controlling where they go or how they live, interact, or trade; people were generally free to establish and spread as they pleased in the new land. What we saw was the creation of a vast amount of local tribes and communities, each with a mix of similar and unique customs to the tribes around them. There were no wars or coercive threats that compared to the destruction in the highly centralized and “governmentized” nations of Europe. In fact, according to Encyclopedia, ideas (such as hunting methods or other helpful techniques) spread through developing trade routes among the various tribes on the North American continent. Spirituality and religious ideas were developed by each tribe and spread through these trade routes, as opposed to much of European history where governments and churches collided over religion and its place among the people. The tribes “did not centralize power into the hands of dominant political leaders.” After all, who in their right mind would voluntarily give their individual power to one all-powerful central leader or group? This is an excellent demonstration of how a free society leaves power with the individual where it rightly belongs. As the pre-Columbus years of Native American history are explored, it shows a period of many different tribes cooperatively living and spreading goods and ideas with tribes across a massive continent. Government was decentralized and it appears that political decisions were commonly made through “consultation and consensus” from the entire adult community of a tribe. While Europe was suffering through poverty, government and Church corruption, and horrendous injustices in the Middle Ages, Native Americans were experiencing a world of peaceful living and voluntary interaction and trade, within vast amounts of local tribes who resisted central empowerment that plagued much of the world.


Who Are The True Exploiters?

I don't agree with all of the conclusions but apparently the anarchist see the native tribes as embodying what they stand for.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

I'm using the version Semicollegiate uses when he lumps every other system together.


I don't agree with all of the conclusions but apparently the anarchist see the native tribes as embodying what they stand for.

Sure some examples might fit what some anarchists stand for.

The Iroquois Confederation was centralized government.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

The confederation had no enforcement or bureaucracy. It is comparable to a town hall meeting and no one had to do anything they didn't want to.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Doesn't change the centralized aspect.

Also, look at the stink raised when the UN proposes something and your elected officials "choose" to adopt those suggestions.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
...
Without a state there would be no national health service, no ambulance service, no police etc. Those things are not 'natural', but they are very socialist.


I guess being in a group must be socialist as well... Heck only socialists care for other people right?...

let me give you a tip... Everything in a society isn't socialist... The police are not a socialist system... Ambulances are not part of a socialist system... Not to mention that the "socialist" types of national healthcare are showing not to work and is bankrupting nations...


originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
I call myself a socialist. But I reject the idea that I am in any way a fascist. There are clear distinctions between fascism and socialism Even though some fascist ideology promotes socialist ideals, it doesnt make all socialism fascist. Similarly some Libertarians, Capitalis, and Anarchists are fascists, but that doesn't make those ideologies fascist.
...

The idea that is does is dangerohsly absurd, and people who even consider it should be ashamed of themselves.



Really?... Look at the writings of socialists... Heck, look at the main socialist website... The abolition of private property... Regulating every business so only a few companies backed by the state make the most money and control most of the economy if not all of it...

BTW, you can't be a fascist and be rightwing... To be fascist you have to be socialist. Just like to be communist you have to be socialist.

Yes, there have been some rightwing dictatorships, but none of them were fascist.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join