Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Libertarian Values

page: 9
44
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
For every example of corruption, mismanagement and psychopaths you give, I could probably give 100 examples of ethics and integrity within the business world.


Wanna start a new thead and see who runs out first?


I have to say, I seriously doubt you could do it. Take a look at this quote from a wonderful and seriously undervalued guy, Brigadier-General Smedley D. Butler:


"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."[


That's roughly 600 examples you owe me. And I haven't even got into my stride.

To put it simply: Leftists ramble on about how "power corrupts". But it is equally true that powerlessness corrupts (poverty being a major cause of crime).

And corporations are one of the main causes of poverty. They strip countires of their assets, they persuade already impoverished countries to open "free economic zones" where even the most basic protections for employees don't apply, and they're currently responsible for, now, impoverishing most of the citizens of the country from which they've had the most support - the US - by outsourcing jobs while holding firmly to the taxpayer teat of corporate welfare.


Does the power of some corporations get totally out of hand and produce psychopaths and control-freaks? Yes. You've provided sufficient evidence for that. Does that change anything about the basic fundamentals of "free economy"? No. "Free economy" does not entail going maniac.


What I'm saying - and it's a point you've so far failed to address, and yet the film makes it quite potently - is that corporations are structured in such a way as to encourage, and even require, psychopathic behaviour. No-one in a corporation is personally responsible for the actions of that corporation except in quite rare circumstances. For example, Coca-Cola have hired paramilitaries to kill union organisers in Colombia and yet lawsuits pressed by Colombians against CC have received no redress in either Colombia or the US. Likewise, CC are able to take groundwater for an entire region in India and pollute the environment with impunity.

That has nothing to do with a "free economy".

One thing that I did notice in my discussions with a Libertarian that I knew was that he had this touching faith in a "free market" which, to me, is up there with the Baby Jesus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as objects to put your faith in. At least the FSM's worshippers have fun and so far, have not killed anyone, unlike people who have faith in Jesus and the Free Market.

See, I'm really not a proper leftist. Leftists have ideologies and "isms". I try to go from what's actually happening in the real world, and work from there. There are only two "ism"s that I'd put my hand in the air for: Taoism and pragmatism.

I kind of wanted to be a libertarian for a while, but then it seemed as if it was for people who wanted to live in a capitalist society but didn't want the loss of freedom it would inevitably entail. That seemed like wishful thinking to me. So far I haven't seen anything to change my mind.

Don't forget those 600 examples now. 100 to 1, them's my kind of numbers.

And I have to say that the woman who was gloating about marketing to children (I watched the film again myself, I hadn't seen it for a while) really moved me to want to commit violence.

Didn't the guy who said "we want everything to be privately owned" scare you at all? I mean, one of the things that I have noticed about the US is that compared to Europe, public spaces - parks, specifically - are few and far between. Paradoxically, the parks we have in the UK are partly due to the work of capitalists who understood that they benefited workers, and also to the Royal Family who have retained large parks for public use.

But the parks we have were given to our towns and cities by those capitalists, who no longer own them: and the days when the Royal Family thought they could kick the public out of those spaces are long gone. Will you be happy when you're charged entrance to McCentral Park, and when advertising hoardings take up every spare inch of space there?

Will you be happy when the Internet Commons is annexed by the corporations, and your choice of website will be severely restricted? When you're chipped and all your details are held in a database, and your ability to modify or even see those details is heavily curtailed?

Those are the endpoints of the captialist arc. Economic serfdom. Coming soon to a country near you.




posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


I think you've provided sufficient evidence...no need to add any more. Its difficult for me to argue you because I also have an aversion towards the Mc-Donaldization of the world and also toward being a corporate-slave. The difference is that I dont necessarily associate this with Libertarian ideas of what a free market is...which is nothing more than the individuals liberty to buy, sell, produce...nothing more, nothing less.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
A!nd on that we agree... I was looking forward to your 600 examples, though...


To sum it up, people should have the maximum liberty and responsibility - and so should corporations - it's just that when you start granting liberties to corporations they set about finding ways to weasel out of their responsibilites. That's because of their structure, which is geared entirely around maximising profits and being accountable to no-one but their shareholders, as embodied not by the shareholders themselves, who as individuals have precious little say (I've been to AGMs as a shareholder myself so I know what I'm talking about), but rather by a bunch of greedy corporate ##s known as the Board of Directors.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I ended up about the same place. yeah, I've been Libertarian since I was 17 and studied politics in school.




I despise socialism/liberalism as much as I despise conservatism/religio-fascism.

So long as you aren't killing, raping, kidnapping, poisoning, stealing, or making false claims about something you're selling, I think that people should be able to do whatever the hell they like with their bodies, choices, money, property, and lives in general. So long as they do not directly inhibit someone else's right to choose.

And yes, I support truly free markets. In a TRUE free market, you sink or you float, and the government doesn't bail you out. Nor does it impede you.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Of course those are not Libertarian Ideas.. hell, if Libertarians where in control back then the US would not have engaged in economic campaigns.. the Government stays out of business, especially furthering specific corporations.. that's a very Fascist idea.. it's not Capitalism, it's the mutation of Bureaucratic Corporatism inside the Government.

Personally, I don't even think that guy has posted anything negative about Capitalism in general, just corrupt governments.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Definitely agree with Skyfloating with the whole left-right thing, its deeper than that.

Hmm nice to know what I am now. Never really thought about it much since we don't tend to use those terms like libertarian and the like in my country.

Leftwing Libertarian or a Collectivist Anarchist.

Heh real close to Gandhi... and they include a Castro pic, interesting





Love the little International diagram that shows all the big movers and shakers up there in the damn neo-liberal Facist quadrant. Definitely shows a good idea of why where in the pickle we are.

Live and let live, dont push me and I wont push you (even then i might not push you back
).

Edit:- hmm odd havent read every post but is it actually possible to have a Libertarian Right Winger? ie a neo-Liberal Anarchist?... they sort of dont seem to fit at all in my mind. An example would be nice.

Edit2:- Hmm notice some people mentioning New Zealand, while we are a fairly liberal minded lot, there's just as many of us that are the opposite their just not hugly vocal like your lot in America. Given the recent change from a Labor lead government to a National lead one the country's taking a little nose dive to the right. Only took a few months for Jhon Key (national party leader) to start to show his true colors after all his we'll be more center right milarky... **sigh** Dont see em getting two terms they are already pissing off the Maori party.

[edit on 11-4-2009 by BigfootNZ]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
i think this test is a load of bs, i know my views and think that i should have fallen more as a right libertarin, but the test tells me i'm more left authoritarian, bs!

ive been told by most people i know, that i'm a right wing wacko. i would'nt go quite that far.

i belive that big corporations should be able to make profit, but when they lie to consumers, lobby the goverment to there benifit, or pollute the enviroment, or countless other things you hear about, some sort of control needs to be in place.

all the questions asked on this test are kinda slanted any way.take the bottled water question. every body pays for water,unless you have a well.
i mean, you get water from your local utilitiy company, you are paying more for them to pipe it in to you than the water, but you are still payin for it.

then theres the medical question, if you can pay for better care, why not pay for its your money.

im just sayin there needs to be a better test than this



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I couldn't figure out how to get the actual image inthe thread but I came out as slightly left leaning libertarian. Results were:

Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

I used to consider myself a liberal. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a libertarian. At times I hated calling myself a liberal but definitely couldn't call myself a conservative. I refused to even call myself one once I learned that liberals were just as bad when it came to circumventing personal freedoms in order to succeed in furthering their agenda.

I'm all constitution, all the time. If it's not in there, we don't need it and vice versa.

I too am very tired of going to several threads on ATS lately where everything seems to have turned into a partisan mud slinging fest.

For instance, in the case of the NY flyover, conservatives are using it as cannon fodder against liberals. How it's become a political issue is beyond me.

It seems that you HAVE to agree 100% with 100% of the issues on one side or the other to be considered a true supporter and if not you get pounded on for being on "the other side".

I never supported Bush and I certainly don't like Obama either. But if I say something bad about Obama people attack me for loving Bush and war. If I say I don't like Bush then I get attacked for loving Obama and get called a terrorist commie (I should say socialist since socialism seems to be the new communism :roll


It just seems to be getting worse and worse with some people.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Well a libertarian is quite simple, the left ways of thought, with right economic values. Read into authors such as Hayek, Von mises. . . etc. It's probably one of the most pragmatic ideologies out there. It supports Laissez Faire government where our government taxes us for just a police force, courts, and a national defense system.

It's a true defense of capitalism.

People try blaming capitalism and its defenders but, read on.

Reisman, Pepperdine Economics Professor, 10-23-08
[George, “The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Present Crisis,” mises.org...#, access 12-16]

The news media are in the process of creating a great new historical myth. This is the myth that our present financial crisis is the result of economic freedom and laissez-faire capitalism. The attempt to place the blame on laissez faire is readily confirmed by a Google search under the terms "crisis + laissez faire." On the first page of the results that come up, or in the web entries to which those results refer, statements of the following kind appear: "The mortgage crisis is laissez-faire gone wrong." "Sarkozy [Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France] said 'laissez-faire' economics, 'self-regulation' and the view that 'the all-powerful market' always knows best are finished." "'America's laissez-faire ideology, as practiced during the subprime crisis, was as simplistic as it was dangerous,' chipped in Peer Steinbrück, the German finance minister." "Paulson brings laissez-faire approach on financial crisis…." "It's au revoir to the days of laissez faire."[1] Recent articles in The New York Times provide further confirmation. Thus, one article declares, "The United States has a culture that celebrates laissez-faire capitalism as the economic ideal…."[2] Another article tells us, "For 30 years, the nation's political system has been tilted in favor of business deregulation and against new rules."[3] In a third article, a pair of reporters assert, "Since 1997, Mr. Brown [the British Prime Minister] has been a powerful voice behind the Labor Party's embrace of an American-style economic philosophy that was light on regulation. The laissez-faire approach encouraged the country's banks to expand internationally and chase returns in areas far afield of their core mission of attracting deposits."[4] Thus even Great Britain is described as having a "laissez-faire approach." The mentality displayed in these statements is so completely and utterly at odds with the actual meaning of laissez faire that it would be capable of describing the economic policy of the old Soviet Union as one of laissez faire in its last decades.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   

I'm not entirely sure what this means in the big scheme of things, but I like where I fell.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   


Hey, this test was cool! I wasn't so sure about their perceptions of world leaders (Thatcher wasn't THAT authoritarian), but I suppose I'm kind of happy where I ended up.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   


Very cool. Thanks for the heads up about this test!



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I have never really known where I stand so I took this test and here's what it said.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82

right near Ghandi and the Dali Lama..interesting..lol How accurate are these types of tests? Just curious. I would say this is how I feel based on what this said but who knows.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
In actuality, the square-shape of the diagram is not really precise. At the bottom (Libertarian) side it should be more cone or pyramid shaped, as Libertarianism is more of a mix of left-and-right with some anti-authoritarianism mixed in. Those on the far-left and far-right of the "Libertarian" side should actually be within the upper red and blue squares.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


To expand:

To be a Libertarian is to have your own beliefs, be them from anywhere on the political spectrum. What makes a Libertarian a Libertarian is that they can hold these wide ranging beliefs but are unified in the belief that no one man has the right to impose their own beliefs onto another man.

A Communist and a Fascist and a Religious Conservative can all be in the same party if we all follow the Constitution, only State and Local laws would be effected by their personal beliefs.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Thats a pretty good definition of both Libertarian and Liberty.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I would say the Founding Fathers all intended for us to Libertarians.. I believe that if they saw today we needed a political party to bring back the original intended philosophy they would be outraged.. But from Jefferson to Socrates.. Democracy will never work, as it's the easiest form of institutional corruption.. unless you hit the "Refresh" and keep the cycle of leaders rotating, corruption inundates the system, and in less than a generation can become something it was never intended to be.

Political parties should be banned.. it is essentially rotating the same presidency over and over and over again..



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Interesting test Sky, can't believe I missed this thread


my score:

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59

result

Does this confirm that I am boring



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Economic Left/Right: just a smidgen under 5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian 0.77

So, I'm almost smack dab where Angela Merkel is.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Im not here to bash America, but being an Australian, i've observed the current state of politics in America and compared to here, and realised how slowly nations attempt to polarize views and antagonize the opposition, which is slowly happening here, and people for some reason lose the ability to be skeptical of their own sides but will denounce EVERYTHING the other side says, rather than opening their minds to new ideas, which is dangerous. Personally i'd say im a Libertarian with the occasional Corporatist/Syndicalist view on how to deal with aspects of the economy, and i'd say I'm a centrist.






top topics



 
44
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join