Calling all Libertarians! I have some questions.

reply to post by Jezus


What this essentially comes down to is that you are saying Blacks got free because of Whites. What Im saying is that Blacks got Free because of Blacks.

Its the classic debate between Libertarians who believe the individual is responsible for his own destiny and the socialist who does not believe so.

I guarantee that if there were no more Government tommorow we, as a human species, would still survive. We are programmed to.

Governments purpose should be to provide a little protection, thats true. Im not anti-Government. But beyond that big Government is not needed.

reply to post by Skyfloating


The distinction is a delusion.

"The Government" is people organizing and taking action.

Originally posted by Jezus

"The Government" is people organizing and taking action.

I agree. Just like "A Corporation" is people organizing and taking action, right?

What a Libertarian wants is more local Government (people organizing and taking action on behalf of locals) and fewer but representative decision makers (where there are too many, nothing gets done).

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Jezus

"The Government" is people organizing and taking action.

I agree. Just like "A Corporation" is people organizing and taking action, right?

Exactly.

"The Government" needs to be strong enough to prevent corporations from destroying the environment and enslaving the masses...

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Jezus

"The Government" is people organizing and taking action.

I agree. Just like "A Corporation" is people organizing and taking action, right?

Exactly.

"The Government" needs to be strong enough to prevent corporations from destroying the environment and enslaving the masses...

Corporations are the result of and exist as a result of Government, without Government Corporations could not wield a monopolistic strangle hold backed by the violence of the state

Originally posted by NuroSlam
Corporations are the result of and exist as a result of Government, without Government Corporations could not wield a monopolistic strangle hold backed by the violence of the state

This is true. Replace the term corporation with capitalism, then you would be spot on.

Corporations are the inevitable result of capitalists in their goal to centralize economic power, with protection from government, and that is fascism.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
what if you had capitalism with a wealth cap(higher == community tax) or capitalism with banned private ownership(coops or npo only)?

Capitalism is private ownership. Coops are socialism.

Capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production', it is the only definition that matters in this context.
Anything else it claims can also be had in other economic systems.

Would that help anarcho-capitalism be more "hands off"?

No. Capitalism is capitalism. If the system does not have private ownership of the means of production it's not capitalism. Just like if there is no communally owned free distribution of goods it's not communism, so Russia etc., were not communist.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by NuroSlam
Corporations are the result of and exist as a result of Government, without Government Corporations could not wield a monopolistic strangle hold backed by the violence of the state

This is true. Replace the term corporation with capitalism, then you would be spot on.

Corporations are the inevitable result of capitalists in their goal to centralise economic power, with protection from government, and that is fascism.

But you still need to address the very nature of government even after you deal with capitalism where as if you remove government your concept of capitalism collapses.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
But you still need to address the very nature of government even after you deal with capitalism where as if you remove government your concept of capitalism collapses.

I don't think removing the government would cause capitalism to collapse. It has to be the other way around because capitalists really have the power, not government. Without capitalist control over government, government would be a lot easier to deal with, get rid of, change, whatever.

The one thing we need to get straight is government and economic should not be in bed together, that is fascism.

Anarchism wasn't really about getting rid of government per se, it was about breaking down hierarchical systems. What came first private ownership or government/state? Private ownership, capitalism is what created the need for government and state. Anarchists were socialists, they took the term Anarchist to differentiate themselves from the state socialists, Marxists. Even in Anarchism there would be a form of 'government', but it would be local and temporary, and called committees or something. It would be people from the community coming together to solve problems on behalf of the community. A different concept to career politicians.

Permaculture is something we should be looking at...

Permaculture is a design system based on ethics and design principles which can be used to establish, design, manage and improve all efforts made by individuals, households and communities towards a sustainable future.

A way of designing life and life systems that are sustainable. We have to realise our own potentials.

Originally posted by ANOK
I don't think removing the government would cause capitalism to collapse. It has to be the other way around because capitalists really have the power, not government. Without capitalist control over government, government would be a lot easier to deal with, get rid of, change, whatever.

By removing Government from the equation, you remove the things that prop up "capitalism", You remove governments legal/justice system of protection from the corporate entity allowing the consumer/employee to actually get restitution for harm done. This alone would collapse the concept of capitalism you have. Doing the reverse still leaves government in the power of enslaving the people.

The one thing we need to get straight is government and economic should not be in bed together, that is fascism.

Anarchism wasn't really about getting rid of government per se, it was about breaking down hierarchical systems. What came first private ownership or government/state? Private ownership, capitalism is what created the need for government and state.
.

In one form or another "government" has always been around. From "God" to King to Statism. It has always had its boot on the neck of the populace.

Permaculture is something we should be looking at...

It looks like a wonderful way of life for some people but what about those that don't share the same beliefs? The answer to that is in the second video you sourced
"we need to put limits on population and consumption"
This is the very reason socialism cannot exist without the need either for an oppressive government or a systematic use of eugenics to cull the population down to only those that "feel" the same way.

There doesn't exist a place for anyone with a differing opinion, for someone to express desire for individuality, art and science would die as the need for achievement would not be needed leaving only the will to produce for the "community" what is "needed" and not what could be wanted.

Even when you look at the most advanced "social" model of a community, that of an ant colony, still require the oligarchy of the queen to exist and the biological addiction to pheromones that enslaves them, its really nothing more then a drug induced state of "utopia".

reply to post by Skyfloating

I guarantee that if there were no more Government tomorrow we, as a human species, would still survive. We are programmed to.

I agree that we would survive without government. But would we improve?

I always thought it was the obligation of government to be innovative, fund scientific research and improve the quality of life for everyone.

I mean look at NASA. One of the most influential and groundbreaking scientific agencies in the world. Our government today has butchered the program, but in a world without government would such an organization even exist? Voluntary charity would only bring in so much funding, because people are greedy.

Originally posted by Openeye

I agree that we would survive without government. But would we improve?

I always thought it was the obligation of government to be innovative, fund scientific research and improve the quality of life for everyone.

I mean look at NASA. One of the most influential and groundbreaking scientific agencies in the world. Our government today has butchered the program, but in a world without government would such an organization even exist? Voluntary charity would only bring in so much funding, because people are greedy.

I agree. I do believe some organized group-efforts are necessary to progress. There's a difference between Anarchist and Libertarian.

NASA is great. The problem starts when Government starts trying to regulate everything to the tiniest detail. For example a greek friend of mine recently told me that due to zoning law he had to cut his balcony shorter because it no longer accorded to the new regulations imposed by the semi-socialist greek Government. And people wonder why Greece is facing financial difficulty.

Originally posted by Openeye

I always thought it was the obligation of government to be innovative, fund scientific research and improve the quality of life for everyone.

I mean look at NASA. One of the most influential and groundbreaking scientific agencies in the world. Our government today has butchered the program, but in a world without government would such an organization even exist? Voluntary charity would only bring in so much funding, because people are greedy.

Its governments obligation only to protect the individuals life liberty and property, every single individual not just the selected.

Originally posted by NuroSlam

Originally posted by Jezus

"The Government" needs to be strong enough to prevent corporations from destroying the environment and enslaving the masses...

Corporations are the result of and exist as a result of Government, without Government Corporations could not wield a monopolistic strangle hold backed by the violence of the state

Our government is controlled by corporations. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Those that control these corporations benefit from and depend on "the government" more than anyone else; by far.

However, we can still use "the government" to prevent these people from destroying the environment and enslaving people.

The framework is there, people just need to focus.

Originally posted by Jezus
Our government is controlled by corporations. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Those that control these corporations benefit from and depend on "the government" more than anyone else; by far.

However, we can still use "the government" to prevent these people from destroying the environment and enslaving people.

The framework is there, people just need to focus.

Whats to focus on, as long as there is a government there will be those with money which will control it. all these stop gap measures do nothing but prolong the agony of the populace. Government must go, and when government is gone so will be state sponsored corporatism.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
Whats to focus on, as long as there is a government there will be those with money which will control it.

Focus can prevent money from controlling government.

The Military - Pharmaceutical - Prison industrial is already so powerful that if "the government" were to collapse we would be even more enslaved by the plutocracy.

If we don't use "the government" to control corporations the corporations will continue to use "the government" to control us...

Plus the environment will continue to be destroyed and only "the rich" will be able to pay for the massive technology and resources necessary to prevent contamination from a poisoned world...