The Fallacy of Collectivism - Ludwig von Mises

Now to add:

Libertarians and the like are NOT opposed to voluntarily joined and operated social networks, social support systems, etc. All of them know that survival depends on working with others. In fact... when given full opportunity for operation most socialists/communists would be surprised how naturally and easily many of the things they are trying to force at the point of a gun and power of the state will develop locally around them.

Their only contention is that these programs must be *voluntary*. Those who choose to participate will reap the claimed rewards of participating. They are actively invested in the operation and success. Those who do not participate do not receive any support. That is their choice and it is to be respected... and any help offered to them is offered voluntarily. Nobody will force you with a gun to empty your pockets for their choice.

Their belief (and history has proven it time and time again) is that having local safety nets is the way to go... because if one of them falls due to mismanagement or unexpected calamity... the rest can continue. And not only can they continue... they often can help absorb those left out when the other one fell. When we create an all encompassing net... then we ALL live or fall *at once* and can do so due to the actions of a tiny fraction of people.

Creating a national safety net and destroying the local ones *increases* everyone's exposure to risk... not decreases. Forcing people to participate does not make them as equally invested and interested in the success of it as one who voluntarily joins.

Having hundreds if not thousands of nets ensures that when 10 fall at once, there are still 90 or 990 fully functional.

It also means that they can all continue to try unique things and learn from each other and grow and improve in quality as opposed to having one system... which without anything to contrast itself against... becomes blind to its weaknesses and harm being caused. Criticism threatens the entire system, especially those "running" it, and must be suppressed.

People will naturally create safety nets around themselves because they *are* logical.

Libertarians are not "every man for himself" "strongest will survive". We are fully aware that there are people out there who want to hurt others and it requires standing together.

The problem is with handing this over to a state... a state which may support you today... but consider you an enemy tomorrow when the people you thought you were being protected from suddenly take control of the steering wheel.

And now you've handed over all ability to survive without them... so you must comply to them or suffer the consequences. Fines at the least. Imprisonment at the modest. Death in the extreme. Because remember... the people who truly *don't care about you* put on the sheep's clothing and are now driving the boat.

Enjoy the ride!

BardingTheBard

Krazysh0t
I've thought of a word to describe him. I'll give you a hint it starts with a t and rhymes with bowl. Keep talking to him though, they are always hungry.

/salute

I'll confess a secret I discovered about internet "debate" when running amok on Usenet in the late 90's that helps guide the approach.

Rarely are any of us really talking to the person we're discussing with... but the much larger audience of silent observers.

Hello all of you! Thank you for your time and consideration of the information being offered!

They are the ones that take the nature of the discussion with them and ripple effect the information provided out into the rest of the world and day to day lives, conversations over dinner, etc. "I read an interesting thing today I had never heard of before..."

edit on 18-10-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)

Very true, a lively debate is interesting and informative. Even obfuscation, such as we see from Pejeu, is very helpful if only to familiarize people with tried and true propaganda tools. Misdirection has proven to be successful beyond our wildest nightmares throughout world history, if anything it has increased in recent years.

This makes personal awareness vital to the continued existence of personal liberty. After all, 'we' (believers in freedom) have to win every argument to keep our rights wheres 'they' (adherents of authoritative order) need only win a single argument or sew disinterest and apathy to advance the cause of totalitarianism further into our lives.

The stakes are just as high as they have ever been, maybe higher. It is our very existence and the existence of the human spirit itself that is threatened with annihilation if we fail to repel borders.

Make no mistake, socialism, collectivism, fascism, communism or whatever totalitarian ideology that claims to protect you from yourself has the desire and the capability to extinguish all of what we hold dear.

reply to post by greencmp

After further contemplation... I take back everything I've said about Pejeu (but not about collectivism/libertarianism).

Pejeu is the ultimate sheep in wolf's clothing. Yes I mean it as I wrote it.

Pejeu has probably managed to get more supporters of collectivism to watch the likes of G. Edward Griffin and others than we who are openly suggesting they be investigated probably have.

The supporters of collectivism go into the videos expecting to see something supporting their cause, because it is being offered up as evidence by someone seeming to support said cause.

They watch it and wait... they keep waiting... they even hear the people in the video explain clearly how these financial mechanisms have consistently been the tools used to confiscate the wealth of everyone in the name of collectivism and transferring it to a small minority living outside the rules they've established for everyone else.

Many may not even recognize it at first... but due to being in a receptive state of mind believing they are getting something supporting their views... the seeds are planted and it will be unavoidable over the days, weeks, months, and years to not start seeing the same patterns we have been openly trying to raise awareness of.

My hat tip to you Pejeu... your efforts supporting the cause of human freedom and liberty from totalitarian collectivism is profound.

My apologies for blowing your cover.

/salute

NavyDoc
Raising capital to expand a business for profit is the very antithesis of socialism.

That is a hollow, arbitrary claim.

Communism itself is the idea that the employees be the stockholders.

That's all it is.

It is not the state owning all the means of production. That's state capitalism. Possibly even fascism.

Unless all citizens are stock holders and receive an equal dividend just by the virtue of being citizens of the state.

Which again something I am completely in favour of (a guaranteed, unconditional basic income).

And so was Milton Friedman.



Or was he a Fabian Socialist Statist as well?

We get it, like the Nazis you hate jewish bankers, are a statist, favor eugenics for the undesireables, would put people into camps, etc.

Luckily we stopped your ilk in 1945 and hopefully will continue to do so.

Where did I say I liked the Nazis and hated jewish bankers?

Can you not debate without resorting to dishonesty?

I am a statist, I hate all bankers, I favour eugenics (I think it is necessary for the long term survival and prosperity of man kind; but you can think of it as bioengineering applied toward the betterment of the human species if the connotations of the word 'eugenics' put you off) and would put bankers in forced labour camps.

BardingTheBard
reply to post by greencmp

 

I haven't been able to figure out whether Pejeu's usage of all the documentaries regarding the international banking system/Federal Reserve are an utterly brilliant new tactic to confuse the dialog... or they truly don't understand that they are attacking the very system implemented by openly stated socialists that allows a socialist system to exist in the first place.

I honestly never thought I'd see someone use G. Edward Griffin in defense of socialism.

It must be genius... because even I'm not jaded enough yet to believe someone could miss the message so... so... there actually isn't a word I can think of to describe the magnitude of how much the message has been missed.

Are you in favour of abolishing banking altogether, not just central banking?

Yes or no?

If no, who's the one doing the deceiving here, exactly?

BardingTheBard
reply to post by greencmp

 

After further contemplation... I take back everything I've said about Pejeu (but not about collectivism/libertarianism).

Pejeu is the ultimate sheep in wolf's clothing. Yes I mean it as I wrote it.

Pejeu has probably managed to get more supporters of collectivism to watch the likes of G. Edward Griffin and others than we who are openly suggesting they be investigated probably have.

The supporters of collectivism go into the videos expecting to see something supporting their cause, because it is being offered up as evidence by someone seeming to support said cause.

They watch it and wait... they keep waiting... they even hear the people in the video explain clearly how these financial mechanisms have consistently been the tools used to confiscate the wealth of everyone in the name of collectivism and transferring it to a small minority living outside the rules they've established for everyone else.

Many may not even recognize it at first... but due to being in a receptive state of mind believing they are getting something supporting their views... the seeds are planted and it will be unavoidable over the days, weeks, months, and years to not start seeing the same patterns we have been openly trying to raise awareness of.

My hat tip to you Pejeu... your efforts supporting the cause of human freedom and liberty from totalitarian collectivism is profound.

My apologies for blowing your cover.

/salute

edit on 18-10-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)

It's funny you say that, earlier in the thread I was tempted to assure everybody that Pejeu wasn't a shill for my team.

I decided against it since it would just cause confusion!

BardingTheBard

Pejeu
People like you erode my faith in humanity.

I fear for the long term future of our species without full-scale adoption of eugenics.

The movie you linked to... Idiocracy... is displaying a socialist society.

A system is in place where everyone is taken care of by the state where all their needs are accounted for and taken care of. There are some charged with managing the system, but the system is so much larger than them they can't fully account for the long term effect of their actions... thus everyone winds up drinking the state sponsored Brondo and watering their lawns with it.

LOOK at the movie. Really LOOK at it. Nobody is required to do anything because everything is taken care of. LOOK at what happens to them over time. Not just the first couple of decades while people are still alive who remember what personal responsibility is whether there is anyone around to pick you up when you fall or not... as opposed to people who have only ever experienced "the government will handle it if something goes wrong" and don't know what to do when the government encounters something it *can't* handle.

edit on 18-10-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)

So you are advocating natural selection instead then?

Social darwinism?

You know the monarchs of Europe loved Darwin's ideas.

They could now actually claim it was scientifically proven they are better than any and every person/subject living in their respective kingdoms and empires.

You do realize the kind of traits genetic and character traits such a un"natural" selection would select for and favour are actually quite abhorrent? Do you even care?

Or do you believe embezzling the whole world makes you evolutionarily worthy to pass on your genes?

Or is there something else between eugenics and social pseudo-darwinism, a third way that I'm just not getting?

Is there any commons left anywhere in the world where a genetically and otherwise worthy person born into poverty can emigrate to improve their lot in life by merit, by hard work and ingenuity and not circumstance and happenstance?

Don't you want future generations to be healthier, more intelligent, stronger, faster, fitter?

How do you suggest that goal may be strived for?

Would you willingly carry or have your spouse carry to term a child you KNOW (knew since the first week of pregnancy) will have Down's?

Yes or no, truthful answer please.

Pejeu
I am a statist, I hate all bankers, I favour eugenics (I think it is necessary for the long term survival and prosperity of man kind; but you can think of it as bioengineering applied toward the betterment of the human species if the connotations of the word 'eugenics' put you off) and would put bankers in forced labour camps.

Are you comfortable with me personally making the eugenics decisions and who belongs in forced labor camps?

What if you wake up and realize I'm in control of the state you were previously in control of?

Pejeu
Are you in favour of abolishing banking altogether, not just central banking?

Yes or no?

If no, who's the one doing the deceiving here, exactly?

Absolutely not. No more than I'm in support of abolishing storage facilities.

Just as a storage facility lives and dies on its ability to protect the product you've placed in it... so too must a bank. When a bank is relieved of its duty... by the state... to actually protect and have on hand the items you've deposited... it is no different than a storage facility that sells the items you've placed in the garage and gives you an IOU when you come to claim your property.

Central banking controlling the *currency* of a nation is not remotely the same thing as a local bank acting as a storage facility.

Banks pretending to be Banks but in truth being Investment Houses (aka gambling in the market with their depositors money without their knowing) are in the same boat as central banking in terms of being a fraud.

People have become so confused because they've probably never seen an actual bank in operation in their entire lifetime. They've seen investment houses and currency creators hiding behind the name "bank" and never learned the difference.

greencmp
It's funny you say that, earlier in the thread I was tempted to assure everybody that Pejeu wasn't a shill for my team.

I decided against it since it would just cause confusion!

It certainly can't cause anymore confusion than this waterfall of flailing... ummm...

BardingTheBard
Absolutely not. No more than I'm in support of abolishing storage facilities.

So you are no more than a liar and a hypocrite and a shill for the rich that game the current system.

Like greencmp, navydoc, openmindedrealist and the rest of the gang.

That's all I needed to know.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of continuing to write you replies and read yours.

Pejeu
So you are advocating natural selection instead then?
Social darwinism?

No, but I can understand why you are so confused you might believe I do.

Pejeu
They could now actually claim it was scientifically proven they are better than any and every person/subject living in their respective kingdoms and empires.

Says the person that goes on to claim they have the ability to know who should live and who should die.

Pejeu
Would you willingly carry or have your spouse carry to term a child you KNOW (knew since the first week of pregnancy) will have Down's?

Yes.

You'd be surprised how much love a person with Downs has to offer and can be offered in return. I'm sorry you are so full of love you want to kill people with your love.

I would sooner eradicate those who desire to kill those that don't fit their mold of "perfection". But I won't... because I'm not a god damn monster.

I'm not so elitism filled that I would ever claim to know what contributions someone will be able to make to civilization... regardless of their outward appearance or physical challenges.

BardingTheBard
Yes.

Fair enough.

I wouldn't. And you can take that to the bank, so to speak.

I wouldn't take your claim to the bank.

I think, at best, you're lying to yourself just to get a one-up on someone anonymous person you're debating on an internet forum.

At worst you'd make your spouse carry a Down child to term against her wishes.

I find both unconscionable.

Pejeu
That's all I needed to know.

Thank you for saving my the trouble of writing you replies and reading yours.

That's fine. I'll just let you debate yourself then.

------------------

BardingTheBard
Absolutely not. No more than I'm in support of abolishing storage facilities.

Pejeu
So you are no more than a liar and a hypocrite and a shill for the rich that game the current system.

Like greencmp, navydoc, openmindedrealist and the rest of the gang.

Pejeu
Can you not debate without resorting to dishonesty?

------------------

Pejeu
Where did I say I liked the Nazis...

Pejeu
Don't you want future generations to be healthier, more intelligent, stronger, faster, fitter?

Nazi Eugenics

-------------

Pejeu
...and hated jewish bankers?

Pejeu
...and would put bankers in forced labour camps.

Nazi concentration camps - I will concede that you are quite the humanitarian because you've expanded your circle of slave labor to include non-jews.

Pejeu

NavyDoc
Raising capital to expand a business for profit is the very antithesis of socialism.

That is a hollow, arbitrary claim.

Communism itself is the idea that the employees be the stockholders.

That's all it is.

It is not the state owning all the means of production. That's state capitalism. Possibly even fascism.

Unless all citizens are stock holders and receive an equal dividend just by the virtue of being citizens of the state.

Which again something I am completely in favour of (a guaranteed, unconditional basic income).

And so was Milton Friedman.

Or was he a Fabian Socialist Statist as well?

We get it, like the Nazis you hate jewish bankers, are a statist, favor eugenics for the undesireables, would put people into camps, etc.

Luckily we stopped your ilk in 1945 and hopefully will continue to do so.

Where did I say I liked the Nazis and hated jewish bankers?

Can you not debate without resorting to dishonesty?

I am a statist, I hate all bankers, I favour eugenics (I think it is necessary for the long term survival and prosperity of man kind; but you can think of it as bioengineering applied toward the betterment of the human species if the connotations of the word 'eugenics' put you off) and would put bankers in forced labour camps.

BardingTheBard
reply to post by greencmp

 

I haven't been able to figure out whether Pejeu's usage of all the documentaries regarding the international banking system/Federal Reserve are an utterly brilliant new tactic to confuse the dialog... or they truly don't understand that they are attacking the very system implemented by openly stated socialists that allows a socialist system to exist in the first place.

I honestly never thought I'd see someone use G. Edward Griffin in defense of socialism.

It must be genius... because even I'm not jaded enough yet to believe someone could miss the message so... so... there actually isn't a word I can think of to describe the magnitude of how much the message has been missed.

Are you in favour of abolishing banking altogether, not just central banking?

Yes or no?

If no, who's the one doing the deceiving here, exactly?

edit on 2013/10/18 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

It is timely that you should bring up Friedman and the reverse income tax.

While I have many problems with Friedman, in this case, his point was to expose just how much waste there is in state social services and I agree with him. The fact that most benefactors of current services would receive roughly the same amount if the totality of the welfare state was dismantled and redistributed evenly across all citizens is hard, if not impossible, to counter.

If we were to begin walking back state welfare, I must recognize that it is the only viable first step in the process given how dependent people have become. Even though he never intended for it to be implemented, it happens to be better than continuing to hemorrhage resources into the hands of welfare employees. If said employees are citizens they will even get a share (not nearly as enormous but not nothing).

Once that is done, we can begin the national conversation about how we came to this state of dependence and how we might undue the damage and restore individual productivity.

BardingTheBard
Says the person that goes on to claim they have the ability to know who should live and who should die.

I claimed no such abilities.

All I was doing was being unhypocritical.

Pejeu
I think, at best, you're lying to yourself just to get a one-up on someone anonymous person you're debating on an internet forum.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Pejeu
At worst you'd make your spouse carry a Down child to term against her wishes.

Liar. This is what you asked.

Pejeu
Would you willingly carry or have your spouse carry to term a child you KNOW (knew since the first week of pregnancy) will have Down's?

Nowhere did you ask if I would force a spouse to carry any child against her wishes. The answer is no.

Pejeu
I find both unconscionable.

You are now documented flagrantly lying and misrepresenting others. I will again leave you to debate yourself.

Pejeu
...you're lying to yourself just to get a one-up on someone anonymous person you're debating on an internet forum

BardingTheBard
You'd be surprised how much love a person with Downs has to offer and can be offered in return. I'm sorry you are so full of love you want to kill people with your love.

I would sooner eradicate those who desire to kill those that don't fit their mold of "perfection". But I won't... because I'm not a god damn monster.

I'm not so elitism filled that I would ever claim to know what contributions someone will be able to make to civilization... regardless of their outward appearance or physical challenges.

Well said, a simple example of the best features of humanity that occurs only in an unstructured and unplanned society.

BardingTheBard
Libertarians are not "every man for himself" "strongest will survive".

Not explicitly, no.

Those are just the inevitable consequences of shaping society in the image of conservative / liberal (in the European sense) / libertarian pseudo-philosophy.

Just as manufacturing weapons for terrorists and selling them to terrorists for them to be terroristic with doesn't mean you're a “terrorist”.

Terrorism is just follows almost without fail from your actions.

It may have escaped you that the people of Switzerland have initiated a referendum on the question of a guaranteed, unconditional basic/minimum income.

The people of Switzerland will now have a referendum on the issue.

I supposed the Swiss are a people of monsters, then?

Especially if the yays will have it and enact a guaranteed basic income.

BardingTheBard
Says the person that goes on to claim they have the ability to know who should live and who should die.

Pejeu
I claimed no such abilities.

All I was doing was being unhypocritical.

Liar.

Pejeu
Would you willingly carry or have your spouse carry to term a child you KNOW (knew since the first week of pregnancy) will have Down's?

Pejeu
I wouldn't. And you can take that to the bank, so to speak.

It doesn't matter if it's in the first week... you've made the decision that person which if you don't interfere with *will live*... should not be given the opportunity to live.

BardingTheBard
Just as a storage facility lives and dies on its ability to protect the product you've placed in it... so too must a bank. When a bank is relieved of its duty... by the state... to actually protect and have on hand the items you've deposited... it is no different than a storage facility that sells the items you've placed in the garage and gives you an IOU when you come to claim your property.

Central banking controlling the *currency* of a nation is not remotely the same thing as a local bank acting as a storage facility.

Banks pretending to be Banks but in truth being Investment Houses (aka gambling in the market with their depositors money without their knowing) are in the same boat as central banking in terms of being a fraud.

People have become so confused because they've probably never seen an actual bank in operation in their entire lifetime. They've seen investment houses and currency creators hiding behind the name "bank" and never learned the difference.

Banking is by definition fractional reserve banking.

If it's not fractional reserve it ain't banking.

You are lying/purposefully obfuscating/disinforming.

If you were an honest interlocutor you would have already acknowledged the fact that I do not want to abolish money or money warehouses/safe keeping facilities and/or payment intermediation clearing houses.

I want them not to be able, by law, to also lend money if they already provide payment intermediation and money safe-housing / warehousing services.

Because if they are also allowed to lend then they will inevitably find creative ways of accounting in order to lend their depositors money or against their depositors money and thereby become again... guess what?

A bank!

You know, just the nasty things I wanted abolished in the first place?

If I quote you my post where I discuss this and others with crimvelvet will you admit your libel of me?

BardingTheBard

Liar.

Where?

Post the conflicting statements next to each other.

It doesn't matter if it's in the first week...

Of course it would matter to me if it was capable of feeling pain or not.

That's why I'd do it early if it was me.

you've made the decision that person which if you don't interfer *will live*... should not be given the opportunity to live.

That is not a person from the moment of conception.

I am against the abortion of genetically healthy foetuses.

But I would still leave the decision to the woman, even if I didn't like it.

But we digress.