Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 06:12 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 03:20 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  Strawman
Well spotted. I thought the argument was bullshit, so I gave a bullshit answer.

(16-05-2014 03:20 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  No it isnt.

There is no consistent scientific theory for economics. Nothing that can be tested again and again over and over again like gravity can be tested by dropping things.
One can merely apply models with different outcomes.
Ah. So why the hell do we have government fiscal policy and tax setting? If there are different outcomes, it's not scientific. The politicians have no right to impose their unscientific models on us. What worse, their models are genuine criminal schemes, such as "quantitative easing", an ages-old practice, fits the description of counterfeiting currency.

You might be interested in Austrian school economy, it basically agrees with what you say. It says models are bullshit, it focuses on grassroots mechanisms of people acting by their own preference, which is what actually empirically exists. I don't know what do you mean by a consistent theory, but you probably haven't yet checked this one for consistency.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 07:03 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
I haven't had time to check up on this thread and, holy shit, some of you guys have a knee-jerk reaction to anarchism.

Throughout this thread people have been generalising and asserting things. I'll go over what I saw most:
1. Anarchists are childish idealists who believe in a utopia that can never be achieved
2. What i like to call "Muh roads", or: WHO'S GONNA GET YOU YOUR STUFF?
3. Within an anarchist society there would be no way to enforce laws and everybody would just run around killing everybody (like in DayZ, eh Rev?)

Let me respond to those:
1. I do not believe in that. Like was stated before, the problems of the world will not simply vanish when the state does. There will be murderers, psychopaths, floods, earthquakes, thieves and so much more (this will be adressed in point 3 as well). Am I a young idealist? Perhaps. I'm 18 and furious, if that's what you mean. I don't think the system we live in is sustainable, we might face the biggest crises yet within the next 50 years unless things change. Do I believe that if I keep posting on the internet and listening to Rage Against The Machine we will have a happy anarchist world in 20 years? Fuck no. I'm not really even sure if we'll ever reach an anarchist society, and I'm pretty sure that I'll never see it happen. Maybe the world is just fucked, maybe inaction, ignorance and greed will tear down our society until humans go extinct in an apocalyptic fashion. I'm actually more skeptical than most anarchists, who believe that once we're all equal, everyone will be happy and free and creative and prosperous and so much more.

Does all this mean I should abandon my belief in a Dr. House-esque style? No. I will keep my beliefs and I will keep fighting for what I think is right, even if it is all futile in the end. Nietsche would have called me a loser who cannot find meaning in his own life and has to find it in a greater cause, but I think there's something noble in it. I'll probably end up graduating university, finding a job, maybe a wife and live in an apartment, not wealthy but fairly happy. But I don't think I'll ever forget what I find important, even if what I find important now will be stupid and naive in 10 years.

2. It's not like supply and demand will disappear. The difference is, people won't be slaving away making the products that some guy thought up, only to receive minimum wage while the owner takes all the cash. Roads will still be built by civil engineers. "But who will pay them?", you cry out in disbelief. Well, here things get hard. There are many forms op anarchism, who all have different views on it. Some say there would be some form of centralization and redistribution according to contribution. Me, I just don't know. I can't be bothered to read endless books about the technicalities of anarchism. Maybe this ties in to the fact that I don't think we'll ever get that far soon, so why bother working out the details?

3. That's just stupid. Law enforcement wouldn't disappear. It could be localised and members of the public could take turns or volunteer, but they will not be armed with assault rifles and riot shields and they will not be commanded by a state with only capitalist interests. There could also be a larger organised law enforcement that covers a greater area. But still, they would not be taking commands from men in suits. I honestly think that anarchist societies would be so radically different from what we have today (which is also why it could be improbable) that people wouldn't want to assert their power over others, at least not many. But we should still give any law enforcement as little power as possible, while still allowing them to do proper work.

All in all, this thread has been a mess of strawman, personal attacks and almost hatred. I thought I could spark a discussion in which people would share their views and respectfully disagree, maybe even convince each other. I started a thread about libertarianism a while back when I didn't understand it, and I didn't understand anarchism back then either. That thread made me think, changed my mind and allowed me to search for knowledge. But no, right from the get go, people like Rev had to start assuming and asserting things instead of asking "Why do you think this will work? I think it won't, here's why: ___". It's a fucking disaster and while you call yourself freethinkers, you sure have to start opening your mind a lot more.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 07:39 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  I haven't had time to check up on this thread and, holy shit, some of you guys have a knee-jerk reaction to anarchism.

I made one joke, kid.

Subsequent derailment is traceable to one special mutual friend of ours.

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  Throughout this thread people have been generalising and asserting things. I'll go over what I saw most:
1. Anarchists are childish idealists who believe in a utopia that can never be achieved
2. What i like to call "Muh roads", or: WHO'S GONNA GET YOU YOUR STUFF?
3. Within an anarchist society there would be no way to enforce laws and everybody would just run around killing everybody (like in DayZ, eh Rev?)

Uh, I guess that's one way to represent people's responses.

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  Let me respond to those:
1. I do not believe in that. Like was stated before, the problems of the world will not simply vanish when the state does. There will be murderers, psychopaths, floods, earthquakes, thieves and so much more (this will be adressed in point 3 as well).

Yes, but also, no shit - and the thing is, nobody said otherwise, nor said as much about you.

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  Am I a young idealist? Perhaps. I'm 18 and furious, if that's what you mean. I don't think the system we live in is sustainable, we might face the biggest crises yet within the next 50 years unless things change.

I think you'll find precisely none of us think the status quo is just dandy.

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  Do I believe that if I keep posting on the internet and listening to Rage Against The Machine we will have a happy anarchist world in 20 years? Fuck no. I'm not really even sure if we'll ever reach an anarchist society, and I'm pretty sure that I'll never see it happen. Maybe the world is just fucked, maybe inaction, ignorance and greed will tear down our society until humans go extinct in an apocalyptic fashion. I'm actually more skeptical than most anarchists, who believe that once we're all equal, everyone will be happy and free and creative and prosperous and so much more.

And it's precisely that "everything will magically work out" attitude that gets the skeptical reaction.

Since you, yourself experience the same reaction to that attitude, your resentment towards others here demonstrating the same reaction is born of ... ?

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  Does all this mean I should abandon my belief in a Dr. House-esque style? No. I will keep my beliefs and I will keep fighting for what I think is right, even if it is all futile in the end. Nietsche would have called me a loser who cannot find meaning in his own life and has to find it in a greater cause, but I think there's something noble in it. I'll probably end up graduating university, finding a job, maybe a wife and live in an apartment, not wealthy but fairly happy. But I don't think I'll ever forget what I find important, even if what I find important now will be stupid and naive in 10 years.

Well, sure. You'll change a lot, but some things about you won't. That's life.

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  2. It's not like supply and demand will disappear. The difference is, people won't be slaving away making the products that some guy thought up, only to receive minimum wage while the owner takes all the cash.

But of course - there'd be no minimum wage!

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  Roads will still be built by civil engineers. "But who will pay them?", you cry out in disbelief.

Yeah, nobody actually said that.

That there would still be - of necessity - organisational bodies and collective enterprise, which necessarily would be against some single individual's will at any given moment, seeing as perfect unanimity in group decisions is impossible, and perfect win-win resolutions equally impossible, make the difference rather insubstantial in some ways.

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  Well, here things get hard. There are many forms op anarchism, who all have different views on it. Some say there would be some form of centralization and redistribution according to contribution. Me, I just don't know. I can't be bothered to read endless books about the technicalities of anarchism. Maybe this ties in to the fact that I don't think we'll ever get that far soon, so why bother working out the details?

That's a very valid point, though. "Anarchism" is so broad a term as to be almost meaningless. That word alone tells me almost nothing about what you believe and why.

Since you, yourself acknowledge the issues any society would need to cope with, and you, yourself acknowledge the magical thinking some self-identified anarchists apply to solving those issues...

But surely you've made some study of the topic? I should hardly think you'd self-identify as such without deeper understanding than "it means no worries for the rest of your days".

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  3. That's just stupid. Law enforcement wouldn't disappear. It could be localised and members of the public could take turns or volunteer, but they will not be armed with assault rifles and riot shields and they will not be commanded by a state with only capitalist interests. There could also be a larger organised law enforcement that covers a greater area. But still, they would not be taking commands from men in suits.

Except they'd still need the same capacity to respond to disturbances - you grant that all the same things can and will go wrong - and they'd still have a hierarchy because in crisis situations you need a designated leader and a chain of command - that's how humans work.

(and what the crap's so evil about suits? now, there's a statement which smacks of knee-jerk emotional responses...)

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  I honestly think that anarchist societies would be so radically different from what we have today (which is also why it could be improbable) that people wouldn't want to assert their power over others, at least not many.

Ah - option 1.

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  But we should still give any law enforcement as little power as possible, while still allowing them to do proper work.

Which, interestingly enough, gets back to a point I've made many times - though, not to you that I can recall, so I'll say it again.

"As little power as possible" is an inherently subjective and eminently variable statement. It is meaningless. Even agreement in principle provides for no actual common basis, because it is a matter of opinion. It's barely any more meaningful than "as good as possible" - and surely you'll agree that that is far too empty to be of any use?

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  All in all, this thread has been a mess of strawman, personal attacks and almost hatred. I thought I could spark a discussion in which people would share their views and respectfully disagree, maybe even convince each other. I started a thread about libertarianism a while back when I didn't understand it, and I didn't understand anarchism back then either. That thread made me think, changed my mind and allowed me to search for knowledge. But no, right from the get go, people like Rev had to start assuming and asserting things instead of asking "Why do you think this will work? I think it won't, here's why: ___". It's a fucking disaster and while you call yourself freethinkers, you sure have to start opening your mind a lot more.

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior.
Dodgy

Protip for the future:
"Anyone who doesn't listen to me is soooo closed-minded!!!"
is pissy, whiny, idiotic thing to say - and that would remain true even if it weren't the favourite claim of every species of conspiracist and denialist. Think it all you like, if you're really so inclined. But don't say it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
16-05-2014, 07:42 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  I haven't had time to check up on this thread and, holy shit, some of you guys have a knee-jerk reaction to anarchism.

Throughout this thread people have been generalising and asserting things. I'll go over what I saw most:
1. Anarchists are childish idealists who believe in a utopia that can never be achieved
2. What i like to call "Muh roads", or: WHO'S GONNA GET YOU YOUR STUFF?
3. Within an anarchist society there would be no way to enforce laws and everybody would just run around killing everybody (like in DayZ, eh Rev?)

Let me respond to those:
1. I do not believe in that. Like was stated before, the problems of the world will not simply vanish when the state does. There will be murderers, psychopaths, floods, earthquakes, thieves and so much more (this will be adressed in point 3 as well). Am I a young idealist? Perhaps. I'm 18 and furious, if that's what you mean. I don't think the system we live in is sustainable, we might face the biggest crises yet within the next 50 years unless things change. Do I believe that if I keep posting on the internet and listening to Rage Against The Machine we will have a happy anarchist world in 20 years? Fuck no. I'm not really even sure if we'll ever reach an anarchist society, and I'm pretty sure that I'll never see it happen. Maybe the world is just fucked, maybe inaction, ignorance and greed will tear down our society until humans go extinct in an apocalyptic fashion. I'm actually more skeptical than most anarchists, who believe that once we're all equal, everyone will be happy and free and creative and prosperous and so much more.

Does all this mean I should abandon my belief in a Dr. House-esque style? No. I will keep my beliefs and I will keep fighting for what I think is right, even if it is all futile in the end. Nietsche would have called me a loser who cannot find meaning in his own life and has to find it in a greater cause, but I think there's something noble in it. I'll probably end up graduating university, finding a job, maybe a wife and live in an apartment, not wealthy but fairly happy. But I don't think I'll ever forget what I find important, even if what I find important now will be stupid and naive in 10 years.

Who said anything about giving up? If you want to make the world a better place good on ya. Anarchy however is not the way to go. If you want to really see a system that does work go study Nordic Socialism, it is probably the best system in the world by all metrics. Oh and my reaction is not kneejerk it is a studied one. The solution to the worlds current problems is not burn the whole thing down, as exhilarating as that sounds, but to push for a better system not one that even it's adherents acknowledge can't work. I like youthful Idealists they have a chance to make the world better if they get on the right track.

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  All in all, this thread has been a mess of strawman, personal attacks and almost hatred. I thought I could spark a discussion in which people would share their views and respectfully disagree, maybe even convince each other. I started a thread about libertarianism a while back when I didn't understand it, and I didn't understand anarchism back then either. That thread made me think, changed my mind and allowed me to search for knowledge. But no, right from the get go, people like Rev had to start assuming and asserting things instead of asking "Why do you think this will work? I think it won't, here's why: ___". It's a fucking disaster and while you call yourself freethinkers, you sure have to start opening your mind a lot more.

Yeah fucking Revs positing reality on my favorite fantasy fuck that guy. Free exchange of ideas means any idea not able to withstand being picked apart deserves to be picked apart.

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  3. That's just stupid. Law enforcement wouldn't disappear. It could be localised and members of the public could take turns or volunteer, but they will not be armed with assault rifles and riot shields and they will not be commanded by a state with only capitalist interests. There could also be a larger organised law enforcement that covers a greater area. But still, they would not be taking commands from men in suits. I honestly think that anarchist societies would be so radically different from what we have today (which is also why it could be improbable) that people wouldn't want to assert their power over others, at least not many. But we should still give any law enforcement as little power as possible, while still allowing them to do proper work.

So you propose a police state with no oversight by a duly elected government then? Oh and " I honestly think that anarchist societies would be so radically different from what we have today (which is also why it could be improbable) that people wouldn't want to assert their power over others, at least not many" is a cop out as it ignores the main problems that this insane plan has by hand washing and wishing it away.

(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  2. It's not like supply and demand will disappear. The difference is, people won't be slaving away making the products that some guy thought up, only to receive minimum wage while the owner takes all the cash. Roads will still be built by civil engineers. "But who will pay them?", you cry out in disbelief. Well, here things get hard. There are many forms op anarchism, who all have different views on it. Some say there would be some form of centralization and redistribution according to contribution. Me, I just don't know. I can't be bothered to read endless books about the technicalities of anarchism. Maybe this ties in to the fact that I don't think we'll ever get that far soon, so why bother working out the details?

Hmm what was life like before we had Government regulation on industry... oh that's right it was practically slavery. When left to their own devices most people put profits before workers so by removing the only thing able to stand up to a corporation Anarchy has just sentenced everyone to a life of slave labor. As to our civil engineer he has way more problems in that system than who is paying him and with what. Where is he getting his material from how is he getting labor who commissioned this road? Oh and why bother proposing this mess of an idea if you have no idea how it works? This is why everyone laughs at Anarchists and shakes their head they have no answers to any of the real world problems.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 07:51 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 07:03 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  I haven't had time to check up on this thread and, holy shit, some of you guys have a knee-jerk reaction to anarchism.

Throughout this thread people have been generalising and asserting things. I'll go over what I saw most:
1. Anarchists are childish idealists who believe in a utopia that can never be achieved
2. What i like to call "Muh roads", or: WHO'S GONNA GET YOU YOUR STUFF?
3. Within an anarchist society there would be no way to enforce laws and everybody would just run around killing everybody (like in DayZ, eh Rev?)

Let me respond to those:
1. I do not believe in that. Like was stated before, the problems of the world will not simply vanish when the state does. There will be murderers, psychopaths, floods, earthquakes, thieves and so much more (this will be adressed in point 3 as well). Am I a young idealist? Perhaps. I'm 18 and furious, if that's what you mean. I don't think the system we live in is sustainable, we might face the biggest crises yet within the next 50 years unless things change. Do I believe that if I keep posting on the internet and listening to Rage Against The Machine we will have a happy anarchist world in 20 years? Fuck no. I'm not really even sure if we'll ever reach an anarchist society, and I'm pretty sure that I'll never see it happen. Maybe the world is just fucked, maybe inaction, ignorance and greed will tear down our society until humans go extinct in an apocalyptic fashion. I'm actually more skeptical than most anarchists, who believe that once we're all equal, everyone will be happy and free and creative and prosperous and so much more.

Does all this mean I should abandon my belief in a Dr. House-esque style? No. I will keep my beliefs and I will keep fighting for what I think is right, even if it is all futile in the end. Nietsche would have called me a loser who cannot find meaning in his own life and has to find it in a greater cause, but I think there's something noble in it. I'll probably end up graduating university, finding a job, maybe a wife and live in an apartment, not wealthy but fairly happy. But I don't think I'll ever forget what I find important, even if what I find important now will be stupid and naive in 10 years.

2. It's not like supply and demand will disappear. The difference is, people won't be slaving away making the products that some guy thought up, only to receive minimum wage while the owner takes all the cash. Roads will still be built by civil engineers. "But who will pay them?", you cry out in disbelief. Well, here things get hard. There are many forms op anarchism, who all have different views on it. Some say there would be some form of centralization and redistribution according to contribution. Me, I just don't know. I can't be bothered to read endless books about the technicalities of anarchism. Maybe this ties in to the fact that I don't think we'll ever get that far soon, so why bother working out the details?

3. That's just stupid. Law enforcement wouldn't disappear. It could be localised and members of the public could take turns or volunteer, but they will not be armed with assault rifles and riot shields and they will not be commanded by a state with only capitalist interests. There could also be a larger organised law enforcement that covers a greater area. But still, they would not be taking commands from men in suits. I honestly think that anarchist societies would be so radically different from what we have today (which is also why it could be improbable) that people wouldn't want to assert their power over others, at least not many. But we should still give any law enforcement as little power as possible, while still allowing them to do proper work.

All in all, this thread has been a mess of strawman, personal attacks and almost hatred. I thought I could spark a discussion in which people would share their views and respectfully disagree, maybe even convince each other. I started a thread about libertarianism a while back when I didn't understand it, and I didn't understand anarchism back then either. That thread made me think, changed my mind and allowed me to search for knowledge. But no, right from the get go, people like Rev had to start assuming and asserting things instead of asking "Why do you think this will work? I think it won't, here's why: ___". It's a fucking disaster and while you call yourself freethinkers, you sure have to start opening your mind a lot more.
NL atheist, your response gives the impression that your advocacy of anarchy is based mainly on emotion. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but you should recognize it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 04:32 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 04:52 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 03:02 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Anarchy means WITHOUT RULERS, not without rules! There can only be real rules made if there is no central authority which can set, enforce and violate rules at will.

Dafuq that even mean? How are these "real" rules gonna be agreed upon and enforced? In the ThunderDome? Two men enter, one man leave!

(16-05-2014 03:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Socialism does not work, because the state does not produce anything at all, it does is mugging people and wasting wealth. Socialism works despite of itself, not because of itself.

Who the fuck you think built the Hoover Dam.

You do realize the US is already socialist right? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, subsidized housing, ...

[Image: keepgovernmentoutofmymedicare.jpg]

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
16-05-2014, 04:41 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 04:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 03:02 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Anarchy means WITHOUT RULERS, not without rules! There can only be real rules made if there is no central authority which can set, enforce and violate rules at will.

Dafuq that even mean? How are these "real" rules gonna be enforced?

(16-05-2014 03:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Socialism does not work, because the state does not produce anything at all, it does is mugging people and wasting wealth. Socialism works despite of itself, not because of itself.

Who the fuck you think built the Hoover Dam.

You do realize the US is already socialist right? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, subsidized housing, ...

[Image: keepgovernmentoutofmymedicare.jpg]

Be careful bringing facts into this thread. You'll get called an asshole.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
16-05-2014, 05:21 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 04:41 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Be careful bringing facts into this thread. You'll get called an asshole.

meh ... been called worse.

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
16-05-2014, 05:25 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 05:21 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 04:41 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Be careful bringing facts into this thread. You'll get called an asshole.

meh ... been called worse.

Yeah but you know Manly loves you. Tongue

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
16-05-2014, 05:52 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 05:55 PM by The Germans are coming.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 06:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Well spotted. I thought the argument was bullshit, so I gave a bullshit answer.

Why is there no "I meant to (not) do that in the first place!" meme?




Quote:Ah. So why the hell do we have government fiscal policy and tax setting? If there are different outcomes, it's not scientific. The politicians have no right to impose their unscientific models on us. What worse, their models are genuine criminal schemes, such as "quantitative easing", an ages-old practice, fits the description of counterfeiting currency.

Why should science be the guiding principle on how we model our society.

Quote:You might be interested in Austrian school economy, it basically agrees with what you say. It says models are bullshit, it focuses on grassroots mechanisms of people acting by their own preference, which is what actually empirically exists. I don't know what do you mean by a consistent theory, but you probably haven't yet checked this one for consistency.

I have read Hayek before you could even walk.

Hayek disaproved of national banks and state control over currency and especialy the bail out policy of Kensian economics. His theories are however non-scientific they apply evolutionary concepts on society, similar to how the psychologist Bühler applied evolutionary principles partialy on his studies of moral developments in psychology. Neither of which are scientific because when replicated the experimants do not necerely bring the same results, due to the lack of a consistent testing ground.
So they both may be applied, but can only hint to how things work and do not work as perfect models for predicting social developments.

Also, Hayek did not disaprove of safety networks and advocated the establishment of national health services payed by tax money. He called himself not a liberterian, but an "old whig" in reference to the British Whig party of the 19th century.

Advice that American liberterians consistantly ignore.

Hayek was an economic and social liberterian. Not a social darwinist like you lot.

Your consistent attitude of being some wise old man who can lecture others, is becoming annoying.

All you say, has been said before, by similar people on this forum. A point you ignored previously, since it seems to be your only goal to post as much Americanised liberterian stuff as possible and preaching an Americanised gospel of the free market. All whilest ignoring that this is mainly a social platform for people to meeet up and share life and not just politics. In a way, you coming here to convert people, doest make you that much different from the sobs repeating christian appologetics.

(22-05-2014 06:23 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I abstain from all forms of sexual acts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: