Anything That's Peaceful

[southerncross]

I came to the conclusion a while ago that I could fight every battle I perceived or saw with regards to what I personally determined my rights to be in this world, or I could just get on with my life and fight those battle that impinged upon my own personal perceived rights.

Along the way I figured out that there are a lot of stupid people around ( I SEE THEM EVERYWHERE). I came to the conclusion that I should not involve myself or mine in their arguments with the world as it just distracts from my own enjoyment of life.

Bord, your wasting your effort on people who want to argue over a barking dog, and who seek to make that a point while they seem unable to grasp the fundamentals of what you are getting at. They are not arguing or discussing the merits of the discussion at all , only placing strawman after strawman and ignoring the original point of your thread.

It's like a Mamamia thread, might start off with a great topic but doomed to become a race to the bottom and end up an argument about nappy rash powder or the best pancake recipes due the ignorance of those who in the large have no real grasp of what you are on about and in the ind blame Tony Abbott for it all.

They really just do not get it at all, the membership standard from a few short years ago has become a shadow of itself here and has been reduced to a bunch of straggling people holding fast in the face of an onslaught of PC, GetUp types who see the place as more of a platform than a community. Discussion has been done away with, it is all memes and the regurgitation of the latest leftist bile with an endless stream of daily threads promoting the latest tasty story to promote their side of event's whether true or not.

We once used to have real discussions here, thought provoking ones that exchanged ideas instead of the oooh what about when a dog bark's crap evident now, and the Bill shorten Zinger style drive by post's evident above.

I have recently taken to PM's with a member of long standing with whom I have rarely agreed with on certain subjects but we at least have a respectable dialogue and can agree to disagree without the constant red herrings and strawman arguments and get some real conversation going instead of the endless crap within the threads of late. Shit there is a heap of stuff we actually agree upon as well and it has given me food for thought.

If all you have to add is Mmmm but what if a dog barks to the above , then give it a fucken rest and think of something else. Your just wasting every ones time and advertising stupid below your name.

 

[col0016]

Can you please take this extremist shit somewhere else?

" It is wrong to initiate fraud, force or violence against another person or their property."

This is the kind of crap that pisses off me NewToSilver and a few others on here. You guys are loony.

 

[Jislizard]

I came to the conclusion a while ago that I could fight every battle I perceived or saw with regards to what I personally determined my rights to be in this world, or I could just get on with my life and fight those battle that impinged upon my own personal perceived rights.

Along the way I figured out that there are a lot of stupid people around ( I SEE THEM EVERYWHERE). I came to the conclusion that I should not involve myself or mine in their arguments with the world as it just distracts from my own enjoyment of life.

Bord, your wasting your effort on people who want to argue over a barking dog, and who seek to make that a point while they seem unable to grasp the fundamentals of what you are getting at. They are not arguing or discussing the merits of the discussion at all , only placing strawman after strawman and ignoring the original point of your thread.

It's like a Mamamia thread, might start off with a great topic but doomed to become a race to the bottom and end up an argument about nappy rash powder or the best pancake recipes due the ignorance of those who in the large have no real grasp of what you are on about and in the ind blame Tony Abbott for it all.

They really just do not get it at all, the membership standard from a few short years ago has become a shadow of itself here and has been reduced to a bunch of straggling people holding fast in the face of an onslaught of PC, GetUp types who see the place as more of a platform than a community. Discussion has been done away with, it is all memes and the regurgitation of the latest leftist bile with an endless stream of daily threads promoting the latest tasty story to promote their side of event's whether true or not.

We once used to have real discussions here, thought provoking ones that exchanged ideas instead of the oooh what about when a dog bark's crap evident now, and the Bill shorten Zinger style drive by post's evident above.

I have recently taken to PM's with a member of long standing with whom I have rarely agreed with on certain subjects but we at least have a respectable dialogue and can agree to disagree without the constant red herrings and strawman arguments and get some real conversation going instead of the endless crap within the threads of late. Shit there is a heap of stuff we actually agree upon as well and it has given me food for thought.

If all you have to add is Mmmm but what if a dog barks to the above , then give it a fucken rest and think of something else. Your just wasting every ones time and advertising stupid below your name.

At the end of the day, if the theory cannot be applied to a practical situation then it needs to be reworked or you will never be able to sell it to anyone.

Many people do not know how democracy works but they still manage to live in a democratic system, because however flawed it is, they can see that it works.

In this situation, a dog barking, you can call the council, they send over someone to have a word with the dog's owners and if the problem isn't resolved, the dog gets shot, or whatever they do to them. If Libertarianism cannot provide a solution that is better than the current system, then no one will have any interest in changing.

Most people are not concerned with the high ideas, they are concerned with the things that directly affect them.

 

[Newtosilver]

Look at this practically, it has never been implemented anywhere in the world, there is a reason for that. There are billionaires in the US who support it financially and it is having a LOT of money injected into the "movement" but it is not taking off.

Look at Chile and the "Libertarian paradise" that was setup, it imploded nearly imediately. And a LOT of Libertarians lost a lot of money. Most people say it was a scam but a few of the Libertarians who bought into it think that Ken Johnson was just not qualified to run something like the project "on such a large scale".

A "rescue team" was formed (ex military including a high ranking ex marine) he stated that sometimes "force" needs to be used to remove people from organisations, comments were also made that "Ken had better hope the police find him before we do" that to me is a threat of violance but apparently that is not allowed in a Libertarian paradise.

The ex military fella running the rescue also used the word dictatorship and stated he has been given permission to act on members of the "rescue team" however other members do not want or like this as it goes against their principles and it is against Libertarian principles.

The recue team has also openly admitted what they have done is illegal and they have no problems with that however other members who purchased land in the community do have a problem with it becasue it is not in line with Libertarian principles.

The Libertarian ideals in "theory" have gone out the window and reality is playing out something very different to what is supposed to happen in a Libertarian system. Why? Becasue Libertarianism does not work on a small scale let alone in a modern society.

The whole Libertarian idea is based on ideas do not work in reality.....

Ann rynd who wrote Atlas Shrugged regarded anyone who was on welfare or accepted medical assistance from the Govt as scum, parasites etc. She then got lung cancer and went on Govt benefits and the Govt payed for here medical treatment. Theory and reality are very different things as she found out.

 

[Newtosilver]

I came to the conclusion a while ago that I could fight every battle I perceived or saw with regards to what I personally determined my rights to be in this world, or I could just get on with my life and fight those battle that impinged upon my own personal perceived rights.

Along the way I figured out that there are a lot of stupid people around ( I SEE THEM EVERYWHERE). I came to the conclusion that I should not involve myself or mine in their arguments with the world as it just distracts from my own enjoyment of life.

Bord, your wasting your effort on people who want to argue over a barking dog, and who seek to make that a point while they seem unable to grasp the fundamentals of what you are getting at. They are not arguing or discussing the merits of the discussion at all , only placing strawman after strawman and ignoring the original point of your thread.

It's like a Mamamia thread, might start off with a great topic but doomed to become a race to the bottom and end up an argument about nappy rash powder or the best pancake recipes due the ignorance of those who in the large have no real grasp of what you are on about and in the ind blame Tony Abbott for it all.

They really just do not get it at all, the membership standard from a few short years ago has become a shadow of itself here and has been reduced to a bunch of straggling people holding fast in the face of an onslaught of PC, GetUp types who see the place as more of a platform than a community. Discussion has been done away with, it is all memes and the regurgitation of the latest leftist bile with an endless stream of daily threads promoting the latest tasty story to promote their side of event's whether true or not.

We once used to have real discussions here, thought provoking ones that exchanged ideas instead of the oooh what about when a dog bark's crap evident now, and the Bill shorten Zinger style drive by post's evident above.

I have recently taken to PM's with a member of long standing with whom I have rarely agreed with on certain subjects but we at least have a respectable dialogue and can agree to disagree without the constant red herrings and strawman arguments and get some real conversation going instead of the endless crap within the threads of late. Shit there is a heap of stuff we actually agree upon as well and it has given me food for thought.

If all you have to add is Mmmm but what if a dog barks to the above , then give it a fucken rest and think of something else. Your just wasting every ones time and advertising stupid below your name.

At the end of the day, if the theory cannot be applied to a practical situation then it needs to be reworked or you will never be able to sell it to anyone.

Many people do not know how democracy works but they still manage to live in a democratic system, because however flawed it is, they can see that it works.

In this situation, a dog barking, you can call the council, they send over someone to have a word with the dog's owners and if the problem isn't resolved, the dog gets shot, or whatever they do to them. If Libertarianism cannot provide a solution that is better than the current system, then no one will have any interest in changing.

Most people are not concerned with the high ideas, they are concerned with the things that directly affect them.

How true, Libertarianism is full of holes, Ron Paul in a 2011 debate was asked about a situation if you have a man in hospital and he has no health insurance in a Libertarian society and he needs 6 months hospitalisation - what happens?

Ron Paul said "it is a tribute to our Liberty" basically let him die..... Huge uproar and he later said " charity will take care of him" let's face it that is not going to happen considering in a Libertarian system they also have to look after all the disabled, feed the poor etc.

Basically in a Libertarian society the old, unemployed, sick or injured are left to die off and the only role of Govt is to protect the people with cash from the "others"........... I have cash and am in a pretty good position but I have to say I do not want to live in a society like that. Ram that up your Libertarian clacker.

 

[precious roar]

Ann rynd who wrote Atlas Shrugged regarded anyone who was on welfare or accepted medical assistance from the Govt as scum, parasites etc. She then got lung cancer and went on Govt benefits and the Govt payed for here medical treatment. Theory and reality are very different things as she found out.

Is this really true (i.e. not some urban myth)? If so, it is one of the best things I have read in a long time.


Back to the OP: Theoretically, communism offers liberty, too.

 

[Newtosilver]

Ann rynd who wrote Atlas Shrugged regarded anyone who was on welfare or accepted medical assistance from the Govt as scum, parasites etc. She then got lung cancer and went on Govt benefits and the Govt payed for here medical treatment. Theory and reality are very different things as she found out.

Is this really true (i.e. not some urban myth)? If so, it is one of the best things I have read in a long time.


Back to the OP: Theoretically, communism offers liberty, too.

Oh it is true, do a search. She also believed that the whole "smoking causes cancer" was rubbish and that the anti smoking lobby was against free choice and was rubbish and they should not have been trying to tell people what they should and should not do. She was a packet a day smoker and then got lung cancer and then dropped her "principles" (actually she did not drop them she still thought people who accepted govt benifits / medical assistance were scum and parasites) then she went on benifits and had the govt pay for her treatment.

Apparently Libertarian principles are great until reality and real life events takes effect. Her supporters then said "she is just getting her tax money back which was stolen from her by the Govt".

Ref your comment "theoretically , communism offers Liberty, too" in theory communism is great according to some people. It's just when you try and put it into the real world it goes south, much the same as Libertarianism.

 

[Jislizard]

In theory Democracy is a great idea, however this too is not without its faults.

I believe in the evolution of government, the way of governing has changed throughout the centuries so I have no doubt that it will continue to evolve.

But change does not always equal improvement, and there seems to be a lot of trial and error going on. I doubt that any one group of people have the right answer or all the answers.

If we are to progress it will be by taking ideas from different areas and incorporating them into the way we do business, keeping the ideas which work and discarding the ones which don't.

If you close your mind to a whole area of new possibilities because you disagree with some of them, then you will be slowing down progress and you will get left behind.

 

[Newtosilver]

In theory Democracy is a great idea, however this too is not without its faults.

I believe in the evolution of government, the way of governing has changed throughout the centuries so I have no doubt that it will continue to evolve.

But change does not always equal improvement, and there seems to be a lot of trial and error going on. I doubt that any one group of people have the right answer or all the answers.

If we are to progress it will be by taking ideas from different areas and incorporating them into the way we do business, keeping the ideas which work and discarding the ones which don't.

If you close your mind to a whole area of new possibilities because you disagree with some of them, then you will be slowing down progress and you will get left behind.

Agreed, any system is going to have faults, we live in a complex society, with democracy it is a theory, it also works in the real world and is in practice around the world.

Agreed you do have to take things that work and change the way we do things, Libertarianism raises some good points and could be incorporated into the system we have. Gay marriage for example , it does not effect anyone else and people should be able to love who they want. Unemployed or disabled can die if they do not have family support or they can "forage for berries in the bush" is crazy shit and not something I want to be part of.

 

[bordsilver]

Agreed, any system is going to have faults, we live in a complex society, with democracy it is a theory, it also works in the real world and is in practice around the world.

Agreed you do have to take things that work and change the way we do things, Libertarianism raises some good points and could be incorporated into the system we have. Gay marriage for example , it does not effect anyone else and people should be able to love who they want. Unemployed or disabled can die if they do not have family support or they can "forage for berries in the bush" is crazy shit and not something I want to be part of.

Here's the thing. Libertarianism absolutely, categorically does not say that the unemployed or disabled can or should die if they do not have family support. Nowhere in my opening post(s) does it say that. It says that you cannot use violence to solve such very real problems. Libertarians are just like other people and they become unemployed, disabled, sick or old through no fault of their own and consequently have the same self-interest in seeing practical safety nets in place to help people through such difficult times. The difference is that libertarians say you should not use methods based on violence to create such safety nets. There are a wide variety of non-violent institutions and methods that can be used before resorting to pointing guns at people. For example, I have previously posted about non-violent ways that medical care could be (and indeed used to be) provided. I have also previously discussed Friendly Societies that provided pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits. These are the sorts of institutions that solve the social problems you are concerned about and are still compatible with libertarianism.

As I have stated previously, I think the political philosophy needs to work in conjunction with a widespread moral code that engenders trust amongst strangers (essentially the underying social and cultural attitudes that allow the political theory to function). Historically, any society that has lost trust amongst strangers has deteriorated (or never successfully gotten started) - typically such loss of trust has originated from the misuse of authority and privileges. Libertarians do not claim to have the blueprints for what such social institutions will look like but based on the various successful and unsuccessful examples littered throughout history, they will tend to rhyme.

As you have possibly forgotten, I will say it again for you - there are two "flavours" of Libertarianism:

1. One which (like you) sees a necessary but limited role of the state. This position is adopted for utilitarian reasons but knowing that it violates natural rights in order to achieve a "stable" society whereby rights are strongly protected. It is essentially Classical Liberalism. Most of the points you worry about do not apply to this branch. Overall, this used to contain the majority of "members" but that has been changing in recent years as the students of Murray Rothbard increasingly get their messages out.

2. The other is voluntarism (as per mmm....shiney!'s recent avatar). This is the one which people tend to baulk at. It applies the NAP to the government as well. This one is a very large step for the majority of people to comprehend but the theory of Anarchism is a very broad church that includes the Marxists, Anarcho-capitalists and Anarcho-syndacalists. In voluntarism no-one applies their "vision" onto others. Not me, not shiney. As detailed by the likes of David Freidman, people's natural likes, dislikes, fears, aspirations, social bonding and the invisible hand of the market will naturally gravitate toward the non-aggression principle simply because it makes economic sense to not punish victimless crimes whilst upholding negative rights of the members of a community. Institutions and laws may stray, but natural market forces will "correct" them. Critically, people will be free to choose the dispute resolution organisations that best fit their real beliefs. If there are enough anti-<whatever> people to form a club and enforce such a rule then so be it, we'll join the pro-<whatever> group and competition of ideas will win out eventually with both being possible outcomes. This happened time and time again with the Friendly Societies with some very large multi-national successes (like the IOOF) and many micro-ones limited to a few dozen people in a small village.

The two "flavours" are simply about privatising the last market. Doing this is probably not in my interests until there's been enough of a consciousness movement back toward Classical Liberalism combined with people actually understanding and trusting that there is an alternative. Knowing the flaws in Democracy means I am often pessimistic about even achieving a minimal role of government in my lifetime let alone see the next step (although large cultural changes like abolishing slavery, women's liberation, the normalisation of homosexuality etc and advances against racism and religion all happened in relatively short time spans, so who knows?).

 

[petey]

I came to the conclusion a while ago that I could fight every battle I perceived or saw with regards to what I personally determined my rights to be in this world, or I could just get on with my life and fight those battle that impinged upon my own personal perceived rights.

Yep. You can spend your entire life trying to change the world you live in, or you can spend that same life changing the way in which you interact with that world. I choose the latter.

 

[Jislizard]

I came to the conclusion a while ago that I could fight every battle I perceived or saw with regards to what I personally determined my rights to be in this world, or I could just get on with my life and fight those battle that impinged upon my own personal perceived rights.

Yep. You can spend your entire life trying to change the world you live in, or you can spend that same life changing the way in which you interact with that world. I choose the latter.

It is all about knowing where to focus your efforts to get the best results.

You can rage against the machine until you drop dead and nothing will change because it is out of your sphere of influence. Or you can focus all your energies on areas where you can control or influence the outcomes.

It is good to be passionate about something, but trying to change the world is a group effort and beyond the scope of most individuals.

I can't even get my wife to load a dishwasher properly, after 10 years of getting exasperated about it and trying to get her to change I now accept that the dishwasher is only going to be about half full and some items will have to be put back in for a proper wash, I no longer try to educate her on how to stack the thing, I no longer restack it each time before putting it on, the problem of stacking the dishwasher has not been fixed but now I accept that the dishwasher in my own home is outside of my sphere of control or influence and I no longer get angry about it.

A couple of diagrams that I have printed out on my office wall, there are others out there with more or less details, the good thing is they don't require much study so just a quick glance at them as you go past is enough to remind you.

Source: http://processspecialist.com/increasesales/tag/circle-of-control/

It's not about ignoring the things you can't control, or not being interested in them, you can still sign petitions and protest against them, this is just to keep it all in proportion, so you don't spend too much effort trying to solve something that is never going to happen.

Source: http://www.alchemyofchange.net/who-to-focus-on/

 

[petey]

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Also, before doing so, you'd want to be sure that the guilty party was really the guilty party.

I agree and submit that it is the failing in this last bit that 'causes all the problems with the broader issue of 'using force'.

Definitely. A major reason why vigilante justice has typically been frowned upon (although at times it can clearly have its place).

In all likelihood it would probably be considered the norm that it would be either foolish or inappropriate for a "claimant" to instigate any act of force against another person themselves. A far more likely scenario would involve the claimant and accused agreeing to contract a private court hearing. If the accused refused to participate in a mutually agreed court hearing, or failed to respond to the claimant's request for a hearing, or refused to heed the findings of a guilty verdict then the claimant would contract a professional enforcement agency in order to reclaim the property.

Naturally, as a free market for private protection and prosecution would exist, it would be in every company's best interest to ensure that they are fully briefed by the claimant on the details of any incidences, and are convinced themselves that the guilty party is in fact guilty otherwise they would open themselves up to legal action as well.

 

[Jislizard]

If I refused to heed the findings of a guilty verdict could I employ someone to protect the stolen property from the professional enforcement agency? That is what happens today so no change I guess.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

If I refused to heed the findings of a guilty verdict could I employ someone to protect the stolen property from the professional enforcement agency? That is what happens today so no change I guess.

You could, but in all likelihood you would be flat out finding any professional enforcement agency willing to do so.

You could find a bunch of crims to do it for you, which is what really happens today.

 

[Jislizard]

crims, lawyers, whatever

 

[Newtosilver]

I agree and submit that it is the failing in this last bit that 'causes all the problems with the broader issue of 'using force'.

Definitely. A major reason why vigilante justice has typically been frowned upon (although at times it can clearly have its place).

In all likelihood it would probably be considered the norm that it would be either foolish or inappropriate for a "claimant" to instigate any act of force against another person themselves. A far more likely scenario would involve the claimant and accused agreeing to contract a private court hearing. If the accused refused to participate in a mutually agreed court hearing, or failed to respond to the claimant's request for a hearing, or refused to heed the findings of a guilty verdict then the claimant would contract a professional enforcement agency in order to reclaim the property.

Naturally, as a free market for private protection and prosecution would exist, it would be in every company's best interest to ensure that they are fully briefed by the claimant on the details of any incidences, and are convinced themselves that the guilty party is in fact guilty otherwise they would open themselves up to legal action as well.

You have the case in Chile where either people have been ripped off or as some members of the community in Chile believe he was just incompetent in regards to such a large project. It is a Libertarian community but in very short order you have members of the community bringing in outsiders (a rescue team) they then do things they openly admit are illegal and they have made threats of violance (Ken had better hope the police find him before we do). You have the issue you raised, how does anyone know Ken was committing fraud? Maybe he is just incompetent and as far as I know incompetance is not illegal. What happens if they find him and beat him up or kill him? Seems like a breakdown of Libertarian principles to me.

You talk about Libertarian principles in regards to a non aggression principle in the "theory of Libertarianism, in the real world the theory seems to have been thrown out the window within a couple of months of the community forming. The person leading the "rescue team" has also said "force" has to be used to make some people leave and he has done it in the past. To me force implies intimidation or threat of physical violence or even actual physical violance.

If a small community can not live in accordance with Libertarian principles (remembering every member of the community is a die hard, very commited Libertarian) how do you expect the theory to work when the vast majority do not even believe in or respect what you are trying to push?

I have to say I laughed my arse off when I saw how it panned out and am now doing more and more reading into what has happened. To me it has played out exactly how I would have expected it to. There are also legal proceedings occurring, as of Feb 14 there was $400,000.00 in the legal fund. I am not sure how much additional cash has been commited since then but the legal bill will be getting up there by now.

You want to implement this country wide? I want nothing to do with it.

On a positive note anyone who wants to buy a block of land in a Libertarian paradise in Chile I reckon I could get you a cheap block - payment in Bitcoin or Gold gets you a discount even, we wouldn't even need paperwork

 

[mmm....shiney!]

how do you expect the theory to work when the vast majority do not even believe in or respect what you are trying to push?

It won't.

As bordsilver pointed out above:

The two "flavours" are simply about privatising the last market. Doing this is probably not in my interests until there's been enough of a consciousness movement back toward Classical Liberalism combined with people actually understanding and trusting that there is an alternative. Knowing the flaws in Democracy means I am often pessimistic about even achieving a minimal role of government in my lifetime let alone see the next step (although large cultural changes like abolishing slavery, women's liberation, the normalisation of homosexuality etc and advances against racism and religion all happened in relatively short time spans, so who knows?).

 

[Newtosilver]

how do you expect the theory to work when the vast majority do not even believe in or respect what you are trying to push?

It won't.

As bordsilver pointed out above:

The two "flavours" are simply about privatising the last market. Doing this is probably not in my interests until there's been enough of a consciousness movement back toward Classical Liberalism combined with people actually understanding and trusting that there is an alternative. Knowing the flaws in Democracy means I am often pessimistic about even achieving a minimal role of government in my lifetime let alone see the next step (although large cultural changes like abolishing slavery, women's liberation, the normalisation of homosexuality etc and advances against racism and religion all happened in relatively short time spans, so who knows?).

You want people to adopt a system that is full of holes and falls apart in real life as soon as it is implemented. You basically want to change human nature, you have a Libertarian theory that is pushed like it is some crackpot religion. All the "free market" stuff has less chance of working than Libertarianism in Chile. The only thing is when all these great ideas crash and burn decent people also suffer as well as the crackpots.

Why did all the Libertarian principles that were in place in a community of Libertarians (true lovers of fredom and Liberty) cause it to fall apart even before it got off the ground? These people are go getters, intelligent, productive Libertarians with money behind them and a determination to get away from the evil Govt oppression of America and the lack of Liberty that free men deserve

Why were Libertarians resorting to the use of threats against each other? That goes directly against the NAP? The "rescue team" is acting on behalf of the community and making decisions when some members of the community think what they are doing is wrong and they gave no permission for the "rescue team" to act on their behalf. How do they resolve that issue? Have a vote on it and form a council? That sounds like it is heading towards something like a democracy, voting, council even Govt one day soon.