Brexit

[kyle]

wiped out the natives in many parts

Yeah, well they were xenophobes anyway.

 

[Kyle M]

You don't know what libertarianism is. The Chicago School was not libertarian, or rather is one faction in a greater movement. It's like people who only know Ayn Rand, if you want to criticize something learn about it more than a story or two your left friends told you. Pinochet was a military leader, libertarians don't even believe in a standing state military.
Secondly, per pupil cost of government involuntary education is higher than ever. Or maybe you have data otherwise? Since the creation of the department of education in the 1970s the cost has sky rocketed and outcomes have plummeted. Is there anything more authoritarian than state mandated, state controlled education? I know this isn't what you want to hear but your posts on these political topics show a real lack of breadth of reading on your part, it's all surface level stuff any campus leftist would be spouting off after one semester of reading little AFL or whatever pamphlets.

 

[jaguar43]

You don't know what libertarianism is. The Chicago School was not libertarian, or rather is one faction in a greater movement. It's like people who only know Ayn Rand, if you want to criticize something learn about it more than a story or two your left friends told you. Pinochet was a military leader, libertarians don't even believe in a standing state military.
Secondly, per pupil cost of government involuntary education is higher than ever. Or maybe you have data otherwise? Since the creation of the department of education in the 1970s the cost has sky rocketed and outcomes have plummeted. Is there anything more authoritarian than state mandated, state controlled education? I know this isn't what you want to hear but your posts on these political topics show a real lack of breadth of reading on your part, it's all surface level stuff any campus leftist would be spouting off after one semester of reading little AFL or whatever pamphlets.

Your saying Milton Friedman wasn't a libertarian ?

Milton Friedman was the central economist to the Pinochet Dictatorship. Hayek defend the Pinochet dictatorship as well. Saying that "You can have economic freedom without political freedom". This is exactly what libertarianism is.

http://www.nytimes.com/1979/05/07/a...tic-of-keynes-von-hayek-still-abhors-big.html

Hayek also said that

"My personal preference is towards a liberal dictator rather than towards an democratic government lacking in liberalism." and "But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period"

https://coreyrobin.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/hayekchile.pdf

Empire's Workshop

The Pinochet Dictatorship was a Libertarian example. Both politically and economically. There is no way around it, it's just that people who follow that ideology don't really want to talk about it. Authoritarian control and a police state is crucial in libertarianism.

Then you say that public education doesn't work. So whats your solution ? Thievery, to transfer property from public to private hands. That's theft. Tax payers paid for the public education.

 

[Kyle M]

That's correct, Milton Friedman was not a libertarian. You are aware I am sure of the definition of words changing? For example a liberal in the 19th century is more or less what people use libertarian to mean now, whereas liberal now means pro government control of basically everything. Friedman, Hayek and modern people like John Stossel are part of the soft core, beltway think tank libertarians that look at the philosophy first for practicality and then regarding morality. The true philosophy is to be found in Murray Rothbard's writings and, today, people like Bob Murphy and Tom Woods. If you read any of those guys you would realize that a police state being crucial to libertarianism is 100% incorrect, that by the very definition a police state cannot be libertarian.
It's so funny how diametrically wrong you are. Taxes are theft, where the central authority takes money involuntarily from the public. Private schooling is voluntary, and in places like India is what is helping people become educated. Third world countries handle public schooling even worse than first world ones. There is no such thing as "money in public hands." What does that mean? People buy and sell goods and services on a voluntary basis, that is the market. The only theft or force or transfer is when the government then skims off (by threat of force) some money from each of those transactions. It's no different than a mafia protection racket.

 

[postman]

It's crazy how people can delude themselves into thinking they are anti-authoritarian pacifists while at the same advocating a huge welfare state.

 

[Drareg]

You need to look at the information your not seeing from this angle,this guy is a xenophobe saying he's not,his wallet was providing for a welfare state before immigrants,look at the native percentages, he uses terms like half a trillion dollars when 500 billion would suffice, he speaks of this after his speech about being called racist,xenophobia etc .
He is priming you and himself I would guess to believe it's all immigrants, the half a trillion hyperbole is also natives.

"Even if they declare income tax" , comments like this are his passive aggressive attitude flowing through,he has no evidence they don't pay taxes.
"If your in my wallet, I care" ,he is blaming the immigrants for his lack of financial prowess, it seems to be the persona for most of the xenophobes, family,mortgage, got caught on the bank loans hook and is now full of bitterness .

" the immigrants are using your money,putting your children in debt", lol ,no the natives have made a fine job of this themselves, the immigrants don't get to vote yet,lol!
He does this hyperbole in between his stats with a good pinch of passive aggressive xenophobia.

"A couple of the goodies that keep the planet alive", he says this after singing the virtues of the European immigrants to America, he forgets that they also created the welfare state,this higher enlightened race that is.

Toward the end of the video he does his mania fuelled reasoning with who would you pick if you had to choose immigrants, he implies Europe even though East Asia have lower rates, this is Freudian and shows his racism and xenophobia at work imo.

He then goes on a rant about how immigrants have changed over the years after singing the virtues of Europeans again, he ignore it was mainly European heritage that enacted said polices, he is an imbecile imo.

The Europeans are the highest users of the drugs that fuel the cartels in Mexico turning their country into bandit territory in certain parts ,the Europeans Americans fuelled this with the war on drugs strategy.

Toward the end he hops on about no decent schools,nothing gets repaired all blamed on welfare, this is far from black and white, aging population,pensions etc.
He blames it all on immigrants,xenophobia, it's xenophobia because it's pathological reasoning, this issue is not the sole cause of said issues, he wants it to be.

Mexico he claims has the highest rate of diabetes in the world, this is his mania fuelled hyperbole again, Mexicao does not have the highest diabetes rate in the world but when you clearly hate them and have pathological persona I guess they can then.

"Spike people's drinks with heroin and the next morning they will come to your door looking for a fix", this is an example of his intelligence within this metaphor and hyperbole at all costs because his argument is lame.


What's alarming overall is his attempt at satire is a tragedy, he seems to have the balled man syndrome Danny Roddy speculated on point for point.

"We all know what happened, the west has thrown trillions of dollars into 3rd world countries in foreign aid, it did nothing ,they are still warring corrupt crapholes/hellholes everybody wants to get out of like a ferret in a upturned fish tank".
Again his reasoning here is terrible, the west (Europeans mainly )are responsible for the rape of natural resources in the third world, to do this they caused political upheaval in countries to ensure the natives did not get the prices deserved for minerals, essentially the west are giving the 3rd world back their money calling it aid, playing both sides is classic big politics.
It makes no sense because the money is nothing getting to the people at grassroots, it stays in the hands of a corrupt government in the third world, a government corrupted by the European west.
Another terrible metaphor ,ferret in an upturned fish tank, makes no sense,highly likely the water comes out when you turn a fish tank over

If he wants to help his kids financially he should do just that, his financial issues are not the immigrants fault,they are his own, getting rid of all immigrants won't change his issues financially.

Why are you ignoring the native % in this presentation?? Xenophobia that's why.

Its from 2009- 2012 said statistics? If so, how can we expect immigrants in the space of 3 years in a new country with a different language to walk into middle income jobs?
This is beyond stupidity.

His 1970's analogy is redundant as the population was 100 million less or mani fuelled hyperbole style 1/10 of a billion less!!!!!
You see his pathological xenophobic feuled brain can't see the obvious only what pops in to his consciousness,he goes with,too much energy required to holed another complex contradicting view for a few minutes.

To summarise, if you get back your 500 billion America still has huge issues financially, 500 billion is a drop in the ocean for America these days, this brutally obvious.
This guy wants the 500 billion for the natives, he contributed personally about £60,000 tax wise over the 3 years if even, the rest is the community as a whole coming together,this is welfare essentially,everybody coming together to benefit, he wants welfare but just for European types.

 

[Drareg]

Hey wiggles92, I'm digging the Austrian references. But stop wasting your time, a statist couldn't change your mind and you're not going to change a statist's. There's a 0% chance any of the central planning, authoritarian economy people in this thread will read that Mises reference or any other.

Your projections and strawmans are relentless, you create a straw man without reference or quotes as foil to regurgitate what you've been reading, you arguing points with yourself for the most part.

 

[jaguar43]

That's correct, Milton Friedman was not a libertarian. You are aware I am sure of the definition of words changing? For example a liberal in the 19th century is more or less what people use libertarian to mean now, whereas liberal now means pro government control of basically everything. Friedman, Hayek and modern people like John Stossel are part of the soft core, beltway think tank libertarians that look at the philosophy first for practicality and then regarding morality. The true philosophy is to be found in Murray Rothbard's writings and, today, people like Bob Murphy and Tom Woods. If you read any of those guys you would realize that a police state being crucial to libertarianism is 100% incorrect, that by the very definition a police state cannot be libertarian.
It's so funny how diametrically wrong you are. Taxes are theft, where the central authority takes money involuntarily from the public. Private schooling is voluntary, and in places like India is what is helping people become educated. Third world countries handle public schooling even worse than first world ones. There is no such thing as "money in public hands." What does that mean? People buy and sell goods and services on a voluntary basis, that is the market. The only theft or force or transfer is when the government then skims off (by threat of force) some money from each of those transactions. It's no different than a mafia protection racket.

Here we go again, you changing the meaning of things to suite your argument.

Milton Friedman was libertarian, so was Hayek. Just because I used them as an example, now they are not considered "real" libertarians according to you. It's kinda like when you said that Nyborg was not a genetic determinist, even though he fits the definition of it. You changing the definition doesn't help your argument.

I think I wasn't clear before. Libertarianism advocate privatizing the public educational system. The public educational system is in the public domain. Just like a side walk or a road you can drive on, it belongs to the public. To privatize one must transfer property from the public to private hands. That is theft.

 

[jaguar43]

It's crazy how people can delude themselves into thinking they are anti-authoritarian pacifists while at the same advocating a huge welfare state.

And who ever said that having a welfare state was authoritarianism ? You projecting your political views doesn't make it anti-authoritarian.

 

[Kyle M]

Where does the money for the "public" things your talking about come from? And how is it gathered?

P.S. - never mind, I shouldn't bother asking dialectic questions like that when we are on opposite ends of the spectrum of perspective about the nature of property, force, authoritarianism and freedom.

 

[Drareg]

Where does the money for the "public" things your talking about come from? And how is it gathered?

P.S. - never mind, I shouldn't bother asking dialectic questions like that when we are on opposite ends of the spectrum of perspective about the nature of property, force, authoritarianism and freedom.[/QUOTE

You don't ask dialectic questions, you project views regurgitated from books you think created the paradigm for society ,you run away from anything that you don't agree with,basically if everybody doesn't agree with you there is no point.
Yet here you are on a forum for discussion responding to several posts with this response styled along the lines of I'm to intelligent to engage discussion with mere mortals if you don't agree with me.
This not dialectic but your palpable hubris.

You create another straw man here with your question.
Entrepeneurs and society in general pay money to individuals who will take responsibility for maintaining and organising civic services so they can get on with it.
If people don't do this how do they round up money? Somebody has to collect it.

You don't ask dialectic questions, you project views regurgitated from books you think created the paradigm for society ,you run away from anything that you don't agree with,basically if everybody doesn't agree with you there is no point.
Yet here you are on a forum for discussion responding to several posts with this response styled along the lines of I'm to intelligent to engage discussion with mere mortals if you don't agree with me.
This not dialectic but your palpable hubris.

You create another straw man here with your question.
Entrepeneurs and society in general pay money to individuals who will take responsibility for maintaining and organising civic services so they can get on with it.
If people don't do this how do they round up money? Somebody has to collect it.[/QUOTE]

 

[redred]

Drareg, a simple question. Are taxation something violent or non violent?can you guess peats ideology?

 

[Drareg]

Drareg, a simple question. Are taxation something violent or non violent?can you guess peats ideology?

I can't guess Peat ideology but I can ask an obvious question, who will provide the services we need in society? The answer,entrepreneurs and society in general.
Who pays them to produce a road 500km long? People.
how do we get the money? Somebody has to promote the project and then collect money.

what do we call this person?Politician or public representative.
The other question is, does the above need to be violent?

This system has been corrupted and will continue to be, it will just regress back to being fairer with public uproar similar to what we are seeing now,it will however get back to being corrupt again at some point possibly imo.

With all that in mind,I'm guessing that Peat may recommend coherent biology as a means to perceiving reality coherently, our thinking would be along the same lines ,potentially no need for conflict. Environment should improve with human thought improvement.

 

[redred]

Private companies builds the roads today drareg...the state then pays them from the taxes.

Roads are built when there is a need...is there really a need for many if the super infrastructure projects that the state does?

Don't you think a more fair system is to just leave people alone? Its obvious that the system is broken and that it will fix itself anyway. The weak will perish, the productive will survive and the women will be in the kitchen again.

 

[Drareg]

Private companies builds the roads today drareg...the state then pays them from the taxes.

Roads are built when there is a need...is there really a need for many if the super infrastructure projects that the state does?

Don't you think a more fair system is to just leave people alone? Its obvious that the system is broken and that it will fix itself anyway. The weak will perish, the productive will survive and the women will be in the kitchen again.

Yes like I mentioned ,I referred to them as people, what don't you see here? Society is still paying.
I agree current system is clearly corrupted.

The super infrastructure projects like the Brooklyn bridge you mean? sure this was project of corruption.
Many projects are redundant, however just as many are needed.
Roads also need to be maintained.
Water systems have also been corrupted and put into private hands but the public still pay.


Leave people alone ? How does that work? Everybody just live self sustainable ?

Most self sustainable folk live in communities and give time to work together on projects for the community like digging a well, the tax within these societies is time and labour.
How would you build a road? No roads just a trodden path over time?

 

[Kyle M]

He doesn't understand the fundamental differences between voluntary and involuntary, force and non-force redred. Positive and negative rights if you will. It's just really sad not even realizing that people could cooperate together without one side having the legal right to use violent force against all others, and people vying for control of that force machine.

 

[redred]

Yes like I mentioned ,I referred to them as people, what don't you see here? Society is still paying.
I agree current system is clearly corrupted.

The super infrastructure projects like the Brooklyn bridge you mean? sure this was project of corruption.
Many projects are redundant, however just as many are needed.
Roads also need to be maintained.
Water systems have also been corrupted and put into private hands but the public still pay.


Leave people alone ? How does that work? Everybody just live self sustainable ?

Most self sustainable folk live in communities and give time to work together on projects for the community like digging a well, the tax within these societies is time and labour.
How would you build a road? No roads just a trodden path over time?

I think its very hard to have a happy multiethnic society with high taxation. Libertarianism is appealing to white autists who doesnt realize that violence will always exist. The native indians in america had great health if im not mistaken and were slaughtering eachother all the time.

Drareg, peat is a full on cultural marxist like alot of his generation.

 

[Kyle M]

Libertarianism is appealing to white autists who doesnt realize that violence will always exist.

Speak for yourself, I realize violence will always exist and things can never be perfect. Libertarianism just have the radical belief that violence shouldn't be institutionalized and codified into monopolistic law.

 

[redred]

He doesn't understand the fundamental differences between voluntary and involuntary, force and non-force redred. Positive and negative rights if you will. It's just really sad not even realizing that people could cooperate together without one side having the legal right to use violent force against all others, and people vying for control of that force machine.

I would rather say its a gender issue. When women got the right to vote the western world went straight downhill. Communisn is just a female adaption of politics. Men compete, females conspire.

He who controls the passion controls the man. Sexual freedom in west has replaced political freedom. And everytime there is sexual freedom there is dictatorship around the corner. Hustory will tell us the future.

Bending reality is the female trait, which is also the signature of the marxist ruling class, the male counterpart is cold objectivity. For females mind belief is everything, if you believe it its true. Everybody can be everything. Its very marxist isnt it.

I can give more and more examples of this. What happened to all great civilizations happened to our western also, women destroyed it.

 

[jaguar43]

Private companies builds the roads today drareg...the state then pays them from the taxes.

Roads are built when there is a need...is there really a need for many if the super infrastructure projects that the state does?

Don't you think a more fair system is to just leave people alone? Its obvious that the system is broken and that it will fix itself anyway. The weak will perish, the productive will survive and the women will be in the kitchen again.

I don't agree with the idea that the "need" of infrastructure creates infrastructure. It's reverse, you can't have an advance economy without infrastructure. And you can't have a successful economy if you make infrastructure into a tollbooth system.