Difference Between Philosophy And Ideology

[Dwain Dibley]

So you're interested in logical/historical arguments but you couldn't care less about the millions of, to use your term "masters", the non-capitalist states have murdered. Ok. Well, you seem to have fallen for the "public servants" line...I don't care how "two dimensional" my thinking is. I only care if it's accurate.Capitalism is being able to own the means of production, socialism is not being able to.And from a logical and historical perspective, the closer a country is to capitalism (the less its government interferes) the better off its people. The closer to socialism, the worse off.Feel free to offer a definition or make an actual argument if you disagree, instead of just snide quips.

Their history led to their deaths, just as our history will lead to ours.  It wasn't designed that way, it was made that way.

 

Capitalism is the State, Federal Reserve, the Banks, Wall Street and the Corporations that feed it.  Production is the $24 dollars in glass beads and trinkets.

 

 "Capitalism is being able to own the means of production" Bullshit.  Living in Liberty is being able to own the means of production, capitalist based fractional reserved financing is the means by which they steal it from you.

 

When you're fighting for capitalism, you're fighting for the state, you're fighting for your own enslavement, your fighting for your own economic rape and they're just laughing at your dumbass while you do it.  What a stroke of genius, convince the little guy that what he does is the same as what the capitalist rentiers do so the dumbass will defend the system that is economically raping him.

 

Do you live in a condition of Liberty or in Capitalism?  Don't conflate the two because they are diametrically opposed.

 

 

[Andrew79]

Living in Liberty is being able to own the means of production

Yep, and as capitalism is owning the means of production, captialism is liberty.Trying to redefine the state as capitalism is laughable dishonesty. The state is not privately owned and it works through politics not markets, it's an example of a socialist institution.  

Do you live in a condition of Liberty or in Capitalism?  Don't conflate the two because they are diametrically opposed.

You don't have capitalism, you don't have the means to own property, you can't have liberty.Arguing against capitalism, against the ability to own private property, is the path to enslavement by the state. Again, where private property rights are strongest, people are better off, this has been logically and historically proven.If you want to claim that capitalism isn't the philosophy of private property, then what is?

[Dwain Dibley]

Yep, and as capitalism is owning the means of production, captialism is liberty.Trying to redefine the state as capitalism is laughable dishonesty. The state is not privately owned and it works through politics not markets, it's an example of a socialist institution.You don't have capitalism, you don't have the means to own property, you can't have liberty.Arguing against capitalism, against the ability to own private property, is the path to enslavement by the state. Again, where private property rights are strongest, people are better off, this has been logically and historically proven.If you want to claim that capitalism isn't the philosophy of private property, then what is?

And we're right back to close minded Ideological sloganeering.  

 

"Give me Capitalism or give me death"

 

I'm not defining anything for you, merely pointing out the realities and inconsistencies of your beliefs.

[Andrew79]

I'm not defining anything for you, merely pointing out the realities and inconsistencies of your beliefs.

But you haven't, you've just made vague assertions with nothing to back them up. You claim the philosophies you like are logical/historical arguments yet you're shying away from both.That capitalism is private property is what differentiates it from other philosophies. And private property is liberty.If you're not going into specifics, there's no point in me continuing this.I'll finish with one of my favourite quotes, as it sums up your approach:"If you place yourself on this ground of myths, you are proof against any kind of critical refutation." Georges Sorel.

[Dwain Dibley]

But you haven't, you've just made vague assertions with nothing to back them up. You claim the philosophies you like are logical/historical arguments yet you're shying away from both.That capitalism is private property is what differentiates it from other philosophies. And private property is liberty.If you're not going into specifics, there's no point in me continuing this.I'll finish with one of my favourite quotes, as it sums up your approach:"If you place yourself on this ground of myths, you are proof against any kind of critical refutation." Georges Sorel.

Ok, I believe I got it.  All the philosophies through all of the ages theorising and conveying the historical of man's want to live life in liberty was, in reality, man's struggle to live in the 20th century invention called Capitalism.

 

Sorry, my bad.....

[Andrew79]

Ok, I believe I got it.  All the philosophies through all of the ages theorising and conveying the historical of man's want to live life in liberty was, in reality, man's struggle to live in the 20th century invention called Capitalism.

Private property's been around a lot longer than the 20th century. The system was named capitalism by its detractors to give it a label to attack.You're not giving specifics, you've demonstrated you've got absolutely nothing, so I'm done.

[Dwain Dibley]

Private property's been around a lot longer than the 20th century. The system was named capitalism by its detractors to give it a label to attack.You're not giving specifics, you've demonstrated you've got absolutely nothing, so I'm done.

With the exception of the last 100 years; all of history and all of the philosophies conveying man's struggle to live life in Liberty proves you wrong.

 

 Capitalism is a 20th century ideological contrivance, crafted in support of the status quo.

 

And your ideology of Libertarianism was crafted to support Capitalism.

 

Reality is a cruel master...

[SamuelS]

Big L libertarians are minarchists, anarcho-capitalists are anarchists...yes, we support property rights, extending from self ownership, and we support voluntary interactions including trade.

 

Reading your posts I have no idea what you support, but I'd venture to guess it rhymes with momunism.

 

Again, you're just swinging and missing, if this were baseball your side would be retired.

 

If you want to bash an idea, it would help if you actually understood it. If you want to promote an idea, it'd be good to explain it.

 

One of my favorite country songs has a line that seems appropriate here "you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."

[Dwain Dibley]

Ok, Dwaine, from what I've read you are well read. You're knowledge of what you're trying to define outstretches mine.But as you probably know, for something to be true, it must be valid and accurate. If you think what you're espousing is valid, the next step would be to test it empirically. (yourself)

For theory, let's remove the state from the equation.

 

Can you own property absent capitalism? - Yes.

 

Can you live freely on your property, grow and harvest food to sustain your life, absent capitalism? - Yes.

 

If the answer to both of these is yes then capitalism is not a necessary component to living life in liberty.  And people did it for thousands of years.

 

When does property become capital?

 

When does a human being become capital?

 

Can a human being be capital and live in liberty at the same time?

 

I don't know about you but when I start thinking about life in these terms, capitalism appears to be nothing more than a system of debt slavery, but because you get goodies out of it, it's OK....

Big L libertarians are minarchists, anarcho-capitalists are anarchists...yes, we support property rights, extending from self ownership, and we support voluntary interactions including trade.Reading your posts I have no idea what you support, but I'd venture to guess it rhymes with momunism.Again, you're just swinging and missing, if this were baseball your side would be retired.If you want to bash an idea, it would help if you actually understood it. If you want to promote an idea, it'd be good to explain it.One of my favorite country songs has a line that seems appropriate here "you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."

Can one be a minarchists without being any type of "ism" at all?  Why should anyone be forced to subordinate their will to a fucking Ideology in order to live free?

 

It's oxymoronic

 

If I chose to live my life in liberty under my own terms, by my own definition, then why do I need to attach your fucking mentally masturbated baggage to it?

[Marius C.]

So what you are suggesting, Dwain, is that we should go back to the stone ages, so we can live without capitalism in a self-sustaining manner, whereby we plant our own food, raise our own livestock, and take care of every single one of our needs by ourselves.

 

This is something that did not even happen back then. There was always a form of bartering in place whereby various aliments and necessities were traded openly in a free market.

[Wesley]

If I chose to live my life in liberty under my own terms, by my own definition, then why do I need to attach your fucking mentally masturbated baggage to it?

Hmmm...

 

I think of these "isms" as simply categorization of things and ideas, in the same way that my chair is in a different category than my desk and math is in a different category than chemistry.

 

I do not think that anyone is putting emotional baggage into the use of a variety if "isms" except you, who seems to be quite opposed to the idea.

 

Feel free to correct me, of course.

[SamuelS]

Dwain, you're attaching a bunch of communist baggage to the definition of capitalism. In it's simplest form capitalism is nothing more than employing capital (tools, savings, etc.) toward your ends -- if I use a stick to dig a hole, rather than my hands, I'm a simple capitalist. If I trade my stick for your sharp rock, that's a free market exchange which is an integral part of capitalism. Capitalism has nothing to do with fiat currencies and the exploitation that it brings. Now, forgive me for thinking you're a commie if you're not, but your choice of words carries that baggage.

 

But you also ask "Can one be a minarchists without being any type of "ism" at all? Why should anyone be forced to subordinate their will to a fucking Ideology in order to live free?"

 

Do you see the inconsistency here? You want a government and don't want to be forced to subordinate yourself to it. If you're not forced, it's not government.

 

The hostility is uncalled for, you're attacking straw men and spewing a word salad. If you've got an idea to support, you're doing it a disservice, if you're trying to attack anarcho capitalism you're so far off base you're not even in the stadium.

[Dwain Dibley]

So what you are suggesting, Dwain, is that we should go back to the stone ages, so we can live without capitalism in a self-sustaining manner, whereby we plant our own food, raise our own livestock, and take care of every single one of our needs by ourselves.

 

This is something that did not even happen back then. There was always a form of bartering in place whereby various aliments and necessities were traded openly in a free market.

Extrapolation

 

That's another annoying characteristic of ideologies, they tend to get people out of the habit of thinking for themselves...

 

I'll give you a starter: Honest money, 100% Reserved banking.........GO!  

[SamuelS]

Who are you to dictate the lending practices of others? Sure, having fractional reserve *fiat* money is a problem, but so long as borrowers are informed and theres no monopoly in money I don't really care how they choose to do their banking.

 

The real question is -- do you support the use of force against peaceful people that are interacting on a solely voluntary basis?

[Dwain Dibley]

Dwain, you're attaching a bunch of communist baggage to the definition of capitalism.

I've attached nothing, I'm merely revealing what was already there. 

In it's simplest form capitalism is nothing more than employing capital (tools, savings, etc.) toward your ends -- if I use a stick to dig a hole, rather than my hands, I'm a simple capitalist.

That's a false assertion. You're a man digging a hole with a stick, period, end of story. There is absolutely nothing capitalistic about it.There is no credit being generated, no financial capital being invested, no government sanctioned incorporation, no stocks, no derivatives, no speculation.....You're just a man digging a hole with a stick..... 

If I trade my stick for your sharp rock, that's a free market exchange which is an integral part of capitalism.

Wrong again, see above... 

Capitalism has nothing to do with fiat currencies and the exploitation that it brings. Now, forgive me for thinking you're a commie if you're not, but your choice of words carries that baggage.

Have you ever picked up and read a book on economics? Go visit Mises.org, they'll explain the capitalist system to you. I can guaran-damn-tee you, it has absolutely nothing to do with a man digging a hole with a stick.Strip away the layers of emotionalized bulshit and look at the reality of it. 

But you also ask "Can one be a minarchists without being any type of "ism" at all? Why should anyone be forced to subordinate their will to a fucking Ideology in order to live free?"Do you see the inconsistency here? You want a government and don't want to be forced to subordinate yourself to it. If you're not forced, it's not government.

Nothing inconsistent about it, it's the consequence of living in civilization.The whole idea behind the creation of a Constitutional Republic was to subordinate government to the will of the people, kept in check by dividing representation between the state's governments and the people. Then the Supreme Court picked up Britten's laws of equity, plopped it down over our founding organic law, and it was a slow downhill ride from there...A constitutional republican form of government is still the best way of administering law and justice.It is to the law that you cede some aspect of individual sovereignty, not to the agent. 

Who are you to dictate the lending practices of others? Sure, having fractional reserve *fiat* money is a problem, but so long as borrowers are informed and theres no monopoly in money I don't really care how they choose to do their banking.The real question is -- do you support the use of force against peaceful people that are interacting on a solely voluntary basis?

OK so, you advocate FRAUD and THEFT because that's what fractional reserved lending is.  

 

And, I bet that if you actually understood what "fractional reserved" meant, you would be really upset.

 

**Oh, I forgot to answer your question: No.

[Marius C.]

If the answer to both of these is yes then capitalism is not a necessary component to living life in liberty.  And people did it for thousands of years.

 

How the hell is my post an extrapolation? You're the one talking about people living without capitalism for thousands of years and I'm showing you that they did not! I'm giving you an example of a time when there was no such thing as money, Federal Reserve or banks. I'm giving you an example of when people traded their goods and services on a free market. Don't tell me that if someone was offered more of something in return for his goods or services (also known as profit), he wouldn't take it.

 

Since when is the existence of banks, central banks, fractional reserves and any of the banking terms you keep throwing around a requirement for capitalism?

 

As someone else said earlier, you are full of strawman arguments. You have taken everything out of context and gave ambiguous counterarguments to it.

 

Also, since we're in the business of posting Wikipedia links, here's one for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll -- you are either a troll or lack substantial argumentation skills.

[SamuelS]

If you understand what "fiat" and "voluntary" meant, you might recognize that out positions are closer than you think.

[Dwain Dibley]

How the hell is my post an extrapolation?

OH geez I'm sorry I didn't realize that you would consider a response suggesting that you use a tool called "extrapolation" to arrive at a conclusion, would somehow infer that you were posting an "extrapolation".

 

 I humbly apologize for my piss poor communication skills....  

Since when is the existence of banks, central banks, fractional reserves and any of the banking terms you keep throwing around a requirement for capitalism?

Government, banks, central banks, fractional reserves, credit/debt, are the foundational basis of capitalism.

 

**"Capitalism" is the strawman in your argumentation.  I'm simply suggesting you stop using it.

 

 

If you understand what "fiat" and "voluntary" meant, you might recognize that out positions are closer than you think.

 

It's called "being of like mind" and it didn't require an adherence to ideology to achieve.

 

I understand the meaning of the words "fiat" and "voluntary".

 

Context missing.

 

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

 

OK, how do I get it to stop combining separate posts?

[Marius C.]

Government, banks, central banks, fractional reserves, credit/debt, are the foundational basis of capitalism.

 

**"Capitalism" is the strawman in your argumentation.  I'm simply suggesting you stop using it.

 

cap·i·tal·ism:

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

 

A country's trade can exist without government, banks or fractional reserves, and so can its industry. Just because you say that the aforementioned institutions are the foundational basis of capitalism doesn't make it so. Unless you can provide some supporting evidence to your claims, you're doing nothing but proving how narrow-visioned you are.

 

You can consider me out of this conversation if you cannot provide something that is more than opinion.

[NigelW]

I think we can say that Dwain is wasting everyone's time. It's something I think is worth being conscious of.

[SamuelS]

OK so, you advocate FRAUD and THEFT because that's what fractional reserved lending is.  

 

And, I bet that if you actually understood what "fractional reserved" meant, you would be really upset.

 

**Oh, I forgot to answer your question: No.

 

 

Sure, having fractional reserve *fiat* money is a problem, but so long as borrowers are informed and theres no monopoly in money I don't really care how they choose to do their banking.

The real question is -- do you support the use of force against peaceful people that are interacting on a solely voluntary basis?

so, I'm glad you don't support the use of force against peaceful people, if I'm understanding that correctly then we're on the same page there...and, frankly, the rest seems to be a trivial difference (if any) based on a lack of common understanding regarding terminology.

I do not, and nobody here has, advocate theft or fraud. If you want to make your own currency, then lend it using fractional reserve practices, I've got no problem with that so long as people are informed and have a choice. Informed consent negates the fraud argument, and if nobody's forced to use that currency (in other words, it's not fiat) I don't see how theft is involved...I could be missing it, but you haven't explained that. I'm not saying I'd be itching to use that currency, but I wouldn't dare remove that choice from others.

So, far as I see it, our only disagreement is over the word "capitalism", and by my definition you're conflating corporatism/fascism/cronyism -- basically government intervention in markets -- into the term...you're using the commie definition, leading to much confusion...capitalism isn't government, it isn't corporations, it isn't fiat currency...perhaps it'd be more clear if we said "free market capitalism", since you seem to be missing the anarcho part of anarcho-capitalism.

And to be clear, the commies are welcome to go do their thing, just don't force anybody else into it.