What is the mainstream in this forum?

[Thomasio]

It's a useless fight.

 

Even if it's useless, I still do it, because it's the only thing we can do.

Our current system will hit the fan within the next 2 years (I'll be happy to explain why I believe that, but that's a rather long story and I don't have that much time today, if you like we can start a new topic about it tomorrow).

Once the system hits the fan, the outcome of an entirely uncontrolled collapse are not predictable, but I'm tempted to believe it will be so drastic that we won't have to worry about government anymore, we will have wide spread borderless civil and religious wars worldwide.

If then the wrong guys get hold of the nukes, you may kiss life on earth as we know it goodbye.

[Torero]

Even if it's useless, I still do it, because it's the only thing we can do.

 

And in that I see much more value in Stefans approach; the only thing we can do is raise the next generation based on moral values and not force and violence.

 

 

Our current system will hit the fan within the next 2 years (I'll be happy to explain why I believe that, but that's a rather long story and I don't have that much time today, if you like we can start a new topic about it tomorrow).

 

Please do. Would be very interesting!

 

 

 

Once the system hits the fan, the outcome of an entirely uncontrolled collapse are not predictable, but I'm tempted to believe it will be so drastic that we won't have to worry about government anymore, we will have wide spread borderless civil and religious wars worldwide.

If then the wrong guys get hold of the nukes, you may kiss life on earth as we know it goodbye.

 

To my current understanding nukes are not real. They are rather fearmongering fakes. But that aside, I also don't see we're heading towards worldwide wars and collapse.

 

This system will be held by the powers until they see no interest in maintaining it anymore and it's very hard to predict when that would happen.

 

Hence my interest in your topic, please elaborate on it tomorrow.

 

Gute Nacht.

[Worlok]

I would say that the main idea is that violence is bad and we are a "group" of fact based, free thinking individuals interested in conceiving a social or political system that will naturally function with the least amount of violence possible. Governments are violence, social welfare is violence, so on and so forth is violence. Violence bad, everybody leaving me the fuck alone is good.

[Thomasio]

Yes Worlok, no argument there.

My point is, if we (as some others in here suggest) wait and take several generations of time for a gradual transition into a free society, the current corrupt system will collapse uncontrolled, which will have unexpected consequences that might entirely disable the transition into a free society for centuries.

So rather than doing nothing, for the reason that doing something is by definition a violent force and shouldn't be done, I'd prefer doing something that makes sure we won't lose our goal out of sight.

I fully agree the "something" we have to do should be the least amount of violence possible, still I believe if we don't do anything at all, the forces currently in place will lead us into a chaos in which nobody can live in peace anymore.

[Worlok]

Yes Worlok, no argument there.

My point is, if we (as some others in here suggest) wait and take several generations of time for a gradual transition into a free society, the current corrupt system will collapse uncontrolled, which will have unexpected consequences that might entirely disable the transition into a free society for centuries.

So rather than doing nothing, for the reason that doing something is by definition a violent force and shouldn't be done, I'd prefer doing something that makes sure we won't lose our goal out of sight.

I fully agree the "something" we have to do should be the least amount of violence possible, still I believe if we don't do anything at all, the forces currently in place will lead us into a chaos in which nobody can live in peace anymore.

 

Maybe it is because you are a lefty that you seem perplexed by what you perceive as a majority of the forum's support to "republicans" or right wing politics. I posit that collectivism (the left) is anti-personal freedom. Also, authoritarian is anti-freedom. the only logical conclusion (that I can come up with) is that only right wing anarchism lacks inherent control or anti-freedom principles. That would make leftist libertarianism contradictory.

 

Big government is a form of collectivism. However, collectives are made up of individuals. Big government republicans don't seem to be individualist on a large scale, but a personal scale. We call that corporatism and authoritarian. Whether you have big or small government on the left, you are still dealing with a collective claiming greater rights to individuals on a basis that it not only serves the collective, but the individual. Theft, rape, and murder are not okay, but they are acceptable if they benefit the collective. (in this entirely plausible example) That is leftist because it supports the collective. On the right, it is not only not okay, but it also is not acceptable because it stomps on the rights of the victims. Most of us would seem to be right wing because left wing is inherently anti-freedom on an individual scale. 

 

Politicians are politicians for a reason. They want something. It is more common to want something for yourself than others. All good deeds are based on self-pleasure or self-benefit by one's beliefs. No matter what you do, you are invariably doing it for you. Everything politicians vote for is for their own benefit. However, they get more benefit if they disregard the rights of others and vote only for their benefit instead of benefiting for good deeds. They therefore disregard others very often. It's not that leftist politicians are all wrong and just do messed up stuff. It's also not that righty politicians are all wrong and do messed up stuff. It's simply that whatever good that politicians are there to do will almost always lead to disregarding the rights and benefit of others for an even greater benefit to themselves. Politicians are made to do this by the system. That's why we hate game, not the player. Right wingers just say they do it for right wing ideas and left wingers don't seem to understand that their good will doesn't work how they want it to. Bernie sanders obviously can't count, or he's just helping himself.

 

If you allow the system to collapse, you are not initiating violence. Unfortunately that doesn't mean you aren't proactively allowing a system to occur where violence must occur to correct the collapse. My question to that is; By not using violence to prevent violence that you know will occur, are you not indirectly and knowingly responsible for the initiation of force, and is that thus equally immoral? On the other hand, if you use the system and thus violence to fix the system and make the system and state as least violent as possible, you are directly initiating force. My question to that is, If the state already has the laws and already initiates violence, if you pass only laws that lower the use of violence, is that not then a negative initiation of violence, and is that not more moral than simply allowing greater violence?

[AccuTron]

Our current system will hit the fan within the next 2 years (I'll be happy to explain why I believe that, but that's a rather long story and I don't have that much time today, if you like we can start a new topic about it tomorrow)...

I'd read it.

To my current understanding nukes are not real. ...

 

I don't understand, can you be more specific?

[Torero]

I don't understand, can you be more specific?

 

It would go wildly offtopic here and there's a separate topic on it. I do realise it's not a mainstream idea that they are fake(d), to tie back to the topic title.

[dsayers]

There seem to be a whole bunch of authoritarians in here

I didn't read too much of the thread. But this is false, provocative, and not in any way productive.

 

Maybe instead of labels, focus on ideas. Labels are generalities, and therefore inherently imprecise. Additionally, when it comes to people, the "team" mentality will lead to you looking past the transgressions of "your team," but missing the good things that can be found in "the other guys."

 

Is it voluntary? Then I don't care what others think or why.

[Anuojat]

I'm sorry Anuojat, I have the impression you're defending the existing system in order to contradict my points.

Maybe it's just a wrong impression of mine again, if so, please clear that for me.

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46102-the-new-pyramid/

 

That's a really good explanation, where the wording of "super rich" I'm using stands for the top level takers.

I'm not trying to defend politics and not the corrupt system we have either, I'm all in on abolishing government.

Since libertarians believe everyone should receive the full fruit of his own labor, following libertarian ideas neccessary requires there cannot be any takers on top who steal from the workers and that does not only include politics and media but first and foremost the top level parasites.

That's why I believe we not only have to abolish government, but also have to get rid of the top level takers.

If you want to pick on the wording "super rich", give me a better one, I'll be happy to exchange the words.

But if you're trying to defend the top level takers, I believe you will have most of this forum against you.

 

Whether or not you yourself can launch a company that does better than the state is an independent question.

I don't doubt you could easily do better than the state, but what does that have to do with your personal income?

As a small business owner you wouldn't be a super rich taker, you would provide your own labor to the company and therefore receive the fruit of your labor.

Whether you do that as the owner of your business or as a worker within someone elses business shouldn't make a difference, your work has a value and will be paid just that.

If you as the boss work longer hours, do bookkeeping or other things on top of your other work, you make more money, all fine, all fair, all compatibel with libertarian ideas.

But if you one day decide to pull out of work, you remain owner of the company, you hire someone else, make him a CEO, to do precisely the work you have done up to then and you pay him only half as much as you made while you were working, while you yourself don't do any work at all anymore, but cash half of the value of your CEO's labor for nothing, if you command your new CEO to lower wages for the workers and hand the increased profit on top of half the CEO's value over to you, for no economic reason, but exclusively to increase your own wealth, then you become a thief.

 

Before you get that wrong:

In case you remain active as in keeping your money available for investments, maintenance of the companies property and all that, of course you still have a value for the company and still get part of the profits the company generates, the above stands for completely pulling out, cashing in, in exchange for nothing and even increasing your income through paying your workers less than their labor is worth.

 

How was i defending the current system? I was pointing out that you HAVE to use said corrupt system in order to survive as bussness currently. And that many people are deluded in thinking its actually good. And that those whom are actually corrupt or abusive are 100% dependant on the state.

 

"Getting rid of the top level takers" How? Why? Because they participated in corrupt system? With guns or violance?

 

Based on what you said about me being thief IF i choose to operate my company that i OWN trough a proxy and from distance... i can only guess that theres deeper issue goign on here since its it theft if its not initiation of force or unjustified threat thereof. Any of big bussness takers are vulnerable without the state and wahtever power you think they have economically is moot since if theyre good and honest bussnessmen they stay or have higher change of staying in theyre positions or atleast circles which is good.

 

However if theyre the kind of people who relied on the state to get what they own, special pleads, subsedies, better deal for land and factories ect then in free market it doesnt matter what or how much they own since it will all fall apart because theyre whole base of operation will be cut down. And cant compete with me or you if we are honest bussness men.

 

Also what workers labor is "worth" is subjective value. No engineer or doctor "deserves" to be paid more then 1000$/€ a month, its just what other people value those peoples labor at. If i bring down my workers wages i am not STEALING or violating anything unless theyre contract specified these things that i can and cant do.

[LibertarianSocialist]

 

Then there are users who identify in their nick already as left libertarians, who get massive downvotes to an extend that I'm tempted to believe the nick alone might give them part of the negative votes already.

Like this one: https://board.freedomainradio.com/user/24148-libertariansocialist/

I'm pretty sure that guy is just a dick.

This is a common argument, even among Leftist Statists.  It's this idea that we can only have a free market once all the wrongs of the past have been righted.  Basically this means we will never have a free market.  Because the crimes of history are too numerous to make up for, and those who perceive themselves as victims will never be satisfied.  Liberty is about you being free to live your life on your own terms.  It's not about envy of others, and trying to remake the world in your own perfect image.  In the event that we dismantle the State, which is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes, people would figure this kind of thing out, public property might be sold off to pay certain debts, State criminals might be prosecuted, stolen property reconfiscated and so on. 

 

I go with Murray Rothbard on this one, if someone has a better claim to property, they can make the case.  But if the claim is simply that another person's ownership is unfair, you don't just get to steal it...and give it to whom?  Anyway, this is all at least 100 years in the future so it's really towards the bottom of the list of liberty related issues anyway, and not worth very much of our time I don't think.

Actually, the homesteading principle as advocated by Rothbard advocates such a 'righting of wrongs'. Taken to its logical conclusions, we would expect to see nearly all existing private property titles which rested on coercive state violence to be put up to be homesteaded. It is at its heart a revolutionary or 'blank slate' movement.

 

Now, while it is true Rothbard does not advocate 'reparations' for any past injustice, he does not tacitly acknowledge the legitimacy of such historical injustices either.