Whoosh. The comment was, to use a political phrase, "illustrating absurdity by being absurd". Sometimes people mod those insightful because they think (mistakenly, it would seem) that this is obvious to everyone.
Libertarianism covers a lot of territory, from a minimal state to none at all. Those in the none at all camp are anarchist libertarians, and no, they don't blow up other people's stuff since libertarianism (in the American sense, which I think is by far the most common usage) is strongly propertarian.
So you could say that many libertarians are not anarchists, but not all of them.
I don't mind being called "paranoid" about these things. I am well aware that I sound paranoid. I honestly hope I'm just being paranoid.
Not only are you not paranoid, but this sort of thing is so common it doesn't even sound paranoid any more. Political power has been centralized, and law enforcement have been militarized. It's all downhill from there.
In all seriousness, no, I suppose I wouldn't. For example, I remember when Washington, D.C., the area where I live most of the time, was the "murder capital of the world", with an average of more than one per day, yet most weren't deemed newsworthy. (I also live part time in a country where any murder dominates the news for at least a week, but then it's a very small country.)
Capitailsm can't survive it's own success if success always means the consolidation of markets. Something external has to step in and reset the game It seems to me that people who love capitalism should all agree with me and the people who don't are just profiteers fundamentally unconcerned with the society they in or other people, at best paying some lip service to some "invisible hand" that justifies their selfish greed.
The problem is that if you really have capitalism, then anyone can enter an industry if they see that the dominant one, two, or however many companies in it are pricing their goods or services too high. But we don't have that, we have corporatism, where those who are already in a market use relationships with the policy makers who oversee them for mutual advantage.
In other words, we already have something external that's supposed to do what you describe. The problem is that it usually stifles real competition rather than promoting it, because human nature is to act more from individual incentive rather than from altruism.
You may be interested in OSRIC, which is a free PDF of 1e crunch, with all new fluff for copyright purposes. Basically, OSRIC is to 1e as Pathfinder is to 3e.
I meant it -- I once had a web server on one end of a satellite connection and a database connection on the other. We had to change it, the delay was interminable, and that was just going to geosynchronous orbit and back.
This is why I merely said they should work together on the most pressing issue that they have in common, opposition to corporatism, rather than claim they could ever form any sort of long term coalition, which I realize they couldn't.
Both also talk about how bank bailouts are a bad idea, and are rightfully skeptical of the influence of those in the financial system on government. I'm not saying they'll skip hand in hand into the sunset, but there are a few big areas of commonality.
And of course we'd still have safety nets for the poor. We'd still have Food Stamps, Housing assistance, welfare checks, and unemployment. I repeat: Libertarians are SMALL government, not no-government anarchists.
That's not what most people who identify as libertarian usually say. Much more often, libertarians say that a truly free market would lead to an increase in prosperity that would make those measures so much less necessary that voluntary charity would be sufficient to meet the needs of those who genuinely can't take care of themselves.
Exactly so. Anyone who's not part of the mainstream political establishment, including Tea Partiers, Occupiers, and libertarians, should be working together to fight the corporatism that strangles us all. Instead, activists on the left and the right are assiduously kept distracted by hating the other side, often by being fed caricatures of the other side's motivations.
Slashdot Mirror
They should ask Hollywood celebrities for advice on broadening their pool of names for babies. They come up with all sorts of fascinating name.
"Some think that the Sun's output in visible light peaks in the yellow. However, the Sun's visible output peaks in the green": http://solar-center.stanford.edu/SID/activities/GreenSun.html
Would it kill you to read the paper?
Probably not, but here at Slashdot our thinking is: why take the risk?
I know it sounds like crazy talk to most people, but there's a third option called "spending less money".
Whoosh. The comment was, to use a political phrase, "illustrating absurdity by being absurd". Sometimes people mod those insightful because they think (mistakenly, it would seem) that this is obvious to everyone.
It does seem almost deliberately confusing, doesn't it?
Libertarianism covers a lot of territory, from a minimal state to none at all. Those in the none at all camp are anarchist libertarians, and no, they don't blow up other people's stuff since libertarianism (in the American sense, which I think is by far the most common usage) is strongly propertarian.
So you could say that many libertarians are not anarchists, but not all of them.
You say "proper" like you get to define the term, and like you can single-handedly exclude anarcho-capitalists from being anarchists.
I don't mind being called "paranoid" about these things. I am well aware that I sound paranoid. I honestly hope I'm just being paranoid.
Not only are you not paranoid, but this sort of thing is so common it doesn't even sound paranoid any more. Political power has been centralized, and law enforcement have been militarized. It's all downhill from there.
In all seriousness, no, I suppose I wouldn't. For example, I remember when Washington, D.C., the area where I live most of the time, was the "murder capital of the world", with an average of more than one per day, yet most weren't deemed newsworthy. (I also live part time in a country where any murder dominates the news for at least a week, but then it's a very small country.)
Yeah, that's why it doesn't even make the news when something like that happens... /trollfeeding
Capitailsm can't survive it's own success if success always means the consolidation of markets. Something external has to step in and reset the game It seems to me that people who love capitalism should all agree with me and the people who don't are just profiteers fundamentally unconcerned with the society they in or other people, at best paying some lip service to some "invisible hand" that justifies their selfish greed.
The problem is that if you really have capitalism, then anyone can enter an industry if they see that the dominant one, two, or however many companies in it are pricing their goods or services too high. But we don't have that, we have corporatism, where those who are already in a market use relationships with the policy makers who oversee them for mutual advantage.
In other words, we already have something external that's supposed to do what you describe. The problem is that it usually stifles real competition rather than promoting it, because human nature is to act more from individual incentive rather than from altruism.
You may be interested in OSRIC, which is a free PDF of 1e crunch, with all new fluff for copyright purposes. Basically, OSRIC is to 1e as Pathfinder is to 3e.
I can see it now, white guys spend all their time doing finance stuff, Chinese spend their time doing technical stuff.
Oops, and here I was coding a student records system. My bad, I'll go find something financey to do, I guess.
I meant it -- I once had a web server on one end of a satellite connection and a database connection on the other. We had to change it, the delay was interminable, and that was just going to geosynchronous orbit and back.
Sorry, imagine how shitty the latency would be from the moon. Stupid slow speed of light!
To be fair, China also currently can put a human in orbit.
Two, with a dick year in front of them.
A wild e-beast?
This is why I merely said they should work together on the most pressing issue that they have in common, opposition to corporatism, rather than claim they could ever form any sort of long term coalition, which I realize they couldn't.
I've been libertarian for twenty years.
Your turn.
Both also talk about how bank bailouts are a bad idea, and are rightfully skeptical of the influence of those in the financial system on government. I'm not saying they'll skip hand in hand into the sunset, but there are a few big areas of commonality.
Yeah, probably. But the alternative was to remain silent.
And of course we'd still have safety nets for the poor. We'd still have Food Stamps, Housing assistance, welfare checks, and unemployment. I repeat: Libertarians are SMALL government, not no-government anarchists.
That's not what most people who identify as libertarian usually say. Much more often, libertarians say that a truly free market would lead to an increase in prosperity that would make those measures so much less necessary that voluntary charity would be sufficient to meet the needs of those who genuinely can't take care of themselves.
Exactly so. Anyone who's not part of the mainstream political establishment, including Tea Partiers, Occupiers, and libertarians, should be working together to fight the corporatism that strangles us all. Instead, activists on the left and the right are assiduously kept distracted by hating the other side, often by being fed caricatures of the other side's motivations.