. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.
Go ahead, knock yourselves out. :-)
There has to be some sort of good social services given in return for power. This is why the anarchists and libertarians will never control any power.
Red BaitIt's not about controlling power. It's about freedom.You're a troll.LGM
Government should be about removing power over people.
No you're wrong, people above all else desire power not freedom for the masses. Human nature...
I think the 'minimum wage' should be abolished, and wages decline, for the simple reason that people on low incomes have no particular need for much money.Their spending is only on alcohol, lotto, cabbage, mutton and oven ready chips...expenditure which hardly requires large wages to afford.So we should lower those wages and offer relief to Businessmen who can use the savings to invest productively.
How to win friends and influence people, eh! Way to go, silly boy.
Ha Ha. The blind following to the libertarian philosophy is apparent here. Its funny the ruling elites love to talk about 'individuals'. When one is rich or powerful, one can be a happy individual. When one is poor, one is part of the 'masses' by definition. A poor person doesn't decide if he wishes to eat in this fine French eatery or that delightful hotel. A poor person hopes to eat anything! A rich person can decide which of his six houses he wants to sleep in. A poor person sleeps under bridges. Infamously, a cheeky ruling elite in London quipped that the law against sleeping under bridges applied to the rich and the poor equally. Or as Marie Antoinette supposedly said, 'Let them eat cake.'
I find it funny that a party that prides itself on individual freedoms and freedom of speech resorts to name calling and calls for censorship rather than rigorous debate. What is particularly sad about all this is how the 'individualists' who are right wingers always end up clinging to fascists for survival. Fascism is all about non-individuals marching in unison. A pathetic ironic point.
Well the statutory minimum wage should be abolished, but not because low income people don't need much money - because they are all different - but because unskilled labour shouldn't be overpriced. Abolishing the minimum wage grants the unskilled opportunities that are otherwise priced out of the market. For example, in the UK NO supermarket has grocery packers because it isn't worth paying the minimum wage to teenagers to do it.Those concerned about the unskilled are of course free to do as they wish to help them. I'd give more to charity if I wasn't forced to fund the appalling state run "welfare for nothing" and Soviet style health service.
AnonymousYou said "I find it funny that a party that prides itself on individual freedoms and freedom of speech resorts to name calling and calls for censorship rather than rigorous debate."Since when has the Libertarianz political party done what you accuse it of? (I assume that is the party you are referring to.)Julian
Julian I was referring to the comments by "LGM" and "Really Fat Girl". If they are not affiliated with the libertarianz then I retract my comment and apologise.
Libertyscott, I agree to a point however you must realise that from the dawn of civilization, the one thing that all civilizations have in common is the concept of taxes and the concept of the government protecting the people during bad times.If a ruler didn't protect the people in bad times, he or she would fail. Either invaders would destroy the kingdom or there would be uprisings and palace coups. This is why all smart rulers don't crush the workers entirely or let them die if there is a food shortage. This is why smart rulers fear food inflation. This can cause French Revolutions, just for one glaring example.
If you want to know why we are doomed, economically and philosophically, just read the comments to this Bernard Hickey post - many of them are downright chilling:http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/02/15/record-improvement-in-housing-affordability-in-january-housing-seen-affordable-again-by-the-end-of-2009/#comment-15750
Anon - note that libertarians don't oppose private censorship - e.g. a newspaper owner deciding what goes in his publication and what is left out. We just oppose the government impeding the free flow of speech and information.'Fascism is all about non-individuals marching in unison'Fascism is all about the government making a sham out of private ownership of property, nothing to do with marching.Can you qualify what you mean in your first statement about social services given in return for power. Government always give crap social services - one size fits all service unresponsive to differences in individual circumstances, poor value for money, and robbing Peter to pay for Paul. To me these are not 'good' social services.
Anonymous said"Julian I was referring to the comments by "LGM" and "Really Fat Girl". If they are not affiliated with the libertarianz then I retract my comment and apologise."The thing to remember is that people are free to say what they want on blogs and elsewhere. For the Libertarianz political party, the only place to get the party's position on any issue is via the party's website or via publications of the party. Julian
Anonymous: Consider leaving your name if you don't wish to be thought of as a troll.Also, governments should protect the people at ALL times, not just in bad. That's pretty much the only function a government should serve. Protect our freedoms, and ensure we are able to go about our productive lives unhindered.This can cause French RevolutionsPhew, lucky there's only one France! ;)
Anon 2: I've just read the comments from LGM & RFG.Where are the "calls for censorship" of which you make mention?
Well that was an interesting experiment, don't you think?
I think it went rather well, Peter...(although mystified at the 'censorship' comments by anonymous at 11:04am)
Reply to Richard McGrathPoint 1. Richard I am glad to hear it. I am interested in whether you think the government has a place to play in preventing private monopolys forming which prevent the free flow of speech and information.Point 2. The definition of Fascism is "Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation ,a race or even a social class". I dont believe that makes my definition any less valid than yours.Point 3. Democracy is based on electing leaders who in return give you something. You dont give power to someone if there is nothing in it for you. Thats why nationalists who are patriotic tend to be the ones who pull nations out of tailspins. Sometimes, they are utterly evil like Hitler or Mao. But they succeed due to their anchoring their systems into defending their own homelands. Good people do this, too: if they are truly patriotic, they win in the long run. Good or evil, patriotism wins over ‘give up’ or ’sell out to foreign powers.’ The US elites are ’sold out to foreign powers’ and happily evade taxes, move offshore and import semi-slave labor to wreck the lives of citizens who can’t do all this. They can do this with impunity until the people realize the major political parties are corrupt and the leaders are traitors. Then, we have a revolution or a coup run by patriots.
Reply to Greig McGillI like being anonymous just like the libertarians who choose not to participate in the census. :)I agree with your second point.
Reply to Sus"LGM" called me a troll. That is a common term used when they think the poster should be banned."Really Fat Girl" called me silly. Thats name calling and immature.
" .. just like the libertarians who choose not to participate in the census."That has nothing to do with being "anonymous". Wrong analogy.
I see so I have no right to remain anonymous? It is only a wrong analogy because your belief system differs from mine.
"Reply to Sus .. "LGM" called me a troll. That is a common term used when they think the poster should be banned. "Really Fat Girl" called me silly. Thats name calling and immature."Anon: that's (mild) name-calling, yes, but it's no 'call for censorship', per se. I don't know who you are or what you know, but you don't need to hang around libertarian sites very long to know that free speech is sacrosanct. There's a world of difference in, say, my calling you an idiot versus calling for you to not be able to speak your mind. FWIW, I read RFG's comment as being directed toward Elijah rather than yourself, anyway. I could be wrong ...
"I see so I have no right to remain anonymous?"Now you're cheesing me off. I never said that. Read carefully and then comment. At least you're then doing so from a valid basis.
Anon - thanks for ther reply. My further thoughts:Point 1 (private monopolies) the only way a monopoly can occur is through the use of government force. 'Private monopoly' is a non sequitur. A market can be dominated by one player, e.g. Standard Oil in its early days, but that doesn't stop other players entering the market. Of course that doesn't say entering the market will be cheap or easy; that's the nature of competition.Point 2 (Fascism) - your definition could also apply to comuunism, the common denominator being the sacrifice of the individual in favour of collectivism. Point 3 - You are right - people do elect governments because they want something in return. usually this means the elected govt stealing from one group of people to favour another. Libertarians believe this is wrong. We would like governments to be so tightly constrained by a constitution that they are not able to steal from any New Zealander.Nationalism tends to be insular and backward thinking. Globalisation and free trade tends to lessen the chances of war. Who would want to launch a war on their major trading partners?'Tax evaders' are merely trying to conduct their business under less predatory government. It shouldn't be a crime to refuse to have half or more of your income stolen by the same people who are charged with upholding your individual rights.
Sus said:There's a world of difference in, say, my calling you an idiot versus calling for you to not be able to speak your mind. There isnt a world of difference between those terms. Both show me that you are angry with me and dont want me posting here! That is a form of censorship. I wont hold this against you though as it is human nature to want to censor, hurt or kill. Indeed, humans, unlike animals, need lots of rules, laws and commandments ordering them to not do this too often or to the wrong creatures. For example, in many places today, it is illegal to kill the wife if she overcooks the pasta! Wow. Progress!
I see so I have no right to remain anonymous?Where did anybody say that? I simply observed that those who provide their name are more likely to be taken seriously, and less likely to be trolling. Do what you like, it's your name, and it's your right to keep it secret. Simply be aware that some may hold you in lesser regard if you choose to remain anonymous. Freedom does not mean lack of accountability.Both show me that you are angry with me and dont want me posting here! That is a form of censorshipDo you really believe that? Censorship is preventing you expressing your opinion. Not simply disagreeing with it, or even being angry that you expressed it. If all it takes to make you shut up is the knowledge that someone else is angered by your opinion, you'd not have posted some of your arguments in the first place. In fact, if that were the case, there wouldn't ever be much to talk about!Anyway, as stated earlier by Richard, there is nothing wrong with private censorship. Peter could delete any post he wished to on this, his blog. I can't see it happening, but he's entirely within his writes to do so. You might not agree with it, but then it's not your place to dictate what someone else may do with their private property is it? :)
Liberty Scott said : "Well the statutory minimum wage should be abolished, but not because low income people don't need much money - because they are all different - but because unskilled labour shouldn't be overpriced."I disagree. I think it should be abolished because it is against the principles of freedom of association.
Elijah, did you ever donate $500 to the Greens as you undertook to do? You know, to satisfy our bet?Sorry to trot this out on here PC but Elijah has disabled comments on his blog, and I figured this thread would be the best to do it on as it doesn't derail anything else...DenMT
Why is Obama latest folly almost unmentioned in NZ? It will affect the world.http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/barack-obamas-787bn-bailout-is-stupidity/If you have a look at my last 2 or 3 posts on Obama (link blelow) you'll see why I think that Obama is public menace #1. Basically he's as evil as Herr Helen but capable of projecting military force around the globe.http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/tag/barack-obama/
Red BaitNot only are you a troll but you are a liar. 1/. I didn't make a call for censorship. So now you have lied. Hence you are a liar. Just because you can imagine something, that does not make it a fact. You should try telling the truth. It would make a nice change. 2/. While SOME individuals lust for power over others, it is each individual's personal decision whether they pursue such power or not. It is not in the nature of ALL human beings to seek power over others. In other words, you can't demonstrate that "people above all else desire power not freedom for the masses". Human nature is to make decisions. Decisions are made individually. It is on those decisions each acts. What those decisions actually are is up to each individual to make. LGM buuuuuuuyyyyyyh888555vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvsaqqq2222222222 xxxxdwbbbbzaaaaaa
SusAnon writes: ""LGM" called me a troll. That is a common term used when they think the poster should be banned."Beware! You are debating an anonymous mind reader who thinks he knows what everyone thinks!Incredible. LGM
SusAnon writes: ""LGM" called me a troll. That is a common term used when they think the poster should be banned."Beware! You are debating an anonymous mind reader who reckons he knows what everyone thinks!Incredible. LGM
DenMT, I think Elijah is a hypocrite and a pretentious person. He always talked here at Not PC, about how much money he makes but actually that's bullshit if he hasn't made the donation hat he promised (your bet with him).I think that Elijah also made a bet with Ruth and Ruth won that bet. I suspect that Elijah hasn't paid Ruth of what he owes her from the same bet.Pay up man.
Yes, DenMT, I made that donation a couple of months back and emailed you the picture of the cheque, as requested.
ElijahYou should not have given the cheque to the Greens. You should have given the money to DenMT directly instead. That way you are not paying sustenance to some evil outfit. LGM
I would have preferred to have won the bet and not paid at all! ha ha!
Elijah - I never received the email - which account did you send it to? Please email again to firstname.lastname@example.orgDenMT
LGM - the original bet was for $1000 paid to me (Elijah instigated the bet, I might add). I decided after winning it that it was a bit ridiculous, so halved it on the condition that Elijah paid the Greens, out of sheer irony value more than anything else. DenMT
Only a moron would have taken a bet that National would lose the election.I would just leave it be Den. To persue it is akin to parking in the disabled carpark at the mall.Hilarious that other so-called Objectivists admire and take 'investment' advice from this clown. Well, not many these days except the die-hards, since he has single-handedly destroyed the party...
"Only a moron..."... would comment on things she knows nothing about.
DenMT You should have gone for the $1000.00. for yourself. That way you could have taken a client out for a drink or given a discount or something good like that. This way you get nothing and the Greens benefit.LGM
Elijah - I don't particularly want to have this out in public - please email me on my Gmail address as given above.DenMT
And make sure you get the receipt, not the copy of the cheque.Incidentally, all PC's 'heroic' capitalists here in NZ are heading for the courtroom on SFO fraud charges - just as I predicted. And many more to come as the veil falls from his eyes. Or maybe not.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say.(Off-topic and trolling will be moderated. If it isn't entertaining.)