ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The Conservative/Libertarian appreciation thread

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 10:01 pm

Yeah, capitalists. Corporatists. The 1%. The "opulent minority." Whatever you want to call them, they aren't socialists. They're doing the same thing any other capitalist would do if given the opportunity: monopolize.


Capitalists and Corporatists are two different entitites. Capitalists, or market entrepreneurs, adhere to competition in order to foster a decentralized market that maximizes choice. Corporatists, or political entrepreneurs, seek political favoritism to bypass competition for the purpose of centralizing the market with monopolies that minimize choice. Capitalists, recognizing that better competition may eventually prove them inferior, try to diversify, as opposed to the Corporatist strategy of monopolizing.  


The 1% is a misnomer... it's more like 0.01%, if that. Nelson W. Aldrich (ties to John D. Rockefeller), Henry P. Davison (JP Morgan), A. Piatt Andrew, Frank Vanderlip (Pres. of National City Bank and Rep of William Rockefeller) Benjamin Strong (JP Morgan), and Paul M. Warburg (rep of Rothschilds and Warburgs in England)... these men represented approx. 1/4 of the world's entire wealth back in the early 20th century and were responsible for creating what would become the Federal Reserve (The Creature from Jekyll Island, G. Edward Griffin). These are the men to start with in order to learn about those running things today. 



And your defense of DA/DT is appalling.


Voluntary associations and an opposition to coercion/slavery form the basis of my defense for DA/DT. What do you find appalling about voluntary associations and an opposition to coercion/slavery? 

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Mar. 02 2013, 7:33 am

Capitalists and Corporatists are two different entitites. Capitalists, or market entrepreneurs, adhere to competition in order to foster a decentralized market that maximizes choice. Corporatists, or political entrepreneurs, seek political favoritism to bypass competition for the purpose of centralizing the market with monopolies that minimize choice. Capitalists, recognizing that better competition may eventually prove them inferior, try to diversify, as opposed to the Corporatist strategy of monopolizing.

You really expect me or anyone else to believe that capitalists would never "capitalize" on the opportunity to eliminate competition?

These are the men to start with in order to learn about those running things today.

No, we should start with this man:

"Our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." - James Madison

Voluntary associations and an opposition to coercion/slavery form the basis of my defense for DA/DT. What do you find appalling about voluntary associations and an opposition to coercion/slavery?

Saying that DA/DT is a good thing because it gives homosexuals an "excuse" to "opt out" of the draft is what I find most appalling.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 04 2013, 8:08 pm

You really expect me or anyone else to believe that capitalists would never "capitalize" on the opportunity to eliminate competition?


A capitalist must offer the best product, in price and quality, to even have a chance at eliminating competition and cornering the market. But even then, it's consumer choice that finally determines the winners and losers and who has the monopoly, if at all. 


A smart capitalist realizes that if he abuses the system by petitioning a politician to intervene on his behalf that the reverse holds true... he may be exiled from the market by a competitor who has gained a politician's favor.


No, we should start with this man:

"Our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." - James Madison


Let's take the quote in its entirety...


"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure.  An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.


—James Madison


When Madison speaks of "landowners" he is referring to property owners, but primarily of the middle class (...the landed interest, at present, is prevalent...), and "innovation" refers to a shift from a Constitutional State to that of something else (most likely by way of democracy). But on the whole, Madison is warning that if the population expands, but with a diminishing middle class (...but in process of time... when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small...) than property will shift towards an elite, who will have gained the power to corrupt the purpose of government (...will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government...).


Saying that DA/DT is a good thing because it gives homosexuals an "excuse" to "opt out" of the draft is what I find most appalling.


So you favor involuntary servitude? You would prefer an individual be forced into the service of the State? What morally differentiates an individual from being a slave to one individual from an individual being a slave to two or more individuals (the State)?

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 04 2013, 8:38 pm

So, you agree with the rest of his defense of DA/DT? Just curious.


In addition, there is the missed point that socialism also works to eliminate competition, except through government taking control, rather than private monopolies.


Also, if we would like to quote the Founding Fathers, here is one from John Adams:


Quote:

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.


How about Jefferson:


Quote:

If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all [of his kin] in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.


Interesting. He wanted to avoid extra taxation on those who had acquired wealth. Or this quote:


[quote]


 


"Our wish... is that... equality of rights [be] maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805.


[/quote]


Rather, he had a John Locke, albeit an extreme one, of property, to avoid waste. Here is the Lockean principle he was expounding upon:


Quote:

As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property…. God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth—i.e., improve it for the benefit of life and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that, in obedience to this command of God, subdued, tilled, and sowed any part of it, thereby annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him.


 


Here's the thing about the free market and freedom-it can cause unbalance, but forced balancing does not make equality. It will produce a state manufactured monopoly, which can not respond to the needs of the people.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 04 2013, 8:48 pm

Post of the day goes to you, fireproof78.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Mar. 05 2013, 10:20 am

When Madison speaks of "landowners" he is referring to property owners, but primarily of the middle class (...the landed interest, at present, is prevalent...), and "innovation" refers to a shift from a Constitutional State to that of something else (most likely by way of democracy). But on the whole, Madison is warning that if the population expands, but with a diminishing middle class (...but in process of time... when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small...) than property will shift towards an elite, who will have gained the power to corrupt the purpose of government (...will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government...).

Madison wasn't warning against the "opulent minority" of "landowners" becoming too powerful, he was warning against democracy and how that if given the power, the majority would vote away the "property rights" of the "opulent minority." He was reassuring his fellow "landowners" that they should and would always "have a share in the government."

So you favor involuntary servitude? You would prefer an individual be forced into the service of the State?

No, I think we should end the draft too. I just don't see what it has to do with DA/DT and allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. You are trying to detract from your own homophobia and prejudice and I find that appalling.


I also find it ironic considering some of the things you've said about slavery and "property rights."

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46297

Report this Mar. 05 2013, 11:14 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 04 2013, 8:08 pm

>

>So you favor involuntary servitude? You would prefer an individual be forced into the service of the State? What morally differentiates an individual from being a slave to one individual from an individual being a slave to two or more individuals (the State)?

>
Anyone that supports socialism is in favor of involuntary servitude.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 05 2013, 12:57 pm

Madison wasn't warning against the "opulent minority" of "landowners" becoming too powerful, he was warning against democracy and how that if given the power, the majority would vote away the "property rights" of the "opulent minority." He was reassuring his fellow "landowners" that they should and would always "have a share in the government."


You're viewing Madison's statement very narrowly. I included his warning of democracy in my post. But consider the timeline of events that must transpire... First, a minority gains the backing of government to mandate a central bank with ensuing fiat currency. Overtime, the central bank inflates the currency, resulting in a subsequent devaluation, and artifically keeps interest rates low. The intervention creates false signals in the market that encourages individuals to unknowingly spend themselves into debt. But eventually, the bubble bursts and the economy contracts. Debts are called in and individuals lose their collateral, homes being an example. The central bankers are quick to buy up property at low prices and transfer the wealth to themselves. At this point, many individuals, having their wealth confiscated through banking and government corruption, grow susceptable to the pitfalls of democracy, which only offers short-term expediencies but with long-term consequences. The erosion of Constitutional government is one such consequence.


No, I think we should end the draft too. I just don't see what it has to do with DA/DT and allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military.


Since World War II, homosexuality was a disqualifier for military service. In the 1960's, many people who were opposed to war, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, used homosexually as a way to opt out of the draft, because the government doesn't recognize an adherence to peace as a viable disqualifier. Then, DA/DT came about. DA/DT nullified sexual orientation as a military issue, and rightfully so, because sexual orientation has nothing to do with the role of the mlitary. So, DA/DT permitted homosexuals to serve in the military if so desired while simultaneously letting individuals, who didn't want to be in the military, opt out from service, as all one had to say is, "I'm gay."


But with DA/DT gone, people (regardless of their orientation) who are committed to peace are further hindered in opting out of the draft. I know a few homosexuals that would prefer DA/DT still be in place, as serving openly in the military is insignificant when compared to being forced into military service against their will.


You are trying to detract from your own homophobia and prejudice and I find that appalling.


Your accusation is unfounded, as I have a number of friends that are homosexual. My view is that a person's body is their property and he/she can do with their property as desired, so long as one does not violate the non-aggression principle. 


I also find it ironic considering some of the things you've said about slavery and "property rights."


As I described immediately above, my view is consistent. I even interjected private property rights as it relates to the subject of homosexuality. However, I'm always willing to be challenged. What have I said in the past that leads you to believe I'm in contradiction? 

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 05 2013, 12:59 pm

Anyone that supports socialism is in favor of involuntary servitude.


I agree. I'm just trying in a round about way to point that out. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46297

Report this Mar. 05 2013, 3:46 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 05 2013, 12:59 pm

>

>Anyone that supports socialism is in favor of involuntary servitude.

>I agree. I'm just trying in a round about way to point that out. 

>
Yea.... It's obvious that you know that "A is A", but getting people who refuse to acknowledge basic facts makes having a logical conversation with them pretty hard.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 06 2013, 6:07 am

...but getting people who refuse to acknowledge basic facts makes having a logical conversation with them pretty hard.


Very true. Luckily, I've been blessed with superpowers of patience and stubbornness.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 06 2013, 7:59 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 05 2013, 12:57 pm

>You are trying to detract from your own homophobia and prejudice and I find that appalling.

>Your accusation is unfounded, as I have a number of friends that are homosexual. My view is that a person's body is their property and he/she can do with their property as desired, so long as one does not violate the non-aggression principle.

>


I would just like to point out that this is a very libertarian point of view.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Mar. 06 2013, 1:57 pm

You're viewing Madison's statement very narrowly.

No, you're just trying to spin his statement to mean something it clearly does not. Again, the whole thing is a warning against democracy. When he asks "what will become of your government?" he's not saying the overbalance of landed interest is a bad thing, rather how will the government compensate for this overbalance? Should the government reduce poverty or should it reduce democracy? He then goes on to explain why government should reduce democracy.

I said we should start with Madison and this statement because it seems to be the foundation for the entire conservative/libertarian argument against democracy and "tyranny of the majority." You, like Madison, see the solution to the problem of "majority rule" as being a reduction of democracy whereas I see the solution as being a reduction of poverty.

I know a few homosexuals that would prefer DA/DT still be in place, as serving openly in the military is insignificant when compared to being forced into military service against their will.

Your comparison is unfair. You could replace "being forced into military service" with "having your eyes gouged out" and get the same results. A real libertarian would acknowlege that both Selective Service and DA/DT violate the "non-agression principle" and that you cannot condemn one while defending the other.

I have a number of friends that are homosexual.

Improbable and irrelevant.

What have I said in the past that leads you to believe I'm in contradiction?

Specifically, your defense of slavery, our slave-owning Founders and the 3/5th Clause. Your past statements lead me to believe that you are someone who views the 13th amendment not as a victory for civil rights but as an attack on property rights. Someone who considers Lincoln a "socialist."

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 06 2013, 3:33 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Mar. 06 2013, 1:57 pm

>

>You're viewing Madison's statement very narrowly.

No, you're just trying to spin his statement to mean something it clearly does not. Again, the whole thing is a warning against democracy. When he asks "what will become of your government?" he's not saying the overbalance of landed interest is a bad thing, rather how will the government compensate for this overbalance? Should the government reduce poverty or should it reduce democracy? He then goes on to explain why government should reduce democracy.

I said we should start with Madison and this statement because it seems to be the foundation for the entire conservative/libertarian argument against democracy and "tyranny of the majority." You, like Madison, see the solution to the problem of "majority rule" as being a reduction of democracy whereas I see the solution as being a reduction of poverty.

>


For those interested in the source of Madison's statement, here is the conversational notes in full: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp


I did a read through it, and it is very interesting as there are several members of the Convention attempting to find a balance between the smaller states and the larger states, trying to avoid one unbalancing the other. The result, of course, is the two house system in the United States Congress. The House of Representatives allows the larger states to have more of a voice, while the Senate allows all States to have an equal footing.


Some highlights include arguments against a confederation of states, against aristocracy as well as the nature of states. Also of interest is the ideas of republican form of government, which is ultimately what the American government is, not a democracy.


It should be noted that many libertarian ideas were discussed in this convention, the basis of which is individual rights. Libertarians are for limited government, so any sort of tyranny is regarded as suspicious and bad, even if it is the majority. That is why they wanted limited government.


Of interesting note is the idea in the Convention that unlimited democracy can ultimately lead to monarchy. That is why the system of checks and balances, however imperfect, was designed. Madison was one of the originators of this idea, taking a monarch out the equation to make checks and balances more suitable to a republic.


Of course, Madison was not perfect, but his ideas for a limited government to protect people from any tyranny carried on in the Constitution.


I do not believe that the reduction of democracy versus the reduction of poverty is a one to one ratio. I believe, within the American system of government, there is the potential for individual States to work to better their own State, and in so doing will better the country. I don't need more democracy-I need more people willing to act. That is one of the reasons I agree with the TEA party movement in the US.


 

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 06 2013, 9:57 pm

No, you're just trying to spin his statement to mean something it clearly does not. Again, the whole thing is a warning against democracy. When he asks "what will become of your government?" he's not saying the overbalance of landed interest is a bad thing, rather how will the government compensate for this overbalance? Should the government reduce poverty or should it reduce democracy? He then goes on to explain why government should reduce democracy.


How am I trying to spin his argument? My original post acknowledged Madison's warning of democracy, only going further to assert his reasoning behind that stance. His reasoning, again, is simply that when the middle class - which constitutes a majority in a healthy society - has a vested interest in their rights, such as private property, then they will simultaneously have a vested interest in their Supreme Laws (the Constitution) that offer protection for their rights. However, if the middle class should become disenfranchised by corruption* (found in Madison's preceeding paragraph when he says, "...that those power may be abused... that members may lose their attachments to the States which sent them...") then "Democratic communities may... be led to action by the impulses of the moment," (Madison). Hence, these democratic communities, if disenfranchised, may abandon the Constitution, because they no longer have the private property, which they would otherwise wish to protect for themselves if enfranchised, and are therefore willing to steal it from others.    


I said we should start with Madison and this statement because it seems to be the foundation for the entire conservative/libertarian argument against democracy and "tyranny of the majority."


The libertarian argument against democracy begins and ends with a democracy's potential to violate the non-aggression principle. In a democracy, if 51% say first-strike force against an individual or minority is permissable, than first-strike force becomes legitimate. But to a libertarian, first-strike force is never legitimate. The only time Madison can be remotely attributed to even alluding to first-strike force is when he mentions corruption. The foundation for Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. Everything else follows from that maxim


You, like Madison, see the solution to the problem of "majority rule" as being a reduction of democracy whereas I see the solution as being a reduction of poverty.


I'm of the belief that is it not one or the other. I'm for both a reduction of poverty, as I favor capitalism, and a reduction of democracy.  And if you follow what I have been writing, I have clearly demonstrated that a reduction of poverty - a strong middle class with a vested interest in land ownership - solves the problem of majority rule, because the majority will simultaneously have a vested interest in their Supreme Laws, as opposed to their violation. However, the Government is not Constitutionally afforded the power to intervene in the economy for the purpose of reducing poverty. The private sector is responsible for the reduction of poverty.


You could replace "being forced into military service" with "having your eyes gouged out"...


...Or "getting your limbs blown off... being forced to commit actions that are against one's morals & beliefs..."


A real libertarian would acknowlege that both Selective Service and DA/DT violate the "non-agression principle" and that you cannot condemn one while defending the other.


DA/DT does not violate the non-aggression principle, as 1.) discrimination does not violate the non-aggression principle and 2.) DA/DT was a policy adopted by the military, which is discriminatory by nature. On point one - discrimination is a fact of life. Homosexuals and heterosexuals discriminate when chosing a partner... first, the homo/heterosexual discriminates against or in favor of the opposite sex... discrimination continues with physical/mental traits, etc. How one choses a partner is ultimately a discriminatory poiicy that develops over time through dating. On point 2 - in a free society, where military service is voluntary, one would still apply for military service, but be subject to the discriminatory and disciplinary policies therein.  


Improbable and irrelevant.


Your fallacious accusation deemed my statement's relevance. However, if you still assert irrelevancy than it must also apply to the accusation that spawned the rebuttal.


I have greater trust in my "improbabilities" than a socialist's "fact". 


Specifically, your defense of slavery, our slave-owning Founders and the 3/5th Clause. Your past statements lead me to believe that you are someone who views the 13th amendment not as a victory for civil rights but as an attack on property rights. Someone who considers Lincoln a "socialist."


Offer specific quotes please. For example, I don't recall talking about the 3/5 Clause. I believe you're attributing someone else's defense of it to me. 


On the 13th Amendment, your assertion is true. How can it be a victory for civil rights when private property - a civil right noted in the Bill of Rights - was broken by the 13th Amendment? That's like trying to stabilize the dollar by printing more of it. Or perhaps more appropriately, freeing the slave by killing the master.


I don't consider Lincoln a socialist. I consider him a strait up tyrannical dictator that destroyed the Voluntary Union of the Founding Fathers. 



Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum