Org Mobile Site
Thread: If Racism is Bad…
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
Of course most of this is theory and depends upon the principle of nonaggression.
To no one in particular.
As I said, The modern Nation State is the perfect instrument for empire building and aggressive war.
If you like to fight by all means keep and expand the nation state, it is just it will leave nothing but slaves and leaders.
Actually, the next step of nationhood that I support, Europeanism, is based in my eyes on two non-aggressive founding pillars. Firstly, the common market means the EU bloc can stand as one against any outside competitor, giving the bloc far more say than any single European state or statelet. With the likes of China, Russia, etc. throwing their weight about without going as far as war, this is a good thing to have in our favour, and something Americans have taken for granted (I suspect American dislike of a European state may have something to do with not wanting a competitor). Secondly, there is cultural identity in the form of football, and specifically UEFA. Where war has been the Briton's geography lesson in the past, nowadays it is football, with teams from every corner of the continent competing in common competitions, and with the EU's employment laws resulting in talented players from everywhere being heroes in one league or another.Of course most of this is theory and depends upon the principle of nonaggression.
To no one in particular.
As I said, The modern Nation State is the perfect instrument for empire building and aggressive war.
If you like to fight by all means keep and expand the nation state, it is just it will leave nothing but slaves and leaders.
In response to the original question I would say: a big fat bloated tax-payer supported military. Now hush, and:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
to fill the ranks.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
to fill the ranks.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
Sounds like your getting pretty personal there.
If I could rebuke the republican congress like I could you I would, right now all I have is one of the voters propping them up to fruitlessly argue with. Enjoy sigularly bearing the vitriol your entire political spectrum had induced.Sounds like your getting pretty personal there.
Originally Posted by :
I think you should explain how I have proposed some rightwing conspiracy for the rich to take over the world.
There is no conspiracy, just hundreds of powerful people constantly trying to make a little more money or gain a little more power by whatever means necissary, there is no plan, no focus, no illuminati if you are so inclined just the greed of the powerful and the exploitation of those not lucky enough to make thier own fortune. I think you should explain how I have proposed some rightwing conspiracy for the rich to take over the world.
Oh, and the millions of misguided who keep their influence disporportionately powerful. As for taking over the world, even if I had advocated such a predicton, I wonder why you would be so unreceptive, after all, it's your own slippery slope argument just going in the opposite direction.
Originally Posted by :
Pax Romana indeed! If you prefer to live under an emperor or dictator then I more understand your accusations of republican, as opposed to totalitarian.
Pax romana, Rome's peace, for 206 years europe experienced nearly complete peace, all due to the actions of a nation state. A time of peace and prosperity that wouldnt never be seen on that scale again, the closest we ever got was the 100 years that we call the victorian age. Whatever you may think of it, this puts an undeniable dent to anyone saying nation states exists only for war.Pax Romana indeed! If you prefer to live under an emperor or dictator then I more understand your accusations of republican, as opposed to totalitarian.
Actually this annoys me a lot, right now we should be having a pax americana, one that is nearly world wide and liable to last a good while, but you keep buggering it up by invading people on the whims of oligarchs, god you spend so much time fighting the russians and now you've won you cant seem to keep it together for any reasonable length of time.
Hell sometimes I think we skipped it and you are already in decline, which sucks because if that happens your nation's idiocy will not only doom yourselves but drag us down with you. Even more than it already has.
Originally Posted by :
How anti-authoritarian equates to right wing you will need to show us all.
...I'm not saying the the right wing is anti authoritarian, I'm saying its anti everyone-else's-authority, see your country's party of no which when presented with proposals it itself devised fights tooth and nail to sabotage them just because it is someone else's administtration trying to implement it. That any of your right wingers think it's a good thing confuses me.How anti-authoritarian equates to right wing you will need to show us all.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
If I could rebuke the republican congress like I could you I would, right now all I have is one of the voters propping them up to fruitlessly argue with. Enjoy sigularly bearing the vitriol your entire political spectrum had induced.
There is no conspiracy, just hundreds of powerful people constantly trying to make a little more money or gain a little more power by whatever means necissary, there is no plan, no focus, no illuminati if you are so inclined just the greed of the powerful and the exploitation of those not lucky enough to make thier own fortune.
Oh, and the millions of misguided who keep their influence disporportionately powerful. As for taking over the world, even if I had advocated such a predicton, I wonder why you would be so unreceptive, after all, it's your own slippery slope argument just going in the opposite direction.
Pax romana, Rome's peace, for 206 years europe experienced nearly complete peace, all due to the actions of a nation state. A time of peace and prosperity that wouldnt never be seen on that scale again, the closest we ever got was the 100 years that we call the victorian age. Whatever you may think of it, this puts an undeniable dent to anyone saying nation states exists only for war.
Actually this annoys me a lot, right now we should be having a pax americana, one that is nearly world wide and liable to last a good while, but you keep buggering it up by invading people on the whims of oligarchs, god you spend so much time fighting the russians and now you've won you cant seem to keep it together for any reasonable length of time.
Hell sometimes I think we skipped it and you are already in decline, which sucks because if that happens your nation's idiocy will not only doom yourselves but drag us down with you. Even more than it already has.
...I'm not saying the the right wing is anti authoritarian, I'm saying its anti everyone-else's-authority, see your country's party of no which when presented with proposals it itself devised fights tooth and nail to sabotage them just because it is someone else's administtration trying to implement it. That any of your right wingers think it's a good thing confuses me.
It might have something to do with people seeing true Americanism as pro-freedom and anti-tyranny, which results in forever finding new definitions of freedom to fight for and tyranny to fight against. It also means anyone America is fighting against is by definition a tyrant, while America's friends are by definition pro-freedom. I prefer being me and trying to find common cause with people who think like me.If I could rebuke the republican congress like I could you I would, right now all I have is one of the voters propping them up to fruitlessly argue with. Enjoy sigularly bearing the vitriol your entire political spectrum had induced.
There is no conspiracy, just hundreds of powerful people constantly trying to make a little more money or gain a little more power by whatever means necissary, there is no plan, no focus, no illuminati if you are so inclined just the greed of the powerful and the exploitation of those not lucky enough to make thier own fortune.
Oh, and the millions of misguided who keep their influence disporportionately powerful. As for taking over the world, even if I had advocated such a predicton, I wonder why you would be so unreceptive, after all, it's your own slippery slope argument just going in the opposite direction.
Pax romana, Rome's peace, for 206 years europe experienced nearly complete peace, all due to the actions of a nation state. A time of peace and prosperity that wouldnt never be seen on that scale again, the closest we ever got was the 100 years that we call the victorian age. Whatever you may think of it, this puts an undeniable dent to anyone saying nation states exists only for war.
Actually this annoys me a lot, right now we should be having a pax americana, one that is nearly world wide and liable to last a good while, but you keep buggering it up by invading people on the whims of oligarchs, god you spend so much time fighting the russians and now you've won you cant seem to keep it together for any reasonable length of time.
Hell sometimes I think we skipped it and you are already in decline, which sucks because if that happens your nation's idiocy will not only doom yourselves but drag us down with you. Even more than it already has.
...I'm not saying the the right wing is anti authoritarian, I'm saying its anti everyone-else's-authority, see your country's party of no which when presented with proposals it itself devised fights tooth and nail to sabotage them just because it is someone else's administtration trying to implement it. That any of your right wingers think it's a good thing confuses me.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
If I could rebuke the republican congress like I could you I would, right now all I have is one of the voters propping them up to fruitlessly argue with. Enjoy sigularly bearing the vitriol your entire political spectrum had induced.
There is no conspiracy, just hundreds of powerful people constantly trying to make a little more money or gain a little more power by whatever means necissary, there is no plan, no focus, no illuminati if you are so inclined just the greed of the powerful and the exploitation of those not lucky enough to make thier own fortune.
Oh, and the millions of misguided who keep their influence disporportionately powerful. As for taking over the world, even if I had advocated such a predicton, I wonder why you would be so unreceptive, after all, it's your own slippery slope argument just going in the opposite direction.
Pax romana, Rome's peace, for 206 years europe experienced nearly complete peace, all due to the actions of a nation state. A time of peace and prosperity that wouldnt never be seen on that scale again, the closest we ever got was the 100 years that we call the victorian age. Whatever you may think of it, this puts an undeniable dent to anyone saying nation states exists only for war.
Actually this annoys me a lot, right now we should be having a pax americana, one that is nearly world wide and liable to last a good while, but you keep buggering it up by invading people on the whims of oligarchs, god you spend so much time fighting the russians and now you've won you cant seem to keep it together for any reasonable length of time.
Hell sometimes I think we skipped it and you are already in decline, which sucks because if that happens your nation's idiocy will not only doom yourselves but drag us down with you. Even more than it already has.
...I'm not saying the the right wing is anti authoritarian, I'm saying its anti everyone-else's-authority, see your country's party of no which when presented with proposals it itself devised fights tooth and nail to sabotage them just because it is someone else's administtration trying to implement it. That any of your right wingers think it's a good thing confuses me.
If I could rebuke the republican congress like I could you I would, right now all I have is one of the voters propping them up to fruitlessly argue with. Enjoy sigularly bearing the vitriol your entire political spectrum had induced.
There is no conspiracy, just hundreds of powerful people constantly trying to make a little more money or gain a little more power by whatever means necissary, there is no plan, no focus, no illuminati if you are so inclined just the greed of the powerful and the exploitation of those not lucky enough to make thier own fortune.
Oh, and the millions of misguided who keep their influence disporportionately powerful. As for taking over the world, even if I had advocated such a predicton, I wonder why you would be so unreceptive, after all, it's your own slippery slope argument just going in the opposite direction.
Pax romana, Rome's peace, for 206 years europe experienced nearly complete peace, all due to the actions of a nation state. A time of peace and prosperity that wouldnt never be seen on that scale again, the closest we ever got was the 100 years that we call the victorian age. Whatever you may think of it, this puts an undeniable dent to anyone saying nation states exists only for war.
Actually this annoys me a lot, right now we should be having a pax americana, one that is nearly world wide and liable to last a good while, but you keep buggering it up by invading people on the whims of oligarchs, god you spend so much time fighting the russians and now you've won you cant seem to keep it together for any reasonable length of time.
Hell sometimes I think we skipped it and you are already in decline, which sucks because if that happens your nation's idiocy will not only doom yourselves but drag us down with you. Even more than it already has.
...I'm not saying the the right wing is anti authoritarian, I'm saying its anti everyone-else's-authority, see your country's party of no which when presented with proposals it itself devised fights tooth and nail to sabotage them just because it is someone else's administtration trying to implement it. That any of your right wingers think it's a good thing confuses me.
I really don’t know what you are talking about. Do you mean that a republican form of government is a bad thing vs. direct pure democracy or are you just referring to political parties?
If you go by the Pax Romana then you could call this time a Pax Americana. Many client kingdoms lost their liberties to direct Roman rule and Britain was conquered. Seems to me things were not all that peaceful 27bc to 180ad. It seems the Americans are right on track.
The last thing is that you have sufficiently broadened the definition of right wing to include Noam Chomsky into the Republican Party.
Favoring decentralized weaker forms of government doesn’t make someone right wing.
Most would say it verges on anarchy. For my views on labor I have been called a communist. In business and trade I would outlaw corporations and revert to general partnerships leaving all owners liable for legal actions and debts under the law. My right wing view is that people should have the rights to property and not for the state to control.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
It might have something to do with people seeing true Americanism as pro-freedom and anti-tyranny, which results in forever finding new definitions of freedom to fight for and tyranny to fight against. It also means anyone America is fighting against is by definition a tyrant, while America's friends are by definition pro-freedom. I prefer being me and trying to find common cause with people who think like me.
It might have something to do with people seeing true Americanism as pro-freedom and anti-tyranny, which results in forever finding new definitions of freedom to fight for and tyranny to fight against. It also means anyone America is fighting against is by definition a tyrant, while America's friends are by definition pro-freedom. I prefer being me and trying to find common cause with people who think like me.
No I am not trying to invent new freedoms, just recapture those we have lost. I don’t think the US government has a right to tell other governments what is best for their people and that invading someone else to bring them freedom is just conquest. The same as Roman intervention into Gaul led to the conquest of all Gaul and parts of Germany. How do you free people by killing them and taking over their county?
Nationalism usually amounts to the States excuse in acting in its own interests at the expense of both its people and the people it wishes to impose its will upon.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
Do you mean that a republican form of government is a bad thing vs. direct pure democracy or are you just referring to political parties?
Do you mean that a republican form of government is a bad thing vs. direct pure democracy or are you just referring to political parties?
Originally Posted by :
Favoring decentralized weaker forms of government doesn’t make someone right wing.
Considering your nation's political spectrum is completely right wing I would say it does. And I was reffering to the republican party. But that's not the problem, it's that half of you are favouring decentralized forms of government when it would just make it worse that I have a problem with. Your state governments are, frankly, embarrassing, only a few of them make west european standards and a lot of them put venezuela in a good light. Hell, some of them are a step away from going full mexico.Favoring decentralized weaker forms of government doesn’t make someone right wing.
The US government is bad at it's job, fine: the government bailed out the banks but was too fearful of loosing it's campaign donations (or whatever the heck you are calling bribes these days) to punish the bankers. It sent 148000 men and women to kill and die halfway around the world on a lie and when they realized what happened it did nothing to the perpritrators. When it's people were dying on the street because they coundn't afford the exorberant medical costs it took years and a huge amount of infighting to get obamacare out of the gate, and even obamacare's proponants think it's not doing enough.
And yet as it is also the only thing keeping half your states from failing.
The whole point of big government in the societal sense is to regulate the people to keep them from screwing eachother over. Yes, your federal government is severely crippled in that respect but I cant see many of the states doing any better managing the abuses that are currently crippling the federal one. I cant see many of the states being better off without such a large federal government, in fact without the federal government's support most of them will become worse places to live for everyone not moneyed.
Every time someone says "decentralize" I hear: "This Oak pillar that's holding up the temple is weak and likely to fall, lets gut it and hope the plywood ones can take the strain!" And the worst thing is that most of the people saying that (in the terms of the previous metaphor metaphore) are the weevils.
Originally Posted by :
If you go by the Pax Romana then you could call this time a Pax Americana. Many client kingdoms lost their liberties to direct Roman rule and Britain was conquered. Seems to me things were not all that peaceful 27bc to 180ad. It seems the Americans are right on track.
Peace doesnt mean freedom it means not having nations fighting eachother every 10 years liek it is now. And liberty? Please, they changed from the complete authority of bunch of chieftans/kings to live under the complete authority of a bunch of roman emperors, they lost nothing because they didn't have anything in the first place and at least the roman's gave the conquered a chance to become rich enough to become a voter or even a senator.If you go by the Pax Romana then you could call this time a Pax Americana. Many client kingdoms lost their liberties to direct Roman rule and Britain was conquered. Seems to me things were not all that peaceful 27bc to 180ad. It seems the Americans are right on track.
Originally Posted by :
The last thing is that you have sufficiently broadened the definition of right wing to include Noam Chomsky into the Republican Party.
Who is noam chompsky?The last thing is that you have sufficiently broadened the definition of right wing to include Noam Chomsky into the Republican Party.
Noam Chomsky:
http://www.chomsky.info/
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
I have read Manufacturing Consent and Culture of Terrorism; both interesting takes on American culture and social control.
http://www.chomsky.info/
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
I have read Manufacturing Consent and Culture of Terrorism; both interesting takes on American culture and social control.
Racism, nationalism and patriotism are all negative.
The only proper way to judge the worth of another human being is which team they support. Naturally, all scousers are scum no matter what else they do in life.
The only proper way to judge the worth of another human being is which team they support. Naturally, all scousers are scum no matter what else they do in life.
Well it's better than them at least because you can choose which team to support.
@Grayblades, I would say that you principally misunderstand politics and have a strong bigotry when it come to American Politics in particular.
You assume that what is, is and cannot be changed. Reform is futile. Yet you yourself see the need to reform.
Now, there are many points we agree upon. :shock: But I do not see government as benefactor, only as a necessary evil.
The American political parties voice different views in campaigns but are indistinguishable when in power. Both rule in support of the crony capitalism that they themselves created.
The bank bailouts were to help their own interests and ultimately of their own creation through regulation and privilege.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ln8...ga-PJm3_WuHXA2
You assume that what is, is and cannot be changed. Reform is futile. Yet you yourself see the need to reform.
Now, there are many points we agree upon. :shock: But I do not see government as benefactor, only as a necessary evil.
The American political parties voice different views in campaigns but are indistinguishable when in power. Both rule in support of the crony capitalism that they themselves created.
The bank bailouts were to help their own interests and ultimately of their own creation through regulation and privilege.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ln8...ga-PJm3_WuHXA2
Originally Posted by The Lurker Below:
In response to the original question I would say: a big fat bloated tax-payer supported military. Now hush, and:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
to fill the ranks.
Cute. Sounds like every other 19 year old virgin who tripped over whatever leftist their ap teacher had them read, but cute none the lessIn response to the original question I would say: a big fat bloated tax-payer supported military. Now hush, and:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
to fill the ranks.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
@Grayblades, I would say that you principally misunderstand politics and have a strong bigotry when it come to American Politics in particular.
Bigotry? Bigotry requiers undeserving target and I am pretty sure the Unites states political system is very deserving of an ire I share with most of it's inhabitants.@Grayblades, I would say that you principally misunderstand politics and have a strong bigotry when it come to American Politics in particular.
Originally Posted by :
You assume that what is, is and cannot be changed. Reform is futile. Yet you yourself see the need to reform.
No, I see a need for reform but I find your proposed changes to be inheritly counterproductive. Your system is blatantly corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional yes. But I'm under the impression that you think that everything would be better handled on the state level, or through private companies. To that I can only point at the amount of crap the private sector has pulled already, and how the states governments are equally corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional. Particularly of those red states who are currently reliant on federal funds to keep from driving themselves into the ground. Your government needs reform, you need to stop the gerrymandering, reduce the overwhelming influence of vested interests, undo the two party system etc. But I dont see how decentralization could be the reform needed when the alternatives to a centeralized state are worse, it most certainly doesnt help that most of the people calling for it are the same people who have caused the need for reform in the first place.You assume that what is, is and cannot be changed. Reform is futile. Yet you yourself see the need to reform.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Bigotry? Bigotry implies something undeserving upon the recipient, whereas all my hate is on the intentional actions of the republicans.
No, I see a need for reform but I find your proposed changes to be inheritly counterproductive. Your system is blatantly corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional yes. But I'm under the impression that you think that everything would be better handled on the state level, or through private companies. To that I can only point at the amount of crap the private sector has pulled already, and how the states governments are equally corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional. Particularly of those red states who are currently reliant on federal funds to keep from driving themselves into the ground. Your government needs reform, you need to stop the gerrymandering, reduce the overwhelming influence of vested interests, undo the two party system etc. But I dont see how decentralization could be the reform needed when the alternatives to a centeralized state are worse, it most certainly doesnt help that most of the people calling for it are the same people who have caused the need for reform in the first place.
There you go assuming again. I see no role for business to be involved in government what so ever. It is the quickest way to corrupt them both. I have never said that and that is of your own invention, like much else you have written.Bigotry? Bigotry implies something undeserving upon the recipient, whereas all my hate is on the intentional actions of the republicans.
No, I see a need for reform but I find your proposed changes to be inheritly counterproductive. Your system is blatantly corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional yes. But I'm under the impression that you think that everything would be better handled on the state level, or through private companies. To that I can only point at the amount of crap the private sector has pulled already, and how the states governments are equally corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional. Particularly of those red states who are currently reliant on federal funds to keep from driving themselves into the ground. Your government needs reform, you need to stop the gerrymandering, reduce the overwhelming influence of vested interests, undo the two party system etc. But I dont see how decentralization could be the reform needed when the alternatives to a centeralized state are worse, it most certainly doesnt help that most of the people calling for it are the same people who have caused the need for reform in the first place.
I am under no illusions as to the corruptibility of government at any level, only that less centralized governments have less powers and more local governments have less geographical reach. The more distant the government the more tolerant people are of its excesses
You misunderstand that fundamentally there is no difference in the ruling parties in the US. What they say is not what they do. They only differ in which corporate interests they promote.
The system is quite efferent in what it does. The only seeming dysfunctionality is in what it says vs. what it does. Laws are written by lobbyists or corporations and given to congress, given misleading bill names and garner public support for the titles, not what the bill or laws actually contain.
They mislead the people and lie at every turn yet the public will not see beyond the rhetoric.
Like the man said, “it is easy to fool people but it is damn near impossible to convince them they have been fooled”.
And if you see no need for governmental reform, well, guess where that leaves you. I see it was a waste of time to provide you with that link.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
There you go assuming again. I see no role for business to be involved in government what so ever. It is the quickest way to corrupt them both. I have never said that and that is of your own invention, like much else you have written.
Ah, but you see, you havent said anything for me to assume or know otherwise; You've spouted "authoritarianism, decentralization, liberty freedom and a hard boiled egg." But the issue you have come out and said "this is going too far": is vaccinations. It would be understandable if you were ultra libertarian but we've mentioned the patriot act and you've not so much as said "yeah that's bad, but lets keep it on topic guys".There you go assuming again. I see no role for business to be involved in government what so ever. It is the quickest way to corrupt them both. I have never said that and that is of your own invention, like much else you have written.
You've come off selective. You focus upon something that is, quite frankly, irrational as much worse has been imposed yet ignored. It's textbook politicking with a right wing twist,what else am I supposed to assume?
Originally Posted by :
I am under no illusions as to the corruptibility of government at any level, only that less centralized governments have less powers and more local governments have less geographical reach. The more distant the government the more tolerant people are of its excesses
I cannot agree with that, as I feel if it was true we wouldnt be hearing a peep about southern or scottish seperatism.I am under no illusions as to the corruptibility of government at any level, only that less centralized governments have less powers and more local governments have less geographical reach. The more distant the government the more tolerant people are of its excesses
Originally Posted by :
You misunderstand that fundamentally there is no difference in the ruling parties in the US. What they say is not what they do. They only differ in which corporate interests they promote.
Arguable, I find the main difference is their PR and that what the Republicans put out disturbs me, almost as much as the fact that it still gets them elected. I dont find the democrats' advertising very compelling but compared to the republicans they is saint like and with the uprising of the teaparty and the words of thier leaders, I find myself wondering if they themselves are starting to believe thier own propaganda. I find the possibility much more frightening than any slave to corporate interest.You misunderstand that fundamentally there is no difference in the ruling parties in the US. What they say is not what they do. They only differ in which corporate interests they promote.
Originally Posted by :
And if you see no need for governmental reform, well, guess where that leaves you. I see it was a waste of time to provide you with that link.
Changing the 2 party system is not a government reform? Also you need to find better philosophors than Rand's groupies.And if you see no need for governmental reform, well, guess where that leaves you. I see it was a waste of time to provide you with that link.
lol, Murray Rothbard linky.
If that's not batshit crazy, nothing is.
If that's not batshit crazy, nothing is.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
lol, Murray Rothbard linky.
If that's not batshit crazy, nothing is.
No, I don’t think so. Heard him talking about you.lol, Murray Rothbard linky.
If that's not batshit crazy, nothing is.
edit: that is not fair. Most of his stuff is, but his view on the state and on war he does have a glimmer of light.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
No, I don’t think so. Heard him talking about you.
When you believe Ludwig von Mises doesn't go far enough, it's a clear sign someone has lost their mind.No, I don’t think so. Heard him talking about you.
Also, Austrian school is complete BS by the simple fact that they completely disregard the scientific method, even going so far as to brag about their pseudoscientific ways. It's no wonder their conclusions are all unfounded ideological hogwash with no basis in actual reality.
Abolish all isms.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Abolish all isms.
What's wrong with hedonism?Abolish all isms.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
When you believe Ludwig von Mises doesn't go far enough, it's a clear sign someone has lost their mind.
Also, Austrian school is complete BS by the simple fact that they completely disregard the scientific method, even going so far as to brag about their pseudoscientific ways. It's no wonder their conclusions are all unfounded ideological hogwash with no basis in actual reality.
I haven’t read any of the Austrians on economics but had you said that about the scientific method a week ago I would have let it go and assumed you were right. I have only dabbled a bit into the topic.When you believe Ludwig von Mises doesn't go far enough, it's a clear sign someone has lost their mind.
Also, Austrian school is complete BS by the simple fact that they completely disregard the scientific method, even going so far as to brag about their pseudoscientific ways. It's no wonder their conclusions are all unfounded ideological hogwash with no basis in actual reality.
Coincidentally however, on 4th a rather prestigious Political Economist, visiting from the states, happened to come over to watch the US team lose. Not a man that anyone of sense would associate with the right, nor libertarians for that matter. There was no discussion of Austrians but he brought up the scientific method ( as practiced in economics) himself and he dismissed it as rubbish. So apparently the Austrians can get away with calling the scientific method witchcraft because it is not just them who think this. It may actually be a minor point in their favor. At least among economists.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Ah, but you see, you havent said anything for me to assume or know otherwise
Well, apparently you have missed it and I don’t feel the need to go through it all. Most of this is theoretical anyway, as I don’t see the US collapsing in the next couple of weeks.Ah, but you see, you havent said anything for me to assume or know otherwise
But here is an idea. So far all you have done is disagree without offering any thing of substance.
Why don’t you demonstrate a little moral courage by telling us what you stand for and what you think is a better form of government?
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
What's wrong with hedonism?
Why do you hate hedons?What's wrong with hedonism?
Originally Posted by :
So far all you have done is disagree without offering any thing of substance.
No substance is still a net gain over the use of that Murray Rothbard video.So far all you have done is disagree without offering any thing of substance.
Originally Posted by :
what you think is a better form of government?
If all it took to make a better government, than what 3000 years of human expermentation has produced, was one man listening to the works of a few wannabe philosophors attempting to justifying thier selfish elitism(oh, sorry, libertarians) we'd have found it from the start. What america has right now is in need of an overhaul and while I dont have the answer, you dont need to be a chef to know when the food sucks and I dont need to have my own plan to tell when your idea wont work and the attempts to make it work will most likely make things worse. what you think is a better form of government?
Let's start easy: Imagining you had a decentralized government like you wish and taking into consideration that a constitution and it's amendments (which overall are held in higher regard in thier country than god) wasnt enough to restrain a government from using power it wasnt supposed to have, how would you keep any government, centralized or not, from repeating what the last decentralized state with a heavenly constitution did: I.E. the United States.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Why do you hate hedons?
I see more problem with Catholicism. I believe we strayed from the teachings of Cathol and all he stood for.Why do you hate hedons?
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
I see more problem with Catholicism. I believe we strayed from the teachings of Cathol and all he stood for.
Teaching prejudice is even part of science classes. Every schoolkid remembers their science teacher doing "demonstrations" with a prism and light. These "prisms" even separate what is one and integral into separate categories, grouped by colour. Kids at that age need to learn that colour doesn't matter, whether you're yellow or indigo.I see more problem with Catholicism. I believe we strayed from the teachings of Cathol and all he stood for.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
I haven’t read any of the Austrians on economics
lol, you just linked a Murray Rothbard essay...I haven’t read any of the Austrians on economics
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
So apparently the Austrians can get away with calling the scientific method witchcraft because it is not just them who think this. It may actually be a minor point in their favor. At least among economists.
lol, no.So apparently the Austrians can get away with calling the scientific method witchcraft because it is not just them who think this. It may actually be a minor point in their favor. At least among economists.
Mathematical modelling and empirical data are absolutely fundamental to all sane economists. The Austrian school explicitly refuses to provide empirical data to back up their claims. As such, it is little more than wishful thinking. They want things to be true, therefore they must be true.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
What's wrong with hedonism?
It is a form of onanism.What's wrong with hedonism?
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
No substance is still a net gain over the use of that Murray Rothbard video.
If all it took to make a better government, than what 3000 years of human expermentation has produced, was one man listening to the works of a few wannabe philosophors attempting to justifying thier selfish elitism(oh, sorry, libertarians) we'd have found it from the start. What america has right now is in need of an overhaul and while I dont have the answer, you dont need to be a chef to know when the food sucks and I dont need to have my own plan to tell when your idea wont work and the attempts to make it work will most likely make things worse.
Let's start easy: Imagining you had a decentralized government like you wish and taking into consideration that a constitution and it's amendments (which overall are held in higher regard in thier country than god) wasnt enough to restrain a government from using power it wasnt supposed to have, how would you keep any government, centralized or not, from repeating what the last decentralized state with a heavenly constitution did: I.E. the United States.
Don't be angry Greyblades. You don't live in America so you don't understand that the goal of many in American politics is to infuriate until exhaustion. It's the easiest way to induce apathy. Take a break and think of the Queen and then remind yourself this too will end.No substance is still a net gain over the use of that Murray Rothbard video.
If all it took to make a better government, than what 3000 years of human expermentation has produced, was one man listening to the works of a few wannabe philosophors attempting to justifying thier selfish elitism(oh, sorry, libertarians) we'd have found it from the start. What america has right now is in need of an overhaul and while I dont have the answer, you dont need to be a chef to know when the food sucks and I dont need to have my own plan to tell when your idea wont work and the attempts to make it work will most likely make things worse.
Let's start easy: Imagining you had a decentralized government like you wish and taking into consideration that a constitution and it's amendments (which overall are held in higher regard in thier country than god) wasnt enough to restrain a government from using power it wasnt supposed to have, how would you keep any government, centralized or not, from repeating what the last decentralized state with a heavenly constitution did: I.E. the United States.
Patriotism builds your country up, nationalism knocks theirs down.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
It is a form of onanism.
You can calm down now sir, Onan the Barbarian is here. He's got everything in hand.It is a form of onanism.
You guys are suffering from ismism.
Sad thing is it isn't even a made up term
Sad thing is it isn't even a made up term
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO