For the record, I don't ignore my own dogmatism. I'm exploring it. I've changed my mind on nearly every subject in the last decade, even if it just means adding nuance or historical perspective or relating it to other concepts. I am an anarchist, but a gradualist, and I don't expect to change enough minds to get what I would most prefer. So I'm living in the woods with gigabit internet like a proper keyboard warrior. 

When someone tells me they are an anarchist I think of this guy:

Heh. Well, abolishing capitalism is fine if it means abolishing lobbying. But abolishing economic freedom sounds crazy for sure. That said, we did it a few times, by degrees, such as the Wickard v. Filburn decision. 

Thu Aug 08 2019 11:01:18 MST from ParanoidDelusions

By the way, we've got some real radical Libertarians on here, Ig. I personally ignore them on issues I disagree with them about - and agree with them on the stuff we see eye to eye... because, you know... they tend to see Government as a religion but fail to see how devoted they are to the dogmas and doctrines of their own belief system. ;) 

I'm not a radical libertarian, I'm an anarcho-capitalist.  I'm not devoted to a dogma, I believe in freedom.  I don't think my system will bring a utopia.  Utopias can't/don't exist.  That's why freedom is best, so you can decide for yourself how you want to live.  The only doctrine is economics.  People respond to incentives.

Tue Sep 03 2019 22:09:10 MST from TheDave

 

Thu Aug 08 2019 11:01:18 MST from ParanoidDelusions

By the way, we've got some real radical Libertarians on here, Ig. I personally ignore them on issues I disagree with them about - and agree with them on the stuff we see eye to eye... because, you know... they tend to see Government as a religion but fail to see how devoted they are to the dogmas and doctrines of their own belief system. ;) 

I'm not a radical libertarian, I'm an anarcho-capitalist.  I'm not devoted to a dogma, I believe in freedom.  I don't think my system will bring a utopia.  Utopias can't/don't exist.  That's why freedom is best, so you can decide for yourself how you want to live.  The only doctrine is economics.  People respond to incentives.

But do you believe in a social contract and least restrictive regulation of markets, or just complete unregulated free market capitalism? 

Wed Sep 04 2019 11:07:47 MST from ParanoidDelusions

Tue Sep 03 2019 22:09:10 MST from TheDave 

Thu Aug 08 2019 11:01:18 MST from ParanoidDelusions

By the way, we've got some real radical Libertarians on here, Ig. I personally ignore them on issues I disagree with them about - and agree with them on the stuff we see eye to eye... because, you know... they tend to see Government as a religion but fail to see how devoted they are to the dogmas and doctrines of their own belief system. ;) 

I'm not a radical libertarian, I'm an anarcho-capitalist.  I'm not devoted to a dogma, I believe in freedom.  I don't think my system will bring a utopia.  Utopias can't/don't exist.  That's why freedom is best, so you can decide for yourself how you want to live.  The only doctrine is economics.  People respond to incentives.

But do you believe in a social contract and least restrictive regulation of markets, or just complete unregulated free market capitalism? 

There is no such thing as a social contract and never has been.  The very idea is ludicrous.  Zero of the requirements for a contract are met by the alleged social contract.  So no, I don't believe in a social contract. Anyone pushing the idea invariably talks about the duties of the individual to society, but there is no obligation on the part of society to hold up its end of this supposed bargain.

I do believe in regulation of markets in the sense that I think it happens.  I don't believe in regulation of markets in the sense that I think government has any business telling people what they can trade.  Prohibition always creates black markets.  The best disinfectant for bad behaviour is sunlight, and regulation pushes it firmly into the dark.  Regulation creates an incentive to use government to manipulate markets, and then you end up with an oligarchy like you see now.  I have never once seen an argument for regulation of markets that wasn't a bald faced appeal to emotion instead of a logical argument.

The fourth rules of Economics: People respond to incentives.  https://bizfluent.com/info-7880863-explanation-ten-principles-economics.html

Fri Sep 06 2019 08:17:47 MST from TheDave

 

 

There is no such thing as a social contract and never has been.  The very idea is ludicrous.  Zero of the requirements for a contract are met by the alleged social contract.  So no, I don't believe in a social contract. Anyone pushing the idea invariably talks about the duties of the individual to society, but there is no obligation on the part of society to hold up its end of this supposed bargain.

I do believe in regulation of markets in the sense that I think it happens.  I don't believe in regulation of markets in the sense that I think government has any business telling people what they can trade.  Prohibition always creates black markets.  The best disinfectant for bad behaviour is sunlight, and regulation pushes it firmly into the dark.  Regulation creates an incentive to use government to manipulate markets, and then you end up with an oligarchy like you see now.  I have never once seen an argument for regulation of markets that wasn't a bald faced appeal to emotion instead of a logical argument.

The fourth rules of Economics: People respond to incentives.  https://bizfluent.com/info-7880863-explanation-ten-principles-economics.html

Nonesense. Whenever two or more people interact there is an implicit social contract. There is a social contract between you and I right now, engaging in this conversation. Both of us have things to offer in consideration for our interaction. If one or the other of us had nothing of value to contribute, the other would disregard them instantly. There would be no value in the interaction. That is the fundamental *root* of the social contract. It exists in your friendships, in your family, in your neighborhood, in your city, State, on a Federal and a Global level. The very idea that the social contract is ludicrous is, in itself, ludicrous. 

There are obligations on both sides. If your child does not uphold its part of the family social contract, you discipline and punish that child. If society does not hold up its obligations to the individual citizens, they eventually revolt, and the members of society who were withholding their obligations generally find their heads parted with their necks, historically. Likewise, if the citizen does not uphold its obligations to the society, the same thing happens. This is the natural order, the natural law, of society. Pretending it doesn't exist or that you can ignore it does not mean that it won't be there. The assurance of Libertarians that there is no such thing as the social contract and that the individual is solely responsible to themselves is the folly, here. 
I do not disagree with you about regulation - the appeal to emotion is that regulation creates an emotional response. The negative impact of regulation, the suffering, becomes mutual - nobody benefits when Government becomes involved in industry. Without regulation, one side or the other might abuse the opposite at their leisure - and while the market would certainly innovate and provide a resolution for that abuse - the process can be slow and tedious, with grave injustice to the victims the entire time (usually the workers, consumers or other group lacking individual power and prevented from asserting collective power in one way or another). 

In cases like that - regulation is "the stick". It is "because you can't play nice with your toys, now EVERYONE is going to suffer, and we'll all be unhappy!" We do that for a while, and it becomes the status quo. We continue to regulate because we have forgotten why we did it originally, or because we're afraid that if we deregulate it will return immediately to the status quo. Then, some time later, some brave soul, some Ronald Reagan comes along, and goes, "What is this shit? Why are we still doing this shit? I hate this shit. It makes my life miserable. It makes everyone's life miserable! We're going to deregulate!" 

And they do... and society as a whole breathes a collective sigh of relief. Oh, there are always chicken little types running around screaming it will be the end of the thing if it is deregulated, and that calamity and disaster will befall society. But MOST of society has been waiting to be out of Time-Out on the regulated industry for decades, and wants Chicken Little to shut the fuck up - so we can just TRY it and see if maybe it will improve over the terrible experience that regulation has caused. And almost inevitably - it is. Nobody wants to see it instantly regulated again - so the people in power remember why it got taken away from them in the first place - they learned their lesson, and the people who were suffering, it is better than it has ever been. 

This is what regulation does. 

Nobody will admit it like this. People want to say it either works, or it fails depending on their partisan bias. But it actually works because it fails. Neither side can admit to that shit. 

Additionally - regulation tends to cause people to innovate in ways that deliver the regulated thing in an UNREGULATED fashion. The rise of alternatives to PSTN came in part because of regulation. Uber and Lyft are a response to regulation. So, regulation *can* act as a stimulus for the mechanisms of free market enterprise. By making it difficult, people seek to discover alternative but LEGAL ways to step around that regulation. 

It is simply a part of the system. Libertarians seem to have problems with facing the reality that the system isn't perfect, but many of the imperfections of the system actually work to the benefit of the system. 

It is like liberals clearing forest debris to prevent forest fires leading to dying forests that become tinderboxes and burn worse once they finally catch. This is what Libertarians would do - with the best interests at heart, if they were broadly empowered. 

My latest blog: 

Cultural Marxism and Gender Theory

http://donovancolbert.blogspot.com/2019/09/cultural-marxism-and-gender-theory-and.html

Topics of liberty, libertarianism, and individual freedom belong here. 

For instance, debates about the social good of mandatory social distancing versus arbitrary limits on individual free agency to move freely during a crisis like Covid-19 would fit here. 

The problem with all of these alternatives to Facebook and Twitter, like GAB, is that they're frequently Far Right sites that engage in the 180 degree flipped, Conservative version of the same hyperbole machine the Left is drunk on. 

It is the same divisive, hostile tone, the same wedge issues that are distractions from what really matters - the same kind of hyperbolic claims and shallow caricatures of the opposition. 

I understand that the Left has really set the tone for this to be the political atmosphere in the US today - but I find I've had my fill of that particular brand of political bullshit. 

I don't know that Liberals can come here and co-exist with the attitude of the person who runs the show here - and I'd rather not this become an echo chamber. On the other hand, there is more and more I'm absolutely unwilling to accept as negotiable that Democrats think are "reasonable" things to believe. There is no such thing as "reasonable gun regulation," at this point. If there is, it already exists. Any additional regulation would be *unreasonable*. 

Same with universal healthcare and free school, with accepting that gender is a social construct and a spectrum. There is just too much I'm unwilling to even entertain concession with the Left on anymore. They've gotten all the concession they've asked for so far, and it is never enough. 

Extrapolated across our society - that irreconcilable inability to compromise either way speaks of a troubling future for our nation. The Democrats actually are the ones that need to make concessions BACK toward the middle. They've already skewed the entire discussion Left of Center across the board. 

A message I posted from Uncensored BBS... uncensored.citadel.org - It is a scary time, folks. The Left is taking civics in a bad direction, and we know what the outcome has been historically. When people start going to prison for not agreeing with the conventional wisdom that is acceptable to society - things have gotten dark - and we could be entering a period of that. 

So, it occurred to me, tonight... see the screen shots. Facebook went back through my private messages and removed any messages, including images, that had links to my BBS in it. I checked, every message, to every person, in private or public, has been purged from Facebook for "violating the terms of service." 

Dozens of posts, to dozens of people, to hundreds of friends, erased. They initially said my site was a "hate site". Then I started tagging Ted Cruz into my posts. Now they say the violation of service is "Spam". So... this indicates a couple of things... 

One... they know I'm not an Alt-Right White Nationalist site, despite the name "wallofhate.com," and their lawyers must have told them, "if tries to litigate in that grounds, you'll lose, unless there is some evidence or proof that it actually *is* a Far Right white supremacist site." 

And it isn't. 

But it also means - they've been there. Someone, or maybe someones - from Facebook have created accounts, logged in, poked around, and checked it out. 

And they don't want people going there. Facebook is *threatened* by what I'm doing - and by extension, what YOU are doing. 

And that got me thinking... if FACEBOOK has logged in and checked out my site - they've checked out your site too - but, they're probably not the only organization, or the scariest, who is already here, keeping an eye on everything we're saying and doing. I know that sounds paranoid - but... I believe Andy Grove was right - only the paranoid survive. 

We should be very cautious going forward over the next few years. I know we just want to be left alone - to have our own little corner of the Internet where we can think what we want and say what we want without being dogpiled by Social Justice Warriors calling us racists and homophobes and sexists and transphobes... 

But that is too much to ask for the people who run sites like Facebook, for the people who think like the Left. 

Hopefully I am just living up to my nick. But, then again, it is intended to be ironic. ;) 

Mon Nov 09 2020 13:04:04 MST from ParanoidDelusions

The problem with all of these alternatives to Facebook and Twitter, like GAB, is that they're frequently Far Right sites that engage in the 180 degree flipped, Conservative version of the same hyperbole machine the Left is drunk on. 

It is the same divisive, hostile tone, the same wedge issues that are distractions from what really matters - the same kind of hyperbolic claims and shallow caricatures of the opposition. 

I understand that the Left has really set the tone for this to be the political atmosphere in the US today - but I find I've had my fill of that particular brand of political bullshit. 

I don't know that Liberals can come here and co-exist with the attitude of the person who runs the show here - and I'd rather not this become an echo chamber. On the other hand, there is more and more I'm absolutely unwilling to accept as negotiable that Democrats think are "reasonable" things to believe. There is no such thing as "reasonable gun regulation," at this point. If there is, it already exists. Any additional regulation would be *unreasonable*. 

Same with universal healthcare and free school, with accepting that gender is a social construct and a spectrum. There is just too much I'm unwilling to even entertain concession with the Left on anymore. They've gotten all the concession they've asked for so far, and it is never enough. 

Extrapolated across our society - that irreconcilable inability to compromise either way speaks of a troubling future for our nation. The Democrats actually are the ones that need to make concessions BACK toward the middle. They've already skewed the entire discussion Left of Center across the board. 

The thing that drives me absolutely nuts about this is how they claim they're actually right wing compared to the rest of the world.  That's horseshit.

Tue Nov 10 2020 13:18:43 MST from TheDave

 

The thing that drives me absolutely nuts about this is how they claim they're actually right wing compared to the rest of the world.  That's horseshit.

It is weird how European liberals also are constantly claiming they're *conservatives*. It seems to be a Leftist strategy. When no one knows what anything is, they can't fight back against the things they know are bad. 

Tue Nov 10 2020 13:37:28 MST from ParanoidDelusions

 

Tue Nov 10 2020 13:18:43 MST from TheDave

The thing that drives me absolutely nuts about this is how they claim they're actually right wing compared to the rest of the world.  That's horseshit.

It is weird how European liberals also are constantly claiming they're *conservatives*. It seems to be a Leftist strategy. When no one knows what anything is, they can't fight back against the things they know are bad. 

They do it on purpose, I think.  Anyone with a basic understanding of history can see where these ideas come from and what they lead to, but people don't study history anymore, they take "social studies" instead.  Marxists gonna Marx.  They're gonna be REAL UPSET when the pendulum swings back to the conservative side of things.

Tue Nov 10 2020 21:24:26 MST from TheDave

 

They do it on purpose, I think.  Anyone with a basic understanding of history can see where these ideas come from and what they lead to, but people don't study history anymore, they take "social studies" instead.  Marxists gonna Marx.  They're gonna be REAL UPSET when the pendulum swings back to the conservative side of things.

If things go badly, that could be a while and it is possible a lot of bloodshed in between. 

I humbly submit that they can follow the old rules.  Don't start nuffin won't be nuffin.  But they'll start it, because that's what they do, and they'll bitterly regret is almost instantly, as is their way.

Wed Nov 11 2020 10:45:00 MST from TheDave

I humbly submit that they can follow the old rules.  Don't start nuffin won't be nuffin.  But they'll start it, because that's what they do, and they'll bitterly regret is almost instantly, as is their way.

The problem is that the Democrats are great at biding their time and only revealing their hand once they're sure it is safe to do so. 

If they start something, it'll only be when they are certain that they can't lose. 

Of course, they did lose in 2016, when they were certain they would win - so we can hope they act too early once again.