Much hostility has transpired over the weeks concerning ‘left’ and ‘right’ libertarains [ ‘thick’ & ‘thin’ whatever you call them ] however, have we forgotten which institution we are truly both against? Do we not have a common foe who still exists at this time? Let us not squabble about which is better or worse but that which we all concede is immoral and unjust, the State. Did the Anti-Imperialist league tear itself apart about the just size of government in the face of imperialism? Did the ‘Old Right’ denounce each other? We are linked by a common goal. Let us not forget that.
Now you are advocating “thin” libertarianism though, at least, according to some. Also not squabbling over which is better or worse could result in (1) another state (2) a non-desirable society, the opposite of eudaimonia, (kakomonia?) at least,according to some. Also I didn’t know we all agreed that morals even exist?
And lets not chase off minarchists so quickly. [:P]
Thin and Thick libertarians are married together [ that is why this is called a declaration of intent, they are usually made for marriages ] until the state is gone. When the state is gone, then thin and thick can do battle for the hearts and minds of the world. Prepare for libertarian global domination.
Here’s the thing, and I don’t wish to stir anything up over this, I’m just pointing out what I believe to be true about the LvMI.
The LvMI has a somewhat well defined ideological orientation. That being a mixture of the following lines of thought: cultural conservatism, the Mises-Rothbard line of Austrian thought, natural rights based libertarian political philosophy and revisionist history. The LvMI is hardly a homogenous group, and there are perhaps other aspects to the LvMI that I’m missing (for example, strategy) but this list probably covers all the major bases. In regards to cultural conservatism, almost all scholars associated with the Institute are conservatives to one extent or another (Long being a notable exception). For example, there’s Hoppe, Rothbard, Block (a pro religion, pro family atheist), Tucker, Rockwell.
Mises has his place in history. There are just some respects in which we have advanced past him. It is common, with new times come new scholars. That whole ‘standing on the shoulders of greats’ jazz
In a globalized world, populated by multinationals and transnational industrialists, however, the free market no longer just works in single countries but can inflence market forces everywhere. Rational self-interest, therefore, can enrich and impoverish large sections of the world’s population well away from national boundaries. In the 1990s, the relocation of foreign industries to China, for example, altered the direct capital flows to Southeast Asia. At the beginning of the 1990s, the bulk of Asia’s foreign direct investment from Japan and the United States went to this region while China received the remainder. By the end of the decade the situation reversed. Highly competitive production and labor costs transformed China’s factories into workshops for the world, shutting down industries elsewhere and affecting the economic performance of distant regions, such as Mexico. In 2002, Royal Philips Electronics closed two-thirds of its television production lines in Mexico and relocated them to China.
No one is impoverished by rational self-interest. Economics is not a zero sum game. One improves his lot through trade. Trading, involves satisfying your trade partner, and you being satisfied by him. So every voluntary trade, means both partners are better off for having done it, or they would not have. This is the basis of acting in rational self-interest. You trade what you value less, for what you value more, and likewise, your partner does the same. In this way, both parties get more of what they value more, and less of what they value least, and so resources are distributed rationally to where they are most valued. Things which are valued less by everyone disappear from the marketplace, and the things not yet created but ostensibly valued greatly, will be researched and produced.
If you don’t like it, start your own competing forum or website.
If the moderators let flamewars get out of hand, then people will leave.
This is a problem that any open forum faces. Spies for the State participate in many online discussion forums, with the specific goal of disrupting discussion.
It’s practically certain that any sufficiently popular online forum has State spies posting in it.
Not to mention that part of those movements are caused by governments all over the world tampering with the legal infrastructure that businesses rely on.
One thing is for sure: there are conspiracy nuts here. I’m asking a few critical questions and I’m being told to leave if I disagree. That’s how a religious forum works.
Thanks to liberty student for a good answer. I’ll give it more thought.
FSK was replying to another member. If you click the REPLIED ON link on his post, it shows you who he was talking to (Laughing Man). That’s a feature unique to this forum software (Community Server).
You haven’t been trolling, so I hope no one has asked you to leave.
Also, there are some conspiracy theorists here, but they are not the bulk of the community. FSK has a good point about agent provocateurs. They are a reality of discussing politics online. There is no shortage of that sort of goofiness going on, although I don’t think this community is much of a target for that. I’d rather you didn’t call people “nuts” because it is disrespectful. That’s why I don’t call people coincidence nuts.
Isn’t it true that capitalism as it has worked out can be blamed for much of the poverty and mafia activity, e. g. the mafia in Bulgaria was due to a too rapid change from communism to capitalism. Revolutions always lead to chaos.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private property rights. Why would that cause poverty and mafia activity? Also, I wasn’t aware that Bulgaria became capitalist. I believe it became social democratic.
I apoligize the disrespectful enunciation, but it stroke me as a little paranoid to assume people to be state spies just because they are of a different opinion.