Well, it’s open to misinterpretation. One could view ‘revolutionary’ types as the ones trying to replace one authoritarian system with another.
The giveaway is that they’re against racism and sexism.
“The giveaway is that they’re against racism and sexism.”
Correct. The forms of oppression they cite have nothing to do with political philosophy proper.
at least they are against the state… in a stateless society, there will be societies that wont be anarcho caps, but as long as they dont interfere with the market, i dont see how these communites are a problem…
Sanders might be an independent but he is openly a socialist
Izzy,
They are for mob rule against all private property capitalists, which is far worse than a state.
the point is that in a stateless society, there are going to be other civilizations besides anarcho capitalists.
Nielsio, I’m not sure who made that video, but they seriously mischaracterized Locke’s conception of self-ownership.
He does, after all, constrain self-ownership by the notion that God has ultimate ownership of all of us. You can’t just leave that little inconvenience out when making case for liberty, though I do acknowledge the obvious time limits of that video.
I wonder if they couldn’t have quoted from a libertarian who was more singular in his argument for self-ownership.
Being a human being doesn’t make you own yourself. A serial killer is a human being but has lost his self-ownership. An alien can be a self-owning moral agents and so could a machine potentially.
I think there are others things wrong with that video too. His 1-2-3 option was good, but then at the end he says government should protect rights. That doesn’t make any sense and is simply option nr 2.
I posted the video because a couple of things were well done and have a lot of potential.
I don’t understand how that’s a problem since God can’t really take away our liberties, whether you believe in that or not. Unless Locke would somehow promote a self-named ‘agent of God’ taking away someone’s liberties who doesn’t adhere to a set of morals or something.
I already posted this in another thread, but I figured it would work better in the low content thread as a random video:
Carlos Ricci of the unschooling channel talks about his own home and his two daughters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-cuba-banned-sicko
Didn’t Moore help bail out Assange?
Double rofl!
^^^ sad news after this: “The Federal Communications Commission has passed controversial new rules that prevent Internet providers from playing favorites or blocking access to Web sites that offer rival services. Three of the panel’s five members voted in favor of the plan.”
?
The “voluntarists” are terrible debaters. All they do is regurgitate orthodox market arguments. They need to go on the offensive, attack the socialist definition of government, run all 50 milion arguments against democracy, attack the utopia fallacy, etc… Even when they bring up the issues they don’t make extensions back to what the socialists are saying. Example:
“Market anarchism is just voluntarism, so you can have voluntary democratic socialism”
They leave out “So the main burden of proof for the socialists is to prove that you need to attack other people and force them into democratic socialism” And if they fail to meet it, point it out. Of COURSE the socialists can troll you all day about toll roads and inequality. They’re going to drop the core arguments and you need to drive it home…
Ugh.
Even if they just stuck to boring boring free market arguments, they could drastically improve their performance with “cards”, or pieces of paper with quick responses on them. Example: “The socialists bring up racism. Here are 3 market arguments on the topic…” 20 seconds later, you have hit their argument back three times over.
Organization you guys. I would spend at least 40 hours preparing for a debate like this. It is critically important that we win and win hard in public forums.
“Bob is the snr fellow at the mises academy and molinari institute and Bill is the webmaster of socialismrules.net → I guess that means they’re super qualified to represent these positions snarf snarf”
I really dont know what the deal is with libertarians who debate with other people and then give lousy performances (or outright get served) because they aren’t prepared to deal with their opponents. Why not? Just because you’re “right” in your head doesn’t mean you can actually win an argument, and if you’re going to lose an argument why have it in the first place? The movement would have much more credibility if the libertarian jr.'s would stay quiet around seasoned socialists.
/rant
(I know a lot of people who use libertarianism, and even market anarchism, as a cultural revolt against yuppi leftists and christian conservatives… they are not rigorous in their ideology, and are defenseless against statist trolling.)
This is my problem. I try to stay away from debates for the most part unless it’s something I’m extremely comfortable with. What I try to do most is convince people who are otherwise politically apathetic to watch certain videos and answer their concerns. I’m terrible at debates. I’m thinking about taking that logic course the Mises Academy is offering because it seems like it may help with debates, but I’m not sure if I have enough money yet.