The Problem with Libertarianism

V for Valjean wrote:@ Admin - nice video. If that guy, and anyone else who'd actually lived under socialism and communism, were to join your forum though he'd be restricted.

After having demonstrated your incapacity to either critique socialism or defend your bourgeois principles, you decide to further humiliate yourself by continuing to bemoan your Level-1 Restriction. We've already explained the nature of your status several times and attempted to be as accommodating as possible, yet you continue to act as though you have suffered some gross injustice. Perhaps you believe that these recalcitrant responses of yours will somehow compensate for your embarrassingly inadequate defense of capitalism.

Again, I invite you to actually address the arguments being presented. Your continuous digressions are merely underscoring your insecurity and incompetence, Professor Valjean. It's hard to believe that a genius with "an MBA from Chicago who took economics from a man with a Nobel Prize" is having such a difficult time debating a couple of communists on an internet forum.

Celtiberian wrote:Since Rev Scare thoroughly refuted your post in his latest response,

Rev Scare didn't thoroughly refute anything. These incredibly lengthy posts you guys make are completely empty and lack presentation of any actual ideas. I guess you've become so bias you don't actually read what's been said before you blindly agree with it.

I'll give you an example below. I made a post using a diagram from another Nobel Prize winning economist, in this case Milton Friedman. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics for this exact topic on consumption theory and the chart below is a minor excerpt supported by an entire book which has, in turn, been expanded upon to become entire graduate level economics courses.

So in response to offering an idea of this depth the Rev's response is "blah blah blah these are bourgeois presumptions." That's not refuting anything.

Rev Scare wrote:

I’ll introduce you to the psychology of how people spend money and how it applies to government waste with this very simple graphic:

I do not care for your bourgeois presumptions. Your claims are unsupported by fact.

Now, in total, upon rereading both your and Rev Scare's posts you offer a combined total 3 actual ideas of your own. I could summarize almost all of both your entire posts as "I think capitalism is stupid just because." Its hard to have a conversation of any merit when I present posts chalked full of very specific, very reputable information, and you two respond with well worded but very sophomoric responses that basically equate to this:

Admin wrote:your Level-1 Restriction

Don't start. Your restriction is an act of moral cowardice on your part based upon the inability (as I start to highlight above) of even your most esteemed members to actually address any specific ideas with a response other than "that's stupid because I said so." Your own explanations have been even further lacking in quality. Regardless, my point was & is that it does not make for much of an internet discussion forum if only one side of the topic is allowed to be discussed. The end result, like we see above, is you end up with a group of principally homogeneous viewpoints who adopt the same language but lose the ability to independently critique, evaluate, or in your guys case even correctly identify actual ideas... Even world class ideas... When they read them.

V for Valjean wrote:Rev Scare didn't thoroughly refute anything.

And yet you're incapable of addressing the substance of his arguments. Were you able to, you would have responded with something more than these petty, juvenile insults. Frankly, the only intellectually honest thing for you to do at this point is gracefully accept defeat and reconsider the political philosophy you espouse, though I suppose that would be expecting too much from you.

These incredibly lengthy posts you guys make are completely empty and lack presentation of any actual ideas.

Excuse me, but we took a significant amount of time out of our day to analyze your arguments and explain their empirical and philosophical shortcomings in detail. You were proven wrong about (1) state socialism being economically inefficient relative to capitalism, (2) capitalism being the more ethical mode of production, (3) government spending being less prudent than private spending, and (4) workers' self-management being a nonviable organizational model. Any impartial reader of our exchange would agree.

I made a post using a diagram from another Nobel Prize winning economist, in this case Milton Friedman. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics for this exact topic on consumption theory and the chart below is a minor excerpt supported by an entire book which has, in turn, been expanded upon to become entire graduate level economics courses.

Only those who uncritically accept the homo economicus theory of behavior (which bourgeois economists concocted, not anthropologists or psychologists) would be impressed by Friedman's little chart. Furthermore, I fail to see how it's germane to our debate. Even if one were to concede that government currently allocates tax revenue inefficiently, it wouldn't imply that institutional reforms couldn't remedy the matter, or that we should therefore abandon social programs.

Now, in total, upon rereading both your and Rev Scare's posts you offer a combined total 3 actual ideas of your own.

We're debating political philosophy, not competing over who can present the most original argument (which you would have failed in regardless, were that the objective).

I could summarize almost all of both your entire posts as "I think capitalism is stupid just because."

On the contrary, it is your posts which reduce to that caliber.

Its hard to have a conversation of any merit when I present posts chalked full of very specific, very reputable information, and you two respond with well worded but very sophomoric responses that basically equate to this:

You can't be serious.. My response was logically sound and replete with citations that substantiated every empirical claim I made—it also included a number of fine book recommendations.

Regardless, my point was & is that it does not make for much of an internet discussion forum if only one side of the topic is allowed to be discussed.

This is getting ridiculous. Either you have a persecution complex or simply lack the cognitive ability to recognize that you're not being silenced. The entire forum is aware of your presence, and several of us have even been kind enough to respond to your inane twaddle.

As i said i will address your very sparse quantity of actual ideas the next time I'm at a computer. It remains disappointing to witness the inability of a couple of you to address major central points of my posts and just dismissing them as "bourgeois dogma", etc to compensate for the ideological short comings of your position.

But again, I'll give you an organized response in the next couple days provided no one dies from sand inhalation in the meantime.

V for Valjean wrote:Don't start. Your restriction is an act of moral cowardice on your part based upon the inability (as I start to highlight above) of even your most esteemed members to actually address any specific ideas with a response other than "that's stupid because I said so."

That's an utterly ridiculous characterization of the arguments you have been presented with. It's obvious to everyone observing this thread that you have consciously chosen to avoid addressing the vast majority of the points that have been raised in this debate. Of course, I understand your desire to reduce this discussion to nothing more than a pretentious display of you regurgitating as much bourgeois drivel as you can recall. It's much more difficult to actually defend your positions against those who can offer a serious critique of them.

Your own explanations have been even further lacking in quality.

I have deliberately chosen to abstain from addressing your economic arguments, as I haven't the time to invest in such an undertaking. However, if you are extending your criticism to my opinions regarding your conduct on this forum, I beg to differ.

Regardless, my point was & is that it does not make for much of an internet discussion forum if only one side of the topic is allowed to be discussed.

You have erected this straw man several times now. Again, I will note that it appears as though the motivation behind this fallacious claim is a desire to use the notion of 'persecution' as pretext to dismiss yourself from the debate without conceding that you were simply incapable of addressing the arguments you were presented with.

The end result, like we see above, is you end up with a group of principally homogeneous viewpoints

No one here denies the fact that a level of homogeneity is expected of our general membership (i.e. 'comrades'). However, this does not discount the fact that opposing viewpoints are allowed to be expressed. Indeed, if you had an interest in being intellectually honest, you would agree that this forum's OV sub-forum is one of its busiest sections.

who adopt the same language but lose the ability to independently critique, evaluate, or in your guys case even correctly identify actual ideas... Even world class ideas... When they read them.

You have done nothing but provide — in your own vulgar way — a miniscule assortment of discredited bourgeois economic theories that have been previously analyzed and refuted ad nauseum on this forum. You have brought nothing new to the table, nor have you provided a defense that has given anyone reason to reconsider their position on this matter.

All I can do is invite you to keep trying and insist that you proceed in a manner that is more honest than has hitherto been the case.

As a social libertarian I have problems with both authoritarian socialists as well as right-libertarians.My issue with authoritarian socialists is their reliance upon expensive and ultra-bureaucratic hierarchies to protect workers from capitalism which I see as an absurd concept.Furthermore it does not take socialism to the logical conclusion of horizontal worker-run communities.If you want a state bureaucracy to run things for you what`s the point of abolishing capitalism then?As for right-libertarians and this is coming from a left-libertarian who used to be a classical liberal/cosmotarian mix and even a right-libertarian Christian Fundamentalist conspiracy buff at one point I take issue with their pseudo-philosophical meanderings,overuse of the word 'force' often without any real context to speak of whatsoever,their pretentious elitism and their  hypocrisy in bragging about being skeptics yet often uncritically believing any conspiracy theory that demonizes the government no matter how absurd it may be including long-debunked ones.Do not get me wrong.I hate the government,however society does not exist in a vacuum and just because I hate the government does not mean I`m going to uncritically buy any irrational conspiracy theories that make the government look bad no matter how ridiculous  they may be.I am past that point.That phase of my existence was important for my intellectual and social growth,however I am thankfully a  far more mature libertarian now and less of a credulous "the government is bad because NWO" tin-foil hat type as I once was.Also I believe that both pure individualism as the right-libertarians tend to aspire to and pure collectivism as many authoritarian socialists aspire to are undesirable in their own distinctive ways as pure collectivism can and has historically led to totalitarianism whilst pure individualism can potentially lead to feudalism.I desire neither of these two extremes,as such I seek a rational synthesis of individualism and collectivism and I believe that this is what libertarian socialism provides.