OH DEAR.

Niccolò:

So protesting the eight largest mass murdererers, imprisoners, rapists, etc. in the world is a "leftist hissy-fit"?

In this context, yes. You are deluding yourself if you think they were protesting the G8 states themselves.

Niccolò:

Anti-globalization - actually most "anti-globalizationists" don't use this term as they see it as being too vague, many call themselves members of the Anti-Corporate-Globalization Movement - is A-OK with me. I guess you support the EU, NATO, UN, IMF, WTO, etc. though.

And Anti-Corporate-Globalization Movement is somehow different from anti-globalization? It seems to me like a pointless addition.

And what exactly makes you think I support the EU, etc? You don't seem like a wholly rational individual, since you jump to rather far-fetched conclusions.

Niccolò:

Same thing in Italia  - and France - yet, somehow half or nearly half of both economies are underground.

I don't suppose you have any real evidence to support this? Because that would mean that both economies rival Japan in size.

Niccolò:

Hmm... Could it be that Europeans are just less inclined to care about what the politicans think or do?

So you are extrapolating from a few rioters that all of Europe is less inclined to care what politicians think? I'm sorry, but you are not making any sense. That's like arguing that China is a hotbed of anarchistic sentiment because there were riots in Tibet.

You also seem to be working with rather nonsensical notions that Americans are all Fox News watching automatons, while Europeans are all counter-economy activists. This is patently silly. Most Europeans want government services and limitations on freedom, including most of the rioters you are using as examples. Where as many Americans - at least use to - have an aversion to government invasions into their lives.

Sorry, I should have included this in my last post at the end of page 4.

Nicky:

Ego:

On a side note, if Europeans really are more libertarian than the Americans, why do they consistently elect socialists with high voter turnout? Something doesn't add up here...

 

Because several countries in Europe have compulsory voting laws.

Niccolò:

The students were not rioting in defense of anything other than to put food on the table. It's the government's fault for making that so difficult.

Oh please. There was no grand scheme behind the Paris riots. The whole thing was a massive clusterfuck. The government created the slums through welfare and eventually the people in those slums lashed out. But it wasn't for or against anything specific, it was just another generic riot against poor conditions, coupled with generic demands for something more (usually more government handouts).

Ego:

 

No, Nicky, these statists were clearly rioting in favor of keeping the regulations; they weren't chanting anti-state slogans, they were chanting pro-state and anti-market slogans.

 

No, Eggy, the students were rioting to keep regulations, but only because those regulations are the only safeguard they have from other regulations.

 

Ego:

It's funny that you want to pretend that these leftist thugs are really pro-market; would you give the same benefit to Hitler and his thugs? When they were chanting their pro-state slogans and destroying others' property, were they just "rioting against the situation", or were they anti-Jew and pro-state?

First, I'm not claiming that the students were "leftists" - at least not necessarily. If there were non-radicals among them, then those were rightists.

 

I am simply defending their right to protest and looking at the situation through dialectics.

Second, wasn't Hitler on the right?

Third, yes, most Germans were just rioting against the situation - it was those in power who were advocating the retension and expansion of that power through the state. Ask anyone historian why the rose to power. The situation was an exploitable one and they were the ones who best exploited it.

 

Ego:

Again, no, see my signature.

 

Your signature is, for lack of a better word, stupid. You aren't a good writer. Please, stop referencing yourself.

 

Ego:

You keep trying to push the wild-eyed theory that "left" means liberty and "right" means tyranny. You can use whatever definition you want, but FDR, Ted Kennedy, Cesar Chavez, Noam Chomsky, Barrack Obama, Hugo Chavez, and other leftists are not pro-liberty; they're as pro-state as you can be. I'll leave it to others to guess what reasons you have for insisting otherwise.

FDR, Ted Kennedy, Obama, C. Chavez and H. Chavez are rightists.

 

Noam Chomsky is a confused leftist.

 

 

Ego:

Libertarians are leftists.

Again, no, see my signature.

You keep trying to push the wild-eyed theory that "left" means liberty and "right" means tyranny. You can use whatever definition you want, but FDR, Ted Kennedy, Cesar Chavez, Noam Chomsky, Barrack Obama, Hugo Chavez, and other leftists are not pro-liberty; they're as pro-state as you can be. I'll leave it to others to guess what reasons you have for insisting otherwise.

 

Why don't you hop in this...:

....go back and visit this man...:

...and ask him if he sits on the 'left' or 'right' side of the French assembly?

Libertas est Veritas:

In this context, yes. You are deluding yourself if you think they were protesting the G8 states themselves.

In no context. You're just wrong. I don't know how to put it any more clearly than that. You don't know why the Europeans protest. All you do is look at the word "globalization" and assume from there.

Libertas est Veritas:

And Anti-Corporate-Globalization Movement is somehow different from anti-globalization? It seems to me like a pointless addition.

Again, it goes to show how little you know about... anything. The Anarchists in Europe are not anti-globalization, per se - at least not in the sense that you think. Anarchists are anti-globalization in the sense that globalization has been pushed by governments - they rightly include the multi-national corporations in it - at the expense of the lives and welfare of domestic "citizens" and people around the world.

Libertas est Veritas:

And what exactly makes you think I support the EU, etc? You don't seem like a wholly rational individual, since you jump to rather far-fetched conclusions.

Well, if you knew what the Anarchists in Europe were fighting against, you surely would have known that it was just the remnants of the Bretton Woods system in the WTO, IMF, WB, etc. You surely would have known that they aren't against cultures living together, but rather against cultures being set farther apart by force for the benefit of these 8 national regimes.

Libertas est Veritas:

I don't suppose you have any real evidence to support this? Because that would mean that both economies rival Japan in size.

 

You didn't read the links previously provided a few pages ago?

Libertas est Veritas:

So you are extrapolating from a few rioters that all of Europe is less inclined to care what politicians think? I'm sorry, but you are not making any sense. That's like arguing that China is a hotbed of anarchistic sentiment because there were riots in Tibet.

First, Tibet is not China.

Second, Tibetans are also more resistent to government than Americans. Why else would they continue to fight the Chinese government?

Third, if not, then why would they riot and stand up against national regimes when Americans... well... don't?

Libertas est Veritas:

You also seem to be working with rather nonsensical notions that Americans are all Fox News watching automatons, while Europeans are all counter-economy activists. This is patently silly. Most Europeans want government services and limitations on freedom, including most of the rioters you are using as examples. Where as many Americans - at least use to - have an aversion to government invasions into their lives.

 

" I don't suppose you have any real evidence to support this?"

Libertas est Veritas:

Niccolò:

The students were not rioting in defense of anything other than to put food on the table. It's the government's fault for making that so difficult.

Oh please. There was no grand scheme behind the Paris riots. The whole thing was a massive clusterfuck. The government created the slums through welfare and eventually the people in those slums lashed out. But it wasn't for or against anything specific, it was just another generic riot against poor conditions, coupled with generic demands for something more (usually more government handouts).

 

Actually, that's exactly what it was. A lashing out. Were they calling for something like welfare? I don't know, I didn't catch that. I do know, however, that they were protesting against the government. That's much more than Americans can say.

 

ThorsMitersaw:

...and ask him if he sits on the 'left' or 'right' side of the French assembly?

Perhaps someone could explain to me why libertarianism would be either leftist or rightist? Quite frankly, this is getting silly. I consider both leftism and rightism to be threats to liberty, but for some reason people here insist on labeling libertarians along those lines.

Ego:

So what if those countries have compulsory voting laws? If anything, that helps my point! Why are Europeans voting for big-government socialists if they're in fact anti-tax pro-market libertarians? Don't waste any more of your credibility on this point.

 

You're apparently not too inclined to understand economics.

 

First, compulsory voting laws add an incentive to vote - or at least a disincentive not to vote.

Second, Europeans aren't voting for "big-government socialists," at least not the Europeans I'm referencing. Like in the US, the stupid outnumber the radical. Combine that with the idiot reformists who compromise the movement of radicalism and you get something similar to America, but only closer to the final stages.

Libertas est Veritas:

ThorsMitersaw:

...and ask him if he sits on the 'left' or 'right' side of the French assembly?

Perhaps someone could explain to me why libertarianism would be either leftist or rightist? Quite frankly, this is getting silly. I consider both leftism and rightism to be threats to liberty, but for some reason people here insist on labeling libertarians along those lines.

Karl Hess.

 

Niccolò:

Ego:

No, Nicky, these statists were clearly rioting in favor of keeping the regulations; they weren't chanting anti-state slogans, they were chanting pro-state and anti-market slogans.

No, Eggy, the students were rioting to keep regulations, but only because those regulations are the only safeguard they have from other regulations.

No, Nicky, they were rioting (while using coercive force to destroy others' property, of course) in order to maintain illegitimate control over the individuals employing them.

If they were actually pro-market, pro-liberty, and anti-aggression, they'd be rioting against government aggression, not rioting in favor of it, and certainly not aggressing against other individuals and property themselves!

Ego:

It's funny that you want to pretend that these leftist thugs are really pro-market; would you give the same benefit to Hitler and his thugs? When they were chanting their pro-state slogans and destroying others' property, were they just "rioting against the situation", or were they anti-Jew and pro-state?

First, I'm not claiming that the students were "leftists" - at least not necessarily. If there were non-radicals among them, then those were rightists.

I am simply defending their right to protest and looking at the situation through dialectics.

Second, wasn't Hitler on the right?

Third, yes, most Germans were just rioting against the situation - it was those in power who were advocating the retension and expansion of that power through the state. Ask anyone historian why the rose to power. The situation was an exploitable one and they were the ones who best exploited it.

Oh, absolutely, hated their situation, and decided to act upon that hatred. That doesn't mean that all methods are equally legitimate and equally moral.

Reacting to a bad situation by destroying Jews' property and torturing innocent children is not legitimate, despite what apologists like you would have us believe.

Ego:

Again, no, see my signature.

 

Your signature is, for lack of a better word, stupid. You aren't a good writer. Please, stop referencing yourself.

I've admitted that I'm not a particularly good writer; I'm certainly still learning. Most of the time I write in a computer programming language, not English.

Ego:

You keep trying to push the wild-eyed theory that "left" means liberty and "right" means tyranny. You can use whatever definition you want, but FDR, Ted Kennedy, Cesar Chavez, Noam Chomsky, Barrack Obama, Hugo Chavez, and other leftists are not pro-liberty; they're as pro-state as you can be. I'll leave it to others to guess what reasons you have for insisting otherwise.

FDR, Ted Kennedy, Obama, C. Chavez and H. Chavez are rightists.

Yikes!

I do know, however, that they were protesting against the government.

You almost got that right; they were protesting against cutting government back.

*boinks the neo-bolshevik leftist jews*

You do a lot of boinking.  Good for you. 

liberty student:

You do a lot of boinking.  Good for you. 

 

Nah, I contracted HPV.

Ego:

No, Nicky, they were rioting (while using coercive force to destroy others' property, of course) in order to maintain illegitimate control over the individuals employing them.

 

Again, no, Eggy. They were rioting because of the conditions that they were in and for the fact that the people around them are the ones using force to put them in these conditions.

 

Ego:

If they were actually pro-market, pro-liberty, and anti-aggression, they'd be rioting against government aggression, not rioting in favor of it, and certainly not aggressing against other individuals and property themselves!

They were rioting against government oppression. In this instance, the people they were protesting against were the people that use government aggression to one up them.

 

Again, I ask. Why didn't the government, if so market oriented, first deregulate the businesses and the barriers to entry? Why labour first? Why any first? Why not all at once? Because the same people pushing in this piece of legislation are the ones pushing in others that further constrain the students, the immigrants, and the poor in this state of immobility.

 

Ego:

Oh, absolutely, hated their situation, and decided to act upon that hatred. That doesn't mean that all methods are equally legitimate and equally moral.

 

That hasn't anything to do with it. First, the people of Germany were largely left unaware of what was happening. Second, they were the victims of manipulation; the students were the victims of out-right aggression.

 

Ego:

Reacting to a bad situation by destroying Jews' property and torturing innocent children is not legitimate, despite what apologists like you would have us believe.

This is a terrible analogy. The "victims" of the student riots aren't like the Jews at all.

First, the Jews were not causing the pain of the Germans, but those that the students were rioting against were.

 

Ego:

I've admitted that I'm not a particularly good writer; I'm certainly still learning. Most of the time I write in a computer programming language, not English.

It's not about your English equivalence, it's about the idea just being... stupid. Words mean things and their origins are important.

 

Ego:

You almost got that right; they were protesting against cutting government back.

 

When "cutting it back" in this way results in victimizing the poor even further, then they aren't protesting the "cutting back" of government, they're protesting government and the effects of every action it takes - including the times when it "cuts back".

 

Niccolò:

Ego:

So what if those countries have compulsory voting laws? If anything, that helps my point! Why are Europeans voting for big-government socialists if they're in fact anti-tax pro-market libertarians? Don't waste any more of your credibility on this point.

 

You're apparently not too inclined to understand economics.

 

First, compulsory voting laws add an incentive to vote - or at least a disincentive not to vote.

Yes, that would be the idea... what's your point...?

The fact that everyone is forced to vote (including the pro-market libertarians) and the big-government socialists still win every single election is proof that Europeans are more statist than Americans. Those big-government socialists would never win an election in the United States, especially not with compulsory voting laws.

Niccolò:

In no context. You're just wrong. I don't know how to put it any more clearly than that. You don't know why the Europeans protest. All you do is look at the word "globalization" and assume from there.

No, you are just wrong. Brilliant argumentation, eh?

Niccolò:

Again, it goes to show how little you know about... anything. The Anarchists in Europe are not anti-globalization, per se - at least not in the sense that you think.

You are not some kind of a political gnostic, are you? Because you seem to approach every argument as though you possess secret knowledge that only the anointed ones are privy to. And that every opinion in opposition to yours is a product of false information, undeserving of a proper counter-argument.

Niccolò:

Well, if you knew what the Anarchists in Europe were fighting against, you surely would have known that it was just the remnants of the Bretton Woods system in the WTO, IMF, WB, etc. You surely would have known that they aren't against cultures living together, but rather against cultures being set farther apart by force for the benefit of these 8 national regimes.

But the issue isn't cultural. The issue is very much economic. And it is true that the riots weren't technically anti-globalization, but more precisely anti-capitalist.

Niccolò:

You didn't read the links previously provided a few pages ago?

The links you gave were basically massive guesstimates. That is understandable due to the nature of the topic. But the fact remains that if the guesstimates are true, then Italy's economy would surpass that of Germany's. I have a really hard time accepting that without further evidence.

Niccolò:

First, Tibet is not China.

Depends on who you ask. And anyway, you are the one extrapolating from a few rioters in Genoa that Europeans are anti-state. A few rioters in Genoa are not Europe.

Niccolò:

Second, Tibetans are also more resistent to government than Americans. Why else would they continue to fight the Chinese government?

What is it with this obsession with portraying Americans as pro-state? How do you even start comparing the anti-statism of Tibetans and Americans, when circumstances are completely different for both groups? In fact, this whole discussion is turning into a massive generalization.

Niccolò:

"I don't suppose you have any real evidence to support this?"

For example, you could look at political rhetoric. US politicians place importance - even on the left - on individual freedom. Where as rhetoric in Europe is - even on the right - far more concerned with 'communal responsibilities'. Obviously, rhetoric doesn't equate to action, but it is telling as to what appeals to voters, i.e. the people.

Ego:

Niccolò:

Ego:

So what if those countries have compulsory voting laws? If anything, that helps my point! Why are Europeans voting for big-government socialists if they're in fact anti-tax pro-market libertarians? Don't waste any more of your credibility on this point.

 

You're apparently not too inclined to understand economics.

 

First, compulsory voting laws add an incentive to vote - or at least a disincentive not to vote.

Yes, that would be the idea... what's your point...?

The fact that everyone is forced to vote (including the pro-market libertarians) and the big-government socialists still win every single election is proof that Europeans are more statist than Americans. Those big-government socialists would never win an election in the United States, especially not with compulsory voting laws.

 

Actually since the voting is compulsory it would logically follow that the people who voted didn't necessarily support what they voted for or any of the options at all. You can't point to the results as if they are a reflection of the actual preferances of the people involved because the people involved had to vote under the threat of legal punishment and the very nature of the political process is a package deal to begin with. Remember: election results are not really an accurate reflection of the will or demand of the people. Theoretically, an entire country can be filled with free market libertarians but with compulsory voting laws they all voted for state-socialists - because that's what the options are, state-socialist A or state-socialist B. So no, it does not logically follow that the Europeans are necessarily worse in this sense.

When "cutting it back" in this way results in victimizing the poor even further, then they aren't protesting the "cutting back" of government, they're protesting government and the effects of every action it takes - including the times when it "cuts back".

No, leftist labor laws don't help young, inexperienced workers, they hurt them. I can't believe I'm having this argument with an alleged libertarian.

Those particular leftist labor laws result in employers becoming averse to hiring young, inexperienced workers; it's too risky to give them a chance! If those workers turn out to be awful, it's essentially illegal to fire them. Removing those laws would have helped inexperienced workers get jobs. You also asked why that was the only proposed reform; it wasn't. It was one of many, and the leftist thugs opposed them all.

It's wild that you're trying to paint them as free-market heroes. They're statist thugs who (like all leftists) want more leftist programs to "solve" the problems their previous "solutions" created.

Brainpolice:

Ego:

Niccolò:

Ego:

So what if those countries have compulsory voting laws? If anything, that helps my point! Why are Europeans voting for big-government socialists if they're in fact anti-tax pro-market libertarians? Don't waste any more of your credibility on this point.

 

You're apparently not too inclined to understand economics.

 

First, compulsory voting laws add an incentive to vote - or at least a disincentive not to vote.

Yes, that would be the idea... what's your point...?

The fact that everyone is forced to vote (including the pro-market libertarians) and the big-government socialists still win every single election is proof that Europeans are more statist than Americans. Those big-government socialists would never win an election in the United States, especially not with compulsory voting laws.

 

Actually since the voting is compulsory it would logically follow that the people who voted didn't necessarily support what they voted for or any of the options at all. You can't point to the results as if they are a reflection of the actual preferances of the people involved because the people involved had to vote under the threat of legal punishment and the very nature of the political process is a package deal to begin with. Remember: election results are not really an accurate reflection of the will or demand of the people. Theoretically, an entire country can be filled with free market libertarians but with compulsory voting laws they all voted for state-socialists - because that's what the options are, state-socialist A or state-socialist B. So no, it does not logically follow that the Europeans are necessarily worse in this sense.

 

There are pro-market parties in each country, and they have parliamentary systems so you there's no such thing as throwing your vote away.

The pro-market parties get no votes, of course.