OH DEAR.

Ego:

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.

 

Of course you're functioning on the basis of some false assumptions such as:

- The idea that these parties are truly "pro-market" in substance

- The idea that voting for such parties is the only sign of the people's ideology

- The idea that voting reflects the ideology or will of the people

- The idea that the individual voter has a meaningful set of options

These assumptions are false.

No, I'm not assuming any of those things.

I'm simply observing that Europeans consistently vote for political parties tremendously more statist than Americans could currently stomach. Eventually, America will certainly reach the sad state that Europe is already in, but we're talking about the present; he said Europeans are more libertarian than Americans and that's simply not the case.

Ego:

No, I'm not assuming any of those things.

I'm simply observing that Europeans consistently vote for political parties tremendously more statist than Americans could currently stomach. Eventually, America will certainly reach the sad state that Europe is already in, but we're talking about the present; he said Europeans are more libertarian than Americans and that's simply not the case.

 

Well I will observe this: Europe is more decentralized than the U.S. merely by the fact that don't have a federal government (if you discount the EU). The U.S. is actually extremely centralized and draconian when I think about it - a government over all that land and federated between all of those states that are roughly the size of an entire European nation (often larger).

Nitroadict:

Statist-leftist or the current modern leftist's yes; I was referring the to the sometimes ignored "original" leftism that libertarianism descended from, but some don't like to bother with histories of terms or words.  That's a semantic hole that's been thoughly grudged through before though :\.

I don't buy this.  I think it's just polarity warfare, like class warfare, a collectivist idea.  Libertarianism always existed.  To say it is descended from the left implies that statism is descended from the right.  Unionism, socialism and communism are not rightist, no matter how loudly Nicky screams it.

How we got here is much less important than where we are going.

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right.

There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

Nitroadict:

As for your blog, I'm sorry I don't remember you asking me to visit it lol.  I think "Liberty Observer" is probably the best choice out of the 3 names your considering, although I would probably try and think of something a bit more different though, as plenty of sites have the word "Liberty" in it.

Thanks for replying.  From now on, you are expected to monitor and conform to all changes and notices in my sig.  This is a positive obligation I am placing on you without coercion.  You will simply do it and like it.

A lot.

Or else. 

Brainpolice:

Well I will observe this: Europe is more decentralized than the U.S. merely by the fact that don't have a federal government (if you discount the EU).

Well of course Europe is decentralized.  It's divided up along ethnic lines.

The U.S. is actually extremely centralized and draconian when I think about it - a government over all that land and federated between all of those states that are roughly the size of an entire European nation (often larger).

 

How else are you going to run a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural empire?

Brainpolice:

Europe is more decentralized than the U.S. merely by the fact that don't have a federal government (if you discount the EU).

The only comparison that would support this is the one that sees the EU as a federal government à la US federal government. This comparison, at this point, is false (but might be apt in the future, as EU integration progresses).

This leaves us comparing various European states with the US. And in this scenario, the US beats pretty much all European states in every category I can think of. The only exception might be Estonia, but even there the process of creating a social democratic state is well underway. Developed European countries are massively centralized. And everything I have observed indicates that centralization is increasing as a cost-cutting measure.

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.

Block seems to share this opinion with you, (no I have not read it yet, but the title more than says it and he has made vocal such an opinion elsewhere) and with me in some degree. He does not find either term fitting and I would have to agree. I do not really think there is much 'left' or 'right' to anything in libertarianism, there is only unjust compulsion and freedom. But that sense of liberty and justice IS apart of the old concept of 'left'. It is only in this context I prefer to call libertarianism left, as it is not conservative, it is revolutionary and free. I think Block is using left and right in their modern contexts both of which, yes, are anti libertarian and why I avoid using left and right.

You gotta admit though, the back to the future thing was funny... right? :P

ThorsMitersaw:

But that sense of liberty and justice IS apart of the old concept of 'left'. It is only in this context I prefer to call libertarianism left, as it is not conservative, it is revolutionary and free.

In everything I have seen, 'left' and 'right' are used as vehicles for derailing libertarianism. They create an illusory semantic alliance, where one brand of tyranny is accepted to get rid of another brand of tyranny. Of course that doesn't mean that I oppose working with the left or the right. But that terms should be kept pure, to avoid 20 page online discussions on semantics...

On a side note: perhaps a moderator should dissect this thread into separate, more meaningful, threads? The OP concerned some remark made by Obama and I haven't seen a reference to it in about 5 pages.

Niccolò:

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.

 

 

I still dont like the terms left and right :-P Left and right just carry too much baggage. I would much rather view a spectrum literally as liberty on one end and authoritarian on the other. But hey, I suppose I am a bit of a hypocrite because I refuse to let people use the word liberal in the way that they do today as I like to think of myself as a consistent one. I also tend to have a lot of similarities in opinion with Mr.Block with regards to spectrum, but I think Block is working his conception of left and right out of its modern American context.

 

unrelated:
Hey am I the only one who thinks the picture thing was funny? come-on, throw a guy a bone.

ThorsMitersaw:

unrelated:

Hey am I the only one who thinks the picture thing was funny? come-on, throw a guy a bone.

I liked it.  This forum is very dry most of the time.  Everyone is so serious, lighthearted stuff like that gets overlooked.

 

What did you think of the bolded quote in my post @ Wed, May 21 2008 4:38 PM?

 

 

liberty student:

This forum is very dry most of the time.  Everyone is so serious, lighthearted stuff like that gets overlooked.

Hey, I'm funny too! I just posted about a brilliant plan to setup a pot growing operation on a ship in international waters and sell it to passing cruise ships or something. Granted, I was 20% serious in my post, but still.

I was thinking one would need a big boat for the growing and a small, agile boat for traveling along side the cruise ships. Maybe some crane and vending machine combination: lift the vending machine on the deck so people can get their fix and lift it off when done. Brilliant!

I think that is a very good idea.  Working in International waters....  You could do a lot of different stuff.

 

BWF89:

 

I don't know how true this is and it sounds like something you'd hear Alex Jones talking about. But I heard that in California their trying to get something passed where all thermostats will have to have a special chip in them that turns over authority to the state government so they can keep everyones house below a certain temperature if there was some kind of fuel shortage.

 

I'm not so sure about that, but I do know they're trying to get rid of standard light bulbs and make everyone use those twirly ones (forget what they're called) or LED ones.

 

But what's really frightening is an Article I read in my Engineering Class about having tracking devices put on all cars and alloting X ammount of hours per week/month that each person can drive without being fined After that, the device would supposedly record the hourly ammount of driving you do and start charging you rates.

The good thing is They would have to run it off an RFID chip, and you could just get around it by using a RF Jammer. The bad thing is someone could clone your Assigned ID and drive around under your name and start charging you.

Libertas est Veritas:

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.

No and I'm not a weatherman either. I somehow manage though.

 

Libertas est Veritas:

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.

Fine,

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 economic actors living together, but rather against economic actors being set farther apart by force for the benefit of these 8 national regimes.

They are against economic coercion, exploitation, and collusion. All of which occur because of and for these world governments and their statist lackies.

Libertas est Veritas:

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.

I'll tell Pavia University that "Libertas est Veritas" from the Mises forums sees their research as merely a "massive guesstimate."

 

Italy accounts for a portion of the underground economy in their GNP estimates.

Also... I can clearly tell you've never been to either Germany or Italy.

Libertas est Veritas:

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.

You don't understand.

The rioters in Genoa were not all Genoese. In Europe, there's something called a Black Bloc. You might want to look into it.