One thing I've noticed about many leftists is that they base their arguments on pure emotion. Some of these guys prove me right. You'd think that instead of hurling ad hominems and saying how much of a devil I am that they'd at least be receptive and convert me or something.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
Hmm.. I feel like joining..but can't be fcked doing registration.
If I was, I'd be my former chomskyite self, who is wondering what others opinions are, innocently asking what they think of:
Egalitarianism a Revolt Against Nature and The Deathwish of Anarcho-Communists...
Love to see the reaction to those two... :D Hahah
Wow, some of these comments make me want to throw up.
Some gems:
"Talking about ownership in relation to human beings is ridiculous. You are yourself and that is that. Ownership only applies when it comes to slavery, so self-ownership is rubbish."
"You cannot create wealth out of thin air. The wealth that society as a whole produces is finite...a dollar in your pocket means a dollar less in someone else's pocket."
"Places like Russia and China were shitholes still living in the middle ages before their revolutions; socialism created their modern economies out of nothing."
Fluery: Wow, some of these comments make me want to throw up. Some gems: "Talking about ownership in relation to human beings is ridiculous. You are yourself and that is that. Ownership only applies when it comes to slavery, so self-ownership is rubbish." "You cannot create wealth out of thin air. The wealth that society as a whole produces is finite...a dollar in your pocket means a dollar less in someone else's pocket." "Places like Russia and China were shitholes still living in the middle ages before their revolutions; socialism created their modern economies out of nothing."
Lol.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
What's wrong with living in the middle ages?
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Perhaps we should become more emotional in our arguments since this is what drives them, perhaps our fervor will drive them in the right direction?
e.g
"Talking about ownership in relation to human beings is the most vital element to having a life worth living. You own yourself and that is that. Otherwise you are subject to slavery, so self-ownership should be cherished and nurtured like your first born."
"You cannot righteously create wealth out of thin air, it requires hard work. The wealth that society as a whole produces is not finite...a dollar in your pocket means something more than a dollar in someone else's pocket. Unless of course you are a fraudulent theif that steals and cheats upon unsuspecting innocents like Hitler or Obama."
"Many places including pre-communist Russia and China were shitholes still living in the middle ages before the global industrial revolution. While riding the tailcoats of many honorable Capitalist helped modernize their economies and raise the standards of living for the masses, the plague of socialism, which kills way too many loving comrades to mention, still keeps their societies sufferring in a cesspool of failed policies which has prevented them from evolving into a more glorious society."
You've had all night and day toConsider and prayYou've brought fire on my head andNow you must pay.
Babylon makes the rules where my people suffer
Kaju, I like how they restricted you to their free speech zone. Lol.
Conza88: Hmm.. I feel like joining..but can't be fcked doing registration. If I was, I'd be my former chomskyite self, who is wondering what others opinions are, innocently asking what they think of: Egalitarianism a Revolt Against Nature and The Deathwish of Anarcho-Communists... Love to see the reaction to those two... :D Hahah
Good job making us all look like fools. Impersonating others is never a good idea.
krazy kaju:Good job making us all look like fools. Impersonating others is never a good idea.
Regurgitating Austrians and ignoring all the rest of economic theory will also, nonetheless, people here feel quite comfortable that regurgitating Rothbard will "refute" everybody else.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
It is funny you are arguing for self ownership (good job) while getting mad at Conza for impersonating himself!
He signed up as Conza88, and anyone can search Conza88 online, including his posts to this thread.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
That forum has the apperance of a rhetorical circle jerk outcrop. Non-believers have "restricted" access and only the true believers can be thanked on that forum as a way to inflate their impudent egos.
Fluery: "Talking about ownership in relation to human beings is ridiculous. You are yourself and that is that. Ownership only applies when it comes to slavery, so self-ownership is rubbish." "You cannot create wealth out of thin air. The wealth that society as a whole produces is finite...a dollar in your pocket means a dollar less in someone else's pocket." "Places like Russia and China were shitholes still living in the middle ages before their revolutions; socialism created their modern economies out of nothing."
ROFL!!! I'm going to see if I can post these on FSTDT. XD
They do seem to be generally quite nasty. I'm not sure what value can be found in engaging them.
----
Does anyone else see the irony that they are anarchists who restrict speech, and exercise property rights via moderation on their forum?
The whole thing seems somewhat disingenuous.
What I find interesting about leftists is that, as kaju stated, they base their arguments on emotion and not on logic or facts. Obviously, these people do not hold much faith in their ideas. If they did, they would point out what they perceive to be logical errors or fallacies in Austrian theory. Instead, they attack with hate-filled tirades that are petty and juvenile.
Perhaps this is why communism is responsible for millions of deaths. Those who believe in that type of economic structure seem to be full of anger.
richie2044: What I find interesting about leftists is that, as kaju stated, they base their arguments on emotion and not on logic or facts. Obviously, these people do not hold much faith in their ideas.
What I find interesting about leftists is that, as kaju stated, they base their arguments on emotion and not on logic or facts. Obviously, these people do not hold much faith in their ideas.
As a previous statist-leftist, this is actually somewhat wrong. Yes, while emotional logic plays heavily into much of their rhetoric, there is no clear cut cause & effect regarding their arguments. Quite often, leftists can employ an emotional argument that then molds & utilizes valid facts & logic to fit their worldview & rhetoric. For example, the healthcare crisis. It is a valid observation that "something must be done", & that the current means of citizens in the US to get healtcare are not sustainable (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). However, utilizing this very rational point, they can proceed to employ emotional logic in rationalizing universal health care, specifically because it is an end all be all altruistic program, that is usually the fetish of the Leftist / Liberal. They already have you in a trap, and most may not know it. From that point on, they can continually go around in circles pulling whatever (possibly valid) statistics they read in the most recent Counterpunch or The New Republic article, seemingly adding support & detail & nuance to their position, while subtly guilt tripping their opponent into gradually accepting their position, even if it is a benign admission that the leftist position is a valid position, but one the opponent doesn't agree to. This is how they maintain their talking points: by continually seeking acknowledgment of their positions as valid, even if no one agrees to them. It forever allows them to have an arrogant sense of self-worth of their ideas, & further convinces them that anyone who disagrees with them doesn't do so because the leftist position is wrong, but because the person who doesn't agree hasn't been properly guilt-tripped, or exposed to their arguments, which by this point, amount to political brainwashing. Part of what makes this process so effective is partially, in fact, due to the deep faith they have in the moral correctness of their views, because afterall, they have to continually feel the sense of pleasure of repeatedly arguing against their immortal opponents- the statist-right. Converting people to their views is only target practice for whenever they get into shouting matches with their statist brethren (statist-rightists). Summarily, their aim is not for logical approval, logical consistency, or logical correctness. Their aim is for emotional approval, emotional consistency, & emotional correctness, but all under the guise of the earlier three, of course. I'm sure the statist-rightists do this as well, but I've more often encountered this with statist-leftists.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
and then there are hundreds of cool headed books by marxist economists. what we must remember is that socialism was the only consistent position before STV came along. (ricardian socialists come to mind). without discussing STV, these debates are useless. ironicly, STV is not discussed that much when debating with them.
Please don't attack me for something I didn't do. And you're the one presenting yourself from mises.org , not me.
Jumping to conclusions is never a good idea.
As far as this goes, I'm interested in responses from actual marxists / socialists - LTV, minimum wage etc. It's interesting because it goes back to having the correct epistemology. A priori is a joke & absurd to them, so essentially we're all talking past eachother... lol, which doesn't make for a productive use of time.
What I do believe can be gained from the socialists is their strategies & tactics in regard to revolutions, which is what I am interested in. From what I understand, we spend 90% of the time on our philosophy, and 10% trying to make it happen. They spend 90% of the time trying to make it happen, and 10% of their philosophy. Finished reading Dedication and Leadership by Douglas Hyde a few months ago, he spent 20 years in the party, former communist and it was very interesting.
So besides that I don't see much use in confronting the socialists, there are folks out there who haven't got a world view of fallacies built up around them. But to each his own.
I....love...debating...Marxists...I am so there.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Kaju, Kwisatz Haderach does a good job at pointing the flaws in your post http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1465581#post1465581. Kwisatz Haderach exposed the major flaw in the left-right paradigm, but he is probably to arrogant to admit that he did because he would expose the statism of all the political parties. Get him back with the left-right liberty-statism paradigm.
Anyway, I parousing the threads and they keep bringing up how this or that doesn't flow with history. But what I want to know is, in history, how has socialism/commie-ism/whatever been better than almost-free market capitalism? They seem to ignore all the benefits of capitalism. What goodness has socialism ever brought about?
Also, Kwisatz Haderach is a Christian communist? lol. The Bible is full of pro-property rights-ness. How can you be a true Christian but not believe in property rights?
Daniel:Also, Kwisatz Haderach is a Christian communist? lol. The Bible is full of pro-property rights-ness. How can you be a true Christian but not believe in property rights?
You can find support for pretty much any political position in the Bible, if you look hard enough.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap