Capitolism: Harnessing the Power of Stupid

[EthanAllen]

No disagreement from me. I was just pointing out Jane's apparent inconsistency in claiming she wasn't a "libertarian" and the work she does for the "libertarian" candidate.

Why it is inconsistent? Can any two people be categorized within the paradigm of two or three categories or parties, and hold to the exact strict beliefs of any of them? This is purely impossible.

The candidate happens to be the person I think would MOST be likely to move us away from big government, and back toward constitutionalism. Apparently the gaggle of people who believe this are of all types when it comes to what they are registered (or not) as to vote.

I have heard detractors accuse him of being everything from a liberal hippie (just because he is against needless warfare) to a RINO (because he sought to take back money for his district that the government had taken from the people) to an extreme right-winger (because he would eradicate many of the government's current roles, is pro-life, and pro-gun).

It's unfortunate that we are asked to choose from only two parties. At the local and personal level, it seems most people identify with the one that best represents their ideas about how much government should be involved in their lives. At the very highest levels, it does not seem to matter, i.e. the "there's not a dimes worth of difference" theory.

As most well read people know that David Rockefeller, supposed republican, visited Bill Clinton in his college years and promised him the presidency then...

So why do you reject being identified as a minarchist libertarian?

[CNHT]

Ron Paul is 85% libertarian wing and 15% traditionalist wing while being 100% anti-interventionist.

I agree with that.

Jane has no apparent philosophical understanding of libertarianism.

My understanding of it is that different people have different ideas of what it is, so it can't be pinned down.

She is very much like "emotive" anarchists. They can describe what they are against but they can't articulate a logical argument based on first principles of what they are for and how to get there.

That's interesting...I don't feel the need to post long diatribes about why I think we should have limited government because I assume that the people (here anyway) are for limited government.

.Thus they are very susceptible to manipulation by purveyors of conspiracy theories.

Uh, really now? That's an interesting accusation. And what conspiracy theories might those be? LOL Now you're really off your rocker. I'm not a 'truther' and I think everyone knows that.
If I see something developing over the course of 30 years then I have to treat it as fact...it's not a conspiracy once it is coming into play.

[CNHT]

So why do you reject being identified as a minarchist libertarian?

Well, as I've said, even though to me, the two words mean many different things to many different people, I would hardly call myself a minarchist. Some of my beliefs are libertarian, yes. But since we can't define what that is, why should I care about being defined when I've found someone with whom I agree nearly 100%?

[EthanAllen]

My understanding of it is that different people have different ideas of what it is, so it can't be pinned down.

There is only one fundamental tenet of libertarianism and that is the absolute right to self-ownership. Everything else is derived from this.

"The property rights that each citizen has in himself are the foundation of a free society." -- James Bovard, Freedom In Chains, p. 86

"Libertarianism begins with self ownership." -- David Bergland, Libertarianism In One Lesson, p. 35

"There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life...Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life." -- Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pp. 321-2

[EthanAllen]

I would hardly call myself a minarchist.

Well obviously you can't call yourself anarchist.

A minarchist is a type of strict constitutionalist who believes in limiting government to a "night watchmen" state of military, police, courts, jails and maybe even roads so the illegals can be rounded up and transported to jails!

Maybe you're a dilettante monarchist?

Queen Jane!

[Jim Johnson]

Regular people used to save up and buy a house. Now the notion of buying a house with a loan is just understood to be the norm. Why is it the norm? Why are even the upper middle class types having to borrow money to buy a house? Why is most of the country in debt?

These are great questions that are not asked often enough.

It is impractical to save money to buy a house or even a car.
Very few people can make money at a high enough rate to over come inflation and their existing out flow of moneys. 
Where does one live while they are saving to buy a house or how does one get around while saving for a car?  In many places a monthly rent of an apartment is higher than a monthly mortgage payment and most people are not making money if they are not driving around.

1)  While ones car depreciates it should be used to make money over it's useful period offsetting the money
      paid to a lender.
2)  Most homes will appreciate faster than the loss to a lender.

The success of  these 2 schemes depends entirely on the individual.

A third scheme is the use of the credit card as a lender.  One can use the lenders money absolutely free for as much as 30 days.  The mistake people make with this scheme is gross and obvious, either one has to be making more money on the barrowed money than the lender or one has to pay off the debt every month.

It is not bad to be in debt, it is bad not to be making money off of it.

[CNHT]

I would hardly call myself a minarchist.

Well obviously you can't call yourself anarchist.

A minarchist is a type of strict constitutionalist who believes in limiting government to a "night watchmen" state of military, police, courts, jails and maybe even roads so the illegals can be rounded up and transported to jails!

Maybe you're a dilettante monarchist?

Queen Jane!

I know one thing -- people are reluctant to even discuss with you when you've called them stupid, and other names.

I have never said I liked the courts, do I don't know why you continue to put words in my mouth with "Jane believes this" and "Jane believes that" when you have not a clue.

[CNHT]

Now in a theoretical "free market" with "pure competition" and "perfect knowledge" you can't have any profits because price is driven to costs.

I keep noting that this statement is incorrect, but you keep blithely ignoring it. 

Interesting.

Notice how he prefaces his sentences with "Now..."? All he needs is a little brush mustache and he'd be all set. It's like he's preaching to all you little children in school who don't know anything, so you'd better listen! Achtung!

[CNHT]

Maybe you're a dilettante monarchist?

Don't know what that means.

But I'm positive you are a chauvinist pain in the buttocks.

[EthanAllen]

I would hardly call myself a minarchist.

Well obviously you can't call yourself anarchist.

A minarchist is a type of strict constitutionalist who believes in limiting government to a "night watchmen" state of military, police, courts, jails and maybe even roads so the illegals can be rounded up and transported to jails!

Maybe you're a dilettante monarchist?

Queen Jane!

I know one thing -- people are reluctant to even discuss with you when you've called them stupid, and other names.

I have never said I liked the courts, do I don't know why you continue to put words in my mouth with "Jane believes this" and "Jane believes that" when you have not a clue.

I never have called you nor anyone else "stupid". I called you a dilettante with knowledge that is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Since you apparently liked the label "dilettante" I thought you might also like the title of "Queen Jane" as a joke. I don't use emoticans.

I believe you called me an "elitist snob". On second thought maybe it was "effete liberal" warmed over from the last presidential campaign as an attempt to smear Kerry.

[CNHT]

I never have called you nor anyone else "stupid". I called you a dilettante with knowledge that is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Since you apparently liked the label "dilettante" I thought you might also like the title of "Queen Jane" as a joke. I don't use emoticans.

I believe you called me an "elitist snob".

Most liberals are elitists snobs because they think they know what's best for everyone and will beat them with a stick until they 'understand' for their own good. You are a liberal, using supposedly libertarian theories to back up your theories. I have said, nothing is that black or white when it comes to defining libertarianism. Support your arguments by saying that you believe what you believe because you think it's right not because it's [insert label here].

Just by your definition of the word 'dilettante' -- you presume to call someone stupid, just as the word chauvinist presumes someone is backward with regard to women and their roles in society. You have no idea what my knowledge is or isn't because you don't know me, have never met me, have never even seen me. I don't like or dislike the word dilettante, except for the fact that it's being used in a negative way. I usually think of dilettantes as wealthy heiresses like Paris Hilton or political hacks like Al Gore with his global warming nonsense. I am comfortable but not well off enough to consider myself in that category.

It perfectly demomstrates your elitist view that people you view as uninformed should not have the right to make decisions, example of which as in the case of SB2 where spenders do not want 'uninformed' voters to vote (against their schemes for more spending)

So here's hoping a whole crew of dillettantes, a dillettante army if you will, will follow me and support RP.

Here's a worldwide call ----- Dillettantes for Ron Paul... join me won't you?

[EthanAllen]

You are a liberal, using supposedly libertarian theories to back up your theories.

How can you judge what a "libertarian theory is" if you claim that you can't define libertarianism yourself? How would you know?

And speaking of labels, is it only OK to use labels when used to describe your opponents?

And speaking of political ideology, I am much closer to an "old right" conservative (southern agrarian) then I am to a New Dealer, who they so vehemently criticized in response to the Great Depression. But then again, what is the point of even using words of description when they mean nothing to the uninformed?

I have said, nothing is that black or white when it comes to defining libertarianism.

The fundamental tenet of libertarian is black and white. It is the absolute right of self-ownership. The non-aggression principle is then derived from that.

[CNHT]

He also keeps spouting the Labor Theory of Value ala Marx.

Thanks Tom (I almost missed this) I'm glad I'm not the only one who is picking this out from all the gobbledygook.

After reading one or two posts from this person, who has used many different aliases, I sort of got this impression and usually I can pin it. But hell what do I know, just a stupid dillettante I am.

[CNHT]

So I just have one question for you...

if we all say, YES, EA, we agree with you because you are right right right about everything, will you then STFU?

[CNHT]

Here is an elitist attitude for you:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/26/opinion/schieffer/main3204527.shtml

I wrote to Shieffer and told him if he did not like axe-throwing PhDs, he should stay out of NH completely.