Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Too Crazy to Fail
The dynamic duo of global finance, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan jefe Hugo Chavez, cut the ribbon on the Iran-Venezuela Joint Bank today. Speaking in Tehran, Chavez spoke of his economic model: "Capitalism needs to go down. It has to end. And we must take a transitional road to a new model that we call socialism."
Details on the bank, from Reuters:
The Iran-Venezuela Joint Bank, based in Tehran, has an initial capital base of 200 million dollars, with each nation providing half of the funds, the state broadcaster said. The Export Development Bank of Iran, which is under sanctions from the US Treasury, was tasked with creating the joint bank with the Venezuelans.
"The capital will be raised to 1.2 billion dollars with the aim of supporting joint economic, industrial and mining projects as well as speeding up the current projects," the report said. "What happened today represents a strong will to build a new world," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, attending the opening ceremony with Chavez.
Iran is under international banking sanctions over its controversial nuclear programme, which the West suspects to be a cover for atomic weapons development although Tehran insists it is purely peaceful.
Chavez, a vocal cheerleader in Latin America for Iran and its nuclear ambitions, was quoted as saying that the two countries should "further strengthen their trade cooperation."
In other Venezuela news, former defense minister Raul Baduel, who helped return Chavez to power in 2002 after a short-lived coup and has since become a fierce critic of the president, was arrested yesterday on "corruption" charges. Baduel says Chavez, who recently demanded the arrest of another political opponent, former presidental candidate Manuel Rosales, is using "the judiciary and other public branches as mercenaries to intimidate."
|4.3.09 @ 5:19PM|#
Let me know how your socialism is working AFTER the oil runs out, Hugo. You're lucky that no amount of economic stupidity can make your petro-reserves disappear overnight (though you're trying to do it anyway), otherwise Venezuela would be somewhere below Zimbabwe on the economic performance scale right about now.
|4.3.09 @ 5:20PM|#
Come on B.P., that's a capitalistic program that needs to be abolished. Interest is the way the fat cats get rich off the backs of the poor. You should be ashamed of yourself for even considering that.
|4.3.09 @ 5:28PM|#
Episiarch, you don't really expect the economic ideologies of Iran and Venezuela to be consistent and make sense, do you?
Warty|4.3.09 @ 5:29PM|#
Epi, there's a communist bookstore called Revolution Books down the street from me. They have a huge poster of Mao in the back. I laughed heartily when a bank opened up next door.
Cabeza De Vaca|4.3.09 @ 5:30PM|#
I would feel safe investing my money in that bank. No way they would ever natioanlize your deposit or anything like that.
|4.3.09 @ 5:37PM|#
I'm not getting the bank/socialism
connection.
You're not supposed to: Socialism can't calculate.
http://www.mises.org/store/Mises-Calculator-P293C0.aspx
|4.3.09 @ 5:39PM|#
Episiarch, you don't really expect the economic ideologies
of Iran and Venezuela to be consistent and make sense, do
you?
I can dream, can't I?
Epi, there's a communist bookstore called Revolution Books down
the street from me.
I bet they take American Express.
|4.3.09 @ 5:52PM|#
Will the bank be charging interest on its loans?
...
I'm not getting the bank/socialism connection.
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what exactly this bank will be
doing... If they oppose private development, they won't be lending
to entrepreneurs; and if they oppose interest, there will be no
increase in the capital (heh) the bank have to lend out... I
honestly don't get it...
|4.3.09 @ 6:46PM|#
To which brand of capitalism is Moynihan's hobby horse referring? The kind that embraces government bail outs of banks that do charge interest?
|4.3.09 @ 6:57PM|#
Moynihan's Writing Points:
1. Chavez is a dangerous socialist dictator.
2. Chavez seeks to change Venezuelan constitution in furtherance of
his dangerous socialist dictatorship ends.
3. Chavez represents more of a threat to the peace and safety of
his neighbors than does Benjamin Nut'neyahoo.
4. Chavez is a socialist madman.
5. Chavez is a socialist.
Always delivered with a fresh pespective.
alan|4.3.09 @ 6:59PM|#
So Israel,
you couldn't pick today (and where ever that photo-op happens to
be)to bomb Iran?
|4.3.09 @ 7:01PM|#
Give me a break, LM. MCM could post a recipe for boiling water
and you'd dog him about it (ARE YOU ADDING KOSHER SALT, MOYNIHAN? I
FUCKING BET YOU ARE!)
Chavez is a madman. Moynihan points that out sometimes. Good.
|4.3.09 @ 7:06PM|#
Chavez spoke of his economic model: "Capitalism needs to go
down. It has to end. And we must take a transitional road to a new
model that we call socialism."
Was he pounding his shoe on the table as he said that?
|4.3.09 @ 7:08PM|#
Will the bank be charging interest on its loans?
Actually this is a good question. I was under the impression Islam
had some fairly specific anti-usury tenents. So much so that banks
that did business with significant numbers of Muslims had to do
some weird pretzel math to make loans not be considered usury. I
believe I first heard about it on NPR.
Anonymous|4.3.09 @ 7:09PM|#
It's like the Brazilian auto industry: first you nationalize it,
then you set it up as a monopoly by fiat.
Speaking of Brazil, I had just gotten the fresnel lens set right
and was about to hit play on the Gilliam classic, when -- wouldn't
you know it -- the EPA came in and condemned my flat because I put
some electrical tape on a leaking waste duct. "You shouldn't be
taking work away from the unions," they said... but I was already
in my suit of armor.
|4.3.09 @ 7:19PM|#
LibertyMike,
Look at it this way. Now the Palestinians have a safe place to
deposit their money. Everybody wins.
Mari Dupont|4.3.09 @ 7:20PM|#
Clearly this "bank" will never show a "loss" since that would mean adapting scorned capitalistic tools like double entry bookkeeping, etc. It's probably just a cover for funneling money to questionable international "businesses". Though I'd love to see a VISA commercial from these guys...
|4.3.09 @ 7:44PM|#
banks that did business with significant numbers of Muslims
had to do some weird pretzel math to make loans not be considered
usury.
Maybe they loan the "present value".
And- I thought the A-rabs invented double entry bookkeeping.
JP|4.3.09 @ 7:47PM|#
What banks following Shari'a law do is become co-owners with the
borrower and then get paid a specified "profit" or "rent" from the
business or property.
Because, as we all know, Allah is too stupid to tell that he's
being tricked.
B|4.3.09 @ 7:50PM|#
Damn, it's a shame joe isn't here. He would have posted three of four posts already, at least, telling us what a real democrat Chavez is.
|4.3.09 @ 7:55PM|#
Maybe they loan the "present value".
The amount of a loan at the time the loan is made is always the
"present value".
Abdulo|4.3.09 @ 7:57PM|#
Socialists running banks? What's next, the US president
nationalizing the auto industry?
Oh, wait....
jtuf|4.3.09 @ 7:57PM|#
I'm no fan of Chavez or Ahmadinejad, but I have no problem seeing the IMF and World bank get some competition either.
|4.3.09 @ 8:09PM|#
Re Islamic mortgages:
What I heard they do is:
1 - Figure out how much the monthly payment would be, and how many
payments there would be if it were a normal mortgage.
2 - Buy the house at the market price (which is of course less than
what the sum of the normal mortgage payments would have
been).
3 - Resell the house to the Muslim customer for what the sum of the
payment would have been on terms that allow the customer to make
monthly payments over that same time period.
So the customer has the same monthly minimum payments as a normal
mortgage.
However the Muslim borrower would get no benefit from making an
additional principle payment early. Also, I'm not sure, but
refinancing might get a little weird.
pseudo-MNG|4.3.09 @ 8:10PM|#
People in Gaza would like to open banks too, too bad your Israeli friends keep blowing up every Palestinian-built structure larger than a dog house. But you'd never know that from reading Moynihan's articles.
EJM|4.3.09 @ 8:20PM|#
In other Venezuela news...
Actually, I was thinking that the truly important Venezuela-related
news this week was
Chavez defending Sudan's President Bashir at a summit in
Doha.
QSL|4.3.09 @ 9:51PM|#
The power of the English language in commerce is still a sight to behold. Its presence made even in a warm-fuzzy AhmadineJihad and Lil Castro Chavez photo op. Even Venezuela's own language is left out.
MNG|4.3.09 @ 10:17PM|#
"it's a shame joe isn't here. He would have posted three of four
posts already, at least, telling us what a real democrat Chavez
is."
I don't remember joe ever saying that. He used to say that
democracy in Venezuala would check Chavez. I realize nuance is
something hard for some people, but it's kind of important in order
to be a good thinker...
Nooge
Nice to know your more of a Moynihan lover than a MNG hater :).
Judging from the frequency, immediacy and urgency of your rages
against anyone who criticizes I have only one question: with
Moynihan do you pitch or do you catch?
"Let me know how your socialism is working AFTER the oil runs out,
Hugo."
This is so stupid. I heard a variant on another thread the other
day, this one a Putin two minute hate. It's like "no fair, their
economic well being comes from oil!" Look, nations use what they
have. That's what they do. The U.S. certainly benefits from many
natural resources we have and geographical realities.
I mean I could pooh-pooh libertarian models like Hong Kong by just
saying "oh well they don't count because they're a port city."
MNG|4.3.09 @ 10:20PM|#
"pseudo-MNG | April 3, 2009, 8:10pm
People in Gaza would like to open banks too, too bad your Israeli
friends keep blowing up every Palestinian-built structure larger
than a dog house. But you'd never know that from reading Moynihan's
articles."
You know, its funny that these are the guys who think I'm obsessed
with the Israeli situation...
matt|4.3.09 @ 10:35PM|#
Look at it this way. Now the Palestinians have a safe place
to deposit their money. Everybody wins.
What money? Arafat aside, Palestinians have had a little trouble
stacking money, what with the apartheid conditions and
whatnot...
JD|4.3.09 @ 10:57PM|#
"Let me know how your socialism is working AFTER the oil runs out, Hugo."
This is so stupid. I heard a variant on another thread the other day, this one a Putin two minute hate. It's like "no fair, their economic well being comes from oil!" Look, nations use what they have. That's what they do. The U.S. certainly benefits from many natural resources we have and geographical realities.
Yes, MNG, every nation uses its natural resources. The difference
is that some nations have diversified economies and use the profits
from one source to further diversify. Other nations just rely on
their one source and are prosperous for a while, then suffer when
that source goes bad. Even you have to realize that
distinction.
|4.3.09 @ 11:07PM|#
And- I thought the A-rabs invented double entry
bookkeeping.
Iranians are Persians, not Arabs.
Naga Sadow|4.3.09 @ 11:22PM|#
MNG!!!! You fool! You've opened the thread up to Underzog rants! May you burn for your sins! Burn, I say!
Naga Sadow|4.3.09 @ 11:24PM|#
Unsubstansive Kurt is correct. You're asking for trouble by confusing Kurds, Armenians, Arabs, and Persians. It's like calling a Japanese person Chinese. Or a Korean person Japanese. Etc.
alan|4.4.09 @ 1:00AM|#
Naga Sadow | April 3, 2009, 11:22pm | #
MNG!!!! You fool! You've opened the thread up to Underzog rants!
May you burn for your sins! Burn, I say!
Lol! Yet, that fucked in the head fuckhead doesn't get half the
shit that MNG does on the board.
Kolohe|4.4.09 @ 1:06AM|#
I mean I could pooh-pooh libertarian models like Hong Kong
by just saying "oh well they don't count because they're a port
city."
Almost every country that has oil is richer than the median*
regardless of it's political or economic system.
The same cannot be said of almost every country with a deep water
port.
Also, Hong Kong is somewhat off the beaten path. It's not like
Singapore which is at the junction of a geographic chokepoint.
True, it's also at the end of a navigable river system, like most
important ports around the world (save long beach) but until
recently (i.e. post Mao), there wasn't all that much traffic
flowing down it.
*measured in nominal GDP per capita. The lone expection I can see
is Nigeria - which also has deep water ports. Which indicates what
all kinds of fraked up sub saharan Africa is.
Stephen Smith|4.4.09 @ 2:58AM|#
"The Iran-Venezuela Joint Bank"? I think it clearly states that
it is the:
Bi-NationalIranian-Venezuelan Bank
My favorite part is how the sign is only in Persian and English
(!), but not Spanish.
DJF|4.4.09 @ 6:24AM|#
I am sure glad that we have gotten our two minutes of hate for
the weekend, everyone chant together, big brother demands it.
I always find it funny that so many who claim to be "free
marketers" get in such a tizzy over Iran and Venezuela, yet have no
problem with the communist dictators running China and Vietnam. But
I guess that since China and Vietnam allow in the "international
business community" to run sweatshops then they are ok while Iran
and Venezuela are the devil incarnate.
The rule seems to be, be as much of a total dictatorship as you
want, but if you let in the globalist businesses then we will
ignore it, don't let in the globalist then you are evil.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|4.4.09 @ 6:39AM|#
I thought the Iranians were smarter than that.
I really did.
Oh, they are. Just wait, soon we'll have ourselves an Iranazualan
Missile Crisis! Or a Trans-Venerainian Cluster Fuck Ordeal. Or
maybe we'll just have the discovery of The Great Persio-Myan
Calander Bookkeeping Mistake, which led to everyone in both
countries planting their corn at the wrong time of year and they
all died of starvation.
Er, I don't know but I'm sure somebody is going to get something
out of this. A photo op at least. What else could these two piss
ants hope for anyway.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|4.4.09 @ 6:42AM|#
DJF -- WTF are you talking about?
yet have no problem with the communist dictators running China
and Vietnam
??? I have no clue where you got this from, but do try and get a
grip.
DJF|4.4.09 @ 7:53AM|#
Ebeneezer Scrooge writes
""""DJF -- WTF are you talking about?""""
""""??? I have no clue where you got this from, but do try and get
a grip.""""
No on topic reply, typical of Reason Magazine, even though you
actually quoted part of what I was talking about
I get it from reading Reason, which not only has no problem with
the communist dictatorships of China and Vietnam they openly
support them.
Yet at the same time they seem to have all sorts of problems with
Iran and Venezuela opening a bank together. As far as I see, this
bank has nothing to do with me, it does not steal my money, and if
someone foreigners want to open a bank together how is this in
anyway of any importance to anyone outside of Iran and Venezuela?
Yet on the other hand China for example uses its "sovereign wealth
funds" to buy up businesses around the world which do effect me and
also puts pressure on the US government to bail out banks which owe
China money and Reason ignores that.
So I will repeat again the rule that seems to apply to foreign
governments,
1. If you allow in the globalist businesses to get access to cheap
labor or resources you can be as dictatorial and non-free market as
you want and the corporate libertarians will ignore it
2. If you don't allow unlimited access for the globalist businesses
to get access to cheap labor or resources then you are the enemy no
matter what the status of your government or the level of freedom
you have.
|4.4.09 @ 8:08AM|#
MNG, I
WILL NOT go out with you. Stop asking already.
It's good to know that you and noted Holocaust denier Libertymike
are on the same page about Moynihan, a man who, as far as I can
see, has committed the grave offense reporting on issues in a
manner with which you disagree. The horror.
Every Moynihan thread, no matter what it's about, you're in it,
hanging on his nuts, posting spittle-flecked rants about how he
eats Palestinian babies for breakfast. You were doing it long
before I ever appeared in any of those threads, which makes you
pulling the "LOL NOOGE IN A MOYNIHAN THREAD LOL" card pretty
fucking weak.
In the interest of keeping the comments section free of our little
love spats, feel free to contact me via e-mail. Imagine, we could
argue for days.
|4.4.09 @ 8:53AM|#
DJF,
Yeesh, your confirmation bias is showing. Many a reference has been
made here to China's 'questionable' civil rights record.
Suki|4.4.09 @ 9:43AM|#
P Brooks,
Even I know this one. Luca Pacioli was not an Arab and (as someone
else pointed out) neither are the Persians.
Please do not go into some sillyness that the oldest piece of paper
with "accounting" on it was written in Arabic, or something
similar. Luca Pacioli invented the method that is used everywhere
now.
|4.4.09 @ 10:47AM|#
What money? Arafat aside, Palestinians have had a little
trouble stacking money, what with the apartheid conditions and
whatnot...
When you blow the rent money on mortars and rockets, don't come
crying to me.
MNG|4.4.09 @ 10:53AM|#
Naga
I didn't bring up the subject-that-conjuures-forth-the-Underone.
Psuedo-mng was a troll of me bro, not me.
|4.4.09 @ 10:57AM|#
I get it from reading Reason, which not only has no problem
with the communist dictatorships of China and Vietnam they openly
support them.
[citation needed]
Reasonoids please forgive me. I know that's trite.
DJF, like so many other visitors, is completely clueless about
libertarian philosophy. He sees what he wants to see and ignores
all that doesn't fit in with his preconceptions. It's a common
myopia for both team red and team blue fanboys.
MNG|4.4.09 @ 11:00AM|#
Kolohe
Hong Kong also is, well, a city. I mean, NYC does well too, but
that's hardly a reason to argue that everyone should use NYC's
policies as a model for their economies...
Nooge
Sheesh, now you want to give ME your number...I guess that answers
my question to you about how you and MM do your thing, you
catch.
MNG|4.4.09 @ 11:09AM|#
DJF
You are right about Reason, or Moynihan's irrational Venezuala
hate. One cannot discern any neutral principle which would explain
the bizarre number of two minute hates on Chavez (don't get me
wrong, the man deserves scorn, but the relentless focus is
bizarre). This was my original point when I brought up Israel long
ago: Moynihan points to HRW records on how bad Chavez is (he is
bad, check out the HRW watch report on him), but Isreal, which
rates a similar if not worse rating from groups like HRW gets not
only no criticism, but actual apologia from him. So it's not like
some general concern for liberty in the international scene that
could be motivating MM.
I've offered a rationale that explains it pretty well though.
Moynihan caters to the right wing of the libertarian element. And
if you criticize Israel on the right you get written off rather
quick. So he can't go there, no matter how much intellectual
honesty and integrity would demand it. He's got a check to
collect.
Once you accept that idea the seemingly bizarre non-pattern in his
posts becomes a rather clear pattern: engage in the usual two
minute hates that animate the Right at any given time (such as
rabbling about hippie anti-(Iraq protestors [something he does a
little less on Reason than in some of his other outlets for sure,
someone recently posted a gem of his from a European outlet he
wrote for a while back], English nationalized health care, Michael
Moore, and of course Chavez-Ahmadinejad, etc).
But DJF, you've got some generalizations about Reason and
libertarianism that don't hold water. Most libertarians are hardly
apologists for China or Vietnam for example.
Art-P.O.G.|4.4.09 @ 11:31AM|#
MNG,
It could be that Israel/Palestine is a sensitive and difficult
issue on par in certain respects to the 'abortion debate' and that
Chavez is almost as easy to make fun of as Chris Crocker*.
I still need to see Waltz With Bashir at any rate.
*Remember that really effeminate dude who was on YouTube crying
"leave Britney alone"
Suki|4.4.09 @ 11:32AM|#
MNG,
I doubt this will do any good, but here goes.
Libertarianism is for free markets.
Socialism is against free markets.
Chavez is a Socialist and has a whole country in his grip.
Anti-Socialists like to inform people when Socialism is on the
march.
Socialists and ultraleftists can not stand the slightest criticism
of Socialism. This point may explain why you have such a fit
whenever Chavez is criticized and you even use empty trash like
don't get me wrong, the man deserves scorn, but the relentless
focus is bizarre as some sort of commentary holy water
sprinkled through the walls of words you post every time your pink
feathers get ruffled.
MNG|4.4.09 @ 11:37AM|#
DJF
You'll find libertarians that run the gamut, just like you will
conservatives or liberals.
Sure, there's folks like SIV/noone you know/Tofusushi, RC Dean,
Gilbert Martin, etc., that are just right wing guys under
libertarian sheeps clothing with caricatures of liberals in their
heads, no attempt to honestly understand where their opponents are
coming from or to learn anything, and very little intellectual
integrity, honesty or ability for that matter.
And then you have libertarians that strive mightily to have their
libertarianism possess intellectual integrity, who seem willing to
have an intellectually honest conversation, and who cannot be
called right wing shils. Posters like J sub D, fluffy, Hazel Meade,
economist, Art P.O.G., kolohe and others I can think of and Reason
contributors like Balko, Walker, Sullum, etc.
Note that all the latter of course still usually and often
disagree, usually strongly, with liberals such as myself. It's not
like they are losing any principle being more nuanced in their
thinking.
And you'll find by not generalizing about libertarians and talking
with them one at a time and reading their classics and such you'll
1. make your liberal beliefs stronger and 2. yes, even change your
beliefs a little (it's no sin).
|4.4.09 @ 11:37AM|#
And if you criticize Israel on the right you get written off
rather quick.
"Greeks are just Jews without money."
MNG|4.4.09 @ 11:46AM|#
Suki
I see your point. I really do. But I submit that libertarianism, as
I understand it, should be against deprivations of liberty whether
they go under the name of "socialism" or some other name. In other
words, much more than just "anti-socialism" but
"pro-liberty."
Art-P.O.G.
I agree with you too. I actually think the Israeli-Palestinian
thing is immensley complicated. But, I've enver heard Moynihan even
act like it is, and I think that's probably because on the right
saying "it's complicated" will get you written out of the movement,
because their position is that it is really not very complicated,
there are these white knights (Israel) who are long suffering and
ever patient in dealing with these crazed devils
(Arabs/Palestinians) who never cease to do evil and such. But more
importantly there are some aspects to the issue that are not too
complicated, or rather should not be for a libertarian. For example
bulldozing the house of a relative of a suicide bomber. I cannot
imagine any other setting in which a libertarian would accept such
a "non-individualized" version of what is just. But not a peep from
Moynihan and his ilk on such things, while constantly harping on
Chavez and such, seems bizarre.
But again, it's something that makes sense when you look at any
right wing magazine. It's how they talk about international
situations all the time.
Also, the Chavez thing can be kind of nuanced too. There is an
awful history in S. America of 1. wealthy landowners using force
and fraud to give the back of their hand to the poor 2. American
meddling with crazy-bad results for the people there 3. foriegn
corporate interests willing to deal with and profit from both 1 and
2. Combine that with what seems to be an ugly U.S. role in an
attempt to oust Chavez and you've got a situation where, depsite
Chavez's ugly authoritarianism and over-the-top Mussolini like
buffoonery you've got a rather complicated situation as well...
MNG|4.4.09 @ 11:48AM|#
Epi
Don't get me started on one of my anti-Grecian rants! I mean, wtf
have those stinky people ever contributed to civilization!
MNG|4.4.09 @ 11:54AM|#
Art
I think that is actually a good question about Sudan.
On the one hand I understand a position I hear a lot on H&R
that says "no government assistance to Sudan in any form." I mean,
libertarians are supposed to be against government, and such
assistance would involve taking stuff from me and you (our money,
or ourselves [conscription]) to help C (the Sudanese).
On the other hand, some libertarians seem to argue that you can
take from me and you in order to protect the property and personal
rights of C (because they are the same as me and you), in other
words to tax for and raise a police force. IF it is ok to do that
in a domestic sphere, then I am not sure why we would not be
similarly compelled to do something like that when the basic
property and personal rights of folks in another nation are
threatened. I mean, as libertarians point out in debates on
immigration, national lines are "just lines on maps" and the rights
of a Sudanese woman business owner who is being raped and having
her goods destroyed would seem then to have the same moral demand
on us as if that were going down to a woman in Peoria...
So that's my long winded way of saying, good fucking
question...
Suki|4.4.09 @ 11:54AM|#
Awsome! Another word wall of the same thing! Thanks MNG for pumping so many electrons with such little purpose.
MNG|4.4.09 @ 11:56AM|#
OK, I give you feta...And now that you've softened my irrational hatred of all things Greek I have to ask: Do those Pepperoncini things that come with my PapaJohn's pizza come from Greece? Because if yes then maybe those fucking people have actually contributed two things to Western Civilization after all...
MNG|4.4.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Suki
Lots of words confusing to you, eh? Well the only part addressed to
you was kind of short. Did you not get it? "Anti-socialism" not
same as "pro-liberty?"
I don't have a stylus so I can't actually draw it for you...
|4.4.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Do those Pepperoncini things that come with my PapaJohn's
pizza come from Greece?
Nope. That's Italian. However, you have now disgusted me with the
revelation that you eat PapaJohn's pizza. What next? You like Olive
Garden? You are a philistine.
MNG|4.4.09 @ 12:03PM|#
"Socialists and ultraleftists can not stand the slightest
criticism of Socialism."
I like this statement because I'm not a socialist, or even I should
think an ultraleftist.
For example, I think central planning is in most areas doomed to
fail, for the reasons Hayek gives in The Road to Serfdom.
I think that 8 times out of 10 government agencies are doomed to be
more inefficient than market ones, for the reasons outlined by
Mises in Bureaucracy.
I think inequality is a must, for the reasons Rawls explained in A
Theory of Justice.
I'm adamamntly against immigration, gun control and affirmative
action, which is a funny thing for an "ultraleftist."
The fact that you would lump me in with that demonstrates that it
is in fact yourself that cannot stand even the slightest deviation
from your ideological stance. Kind of a
BarneyFrank=Sweden=Hitler/Staling kind of thinking.
I guess you missed my latest points on nuance in more ways than
just the literal sense...
MNG|4.4.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Well, Olive Garden is just for special occasions Epi, for when me and the missus get dressed up and all.
|4.4.09 @ 12:05PM|#
Libertarians think everybody is fucked up. Dems, GOPers,
socialisxts, totalitarians, theocrats ... they are all dumbasses.
The most consistent and among us think other libertarians are
fucked up too. I'm looking at you Epi and Nutrasweet.
It's basically misantropy dressed up as a political philosophy.
MNG|4.4.09 @ 12:07PM|#
But don't act like you're too fancy for the Papa-John's Chicken Bacon Ranch pizza you cosmotarian.
Suki|4.4.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Lots of words confusing to you, eh?
No, but you must be looking in a reflection device when you
criticize others. That is the only rational explaination.
Naga Sadow|4.4.09 @ 12:12PM|#
What about my 300 workout? Thats greek too, right?
"300 brave Spartans and 1800 abs marched out to defend Greece from
mighty Persia"
|4.4.09 @ 12:13PM|#
Well, Olive Garden is just for special occasions Epi, for
when me and the missus get dressed up and all.
I think I'm going to be sick.
Here is an attempt to salvage your palate:
1 lb fresh sushi grade salmon
chives
3 green onions (scallions)
1 tbls capers
tamari sauce
1-2 lemons
1 tbls crushed ginger
Grind the salmon in the food processor or a meat grinder to a
coarse, chunky state. Chop the chives, scallions, and capers and
mix them with the salmon, the squeezed lemon, and the ginger. Start
slowly adding tamari sauce until it's just salty/flavorful enough
(be careful not to add too much).
Viola: salmon tartare. Absolutely delicious.
|4.4.09 @ 12:16PM|#
But don't act like you're too fancy for the Papa-John's
Chicken Bacon Ranch pizza you cosmotarian.
Why don't you just slap me in the face? It's the same thing.
Is olive oil originally Greek? Italian? Persian?
Semitic?
Olive oil is a Masonic conspiracy to enslave us all to the
Vatican.
Suki|4.4.09 @ 12:18PM|#
Olive oil is a Masonic conspiracy to enslave us all to the
Vatican.
Awsome! Well, enslavement using the proper safewords . . .
Suki|4.4.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Epi,
I thought it would be something more like "rosso, giallo, verde" or
"rutilus , crocus , viridis".
You learn so many things here!
Naga Sadow|4.4.09 @ 12:35PM|#
Suki,
Epi, besides being the resident narcissist, is also a food
critic.
Suki|4.4.09 @ 12:49PM|#
Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres
Isn't that the inscription at olive garden over the chicken
selections?
Ska|4.4.09 @ 1:13PM|#
RE: Accountancy - it had been around well before Pacioli's time,
and evidence of accounting systems have been found in ancient Roman
and Arab cultures, as well as referenced in Matthew's gospel.
Pacioli is credited as the author of the first text of standardized
bookkeeping/accounting principles, and in that way is the father of
modern accountancy.
Suki|4.4.09 @ 1:20PM|#
Awsome Ska! You found some bit of accounting on a slip of paper in the Bible.
Ska|4.4.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Well I was at a Holiday Inn for a conference, and I'm flipping through the Gideon's. That's when I noticed at Matthew 3:14 there was a rudimentary balance sheet scribbled in the margin. I thought that counted.
|4.4.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Well I was at a Holiday Inn for a conference, and I'm
flipping through the Gideon's. That's when I noticed at Matthew
3:14 there was a rudimentary balance sheet scribbled in the margin.
I thought that counted.
The best thing to do with a Gideon's is black out all of the pron
in the Song of Soloman. Attach a post-it or write in the margins
"What are you doing here, pervert?"
Ironic|4.4.09 @ 2:17PM|#
Just in case there are people fluent in Farsi on the board I
thought I would post a link to this site:
http://www.cheragheazadi.org/
Ebeneezer Scrooge|4.4.09 @ 2:29PM|#
DJF,
If you're new around here then I apologize. It means you don't
know. You may rest assured that we around here are NOT "okay" with
what's going on in China and Vietnam.
But to continue with MNG's listing of the faithful vs the
faithless,
And then you have libertarians that strive mightily to have
their libertarianism possess intellectual integrity, who seem
willing to have an intellectually honest conversation, and who
cannot be called right wing shils.
We also have our left wing shils.
And then we have a third leg, which are the anarchist shils.
"Libertarians" are no more homogenous than any other group. And
like any other group, there are those who would stick their head in
the sand rather than betray whatever they think the "true faith"
is. It just seems to be human nature.
Kolohe|4.4.09 @ 2:42PM|#
I get it from reading Reason, which not only has no problem with the communist dictatorships of China and Vietnam they openly support them.
Well I just perused some article here and I still say
[citation needed]
(Here's
the lone article I found on searching under 'vietnam')
Kolohe|4.4.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Kolohe
Hong Kong also is, well, a city. I mean, NYC does well too, but
that's hardly a reason to argue that everyone should use NYC's
policies as a model for their economies...
It would be a good start. Especially if they started with the 19th
century versions of those policies until they had enough of a base
to support the 20th century versions(and avoided the more stupid
ones)
|4.4.09 @ 4:11PM|#
Three Pittsburgh police officers killed by gun-loving
maniac
-New York Daily News headline.
This is why the print media *must* survive.
|4.4.09 @ 6:06PM|#
Three Pittsburgh police officers killed by gun-loving maniac
-New York Daily News headline.
This is why the print media *must* survive.
To be honest, it appears to be an accurate headline. "Gun loving"
was substantiated in the article and not many would disagree with
"maniac".
Pennsyvania has capital punishment, he'll get sentenced to it and
after 10-20 years, dozens of appeals, and millions spent on court
costs he might be executed. He's never going to be a free man
again.
Cops have another goddam reason to respond with SWAT routinely now.
Bad fuckin' news all around. My sympathies go out to the slain
officers families.
|4.4.09 @ 6:26PM|#
Sure, there's folks like SIV/noone you know/Tofusushi, RC
Dean, Gilbert Martin, etc., that are just right wing guys under
libertarian sheeps clothing with caricatures of liberals in their
heads,
And then you have libertarians that strive mightily to have their
libertarianism possess intellectual integrity, who seem willing to
have an intellectually honest conversation, and who cannot be
called right wing shils. Posters like J sub D, fluffy, Hazel Meade,
economist, Art P.O.G., kolohe
What about me?
I have argued with you plenty MNG, I deserve a rating too.
|4.4.09 @ 6:27PM|#
Cops have another goddam reason to respond with SWAT
routinely now. Bad fuckin' news all around. My sympathies go out to
the slain officers families.
I was thinking the same thing too.
No silver lining on this cloud.
MNG|4.4.09 @ 6:28PM|#
The problem with lists is that you always leave out someone
deserving. Of course kwais is in tht category, my bad.
And I'm not Libertymike. LM has a deontological view of the world
that I just don't dig, among other disagreements.
I'm afraid I'm just plain MNG, the one and only, though I was Crow
Eating Dumbass for one month as the result of a lost wager on
whether Obama could win or not.
MNG|4.4.09 @ 6:34PM|#
"Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and
"didn't like our rights being infringed upon," said Edward
Perkovic, his best friend."
Hmmm, haven't heard from SIV today...But that guy's a Georgian (no
offense intended) not a citizen of the Commonwealth to my immediate
North...
|4.4.09 @ 6:35PM|#
"Anti-socialism" not same as "pro-liberty?"
How about this:
All "pro liberty" is not contained in "Anti Socialism"
But all "anti Socialism" is indeed "pro liberty"
|4.4.09 @ 6:37PM|#
Sorry for the late posts, I am reading through the thread right now and posting as I come across something that needs posting.
MNG|4.4.09 @ 6:37PM|#
I forgot BDB too, haven't seen that guy lately.
It is interesting that we hear right away that this crazed gunman
was a big 2nd Amendment supporter...What was the position on gun
rights of the NY guy the other day who killed 12 people at the
immigration center? You didn't see any headlines "Man with no
strong opinion on gun rights opens up at immigration center; 12
slain more feared"
MNG|4.4.09 @ 6:40PM|#
kwais
I see your point. But who do you think would warrant more scorn
from a libertarian, Sweden (socialist) or Saudia Arabia
(not-socialist)?
I'd think Saudia Arabia. But as I'm not a libertarian and only
trying to geuss from what I've read from libertarians I'm certainly
open to someone pointing out that I'm wrong there.
|4.4.09 @ 6:46PM|#
"So that's my long winded way of saying, good fucking
question..."
That is actually a good fucking question
The most obvious answer would be that in a
nightwatchman state then the police are paid for by:
an income tax that is paid for by the inhabitants of the
state
or mineral-tax or land tax for Geo-libertarians
So the police provide protection in the region the tax is taken
from, which gives the standard libertarian answer on
non-interventionism
Its difficult to comment on the grounds for interventionism in
foreign civil wars. Most of them are the product of the imperial
decolonization process that gave no regard to ethnic or tribal
identity.
Obviously the war in a Sudan is the result of sticking two distinct
ethnic groups in one state.
The alternative to this is partition such as 1947 in the Indian
Sub-continent and the partition of the Palestinian mandate.
(DRINK!!!)
I believe that the left's objection to partition originates from
Marxist internationalism which denounced ethnic and nationalist
tribalism, saying people should live together in a collectivist
manner regardless of ethnic identity.
Realistically, any interventionism in the Sudan would have to be a
repeat of a partition on ethnic lines of a nation by an external
force. That would probably involve displacing a lot of people from
the lands their ancestors have lived in for centuries to draw up a
new border that separates two new countries on ethnic
grounds.
If there's no interventionism then undoubtedly the war will
continue and thousands more will die.
So that is indeed a fucking good question
|4.4.09 @ 6:58PM|#
Sweden (socialist)?
Not very really
They have some of the lowest levels of corporate tax in europe and
one of the lowest levels of nationalization
Actually the Scandinavian states where the first states in the EU
to privatize the telecom sector
which gave the world Nokia and sony-erricson
There's a high level of wealth redistribution that happens in the
Scandinavian states but its taken more from a level tax on
goods.
Saudi Arabia has far higher levels of nationalization
than Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Saudi_Arabia
|4.4.09 @ 7:00PM|#
I see Saudi Arabia as a socialist country
I see theocratic government, as sort of a religious
socialism.
I mean here and in Sweden our socialists try to save us from
ourselves, in what we consume, and what we have.
Theocracies try to save you from yourself, they just add God into
the equation. (Kind of like liquor laws on the East Coast).
But economically Saudi Arabia is socialist too. They are much more
like Sweden than like a capitalist nation.
The Saudis (and Egyptians, and Kuwaitis) are just not as good at
it, as the Swedes.
that\'s racist|4.4.09 @ 7:06PM|#
Crow Eating Dumbass for one month as the result of a lost wager on whether Obama could win or not.
|4.4.09 @ 7:10PM|#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco
Saudi Aramco is the state-owned national oil company of Saudi
Arabia. It is the largest oil corporation in the world with the
largest proven crude oil reserves and production [2].
I'd say that I don't see alot of anger at Venezuela or Iran here at
Reason.
Its just amusement eh?
They are two of the most comically pathetic world leaders right
now.
Sort of like two 15 year old kids trapped in mens bodies playing
out some kind of angry at the parents thing with whoever is in the
Whitehouse.
They also just happen to be uber-statists in favor of centrally
planned economies so it makes them an even more satisfying target
for Libertarians' jokes
|4.4.09 @ 7:11PM|#
I see MaterialMonkey beat me to it.
And has better knowlege.
I was just going of having lived in Saudi for 6 months.
If Saudi was indeed not socialist, if it were capitalist, it would
be much less of a shithole. It would be a much better place in
spite of the theocratic bs.
Actually, I don't know if a country CAN be a theocracy without also
being socialist.
|4.4.09 @ 7:16PM|#
"But economically Saudi Arabia is socialist too. They are much
more like Sweden than like a capitalist nation."
Saudia Arabia is a centrally planned economy.
Sweden has low corparate tax and minimal nationalisation
I really would like to refute this idea that Scandinavian countries
are somehow less capitalist than any other developed nation.
|4.4.09 @ 7:19PM|#
Cops have another goddam reason to respond with SWAT
routinely now. Bad fuckin' news all around.
The thing is though, that the police did have a SWAT team there,
and for 4 hours they couldn't get the guy until he decided to
surrender.
SO, it seems to be the case that SWAT teams are only good if you
ALLOW them to kill your dog and step on your family's necks while
they trash your house, violate your rights, and make up charges
against you.
If you actually fight back, they are no better than meter maids it
seems.
|4.4.09 @ 7:26PM|#
Mr Monkee,
I really would like to refute this idea that Scandinavian
countries are somehow less capitalist than any other developed
nation.
Noted.
I guess where i get the misconception from, and maybe others do too
is:
- Universal health care. They have it, that is pretty
socialist.
- High taxes. 60% or something?
- Pretty impressively well paid unemployed people. I mean, I don't
know, but that is the myth.
Also, socialists in this country quote Sweden as the ideal all the
time. Therefore, those of us who have contempt for socialists
figure Sweden must be socialist.
I think their over all taxation is not that much higher than ours,
but that they spend it on "social justice" instead of on the
military.
(and that they can do so only 'because' we have our military)
|4.4.09 @ 7:39PM|#
"socialists in this country quote Sweden as the ideal all the
time"
Seems to be the world over. Except Sweden where's they complain
about all the capitalism!
you can't win with lefties eh?
beer time1
|4.4.09 @ 7:45PM|#
Cops have another goddam reason to respond with SWAT routinely now. Bad fuckin' news all around.
The thing is though, that the police did have a SWAT team there, and for 4 hours they couldn't get the guy until he decided to surrender.
SO, it seems to be the case that SWAT teams are only good if you ALLOW them to kill your dog and step on your family's necks while they trash your house, violate your rights, and make up charges against you.
It's more disheartening than that. Rahm Emmanuel(sp?) has publicly
stated that you should "never let a crisis go to waste" or
something damned close to it. Take my word for it, I ain't in the
mood to go googling.
Expect an assault weapons ban in the next two weeks. If
I'm wrong, remind me of it.
|4.4.09 @ 8:50PM|#
Expect an assault weapons ban in the next two weeks. If I'm
wrong, remind me of it.
See, I don't know if it is wrong to think like this, but I think if
the dude had fought it out with police just AFTER the ban, it would
have been better. Then the dude would have had some legitimacy.
economist|4.5.09 @ 12:08AM|#
"Actually, I don't know if a country CAN be a theocracy without
also being socialist."
It depends on the religion. If the religion said that God (gods,
divine principle, laws of nature, fates, spirits, whatever) had
divinely ordained property rights, free trade, and minimal
government interference, then what could have a capitalist
theocracy. That said, most religions advocate mucking around with
the economy in some form or fashion, so it's unlikely.
economist|4.5.09 @ 12:10AM|#
Then again, according to Wikipedia, the idea of laissez-faire may have been adapted from the Taoist principle of wu wei (as opposed to the interventionist principles of Confucianism). But somehow I don't see "Taoist theocracy" springing up, in part because Taoism isn't one of the aggressive religions that uses government force to gain sway over people.
economist|4.5.09 @ 12:14AM|#
Damn, I wish Chavez would disappear back into stinking ooze from
which he came.
And that Ahmadinejad would get sucked down into hell and get
tortured by angry demons for all eternity.
economist|4.5.09 @ 12:18AM|#
Of course Saudi Arabia is a socialist nation. They have a huge welfare state to keep a large part of their population passive (towards the government) and idle. This is primarily because the Saudi government's policies tend to stifle all industries other than the oil industry, on which the entire economy of the nation depends.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|4.5.09 @ 3:53AM|#
Boy, you just wait until Obama gets us off foreign oil. Those
Saudis are really gonna be in big trouble.
In fact it won't be the batteries that get us off foreign oil.
It'll be the fact that they've finally, actually managed to kill
off our economy.
Who knows, they did before (Great Depression) and somehow (WWII) we
bounced back. Maybe our grand children will be able to face decent
economic prospects again.
Right now all I see on the horizon, and immediately over head, is
gloom doom and gloom.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|4.5.09 @ 3:57AM|#
I'd say that I don't see alot of anger at Venezuela or Iran
here at Reason.
Its just amusement eh?
Well, not really.
They are two of the most comically pathetic world leaders right
now.
The problem is, there's so many pathetic leaders out there that I
don't have time to properly pissed off at all of them. But here,
I'll try and make it up to you.
Hey, all you pathetic asshole world leaders, listen up!
You're F***ING idiots and I hate you, and your mother and the horse
you ride on.
How's that?
Art-P.O.G.|4.5.09 @ 4:18AM|#
J sub D | April 4, 2009, 12:05pm | #
This is an interesting point to me and one that bears repeating.
While I realize that political parties are...necessary or close to
it for any democratic system to have a structure, there is
something difficult and troubling to me in the very idea
of a political party. Even the Libertarian Party at its relatively
small size feels nebulous and abstracted. And while I think it
still means something to people to be Environmentalist,
Progressive, Liberal, Conservative, Religious or what have you, I
wonder what it even means to many people to call themselves
Democrats or Republicans. Don't get me wrong, I know many people
are principled Democrats or Republicans, but probably just as many
might as well call themselves R or D by default or
Independents.
Even among politicians, I wonder what principles many of them are
adhering to, and with a few exceptions, when I actually do find out
the bases of their ideologies (or lack thereof) I'm
disappointed.
I'm a libertarian in large part because I thought the entire *idea*
behind punishing adults for putting drugs into their own bodies was
fucked up and that few people in either major party seemed willing
to challenge the War on Drugs.
I've never been one to go apeshit over somebody failing the
'ideological purity test', not only because my own ideas are mostly
way too abstract to actually be useful, but because Leftists and
Righties that are genuinely interested in libertarian ideas are
most often just as open-minded as the Biggest-L libertarian. I
know, I know, citation needed. But I do know inductively that
intelligent people sometimes come to different conclusions.
So, disagreements intact, MNG (and joe) are as fine as any
commenters there've been on this blog.
As for the whole misanthrope thing, it does follow that inasmuch as
political affiliation is often a social construct, we libertarians
would often be the misfit sort. I don't think being a Harvey Pekar
type is a virtue or a sin, but I feel that somehow society needs
its thoughtful grouches.
MNG|4.5.09 @ 8:31AM|#
I don't care how you cut it, Sweden's pretty socialist dudes.
And I have a little trouble with including Saudia Arabia as
socialist, but maybe I could use a better example.
We can make it easier by comparing France under Mitterand to Spain
under Franco. It would be hard to not call the first "socialist",
at least in the very loose way that some folks here throw the term
around, and hard to call Franco's Spain socialist. For the life of
me I can't see how these two were even that close in terms of
liberty....And so I think this shows that liberty means a lot more
than being "anti-socialist."
Suki|4.5.09 @ 10:42AM|#
SG,
Just wait until I start my own steakhouse to promote
veganism...
Love that one!
|4.5.09 @ 10:59AM|#
Oye MNG
"that some folks here throw the term around, and hard to call
Franco's Spain socialist."
Actually Its pretty easy,
I live 100 miles away from Spain and my girlfriend is Spanish so
I've taken a big interest in its socio-economic History
Yep you guessed it Franco had enormous control over the economy in
terms of nationalization and economic isolationism. Most
infrastructure was nationalized and free trade was frowned upon due
to its cultural impurity.
My parents were hippies and used to hang out in Ibiza during the
60's they were saying that you could even legally take a peseta out
of the country.
Spain never had a significant industrial revolution and was always
poor but Franco's socialist (state control of the economy) kept it
very poor
Economist refer to the Spanish Miracle which happened after the
liberalization of the Spanish economy which was very soon followed
by Franco being ousted and democracy. this was the 70's
The society that followed economic liberalization
was indeed much freer that Mitterrand's France
The Spanish refer to the period as
La Movida
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Movida_Madrile%C3%B1a
"La Movida Madrileña (English: The Madrilenian groove) was a
countercultural movement that took place in Madrid during the first
ten years after the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, which
represented the economic rise of Spain and the emergence of a
different Spanish identity. This hedonistic and cultural wave was
born in Madrid and spread to other Spanish urban centers, such as
Barcelona, Bilbao and Vigo. "La Movida" is also characterized by
use of drugs, cultural freedom, transgression of the Franco
culture, extroversion of the cheli dialect and the new freedom
spirit on the streets."
|4.5.09 @ 11:27AM|#
[in a heavy Spanish accent]
Marta: you know, I think that the sexual revolution is over.
Greta: Really why do you say that?
Marta: I am not having sex with just anyone anymore.
Greta: No?
Marta: No, from now on, I only have sex with people I am attracted
to.
|4.5.09 @ 11:28AM|#
Just flicking about wikipedia the technical term for the
opposition to free trade is
Autarky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky
So you could call Franco a fan of centrally planned autarky? If not
a socialist
One thing does seem certain is that it seems impossible to run an
effective dictatorship
with out state control of the economy
which is my definition of socialism.
(controlling the means of production as Marx put it)
thats not to say that a democracy can't function with large state
control of the economy. India from 1950-1991, (prior to the huge
explosion of living standards that occurred on economic
liberalization in the nineties) was a good example of a relatively
free democratic society with a state controlled economy
|4.5.09 @ 12:09PM|#
Mr Monkee,
You live in southern France?
I have crossed the Spain/France border a few times. From Irun, near
San Sebastian.
Good times.
Naga Sadow|4.5.09 @ 12:24PM|#
kwais,
MNG can't tell the difference between a tradeoff and "economic
coercion". Good luck trying to change his preconcieved
notions.
MNG,
I'm kinda curious where I fit into your political pantheon. I've
never actually come down for any particular philosophy.
MNG|4.5.09 @ 12:27PM|#
I think it would be hard to argue that Franco's Spain, say from
1959 on, had an equal amount of state control, regulation and
redistribution of the economy to Mitterand's France.
But I'm sure where I and most people would rather have lived.
kwais
If by socialism you mean what monkee said (government control of
the economy) then I've always been against that (see my 4/4 12:03
post above).
But I guess we might disagree on what it means to "control" the
economy. For example, I wouldn't consider things like minimum wage
laws or the NLRB to be "controlling" the economy...
MNG|4.5.09 @ 12:31PM|#
"MNG can't tell the difference between a tradeoff and "economic
coercion""
So what's a trade off and what's economic coercion, in your
understanding?
I think coercion is present when an act loses its voluntariness.
And I think that certain economic situations can cause that as well
as certain physical situations. Interestingly, most of the world
agrees with me on that, and has for centuries (the old common law
recognized non-physical forms of coercion).
MNG|4.5.09 @ 12:35PM|#
I mean, if I say "give me x or I will beat you and your spouse
up" then you are "free" to decline and say no and take a beating
and watch your spouse get one too. And I guess you could call the
latter (the beating and the watching of the beating) a trade off
for keeping x.
But it'd be goofy.
Likewise if I say "give me x or I won't give you this medecine you
and your spouse immediately need and I have and you don't and
without which you will suffer physical pain equivalent to a
beatdown" you are free to say "no" and keep your x and see the
resulting suffering as a "trade-off" for keeping x.
But it'd be goofy too.
|4.5.09 @ 12:38PM|#
@kwais
I've been Livin in Portugal for the last 5 years and I'm hopefully
off to start a new job in Pretoria in South Africa in September, so
I should get to see more of the other side of planet for a
while
Northern Spain's a blast, good cider! I'll be up in Asturias seeing
the inlaws next week
so some Cider's will be drunk!
Naga Sadow|4.5.09 @ 12:55PM|#
MNG,
I'm not aware of any type of situation where that would happen and
it would not be considered theft, extortion, and probably assault.
Obviously, a lack of "voluntariness"(real word?) would be coercion
but when it is simply "I want that but don't wanna pay your price"
things become clear cut for me. "Need" and "want" are a bitch to
separate, dude. Most of the world agrees with you? So. Most of the
world is wrong. Most of the world has agreed with your stance for
centuries? Lots of people once thought the world was flat. Give it
time, bro.
Anyway, I rarely directly argue with people here so feel free to
throw down a rebuttal and then lets move on to more entertaining
venues. Where do I fit in at your political pantheon.
|4.5.09 @ 1:03PM|#
"Where do I fit in at your political pantheon"
you smells like a god damn hippie to me!
:)
|4.5.09 @ 1:12PM|#
But I'm sure where I and most people would rather have
lived.
If you spoke Catalan out loud and the national police heard you,
they would arrest you. Fun! Gaudi was arrested for that, in
fact.
|4.5.09 @ 1:20PM|#
http://www.flipflopflo.co.uk/products/browse/havaianas-classics
has to be Havaianas brazil flag black
for me
Up there with the Adidas three stripe for all time badass
footwear
MNG|4.5.09 @ 1:29PM|#
Naga
That was the only point I've tried to make, that both situations
are coercion. Sure, the distinction lies on need and want (though,
do you "need" to not get beat down or do you just "want" to not get
beat down, and do you need that medecine or do you just not "want"
the sickness that would result from not getting it).
So, if the trade off gets to a certain point where voluntariness
walks off, then you've coercion.
And my point about how popular that view is and has been was not to
say that shows it is right, but that it certainly is not some "far
out" idea that precludes debate. I mean, if that were true then
libertarianism would be doomed to never grow past a certain % of
people since most people have such "pre-concieved" ideas and
according to that view aren't worth debating and persuading
otherwise...
On the pantheon I'd say you seem like someone trying to be an
honest libertarian. You, Epi, the Urkoboldian Legion, also are very
funny usually.
MNG|4.5.09 @ 1:30PM|#
I mean, yu have to be capable of some nuance in order to have a sense of humor. Underzog is a good example of someone with no nuance and no sense of humor (though he is very funny in an unintentional way).
|4.5.09 @ 1:37PM|#
I think that MNG is going for the joe version of coercion;
[I work for a company, the balance of power between me and the
company is uneven because the company can replace me as a worker
easily, but I can't replace the company as an employer
easily.]
and somehow that equals force on the part of the company.
And that given that, it is ok for the government to intervene using
real force, and threat of violence to supposedly intervene on
behalf of the employee, to mandate min wage, and union laws.
My counter to that is that:
a) The government is immoral in its intervention and initiation of
the use of force. Regardless of the power imbalance.
b) That the government by its intervention only increases and
perhaps shifts the power imbalance, from where it should naturally
be.
That in a free market the employee is as valuable to the company as
the employer is to the worker.
That companies in a free market have to compete for competent
employees as they have to compete for customers.
|4.5.09 @ 1:41PM|#
MNG,
I am not so sure Underzog's humor is unintentional.
I mean, if it is unintentional, he is an idiot.
If it isn't he is kind of brilliant.
But then I frequently err on the side of optimism with regard to
humans.
|4.5.09 @ 2:00PM|#
But then I frequently err on the side of optimism with
regard to humans.
I used to feel that way. I got better.
|4.5.09 @ 2:56PM|#
-Isolationist on Immigration- That is one, but few
politicians say they are not.
-Supported Surge and Ongoing Iraq War- Me too. I guess on
that one it depends what his reasons were. All favor some kind of
use of our military, the reasons why are what matters.
-Pro-Life So? IMHO you can be honestly on either side of
that debate. It depends on when you think human life starts.
-Anti-Gay Marriage I heard him talk about this with the
lesbian chick. I disagreed with him. But it is not a huge deal. I
am anti ALL marriage, so I don't really expect an electable
politician to agree with me.
-Supports Concealed Carry* Good man. But the reason why
kind of matters too.
Kolohe|4.5.09 @ 3:54PM|#
to pick at a scab from upthread,
here is a left liberal that acknowledges that the current price
of oil has more than a bit to do with Venezuela's economic and
political situation.
Declining commodity prices in the face of the global recession mean that any oil-based polity is going to need to reevaluate its posture in the world, and it seems that with Barack Obama in office, Hugo Chavez has concluded that anti-American bluster isn't the asset it once was.
Taktix®|4.5.09 @ 5:01PM|#
...it seems that with Barack Obama in office, Hugo Chavez
has concluded that anti-American bluster isn't the asset it once
was.
Oh good, we're making nice with Hugo Chavez. That's
reassuring...
MNG|4.5.09 @ 5:02PM|#
"The government is immoral in its intervention and initiation of
the use of force."
Well, that's the conclusion we are debating.
"That the government by its intervention only increases and perhaps
shifts the power imbalance, from where it should naturally
be."
Saying the imbalance is where it "naturally" should be implies
where it rightfully should be, which again is just stating the very
conclusion we are debating (would it be right for the government to
tinker with this imbalance). In addition, the "natural" advantage
the employer has is in no small part due to his claim to a larger
amount of capital than the employee, a claim which is protected
by...you guessed it, government force. So we are both arguing for
government force, you to maintain/defend certain imbalances, me to
erode/check them.
"That in a free market the employee is as valuable to the company
as the employer is to the worker.
That companies in a free market have to compete for competent
employees as they have to compete for customers."
To make the stuff we all need to live you need labor and capital.
The owner of capital has both (his own labor at least and title to
the capital, protected by government force). The employee has only
one. The employer can thus hold out much longer and has a natural
advantage.
MNG|4.5.09 @ 5:03PM|#
Taktix
A better reading of that sentence is that now he is trying to make
nice with US.
|4.5.09 @ 5:59PM|#
It'd be intersting to see the increased trade going on between
Iran and Venuzuela
Chavez: I'll swop you some of my oil for some of your highly
unreliable weapons
Armedinijihad: Er we have lots of oil, don't you have anything
else?
Chavez: Er Bush jokes?
|4.5.09 @ 9:45PM|#
So this may be a dead thread.
But to MNG's post re inequality between employees and
employers;
So, are you saying that government initiation of violence is
justified to get one persons property and liberty, if it is
determined (by government) that another person needs it?
Paul|4.6.09 @ 12:40AM|#
"The capital will be raised to 1.2 billion dollars with the aim of supporting joint economic, industrial and mining projects as well as speeding up the current projects,"
Have they got environmental impact statements on these
projects?
engineer|4.6.09 @ 2:46AM|#
MNG's argument presupposes that property rights exist only as
constructs of government and have no basis apart from government,
and thus ought to have the same status as government interventions
on the behalf of workers. So I'm going to offer my own crude
rebuttal.
1. Employers have capital usually because it was entrusted to them
by investors.
2. Investors generally earned the wealth invested as capital
through work, returns from previous investments, or by inheriting
it from someone who did earn it (and thus had the right to bequeath
it to those whom they chose).
Therefore, acting in capacity as the agents of their investors,
employers have the right to do as they will with capital, and the
government doesn't have any right whatsoever to regulate their use
of this capital beyond the standard libertarian disclaimers*. That
the government sometimes protects this right through policing does
not reduce it to the status of an arbitrary privilege, as the right
would exist whether or not the government enforced it.
*No force or fraud.
engineer|4.6.09 @ 2:48AM|#
Paul,
Socialist regimes don't have to environmental impact studies,
because we know that only evil capitalists would ever do anything
destructive to the environment.
MNG|4.6.09 @ 7:44AM|#
"Investors generally earned the wealth invested as capital
through work, returns from previous investments, or by inheriting
it from someone who did earn it"
This doesn't help you, because I can then point out that government
force backing the property claims of the investors and bequeathers
gave them the very same advantages over the people they dealt with
in building their wealth as I pointed to with the employers in the
current situation
Government force protects the property owner, which gives them an
advantage against the non-property owner, which then allows them to
get more property, and a bigger advantage, etc., etc,
And it all started with government force protecting the claim
High Every Body|4.6.09 @ 8:14AM|#
What? Did this place become a cross between The Huffington Post
and Feministing?
Oh, it is only MNG spreading the good word for Chavez.
B|4.6.09 @ 4:38PM|#
"I don't remember joe ever saying that. He used to say that
democracy in Venezuala would check Chavez. I realize nuance is
something hard for some people, but it's kind of important in order
to be a good thinker...
I will preface my comments with the following: You are a total
fucking idiot. Ok, now that that is out of the way, I will tell you
to get your head out of your ass. Joe made statements all the time
detailing how Chavez was a democrat, not a dictator, how everything
he did was legitimate, how his shutting down of various TV stations
was justified (even though the only ones shuddered just so happened
to be critical of Chavez) etc. Furthermore, the fact that he
believed democracy would "straighten things out" in a country run
by Castro Jr. proves not only that he, and you, are total fucking
morons, but also that he thought Chavez was in fact a democrat,
rather than a vote rigging, private property stealing,
thug-employing, free assembly squashing, negative criticism
-outlawing, narco-terrorist-harboring, international-terrorist
loving autocrat.
But I can understand why you would stick up for Chavez-lover joe.
It seems that Chavez is your ideological bedfellow, now that he has
embraced a country that would love nothing more than to see the
Jews and the state of Israel wiped off the map.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245