United Citizens of the world

[Formaldehyde]

If you want to defend your libertarian view, I suggest you do it in a more direct fashion, because your current method doesn't work at all. Except maybe rampant anarchism, every political model employs the restriction of freedom. It is after all the fundamental quality of any kind of order. I would expect you to know that.

It is not a libertarian (little "L") view to be against liberty and equal rights for all. It is just the opposite. It is authoritarian.

Ironically, this is largely a very libertarian movement which has been described here. There are only a few elements which are not, and this isn't one of them. OTOH there are a number of points that aren't Libertarian (big "L"), especially the economic ones.

 

[SG-17]

I completely support everything on that list.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

And I already explained the contradiction inherent in it. Socialism is PUBLIC ownership of the means of production. NOT ownership by the government. A government is inherently a violation of collective ownership; a government concentrates power in the hands of a few people.

We weren't talking about socialism or the means of production. We were talking about property owned by the government and how this constitutes ownership of the collective. So I'll ignore anything you wrote not directed to that.
Further on, I took it as a given that this refers to democratic political systems, but I point it out just in case.
Now, the essence of a democratic government is to act upon the will of the people. To be their advocate, and by this the people's collective will is enforced.
You may argue that democratic system x does do a poor job in that or that it totally fails this task, but that doesn't change that in essence government property is (supposed to be) collective property in a democratic system.

Of course you do. A vote for one guy is a vote against everybody else. You're just being nitpicky.

No I am not. Easily demonstrated by the possibility of a system where you actually can only vote against a party/guy. You are just blinded by the US-American abomination that you chose between two options only, which renders for or against the same. But that is not what the system actually offers, including the US.

"Any elected government only represents those people who actually voted for it; those who voted for for someone else have the will of the elected imposed upon them against their will." The same point remains: an elected government only represents the will of the people who voted for the winner.

That is better, but still untrue.
First this assumes a direct voting-representation mechanism, which isn't there. It is a lot more complex than that. To pick an easy illustration: I can sway you to vote for me but then give a damn about your will. This is the principle of the independent representative. There are systems more like what you describe. For instance a system where you can - at any time - vote the representative out. But we don't employ such a system.
Secondly, we don't vote for a autocrat, but different key positions (as I wrote before). And one of them is the legislative, which gives room for a diverse spectrum of interests and opinions and keeps the will of the minority within the government.

But it is a mood point anyway because it does not help your actually point that government ownership can't be collective ownership.

The collective will can't be accurately represented, because it doesn't actually exist. There is no single collective will. There are factions. Groups who disagree with each other. It's impossible to represent all religious people, for example, because half of them want to live in a Christian state and the other half want to live in an Islamic caliphate. Whereas I, as an atheist, wish both of those groups would bugger off and let me live in a secular state (which, of course, they generally won't).

Alright, you clearly haven't understood what "collective will" actually constitutes or how it enters into the equation. It of course is an abstract concept and every system concerned about it can only get closer to this concept, but never fully embrace it. That also is something I assumed as being given.

 

[Kozmos]

Actually, it's not the problem to post a wishlist, it's a problem how such wishlist work. For example, how can you afford to provide such a big public service without taxing the hell out of other industries?

Molecular manufacturing?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

How is Religion imposed on people in a secular nation like America?

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean like the DOMA, efforts to ban abortion, prohibition, sodomy laws, or DADT just to name a few?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It is not a libertarian (little "L") view to be against liberty and equal rights for all. It is just the opposite. It is authoritarian.

To grant the private sector the freedom to not hire blacks people surely is not authoritarian in the traditional sense (i.e. authority directly backed up by the state monopoly on legitimate violence). But one could say that it is authoritarian in the sense that it gives the private actor more authority than a system where one it is forbidden to not hire people because they are black.

But what constitutes freedom in a political sense, if not the authority to do something? I think if you use the term authoritarian in the context you did, you rape its actual meaning and leave a word that has no real meaning at all any more.

So overall, I disagree.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

You mean like the DOMA, or the pro-lifers who want to ban abortion, or prohibition, or sodomy laws, or DADT?

It's not just because of Religion, it's because of the fact that homosexuals will never be able to procreate with each other.
Oh, and for Abortion, I think murder is wrong no matter what your thoughts on Religion were.


It's those darn Theocratic Repubs who want to ban Infanticide, just like in the 1860s when they imposed their anti-slavery views on slave owners, completely ignoring property rights.

 

[Formaldehyde]

To grant the private sector the freedom to not hire blacks people surely is not authoritarian in the traditional sense (i.e. authority directly backed up by the state monopoly on legitimate violence). But one could say that it is authoritarian in the sense that it gives the private actor more authority than a system where one it is forbidden to not hire people because they are black.

But what constitutes freedom in a political sense, if not the authority to do something? I think if you use the term authoritarian in the context you did, you rape its actual meaning and leave a word that has no real meaning at all any more.

So overall, I disagree.

I wasn't referring to your quibble with Amadeus. I was referring to being opposed to this sentence:

Totally in an individuals right to hold any belief they choose, express their opinion on that belief under freedom of speech and to privately practice that belief where it does not harm other individuals rights or impose upon their way of life.

I think this is clearly a libertarian stance. People simply shouldn't have the right to impose their own religious views on others in a secular society. To do so is an authoritarian position.

But I don't think you can characterize that to mean that people can openly discriminate against others. It means that privately they are free to have whatever prejudices they wish, but they can't inflict them on others. If someone discriminates against another based on race or any other basis, it does harm their individual rights and it does impose on their way of life.

It's not just because of Religion, it's because of the fact that homosexuals will never be able to procreate with each other.
Oh, and for Abortion, I think murder is wrong no matter what your thoughts on Religion were.

They are both inspired by religious views and tenets, instead of being based on any sort of secular scientific basis. As such, you are free to believe whatever you wish, but you shouldn't have the right to impose those views on others.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

How is Religion imposed on people in a secular nation like America?

You cherish Religion on your dollar notes for starters. In some public schools every morning you are expected to speak the oath of the nation, which cherishes God as well ("One nation, under god...").
But what is true is that most and the actually crucial part of the imposement is of a social nature and this is something freedom of speech prevents to be tackled if you take this freedom seriously.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

They are both inspired by religious views instead of being based on any sort of secular scientific basis. As such, you are free to believe whatever you wish, but you shouldn't have the right to impose those views on others.

so can I impose my anti-slavery stance?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

You cherish Religion on your dollar notes for starters. In some public schools every morning you are expected to speak the oath of the nation, which cherishes God as well ("One nation, under god...").

do some public schools not have you recite the pledge every morning? mine does. Anyway, a lot of people think it's coll and rebellious to not participate, particularly the Gothic emo people.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I wasn't referring to your quibble with Amadeus. I was referring to being opposed to this sentence:

This is clearly a libertarian stance. And being opposed to it is clearly authoritarian. People simply shouldn't have the right to impose their own religious views on others in a secular society.

Well, alright, I don't see any connection to the post of mine you quoted then except the word "libertarian", but that's fine I'll agree with you.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

do some public schools not have you recite the pledge every morning? mine does.

Isn't that what I said? o_O

Anyway, a lot of people think it's coll and rebellious to not participate, particularly the Gothic emo people.

When I was in Texas and in school saw myself suddenly confronted with the daily pledge of allegiance, I thought it to be kinda creepy in a fascist way.

 

[BasketCase]

We weren't talking about socialism or the means of production. We were talking about property owned by the government and how this constitutes ownership of the collective.

It's not. It's ownership by the government.

Now, the essence of a democratic government is to act upon the will of the people. To be their advocate, and by this the people's collective will is enforced.

Wrong. The will of the winners is enforced. The will of the losers is ignored.

There is no "will of the people". Because the people disagree with each other on how to do stuff.

No I am not. Easily demonstrated by the possibility of a system where you actually can only vote against a party/guy. You are just blinded by the US-American abomination that you chose between two options only

Wrong again. American ballots always have a lot more than two options. The majority of the voters choose to vote Republican or Democrat. The voters are not restricted to two options; the majority of them choose those two options.

Alright, you clearly haven't understood what "collective will" actually constitutes or how it enters into the equation.

Yet you neglected to explain what it actually is. What is it?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, alright, I don't see any connection to the post of mine you quoted then except the word "libertarian", but that's fine I'll agree with you.

I think this is one of the greatest contradictions of what many people call a Libertarian (big "L") position. They feel that they have the right to do as they please if they happen to own something. That they can deprive others of their own freedom and liberty on that basis. Those supposed rights have been gradually eroded because they have been historically used to deprive others of their own liberty and civil rights. Now homeowners can no longer discriminate to keep blacks and other minorities out of neighborhoods by refusing to sell or rent to them. Businesses must provide access to handicapped people. Hotels and motels must now cater to minorities instead of refusing them service.

Baby steps.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Wrong again. American ballots always have a lot more than two options. The majority of the voters choose to vote Republican or Democrat. The voters are not restricted to two options; the majority of them choose those two options.

A fact I acknowledged by stating that the American system offers more also.

Yet you neglected to explain what it actually is. What is it?

An ideal. The union of every individual's interests, values and opinions. You are absolutely correct that it is impossible to actually create such a union, which is why I wrote that one can only try to get closer to that ideal, without ever actually reaching it.
And by that logic, collective ownership is ownership which orientates on that ideal. So yes, it is no "real" collective ownership, because that does in deed not exist. But it is collective ownership in the sense of how one can actually realize collective ownership.

And the problem is, that I - and I think most others - expect anyone who talks about collective ownership to know this. That it can't actually exist in a literal sense is very obvious after all. But you treat it like an important realization of yours which changes everything, while in fact, it changes nothing.

 

[BasketCase]

A fact I acknowledged by stating that the American system offers more also.

And the essential contradiction (that makes it impossible for government to represent all the people at once) is that only one of those choices--whether one of two or one of twelve is irrelevant--can be had at one time. Doesn't matter if there are two choices or twelve; a vote for one is a vote against all the others.

An ideal. The union of every individual's interests, values and opinions. You are absolutely correct that it is impossible to actually create such a union, which is why I wrote that one can only try to get closer to that ideal, without ever actually reaching it.

Exactly. Collective will is an impossible ideal. And every attempt to approach that ideal is self-defeating--because different people have different ideals. You can only approach true collective will for one group, and then only at the expense of another.

And, for the record, no. This is no sudden brainstorm of mine. I came up with it five years ago.

 

[aelf]

Okay stuff, but why the need to reinvent the wheel? Or does this movement actually acknowledge its numerous intellectual debts? If so, why this obscure name?

Everyone is a communist if they don't enjoy being bummed in the gob by big business.

How true.

 

[Narz]

There's a couple of things I disagree with on that big list, but the vast majority I could and certainly would support.

Seconded.

Restricted freedom is very often greater freedom.

Yes. This is the process of growing up. As infants we have the freedom to piss, crap & cry whenever we want but as we grow up we learn that self-control (restriction ourselves for greater goals) reaps greater benefits than demanding instant gratification all the time.

We need to grow up on a global scale. Right now our culture (well half of it) appears to be in some sort of a toddler phase... "Waah, I don't care if my toys pollute the Earth & are made by virtual slaves, who are you to tell me to think about others & the consequences of my actions! U R a commie like Obamie?"