Ableton Forum

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Steve Ballmer wrote: Explain how your "no government" world state would work. What would stop new governments from popping up?

There would be no government because everyone would be a part time worker, part time administrator, and if necessary part time politician. So you would not have a separate group of people doing this or that. Obviously there would be people organising society, including people putting forward different ideas, but there would not be a fixed administration.

There would be no state either.

Everyone could also be a Lawyer, Doctor, Scientist, Musician, Artist, software developer, etc.
I must go now. My magic two headed Unicorn that farts rainbows awaits.

Are libertarians anarchists? Murray Rothbard thinks not:

We must conclude that the question “are libertarians anarchists?” simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murr ... narchists/)

But in any case, this is a rather trivial question, compared to some of the other concepts that are being thrown about. Such as Funk N.'s commitment to the use of violence to achieve his ends.

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Steve Ballmer wrote: Explain how your "no government" world state would work. What would stop new governments from popping up?

There would be no government because everyone would be a part time worker, part time administrator, and if necessary part time politician. So you would not have a separate group of people doing this or that. Obviously there would be people organising society, including people putting forward different ideas, but there would not be a fixed administration.

There would be no state either.

So what you're actually saying is that, rather than there being no government, the government would be omnipresent to the point where people would no longer be aware of it—somewhat like fish not being aware of water. If everybody is king, nobody is a serf. But you're still kings.

What you're describing is not the absence of government. If this is all you have to say on the matter, then you've just disproven the idea that socialism leads to no government. You are in fact, as I've been saying all this time, arguing for a fuck-load more government.

I look forward to seeing you attempt to crawl your way out of this one.

Funk N. Furter wrote:A socialist economy would be a lot more efficient than a capitalist one. I already gave you one example that would give people more time: getting rid of unemployment, ie sharing out the work.

Lovely. Now could you possibly explain to us how you intend to get rid of unemployment?

Funk N. Furter wrote:This is dull and useless stuff. You just want to play games, word games you make up as you go along. The important stuff is the reality. Of course we can't know what the reality will be exactly. It's not for Marxists to spend too much time speculating on how a socialist society might evolve. But the general aim is the elimination of all hierarchy. The obvious way this would be most likely to happen is when the mass organisation of the people reaches the point that everybody is equally participating in the administration of the economy and of society itself.

Communist: Let's have a revolution!

Sane bloke: To do what?

Communist: Destroy society!

Sane bloke: And replace it with what?

Communist: We don't know!

Lenin – "We have no idea what we're doing"

Funk N. Furter wrote:Socialist - "everyone plays a part in running the show."

Libertarian - "that's not fair. Only the rich should have a say."

Socialist - I am not ambitious and I don't like competition. Therefore everyone should be just like me.

Socialism, free milk for everyone!

Funk N. Furter wrote: A socialist economy would be a lot more efficient than a capitalist one. I already gave you one example that would give people more time: getting rid of unemployment, ie sharing out the work.

OK so converting from a system like the USA where most people work far more than 45 hours a week on average, with an unemployment rate of 7.6% currently, propped up economically by minimum wage or less workers working 50+ hours in foreign countries making items that break in a few years... That will be replaced by part time workers who somehow are more efficient because they cut hours, get paid better, have a 7.6% higher workforce, and are making a product that is? The simple fact is in order to make a better place for yourself and others, it's always a matter of work. That, is something I think is indisputable, societies that have low work ethic have low standards of living, regardless of opportunity and lack of exploitation.

It really dawns on me from reading what both you and Balmer write that what we have now in the west is a working system that pretty much covers all bases, provides for the poor and disenfranchised, doesn't go through hostile bloodbaths at the top among the wealthy that often, and offers you who are invalid with opportunities to survive etc.

It's not what any of us want, but it's better than what you two are proposing, in the sense that people are not dying in the west because someone wants a 35 hour work week, or to not pay taxes that go towards your medical health etc.

Machines wrote:societies that have low work ethic have low standards of living, regardless of opportunity and lack of exploitation.

Machinesworking wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote: A socialist economy would be a lot more efficient than a capitalist one. I already gave you one example that would give people more time: getting rid of unemployment, ie sharing out the work.

OK so converting from a system like the USA where most people work far more than 45 hours a week on average, with an unemployment rate of 7.6% currently, propped up economically by minimum wage or less workers working 50+ hours in foreign countries making items that break in a few years... That will be replaced by part time workers who somehow are more efficient because they cut hours, get paid better, have a 7.6% higher workforce, and are making a product that is? The simple fact is in order to make a better place for yourself and others, it's always a matter of work. That, is something I think is indisputable, societies that have low work ethic have low standards of living, regardless of opportunity and lack of exploitation.

It really dawns on me from reading what both you and Balmer write that what we have now in the west is a working system that pretty much covers all bases, provides for the poor and disenfranchised, doesn't go through hostile bloodbaths at the top among the wealthy that often, and offers you who are invalid with opportunities to survive etc.

It's not what any of us want, but it's better than what you two are proposing, in the sense that people are not dying in the west because someone wants a 35 hour work week, or to not pay taxes that go towards your medical health etc.

Did I miss the part where we discuss the problems with libertarian theory?

Funk N. Furter wrote:You chickened out of that discussion.

Interesting. I wonder if Machine, to whom i was addressing the questions agrees with you...

Meanwhile, I asked you a very direct question and you responded by posting pictures of cute dogs.

Ballmer 1 - 0 Funk N.

How's your girlfriend, btw?

glenn303 wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:Socialist - "everyone plays a part in running the show."

Libertarian - "that's not fair. Only the rich should have a say."

Socialist - I am not ambitious and I don't like competition. Therefore everyone should be just like me.

No one likes competition when it comes to making money or fucking.
When a big store comes to town, the first thing they do is buy out the little store because they don't want competition.
I think if everyone asked themselves honestly if they like competing in order to live they would say no.
Competition is only really useful in sports and even then it can create an atmosphere of resentment.

nathannn wrote:No one likes competition when it comes to making money or fucking.
When a big store comes to town, the first thing they do is buy out the little store because they don't want competition.
I think if everyone asked themselves honestly if they like competing in order to live they would say no.
Competition is only really useful in sports and even then it can create an atmosphere of resentment.

Pussy.