Ableton Forum

rtopia wrote:while you throw around the word propaganda...

"libertarian socialism" sounds like propaganda to me

Why is that? Deva has illustrated the problems of previous types of socialism and what the difference is with the Venezuelan model. Have you considered this or just dismissed it out of hand

rtopia wrote:
Confiscation is confiscation regardless of who the recipient is, what it's for and what other cute name collectivists like you dream up to make it sound nice.

using your example:

If it's my factory and I decided that I needed to slow down production to keep my profit margin vs. operating costs in line....

...and the government decides that my "slow down" is really their definition of "idle"...

...and I tell them "fuck you - it's my factory - you're not getting it"...

Is this a positive attitude? It seems to me that this is the problem with capitalism as it stands today. Rather than everyone working together to provide for all it pits everyone against each other in competition. If the government really is providing for the people and you trusted it then you might be happy to surrender it as it would help people you cared about. Your attitude seems to suggest that you don't trust the government or care about your fellow man.

rtopia wrote: I really AM a libertarian

Is that what being a libertarian means?

Gyu wrote:

rtopia wrote:"libertarian socialism" sounds like propaganda to me

Why is that? Deva has illustrated the problems of previous types of socialism and what the difference is with the Venezuelan model. Have you considered this or just dismissed it out of hand

I considered it - but I can't ignore that "libertarian" and "socialism" are really opposing ideologies.

Gyu wrote:

rtopia wrote: I really AM a libertarian

Is that what being a libertarian means?

the simplest definition of being a libertarian means that I wouldn't want a government large enough to even manage the wealth distribution/central planning etc that's necessary to impose socialism on people.

in order for socialism to work - at some point - it must be "imposed" on those who don't buy into the idea that they must pay for things that they don't receive.

Gyu wrote:

rtopia wrote:
Confiscation is confiscation regardless of who the recipient is, what it's for and what other cute name collectivists like you dream up to make it sound nice.

using your example:

If it's my factory and I decided that I needed to slow down production to keep my profit margin vs. operating costs in line....

...and the government decides that my "slow down" is really their definition of "idle"...

...and I tell them "fuck you - it's my factory - you're not getting it"...

Is this a positive attitude?

Sorry - confiscating my factory (or even telling me how I'm going to run it) isn't something I could be "positive" about.

Gyu wrote: It seems to me that this is the problem with capitalism as it stands today. Rather than everyone working together to provide for all it pits everyone against each other in competition.

Which is why you will never understand people like me.
We find that the competition is something that makes Capitalism great.

If it weren't for the want of doing something bigger and better...
...things wouldn't get bigger and better.

Gyu wrote: If the government really is providing for the people and you trusted it then you might be happy to surrender it as it would help people you cared about. Your attitude seems to suggest that you don't trust the government or care about your fellow man.

You're half right...
History has shown that governments aren't to be trusted.

My idea of caring for my fellow man is outmaneuvering my competitors. While this improves my financial situation personally - it also provides opportunity for others to improve theirs.

(I'm one of those "teach a man to fish" types)

I'm of no use to anyone if I allow the government to confiscate my means of production and livelihood.

- r

WORLD
CNN Access
Beheaded man's father: Revenge breeds revenge
Michael Berg talks about the death of his son and al-Zarqawi

Thursday, June 8, 2006; Posted: 11:19 p.m. EDT (03:19 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/ ... interview/

.

Cheers for the reply, we really do have very different outlooks

rtopia wrote: Which is why you will never understand people like me.
We find that the competition is something that makes Capitalism great.

If it weren't for the want of doing something bigger and better...
...things wouldn't get bigger and better.

Do you mean that without competition we wouldn't try and do bigger and better things? This is a view I hear a lot but don't accept. I think that people naturally strive to be better at whatever it is they like to do ie: making music. I believe my wish to become a better producer isn't because I want to be better than anyone else, it's because I just want to make better music.

rtopia wrote: My idea of caring for my fellow man is outmaneuvering my competitors. While this improves my financial situation personally - it also provides opportunity for others to improve theirs.

Surely the way Capitalism works is that you get rich at the expense of others. You don't help your competitior by outmaneuvering him.
I know it's idealistic considering the fact that generally people only care about themselves and a small number of friends and family, but I don't see why society couldn't be run more fairly.
Why should the vast majority of wealth being in the hands of a tiny minority of people? I think that Capitalism gives more power to centralised government and less to the people. Although us westerners have it pretty good I don't see why everyone could not be provided for to a good standard. From what Deva said about Venezuela it sounds like the people there have much more power and control over their government than we do.
Guy

actually, the way capitalism works is we all get rich together, not at the expense of one another. (the banker isn't taking money from the lawn care guy, instead, he's the only reason the lawn care guy has a business (no one pays for lawn care if they don't have money elsewhere); and the lawn care guy borrows money from the banker to buy a new truck or mower, which helps the banker and the lawn care guy.)

are you guy or gyu?

There is just going to be a fundamental disagreement on this issue which cannot be resolved between us.


I am with Rob, rtopia and Superflat. I believe that capitalism is the best economic system. It creates more wealth than any other system, and the competition which arises actually drives our progress. Capitalism is the reason why the USA is so wealthy and powerful. It has been the key to our nation's success. Capitalism is the reason why so many people have immigrated here for over 200+ years, and continue to do so today.

I believe we work harder when we feel it betters ourselves personally. And we are more productive when there is less government intervention in business, and lower taxes. For example, the Bush tax cuts have actually resulted in higher tax revenue figures than ever. And unemployment is now lower than during the Clinton presidency.

I do not believe in a society where everyone works simply for the benefit of others. This sounds great in theory, but in the real world it does not work. History has shown this.

Libertarianism is about personal freedom.

Imagine you want to just live in peace by yourself in the country. You grow your own food, cut your own wood, and don't impact on others in any significant way. That's your right, isn't it?

Well, imagine that somebody then comes up and forcibly tells you that you have to give half your food and wood to somebody else. That's great for the other guy, but what about your right to exist unmolested?

It's the same on a larger scale. You cannot have socialism without coersion; some people will always want to exist outside that collective.

I strongly support socialists who join socialist systems voluntarily (co-operative housing, communal farming, etc) but that system cannot be imposed on a society as a whole.

Gyu wrote:Cheers for the reply, we really do have very different outlooks

and it's cool that you're civil about it : )

rtopia wrote: If it weren't for the want of doing something bigger and better...
...things wouldn't get bigger and better.

Gyu wrote: Do you mean that without competition we wouldn't try and do bigger and better things? This is a view I hear a lot but don't accept. I think that people naturally strive to be better at whatever it is they like to do ie: making music. I believe my wish to become a better producer isn't because I want to be better than anyone else, it's because I just want to make better music.

this gets a little trickier in the "art world but...

...if you were producing for your dayjob - wouldn't you want to be the best you possibly could to get more clients and/or to deliver a better product?

at the least wouldn't you agree that you're competing against yourself (your previous work)?

Gyu wrote:

rtopia wrote: My idea of caring for my fellow man is outmaneuvering my competitors. While this improves my financial situation personally - it also provides opportunity for others to improve theirs.

Surely the way Capitalism works is that you get rich at the expense of others. You don't help your competitior by outmaneuvering him.

As long as my competitor has the same opportunity/market/potential customers...
...it's their problem

When the competition is eliminated - monopolies follow.

Gyu wrote: I know it's idealistic considering the fact that generally people only care about themselves and a small number of friends and family, but I don't see why society couldn't be run more fairly.

hmmmm....
I would say - if "fair" is possible (I think it could be), you won't get it by government decree.

I would also offer that "generally" everyone cares to the extent that they know it's either in their best interest to care and/or the satisfaction they gain personally from helping others.

Gyu wrote: Why should the vast majority of wealth being in the hands of a tiny minority of people?

because they created it
to believe otherwise means you accept the idea that there is only a finite amount of wealth.

Why should those who "earn" and "produce" what they have be forced to give it away for no other reason than the government decides that someone "needs it".

(note: it's usually at this point that the government delivers on "need" based on how many votes it can get in exchange)

Gyu wrote: I think that Capitalism gives more power to centralised government and less to the people.

Do you have an example of that?
Centralized government is generally capitalism's foe.

Gyu wrote: Although us westerners have it pretty good I don't see why everyone could not be provided for to a good standard.

Everyone can.
When everyone is able to provide for themselves - it happens a lot faster than having it provided for them.

Gyu wrote: From what Deva said about Venezuela it sounds like the people there have much more power and control over their government than we do.
Guy

If what's being proposed is giving the government "more power" how long do you think it will be until the people lose control?

I hope it's not the case - but socialism eventually requires more government coercion to further enslave those that produce to keep producing even when it's not in the producers best interests.

- r

M. Bréqs wrote:Libertarianism is about personal freedom....
....I strongly support socialists who join socialist systems voluntarily (co-operative housing, communal farming, etc) but that system cannot be imposed on a society as a whole.

excellent point...

Voluntary socialist systems like these can can exist in free countries - rarely the other way around.

(it also gives the children of the "commune" the chance to opt out and choose something different when they become adults)

I will say this though - anyone who agrees with capitalism should go a lot further to understand why there are those who don't agree and explain it better.

The term "capitalism" itself was coined by it's enemies and we usually see a picture of someone like Ken Lay in handcuffs as an icon vs. the Vietnamese family that immigrates here and lives in the back of their donut shop until they do enough business to buy a house (and another donut shop).

- r

rtopia wrote:

deva wrote:...I doubt you can find a more vibrant and authentic free speech anywhere.

dude - I see "FUCK BUSH" bumper stickers 100x a day, watched two hours of 9/11 conspiracy videos yesterday, watched two hippies screaming at each other at my coffee shop about some NSA thing and if I wanted to I could turn on my televsion and see a whole lot of pundits criticizing this president to the point of impeachment.

we don't have "find it" - it's in our face

Where is all this US government repression I keep hearing about?

It is all around you. Free speech means nothing, if you cannot act. The master can let the slaves say whatever they want, as long as they do not try to change things. They are still slaves. That sort of free speech has no meaning.

rtopia wrote: Voluntary socialist systems like these can can exist in free countries - rarely the other way around.

Exactly. You state my point much better than I.

deva wrote:

rtopia wrote:
Where is all this US government repression I keep hearing about?

It is all around you. Free speech means nothing, if you cannot act. The master can let the slaves say whatever they want, as long as they do not try to change things. They are still slaves. That sort of free speech has no meaning.

so - I counter your "lack of vibrant free speech" claim and you re-define what free speech is?

I gave you a couple examples of "free speech all around".

Give me one example where anyone is prohibited from taking any action in an effort to change things.

- r

ps. and "not being successful" or having your ideas/proposals rejected by a majority voting populace doesn't count as prohibition

rtopia wrote:

deva wrote:

rtopia wrote:
Where is all this US government repression I keep hearing about?

It is all around you. Free speech means nothing, if you cannot act. The master can let the slaves say whatever they want, as long as they do not try to change things. They are still slaves. That sort of free speech has no meaning.

so - I counter your "lack of vibrant free speech" claim and you re-define what free speech is?

I gave you a couple examples of "free speech all around".

Give me one example where anyone is prohibited from taking any action in an effort to change things.

How about this this one

Bush only won Florida because of poorly designed butterfly ballots that stole votes from Gore, and because his Florida campaign manager Republican Secretary of State Kathleen Harris and Governor Jeb Bush illegally removed 57,700 voters from the rolls. It is estimated that 90% of them were Democratic. So this represent thousands of votes stolen from Al Gore. If this crime had not been commited then Gore would be President.

rtopia wrote:

deva wrote: I'm sorry, but the fact that you pick this point, tells me very clearly that you are only passing on something you have read in the U.S. media.

and a jab like this makes you an obvious cliche

Is it really that hard to accept that you just have a different worldview and that the people who disagree are just as passionate and informed as you are?

or is everyone who disagrees with you a robotic propaganda tool of the state?

It has nothing to do with worldviews. I am interested in what works, not worldviews. Venezuela is by economic and social measure, better off now than 10 years ago. If your worldview prevents you from admitting the simple fact, then ideology is getting in the way of reality.

The United States is a failing country. Our economy is weak, debt incredibly high. Respected economists have raised the possibility of U.S. bankruptcy. We are more and more dependent on foreign investment and less able to produce our own goods. Socially, 50 million people do not have healthcare. Our education system is near the bottom of developed countries. Many people are illiterate. Obesity is epidemic. Many millions of people are taking anti-depressants. Millions of children are on drugs. These are not the signs of a healthy social environment.

I believe a serious re-assessment of how we do things is in order