"Sorry Libertarians, Capitalism Requires Government" by Binswanger - Rebutted! [vid]


jts

Recommended Posts

Most libertarians I know are minarchists. They do not oppose government, as long as it is confined to protecting the rights and property of its citizens. Libertarians realize that government is a necessary evil.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not watching a long video--can't he write?

Re HB's article, I only want to say if you act in self defense you don't have to prove anything at trial. Ignoramus.

--Brant

all I've time for

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had to go to bed, but after bits and pieces the video seems inchoate while HB likes to lecture about applied political philosophy with the Orthodox Objectivist standard take-no-prisoners approach. As a limited-government humanoid, one might think I was in basic agreement with Mr. Insularity, but I'm not when we go down another level and root around in the epistemology of it all. That is, until he properly states what he's objecting to we have pretend objections off a straw man. In the meantime he gets to mix in moral hubris not to advance his own views but to attack libertarians giving no space, btw, to libertarians who aren't anarchists so he's implicitly attacking them too.

In the shared context of the video guy and HB the problem is they're both Utopians and as such neither can get there from here for the more freedom you acquire the more Utopia will seem to recede. It's like dividing something continually by 2. You'll always have something left over, in this case the necessary evil of governance or government. The only rational approach is to know government will always be with us and we will always be fighting for our freedoms on whatever level we can and choose to do so, assuming we be men.*

--Brant

*"Man" includes "woman"--a superior being so men try to compensate with the dating-mating process, then they have to stick around and help raise the kids (it's biologically insane for the men and rational for the women)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HB is another Randian example of tossing out libertarians with the philosophical bathwater. What HB doesn't realize is his default position is go along to get along conservative while the libertarian one is to attack the state. Here is what is going to happen to the state: it will be destroyed in its grossest manifestations by technology. Over, under and through the middle. Over is social where everybody who cares and many who don't find out what is really going on--and do something about it. The middle is exploiting the state for legal and economic advantage in as many ways possible. Under is private parties hacking into government computer systems and taking them down. Not so much corporate ones. Private to corporate will pretty much keep up with each other, but the best computer brains won't be working for the government or, if they do, won't be allowed to be effectively productive enough to stop the hackers. It doesn't matter if these people are anarchists, libertarian or otherwise. It doesn't matter if they ever give philosophy one thought. If they do it doesn't matter if they think capitalism requires government, especially since there is so much crony capitalism they can't stand any of it.

--Brant

the end of the state is not the end of governance, it is the end of statism considered in the aggregate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Libertarian anarchists are remarkable people. I recently ran across a plethora of them in a deliberately-provocative second Facebook identity I created. I was even crazy enough to read most of their perhaps number one work, No Treason, by Lysander Spooner. But ultimately they have no authorites or deep thinkers. No authoritative or seminal works.

They're mostly a cult, as far as I can tell. No real contact with (political) reality. And very anti-intellectual. All their experts contradict all their others. They call libertarianism and capitalism, "statism." Amazing! They claim that a libertarian/capitalist state: 1) taxes, 2) regulates, 3) has a monopoly on force, 4) forces you to join, 5) forbids you to quit.

Well, now! In that light, maybe I'll convert to anarchism myself. And no matter how much you personally bash them, nothing penetrates their thick skull. I can't even allude to some of the stuff I called them, and said about them recently! But like a lunatic, reality-untouched, Eveready Bunny, they just keep on maniacally hopping. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Libertarian anarchists are remarkable people. I recently ran across a plethora of them in a deliberately-provocative second Facebook identity I created. I was even crazy enough to read most of their perhaps number one work, No Treason, by Lysander Spooner. But ultimately they have no authorites or deep thinkers. No authoritative or seminal works.

They're mostly a cult, as far as I can tell. No real contact with (political) reality. And very anti-intellectual. All their experts contradict all their others. They call libertarianism and capitalism, "statism." Amazing! They claim that a libertarian/capitalist state: 1) taxes, 2) regulates, 3) has a monopoly on force, 4) forces you to join, 5) forbids you to quit.

Well, now! In that light, maybe I'll convert to anarchism myself. And no matter how much you personally bash them, nothing penetrates their thick skull. I can't even allude to some of the stuff I called them, and said about them recently! But like a lunatic, reality-untouched, Eveready Bunny, they just keep on maniacally hopping. :cool:

Do you specialize in these worthless occasional drop-in idealess drivebys or is this an ad hominem exception?

--Brant

you're so forgettable I don't know the answer

I might envy you your name if I envied exept I've always felt my name should be envied by the enviered (second-handerism reversed? [Do two second-handers make a first-hander or just a mess?])

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant: My recent excursion into the world of anarchism, at least on Facebook, was amazing. I think most Objectivists and libertarians are deeply unaware of the emotional and psycho-spiritual nature and tenor of the "libertarian" anarchists. I know I was.

Are you yourself an anarchist? Do you think I've mistaken the nature of the anarchist arguments? As best I can tell, the essence of the anarchist complaint against the Objectivists and libertarians is this: Objectivists and libertarians supposedly favor: 1) coercive taxation, 2) regulation of various sorts, 3) giving gov't a monopoly on force, 4) forcing you to join the gov't, 5) forbidding you to quit the gov't. All of this is false. But the anarchists -- in their Never Never Land of irrational gibberish and anti-intellectualism -- truly believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an anarchist. I think government with the essential monopoly on force grounded in natural rights' philosophy is correct. The best government will violate rights through taxation or probably cease to exist. We are so far from knocking on that door I think it's worthless Utopian thinking on the part of all interested parties, Objectivists and libertarians. Objectivists have more philosophical backbone. You're merely repeating HB's to-the-man arguments. Why care about any identifiable nutcases as such? If they posted here I'd care, but that's that. Cultural anthropology is outside my interests.

I apologize for my rudeness in my previous post and acknowledge the courtesy in the way you replied.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an anarchist. I think government with the essential monopoly on force grounded in natural rights' philosophy is correct. The best government will violate rights through taxation or probably cease to exist. We are so far from knocking on that door I think it's worthless Utopian thinking on the part of all interested parties, Objectivists and libertarians. Objectivists have more philosophical backbone. You're merely repeating HB's to-the-man arguments. Why care about any identifiable nutcases as such? If they posted here I'd care, but that's that. Cultural anthropology is outside my interests.

I apologize for my rudeness in my previous post and acknowledge the courtesy in the way you replied.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you in that we do need a strong government. A strong government to protect us against foreign aggressors. And a strong government to enforce individual rights. The problem with anarchists is they have no forethought as to what would happen if they actually got what they want! Lawlessness and gang rule from within and a ripe open target for aggressors from without looking to cash in on a fractured defenceless nation embroiled in the chaos of gang warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you in that we do need a strong government. A strong government to protect us against foreign aggressors. And a strong government to enforce individual rights. The problem with anarchists is they have no forethought as to what would happen if they actually got what they want! Lawlessness and gang rule from within and a ripe open target for aggressors from without looking to cash in on a fractured defenceless nation embroiled in the chaos of gang warfare.

Stefan Molyneux in his youtube channel responds to those questions.

https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/videos?flow=list&view=0&sort=da

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday I finally got around to reading "Loyalty Oath" Harry's piece. He writes with a helluva lot of confidence and smugness, considering what a major jackass and dirbag he is! He also mostly ignors the anarchists' true concerns and claims. So it wasn't much of an article.

I also can't help but observe that the Randroid "Objectivists" and the anarchist "libertarians" really deserve each other. These are two groups of nitwit lowlifes that refuse to listen and which are thus fundamentally closed to debate. That makes both groups irrational. Both groups are pitiful cults.

As for the important issue of Ayn Rand's claim that gov't rightfully has a monopoly on the use of force -- this seems mistaken. Gov't is properly the final authority on legal issues, and the dominant physical power, but in a free society many people rightfully use force in self-defense. First is the guy being robbed or beaten when no cops are around. He properly uses his fists or guns in a forceful manner. Next are all those security guards, body guards, and private protection agencies. Next are militias. Next are "deputized" private citizens under the concept of "posse comitatus." Next are civilians who make "citizen's arrests." The reality is, gov't is the principle defender of individual rights, and thus the most important user of preventative and retaliatory force; but it's far from a monopoly one.

p.s. And what the hell was that Dimswanger line about how the gov't "properly, bring private guards under its supervision by licensing them..."? This guy is a clown!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday I finally got around to reading "Loyalty Oath" Harry's piece. He writes with a helluva lot of confidence and smugness, considering what a major jackass and dirbag he is! He also mostly ignors the anarchists' true concerns and claims. So it wasn't much of an article.

I also can't help but observe that the Randroid "Objectivists" and the anarchist "libertarians" really deserve each other. These are two groups of nitwit lowlifes that refuse to listen and which are thus fundamentally closed to debate. That makes both groups irrational. Both groups are pitiful cults.

As for the important issue of Ayn Rand's claim that gov't rightfully has a monopoly on the use of force -- this seems mistaken. Gov't is properly the final authority on legal issues, and the dominant physical power, but in a free society many people rightfully use force in self-defense. First is the guy being robbed or beaten when no cops are around. He properly uses his fists or guns in a forceful manner. Next are all those security guards, body guards, and private protection agencies. Next are militias. Next are "deputized" private citizens under the concept of "posse comitatus." Next are civilians who make "citizen's arrests." The reality is, gov't is the principle defender of individual rights, and thus the most important user of preventative and retaliatory force; but it's far from a monopoly one.

p.s. And what the hell was that Dimswanger line about how the gov't "properly, bring private guards under its supervision by licensing them..."? This guy is a clown!

When you apply "nitwit" and "lowlifes" to a broad category of people you are dehumanizing them to collectively put them down. Since we aren't talking about Nazis, you might reconsider your approach.

You don't understand government's "monopoly use of force" well enough to lecture us about it.

I don't think much of Binswanger, but name-calling might be more appropriate--excusable?--to a junior high school recess.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't understand government's "monopoly use of force" well enough to lecture us about it.

--Brant

What does a government's monopoly use of force mean then?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't understand government's "monopoly use of force" well enough to lecture us about it.

--Brant

What does a government's monopoly use of force mean then?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't understand government's "monopoly use of force" well enough to lecture about it either.

--Brant

I could research it enough to develop a two or even a three hour a week one semester college course--George could probably do it off the top of his head

I know I'm begging your question, but since you distain philosophy why do you want to know?

the trick is to read a little 1960s Rand, put forth her position and then we all discuss (without cussing)--that's because this is, afterall, an Objectivist list and you are implying you've never read her so we should all do this pre-Rand stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you apply "nitwit" and "lowlifes" to a broad category of people you are dehumanizing them to collectively put them down. Since we aren't talking about Nazis, you might reconsider your approach.

You don't understand government's "monopoly use of force" well enough to lecture us about it.

I don't think much of Binswanger, but name-calling might be more appropriate--excusable?--to a junior high school recess.

--Brant

The Randroids are evil people. They drove me out of the Objectivist movement for almost 20 years. They seek to mentally and spiritually enslave -- and ruin the lives of -- everyone they meet and brainwash. I hate their verminous guts. So, yes, I sometimes call them names, which they well deserve.

If anyone thinks my descriptions of them are at all injust, immoral, or untrue they should call me out on it. I fully expect, deserve, and want to be condemned if I label or describe them inaccurately. But remember that it's equally as much a crime to fail to morally condemn those who merit such. Rand said and practiced this repeatedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyrel,

I have an opinion that is different than yours, but on form.

Qua form, there are many forms of communication. After studying this a lot (but I feel I've only scratched the surface), I have turned my current focus toward outcomes.

And I have concluded that highlighting actions is far more powerful to get outcomes than name-calling.

When people say one thing and do another, what they do is almost always the better indicator of their true intentions. Most audiences know it, too. But what people do is not always clear to audiences in our remote-control ADD culture, especially online.

If your communication makes what your target does clear to the reader, you don't even have to show the lack of consistency between word and deed. Audiences may not read carefully (from sheer info overload), but in my experience, they are not stupid.

I have not always thought like that. Now I do.

Lots of study, observation and some experience (I only started recently) lead me on the path of prioritizing outcomes over rhetorical posture.

I only see name calling give concrete outcomes (of what you really want) when a mob can be lathered up. Otherwise, this tactic is not very effective. It produces flame wars and other distractions.

Your mileage may vary.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can get along with most Anarcho - Capitalist. (chatted with some on forums) But what I find strange is most straight Anarchist I know are fond of Socialism. I've read a few books where they teach Anarchist techniques but then promotes socialism in their political philosophies. What the hell? Can anyone explain this? I can understand Anarcho - Capitalist point of view, disband the government and replace with a Capitalist system.....But to replace with a socialist system seems to be hypocritical.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can get along with most Anarcho - Capitalist. (chatted with some on forums) But what I find strange is most straight Anarchist I know are fond of Socialism. I've read a few books where they teach Anarchist techniques but then promotes socialism in their political philosophies. What the hell? Can anyone explain this? I can understand Anarcho - Capitalist point of view, disband the government and replace with a Capitalist system.....But to replace with a socialist system seems to be hypocritical.....

I hope you're not hoping we can explain any of this. I can't, but can't wait for the first attempt.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps they are a bi product of what happens to people who's minds are so divorced from being able to think rationally that they literally cannot "connect the dots" enough to be able to even recognize any dissonance in their line of reasoning. Some people just believe thinking things through to a conclusion is too much effort. They want what they want without figuring out the consequences of "getting what they wish for." Of course "someone" will use them in times of upheaval. At best clueless useful idiots. At worse unthinking brutes that are capable of really horrible deeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyrel,

I have an opinion that is different than yours, but on form.

Qua form, there are many forms of communication. After studying this a lot (but I feel I've only scratched the surface), I have turned my current focus toward outcomes.

And I have concluded that highlighting actions is far more powerful to get outcomes than name-calling.

When people say one thing and do another, what they do is almost always the better indicator of their true intentions. Most audiences know it, too. But what people do is not always clear to audiences in our remote-control ADD culture, especially online.

If your communication makes what your target does clear to the reader, you don't even have to show the lack of consistency between word and deed. Audiences may not read carefully (from sheer info overload), but in my experience, they are not stupid.

I have not always thought like that. Now I do.

Lots of study, observation and some experience (I only started recently) lead me on the path of prioritizing outcomes over rhetorical posture.

I only see name calling give concrete outcomes (of what you really want) when a mob can be lathered up. Otherwise, this tactic is not very effective. It produces flame wars and other distractions.

Your mileage may vary.

Michael

Michael -- A bit obscure! I think you have something to say, but your chosen words are indirect and rounbabout. Interpreting as best I can, I think truth is the most powerful force in the universe. People should always try to state the truth about various individuals, institutions, ideas, etc. They should fulsomely give their reasons and cite their evidence for their claims. If it's not overly difficult, truth-seekers and public educators should try to be persuasive and entertaining in the process. But the evil, loathsome, enemy, destructive, religious "Objectivists" -- along with their practices and beliefs -- need to be noted for what they are. It isn't really name-calling to correctly identify their nature and accurately define them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now