Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Utopia vs. Liberty. Richard Rieben Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:49 pm
An excerpt:
Private endeavor are not social ends, regardless of appearance to Golden Calf worshippers. The reason they do not appear previously in history, is that people have persisted in the belief that they are social-clan goals ' and are intended in that fashion ' and can be taken over by force and run by force, since the social utopia is the justification of their existence, according to the worshippers. Private individuals have no protection against this utopian delusion.
William Vanderbilt's famous line, "The public be damned!", is ' taken in context ' the exact philosophy of private enterprise . . . and of liberty. The social/public welfare is of no concern to and not a function of political liberty. Its sole concern is respect for the sovereign autonomy of the individual. (Of course, if you scrupulously adhere to this principle, an explosion of social benefits will come into existence 'in material goods, infrastructure, morality, and goodwill ' but this is ENTIRELY a parenthetical aside, and not in any manner the purpose, intent, design, goal or justification of liberty. It should not even need to be mentioned, except in reference to the rigor of the law of consequence: means determine ends.)
A private railway line is not a consequence of social organization, nor is it in response to social organization. It is built strictly to provide transportation of goods and bodies in exchange for a price. It exists solely for the purpose of making a private profit on the operation. It has no social purpose or plan, aside from respecting the rights of others to participate or not, freely and voluntarily. If it is successful, fine. Then it makes a profit. If it is not successful, then it was a miscalculation upon the actual needs of the market for this kind of transportation (at least in the manner in which it was provided). The "social good" is not any measure of its worth, value or sustainability. This is not a social service, nor a social organization, nor a social utopia. The private infrastructure, where it exists at all, is not designed to create a perfect society, nor to enable people to be able to have wins, nor to be part of anything "bigger" than themselves.
Subject: Re: Utopia vs. Liberty. Richard Rieben Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:13 pm
Is he an ancap?
RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Utopia vs. Liberty. Richard Rieben Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:17 pm
Not quite:
Quote :
Anarchocapitalism clearly depends on dropping context, and fantasizing that "somehow" it would work. The anarchist Jacobin Reign of Terror during the French Revolution provides a sufficient demonstration – and reminder – of how anarchy actually works: It transitions to conventional forms of government (it stabilizes over time), and the transition is marked by turmoil, destruction and suffering.
Anarchy, however, is the same "stuff" as tyranny – that is, it is just as oppressive as formal dictatorship, though more bloody. And it "settles" into a strong, formalized tyranny in the end. There is no such thing as anarchy – completely removing a government – that does not fall into tyranny. More to the point, there is no method by which to do such a thing, except by violent upheaval.
Those anarchocapitalists who are preaching peace and the non-initiation of force are living in a fantasy world. In that fantasy world, they are expecting to defend themselves, by force, against the tide of the leviathan. But they will be swamped and forgotten. They are making a stand of principle, but even they know it is a feeble, idealistic and fatalistic stand. They will go down with honor, but they fully suspect that they will go down. Just as many other individuals and small groups have gone down before the tide for the past 10,000 years.
Subject: Re: Utopia vs. Liberty. Richard Rieben Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:23 pm
Fuck him then!
Quote :
... of how anarchy actually works: It transitions to conventional forms of government (it stabilizes over time), and the transition is marked by turmoil, destruction and suffering.
It's his 'stable' government which is marked by turmoil, destruction and suffering.
RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Utopia vs. Liberty. Richard Rieben Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:25 pm
No, he advocates self-government. (See further down the first article.)
Subject: Re: Utopia vs. Liberty. Richard Rieben Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:28 pm
If he's not an ancap, he's history...
As for his French revolution, it most certainly has nothing to do with anarchy. Two groups of statists fighting amongst themselves for supremacy is a shit-poor example. He's pissing me off already!
Subject: Re: Utopia vs. Liberty. Richard Rieben Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:33 pm
Look at this shit:
Quote :
This dispute is not about practical forms or structures or solutions. It is about ideology, culture and psychology. The famed Austrian school of economics, led by Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, promotes anarchocapitalism, but their goal is not anything I would call liberty, nor do I even consider their objectives humane. According to an online article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, they envision a natural aristocracy, or natural order, that is "'elitist,' 'hierarchical,' 'proprietarian,' 'patriarchical,' and 'authoritorian.'" [sic]
Yes an elite would emerge, but it would be based on meritocracy!
Is this cunt some egalitarian prophet, or what?
RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
Subject: Re: Utopia vs. Liberty. Richard Rieben Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:44 pm
He's an anti-collectivist. I think the word that most fits him is "individualist."
Subject: Utopia vs. Liberty. Richard Rieben 
Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:49 pm
