The government owns your property

[Universe Prince]

I think that here we are having a problem with definitions. Individualist Christianity, to me, puts the individual man (or woman) as supreme. It conflicts directly with God.

I earned this estate. I built this empire. I do whatI like.

Where is the glory to God? See what I mean?

I certainly see what you're saying, and to a certain degree I agree. But at the same time, I would not say that Christianity is a communal faith. It has a communal aspect, but it also has an individual relationship/individual responsibility aspect. There is the relationship of the individual with God, the relationship of the individual to other believers and the relationship of the individual to non-believers. I'm obviously simplifying here, but I would say these relationships are on equal footing, though the relationship with God is the primary one and it informs the other two. Which relates back to my original point about self-ownership (or self-regency if we accept that we belong to God) in that as human beings we have a personal responsibility, were are given authority to choose, and so the individual owns himself. Again, I'm simplifying, but I think you'll get my point even if you don't agree.

Yet, if we lock ourselves away in our 5,000 square foot homes and continue to delve into crass consumerism and materialism (I'm not assigning blame, just saying that this is where society is) then what have we got? To me, that is the ramifications of individualism. I'm not decrying the fact that we're humans and have one mind, I think that is obvious. Yet, Christianity does not support what individualism has become.

I might concede that such could be the ramifications of individualism, but I would also say that I don't believe that sort of isolationism is the nature of capitalism. Much that happens in the name of capitalism isn't always capitalism, just as much that happens in the name of socialism is not always socialism. (Or in the name of Christianity, et cetera.)

Perhaps just a bad day, I'm not sure. I guess I wasn't in the mood for rampant sarcasm. We can discuss the Marxian concept of alienation if you like, but I can't do so right now.

If I ever get a coat of arms, I'll have to make sure that I get a rampant sarcasm in there somewhere. (ba dum chish) I don't know that I was trying to be sarcastic as much as I was just trying to figure out how your explanation of regulations within a business relate to the alienation you had talked about previously. I was possibly reflexively being sarcastic, which I usually try to edit from my posts. I had no conscious intent to ridicule.

[_JS]

I certainly see what you're saying, and to a certain degree I agree. But at the same time, I would not say that Christianity is a communal faith. It has a communal aspect, but it also has an individual relationship/individual responsibility aspect. There is the relationship of the individual with God, the relationship of the individual to other believers and the relationship of the individual to non-believers. I'm obviously simplifying here, but I would say these relationships are on equal footing, though the relationship with God is the primary one and it informs the other two. Which relates back to my original point about self-ownership (or self-regency if we accept that we belong to God) in that as human beings we have a personal responsibility, were are given authority to choose, and so the individual owns himself. Again, I'm simplifying, but I think you'll get my point even if you don't agree.

I do understand your point. I'd probably even agree with some form of self-regency if you really wanted to get into the weeds and discuss that specifically.

I might concede that such could be the ramifications of individualism, but I would also say that I don't believe that sort of isolationism is the nature of capitalism. Much that happens in the name of capitalism isn't always capitalism, just as much that happens in the name of socialism is not always socialism. (Or in the name of Christianity, et cetera.)

Again, I can agree with that. In any sociological iussue there are multiple variables that are likely to influence the outcome.

To be honest with you, I'd like to see a libertarian system employed. I think that it would remove many of the unnecessary structures that currently exist. Perhaps we could get to a point where we could be rid of extreme nationalism for example. It would also be nice to see a free flow of workers from anywhere and to anywhere hopefully without the ridiculous amount of obstacles we currently have.

One thing I'd like to hear more about is education, Prince. What would you expect from a libertarian education system (or lack of system)? I don't mean just here in the US, but in the third world as well. I ask because no matter what one thinks of say the Sandinistas, there was no doubt that they did raise the literacy rate very quickly in Nicaragua as did Castro in Cuba. The East Germans were one of the most educated populations in the world (that didn't mean that some of them wouldn't leave to the west to make lots of money!).

I guess that some people fear that a libertarian education might simply leave the poor out of luck and keep the wealthy in a constant circle of retaining high quality education.

[Universe Prince]

I do understand your point. I'd probably even agree with some form of self-regency if you really wanted to get into the weeds and discuss that specifically.

I guess we could. Any place you'd like to start on that?

To be honest with you, I'd like to see a libertarian system employed. I think that it would remove many of the unnecessary structures that currently exist. Perhaps we could get to a point where we could be rid of extreme nationalism for example. It would also be nice to see a free flow of workers from anywhere and to anywhere hopefully without the ridiculous amount of obstacles we currently have.

One thing I'd like to hear more about is education, Prince. What would you expect from a libertarian education system (or lack of system)? I don't mean just here in the US, but in the third world as well. I ask because no matter what one thinks of say the Sandinistas, there was no doubt that they did raise the literacy rate very quickly in Nicaragua as did Castro in Cuba. The East Germans were one of the most educated populations in the world (that didn't mean that some of them wouldn't leave to the west to make lots of money!).

I guess that some people fear that a libertarian education might simply leave the poor out of luck and keep the wealthy in a constant circle of retaining high quality education.

I don't know about the Sandinistas, but that ain't the story I hear about Cuba. It had fairly high literacy rates before the revolution. Anyway, what a libertarian education system might look like depends on which libertarian you ask. If we start from the situation we have now, I think we'd see school vouchers and charter schools and less regulations about where a child has to attend school, most anything that gives parents more choice. If that were to be taken further, I think we'd see a more decentralized system of education. Contrary to popular opinion, libertarians are not out to prevent people helping the poor. Were I a betting man, I'd bet you'd find libertarians running a few schools to help the poor and lower income folks. Or maybe providing books for free. Even Mises.org, the internet heart of Austrian economics, has books online for free download.

Libertarians, for all their usual support of capitalism, have no interest in protecting a wealthy ruling class. They have no interest in economic or social class at all. Actually this is one reason for the support of capitalism, because it does not rest on a class structure, rather it leaves people free to pursue their own interests regardless of economic or social status. Yes, yes, the wealthy do this and that, keeping the people down or some such, but a lot of that comes from the partnership of government and big business, which libertarians in point of fact oppose. A small example would be the legal requirement for cosmetology license to have a business that has to do with cutting and styling people's hair. This keeps people who would have a business that only braids hair, and nothing involving a need for chemicals, from being able to own/run such a business without the expense and time to get a license they don't actually need. Get rid of that requirement, and a barrier to people owning/running their own business is out of the way. You want to put power back in the hands of the proletariat, well, so do the libertarians.

[_JS]

I don't know about the Sandinistas, but that ain't the story I hear about Cuba. It had fairly high literacy rates before the revolution. Anyway, what a libertarian education system might look like depends on which libertarian you ask. If we start from the situation we have now, I think we'd see school vouchers and charter schools and less regulations about where a child has to attend school, most anything that gives parents more choice. If that were to be taken further, I think we'd see a more decentralized system of education. Contrary to popular opinion, libertarians are not out to prevent people helping the poor. Were I a betting man, I'd bet you'd find libertarians running a few schools to help the poor and lower income folks. Or maybe providing books for free. Even Mises.org, the internet heart of Austrian economics, has books online for free download.

Libertarians, for all their usual support of capitalism, have no interest in protecting a wealthy ruling class. They have no interest in economic or social class at all. Actually this is one reason for the support of capitalism, because it does not rest on a class structure, rather it leaves people free to pursue their own interests regardless of economic or social status. Yes, yes, the wealthy do this and that, keeping the people down or some such, but a lot of that comes from the partnership of government and big business, which libertarians in point of fact oppose. A small example would be the legal requirement for cosmetology license to have a business that has to do with cutting and styling people's hair. This keeps people who would have a business that only braids hair, and nothing involving a need for chemicals, from being able to own/run such a business without the expense and time to get a license they don't actually need. Get rid of that requirement, and a barrier to people owning/running their own business is out of the way. You want to put power back in the hands of the proletariat, well, so do the libertarians.

On the contrary, much of these assumptions are not ones I have made about libertarians. I'd qualify that by saying that there are libertarians who do subscribe to a level of Social Darwinism and the Ayn Rand thought that the poor are "parasites." Yet, I don't think they represent the majority any more than Stalinists represent the majority of socialists.

Yes, yes, the wealthy do this and that, keeping the people down or some such

You seem to doubt the veracity of this? Perhaps I'm mistaken. In any case, It is not merely economics, but society as well. You might be surprised, but I actually see libertarians as having a somewhat similar goal to socialists. The difference is that the path to achieving the goal and that libertarians dismiss class and history. I find that we agree on quite a bit though, as surprising as that may be.

[Universe Prince]

On the contrary, much of these assumptions are not ones I have made about libertarians.

I know, but you did say "I guess that some people fear that a libertarian education might simply leave the poor out of luck and keep the wealthy in a constant circle of retaining high quality education." So I tried to address that.

I'd qualify that by saying that there are libertarians who do subscribe to a level of Social Darwinism and the Ayn Rand thought that the poor are "parasites." Yet, I don't think they represent the majority any more than Stalinists represent the majority of socialists.

There are, but at the same time, most of them would call themselves Objectivists of one form or another rather than libertarians. Rand didn't like libertarians much. It's all Rothbard's fault.

Yes, yes, the wealthy do this and that, keeping the people down or some such

You seem to doubt the veracity of this? Perhaps I'm mistaken.

I didn't want someone coming back with some comment about how libertarians want to protect the oligarchy or some such. Not that you would have said so, but I try to cover counter arguments ahead of time as best I can.

You might be surprised, but I actually see libertarians as having a somewhat similar goal to socialists. The difference is that the path to achieving the goal and that libertarians dismiss class and history. I find that we agree on quite a bit though, as surprising as that may be.

Well, let me put it this way: You and I seem to agree on a lot, but Michael Tee and I did not seem to agree on much of anything. I would not say that libertarians dismiss class and history. I think they don't care about class, in the sense that they think it can be made meaningless if the people are allowed liberty. And given how much I've seen of libertarians talking about history and the ramifications of historical events, like, say, off the top of my head, the New Deal or the Civil War, I don't know why you'd think they dismiss history.

[_JS]

Well, let me put it this way: You and I seem to agree on a lot, but Michael Tee and I did not seem to agree on much of anything. I would not say that libertarians dismiss class and history. I think they don't care about class, in the sense that they think it can be made meaningless if the people are allowed liberty. And given how much I've seen of libertarians talking about history and the ramifications of historical events, like, say, off the top of my head, the New Deal or the Civil War, I don't know why you'd think they dismiss history.

I'd say that Mike was more of the Stalinist or Leninist style of socialist, but I can't really speak for someone else. There were things I agreed with Mike on and things I did not. I always wanted to discuss socialism with Mike, but I've not gotten the opportunity. The same is true of RD, I don't find myself agreeing with his libertarianism very often at all.

I chose my words poorly. It is not that libertarians dismiss history or aren't academically studious on that subject! I think that by overlooking class they miss the impact of history on society and economics. Obviously you'd have to disagree with that or you'd be a socialist and not a libertarian.

It is interesting that we certainly agree that Fascism is wrong, that is the corporatism of government.

[Universe Prince]

It is interesting that we certainly agree that Fascism is wrong, that is the corporatism of government.

And I think most libertarians do. But I'd say also, that from where I sit, the corporatism of government is supported in large part by the attempts of government to regulate business. The government turns to big corporations for aid in crafting legislation, and big corporations that are able to absorb the costs of conforming to regulations benefit by keeping out smaller competitors who cannot so easily absorb those costs. Thus creating a decidedly un-free marketplace. And that doesn't even get into the corporate bailouts and similar nonsense that seem to go on constantly. So when people talk about how horribly capitalism and/or the free market works, I usually scoff because that isn't really what's going on here.

[_JS]

It is interesting that we certainly agree that Fascism is wrong, that is the corporatism of government.

And I think most libertarians do. But I'd say also, that from where I sit, the corporatism of government is supported in large part by the attempts of government to regulate business. The government turns to big corporations for aid in crafting legislation, and big corporations that are able to absorb the costs of conforming to regulations benefit by keeping out smaller competitors who cannot so easily absorb those costs. Thus creating a decidedly un-free marketplace. And that doesn't even get into the corporate bailouts and similar nonsense that seem to go on constantly. So when people talk about how horribly capitalism and/or the free market works, I usually scoff because that isn't really what's going on here.

I guess that is where I mix terms. To you that certainly isn't capitalism. To a conservative, that is capitalism - as the United States is the bastion (or beacon) of capitalism. I'd consider that pragmatic capitalism, or the reality of capitalism. Perhaps the better term is neoliberalism, which is a more encompassing term and more accurate as well.

[Universe Prince]

I'd consider that pragmatic capitalism, or the reality of capitalism.

I'd consider that the reality of government regulation. One does not need to eliminate capitalism to stop corporatism. Capitalism can get along just fine without that. But corporatism seems part and parcel with government attempts to regulate business and the market. Corporatism is the practical result.

I'd probably even agree with some form of self-regency if you really wanted to get into the weeds and discuss that specifically.

I keep thinking I should get back to that, but I'm not sure how. I guess I'm not sure where I need to start.