I'm bored, so I thought why not create a threat where everyone or noone asks me relevant or irrelevant questions about anything and nothing.

ummmmm......how old r u??

why are you bored?

and how does this actually relieve boredom??

Do you enjoy being a contradiction in terms?

Unless he's using a different definition of freedom than the republican one....

The republican definition of freedom means freedom to be an American, which is not the libertarian conservative definition of freedom. I think in the political compass, so that is how I define things in the political world, and I advise you all to as well-it distinguishes some groups who could otherwise be lumped together in the same place and don't belong there, such as republicans and nazis.

Negative Liberty at Wikipedia
Positive Liberty at wikipedia

And after getting a kinda idea of what they are:


Overall kinda site at Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy

In the second last paragraph of section 3 there, you can find a bit of introduction to the attempt by some philosophers to distinguish a Republican notion of liberty.

Pettit gives the best introduction to republican version of liberty i've seen, but its not online to my knowlege.

I'm eighteen.

Because I'm in college. College is boring and long.

It's something to do.


I will answer that as soon as you stop asking a loaded question, IE, fallacy by complex question.

Any other questions?

Libertarian Socialist defined by me:

Someone who is socially libertarian (IE: pro civil liberties, etc), but economicly left (IE socialism or parts thereof)

Thus, Libertarian socialist.

Do you believe that Robert Mertons Anomi theory, can be used to describe why criminality happens in today's society? And if not what theory would a libertarian socialist use instead?

This post has been edited by Remember_the_day: Sep 22 2004, 06:35 PM

Hell, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, by that definition.

As am I... It works as a term...
I tend to use liberal left (as opposed to Liberal or classical liberal)

note that Liberal (capital L) indicates the party

What do y'all think the meaning of life is, individually (as in what do you personally believe the meaning of life is)?

This post has been edited by Michael Badnarik: Sep 22 2004, 10:43 PM

From the politicalcompass.org FAQ:

13. You can't be libertarian and left wing

This is almost exclusively an American response, overlooking the undoubtedly libertarian tradition of European anarcho-syndicalism. It was, after all, the important French anarchist thinker Proudhon who declared that property is theft.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the likes of Emma Goldman were identified as libertarians long before the term was adopted by some economic rightwingers. And what about the libertarian collectives of the mid-late 1800s and 1960s?

Americans like Noam Chomsky can claim the label 'libertarian socialist' with the same validity that Milton Friedman can be considered a 'libertarian capitalist'.

The assumption that Social Darwinism delivers more social freedom is questionable. The welfare states of, for example, Sweden and The Netherlands, abolished capital punishment decades ago and are at the forefront of progressive legislation for women, gays and ethnic minorities - not to mention anti-censorship. Such established social democracies consistently score highest in the widely respected Freedom House annual survey on civil liberties. Their detailed checklist can be viewed at http://www.worldaudit.org/civillibs.htm . Similar social developments would presumably be envied by genuine libertarians in socially conservative countries - even if their taxes are lower.

Interestingly, many economic libertarians express to us their support for or indifference towards capital punishment; yet the execution of certain citizens is a far stronger assertion of state power than taxation.

N.B. The death penalty is practised in all seriously authoritarian states. In Eastern Europe it was abolished with the fall of communism and adoption of democracy. The United States is the only western democracy where capital punishment is still practised.

This post has been edited by MindsWideOpen: Sep 22 2004, 11:59 PM

Can you briefly explain the theory? I've not heard it very often, and not explained when I did.

Whatever you want your porpose in life to be.

If someone believes their porpose in life is to sell sno cones, then their porpose in life is to damned well sell sno cones.

If someone believes their porpose in life is to slay as many arabs as possible (see: many people on this board...), then well unfortunately that's their porpose.

Etc.

If we didn't slay arabs, where would we get phat exp? i want to be the l33t lvl 70 Marine, and iraq has a 20% mod.

Ask a stupid question:



Get a stupid answer:

Heh, I though this was a “ask a..” and that I was not the one to answer the question. :)

Anyway for the explanation, I will try to make it as short as possible.

According to Merton's theory, the goals of society is wealth, prestige and power. These 3 goals are what we strive to get. There is 3 legal ways to accomplish these goals, either by education and hard labor. The last way is through gambling, which is pure luck. If people is not able to achieve the goals through the legal ways, there is a chance, they will use a “shortcut” such as criminality to pursued there goals. Normally it is people of social group 4 and 5 that uses this “shortcut”. And all in all there is 5 social groups, where social group 1 is the highest and 5 is the lowest. In America social group 4 and 5 could be the blacks and other less fortunate groups because they will not have the same options as white people. Therefore there is a higher % of blacks that have committed an criminal action compared to whites.
I tried to make it as short as possible and therefore there are not to many details.

But it was an unfair question. So if you do not want to answer it, its okay.

So basicly, it's a poorly reasoned excuse for racial pity?

This is your "ask a.." not mine. So is that your answer? That it is a "poorly reasoned excuse" as you so bluntly put it.

The dangers of the Night or the day may not be same, but it was never the night's or day's fault.

maby, but taht doesn't mean I'm not able to carry on a discussion based on the questions. it is my thread after all :P

You are correct, its your thread after all. :)

But sadly i am to tired to carry on, so the discussion will have to wait for tomorrow.

Well I'm not gonna stop you. The fact that I'm incapable of it notwithstanding...

C'mon people, you can mock me better than that.

Why do you call yourself a libertarian socialist when libertarian social ideals are already assumed in people's general interpretation of socialism?

Because one can be an authoritarian socialist (authoritarian left), and thus, I use the term libertarian to differentiate myself from such.

Any more? I want someone to ask me a hard question... some here has to be able to ask relevant question that is hard to answer.

considering that socialism implicitly moves at least part of private proprty rights from the individual to the community, and thus reducing the individuals freedom to control their own property - how do you square the notion of socialism with libertarianism?



remember the day: no. merton's theory flaw (IMHO) is that it focusses individual goals into only 3 very limited directions - wealth, prestige, power.

ie control over physical resources, control over social resources, control over other peoples lives.

where does criminality come from? i would say that part of the reason for criminality is exactly those ideals themselves - by focussing young peoples minds upon these chimera, instead of worthwhile goals such as happiness, balance, self discipline, self control, personal growth and creation of the best situation for the coming generations, it is itself part of the reason for the problem.

by making these items goals, it *creates* criminality - it is clearly impossible for *all* to have control over others, some must end up controlled, and the same for the other goals to a lesser extent.

in fact, i would argue that criminality is largely caused by the notion of CONTROL in and of itself - those who are willing to work with others cooperatively, those who are willing to discuss and debate, to communicate, those who are willing to share power equally and forsake coersive power, these people are rarely criminals, and if they be so, it is generally becuase at least part of the laws are written by people with more egotistical goals, ie they became criminals becuase they smoked cannabis, which caused harm to none others than themselves, yet they became criminals.

it is entirely noteworthy that societies that have tried to shift to more community minded, and less egotistical minded models have *significantly* less crime - not only the welfare societies of scandinavia, but especially such models as the kibbutz.

As I'm too tired, I'll assume that this is hte question and am too tired to comprehend the rest of the post as either an explanation of the question, or an answer to the quote...



Because in order to ensure one's freedom, you need to ensure that they are not forced into slavery-like situations for monetary concerns.

Thus, socialist laws and programs like minimum wage, preventing of monopolies, and providing a small income while between jobs ensure freedom much mroe than they take away, just as laws preventing the legal ownership of another being ensures more freedom than it takes away.

however they are freedoms of society - not of the individual (in terms of taxation). how can you justify forcing someone to pay taxes to support someone who is not working - or wuld you tax only those willing to pay taxes?

do you have a philosphical explanation of at what point do you regard rights should be balanced between the community and the individual?


as to the rest of the above post - it was answering 'remember the days' earlier question, and did not have a direct bearing on my question to you.

after all, you did not call this "ask a gengari" thread.... ;)


BTW - are you aware that the first two problems you raised (minimum wage, prevention of 'negative' monopolies) would be erased by simply making wage slavery illegal? liberty in the workplace removes the vast majority of ills in our society.