Um. “Ease the transition to mule and plow and buggy”? If things get that bad, then what you are suggesting is near suicide. Without modern transportation methods, most of the population is going to die of starvation, which means you don’t want to be sitting on a food source. If things go the way you suggest (which I doubt), then you want to go the classic survivalist route of some isolated cabin with lots of stored food. And forget “easing the transition”, or the idea that you will have electronics solar powered or otherwise. You’ll have hand tools and die young.
21st century
I merely disagree. I see it as basic survival strategy.
Again, I disagree. I like eating and will gladly share what’s available and don’t mind riding or walking or riding a bicycle half a day to do it.
Actually, I’m suggesting establishing community spirits in sustainable environments. [:smack:]added.
Give me a bow saw and I will reclaim the wilderness. Invest in solar cum batteries now and I will show you all your favorite drugs and toys, good health and a comfortable place to sit among friends.
When a hundred or a thousand starving people show up to take everything you have, sharing won’t work.
There won’t BE any communities in such a collapse of civilization. It would be the war of all against all; living with a hundred people means living with a hundred mortal enemies when society breaks down, and means being big enough to be a target. You would want to be isolated and invisible. Or safely, painlessly dead.
:rolleyes: Nonsense. High technology need a large infrastructure to build and maintain it. An 18th century infrastructure means 18th century technology. You won’t have drugs or toys; you won’t have much of anything.
“And the living shall envy the dead” is the phrase that comes to mind; assuming your scenario pans out, I have no desire to survive into the hell that the world will become. All that is good, all that makes life worth living will be destroyed and little but suffering, ignorance and slavery will survive. Just like the hell we climbed out of.
A small government gives too much power to regional warlords. The more people the government can control, the more the moderates and mitigate the psychos. I agree with enough of what is usually termed “American ideals” to turn it over to some Southern nutjob with a hard-on for Jesus. Amendment is too slow and difficult. You’d end up with a government that can do nothing
Ideally I’d agree with you, but it doesn’t work in the real world. If the big banks failed, it would negatively impact a hell of a lot more people and in more severe ways than if we just bit down on our lips and gave them a bunch of free money and pay it off slowly over the next few decades. No, I don’t agree with the inherent goodness of a free market. Some things need to be controlled for the good of the many
I’d rather have stability than free market madness. One currency, no gold, and the ability to print money. It only becomes a problem if we print too much too fast. I can handle the rate of inflation, it doesn’t bother me
Agreed. Nobody’s invading us, nobody. Even if we didn’t have an army
Education is not a system of barter that we can exchange one belief for the other. There are objective facts, those need to be teached. Excellence does not come from competing curriculums because people generally cannot move simply to change schools. Excellence comes from teaching FACTS. You rely too much on the mystical hand of the market. Some things are not market driven, And your second part sounds like a conspiracy nut’s wet dream
Your defnition of abuses are not mine. I agree with your examples, but I suspect it extends to more than just these. There are other “abuses” of liberty that is necessary, like preventing states from making up their own lies and teaching it to kids
Regulations protects people. That’s more important that ideals. Free trade is good because while we’re in a recession right now, we’re still better off than most of the world, especially most of the developing world. I’d rather we take a small hit in our standards of living and another, worse off country gain a large increase in theirs. We’re rich enough, we don’t have to be that rich
Without protections for the oldest and the sickest, they die. Medicare stays. It would be near genocidal to get rid of it.
The interests of the American people should only be slightly more priority than the interests of the rest of the world’s people. We’re all human beings, act like it. International organizations such as those should be given more power to enforce it’s regulations. The only thing bad about the UN is that it cannot forcefully make countries do what it wants. It should be able to. And without such international organization, we’ll have WW3. Government is like parents for adults, and international governments are like leaders for a rabble. Until countries figure out that their needs coincide with the needs of other countries, the UN is necessary
It’s a representative democracy. Besides, what difference does it make what we call it? Such finely directed semantic bickering usually serves some ulterior motive
The only way a civil war is going to happen is because the conservatives have decided to abandon all pretense to governance and have elected Hate, Spite, and Emotion as their Holy Trinity.
Liberals want people to be able to do what they want, within reason. It is not unreasonable to tell corporations to stop poisoning the waters. You want a system in which individuals cannot murder but companies can, offering only the alternative that if enough people die, then they’ll go out of business. Meanwhile, fuck the widows and the orphans.
A lot of people think it would be a great world oh if only the big bad government would get out of our lives! Well guess what, the government does a lot of protecting because a lot of people, probably even you, cannot fend for themselves without it. We need a strong government to force people to treat others with respect, prevent companies from obtaining monopolies, and generally stop assholes from exploiting people. Take a look at history if you don’t know what happened the last time your utopian principles were in charge
Could all of you, especially liberals, tell me why I am wrong in my beliefs? Also, please tell me how you reconcile a belief in something that directly contradicts all the warnings and philosophy of the Founding Fathers and the limited Constitutional government they so valiantly fought for. So many people just say, “Well, we just don’t do things that way anymore. We are never going back, so don’t think about it.” I fail to see the logic in why the wisdom of the Founders is not applicable today. Of course times change and our Constitution was meant to adapt slowly to changing needs. I’m talking about the basic beliefs in liberty and the spirit of the philosophy which our current political establishment has rejected. When is the last time you even hear a politician campaign on individual freedom and liberty? They all run by bribing the public with free “stuff”. There is no integrity left in our government.
Everything Obama has done has been legal. The only power abuses are the ones in your head
Okay, I’m not trying to make this thread a focus on vaccinations. It is really beside the point. I’m saying that people get way too many vaccines. You talk about polio, small pox and measles. Fine. I never said that all vaccines are bad. What about vaccines for the flu, or swine flu? The main reason I am taking the position I am is the recent hysteria over the swine flu, which turned out to not be any significant threat. Yet it was hyped day and night that there was a pandemic and everybody needed to protect themselves. And some states, such as Massachusetts, tried to make the vaccinations mandatory. That is why I am skeptical of the new health care “reform”. I don’t want more mandatory vaccines, I want freedom of choice in medical care.
I never disputed the validity of the science of vaccines. I am suggesting that in this day and age many vaccinations are unnecessary and are more about pharmaceutical companies making profits than really preventing disease. Why wouldn’t this be a valid concern? Think of all the drugs most people are taking. Even though some people need drugs for certain conditions and for temporary health issues, few would doubt that pharmaceutical companies are pushing drugs on people to make a profit. I am suggesting the makers of vaccines are doing the same thing.
Reply if you want, but then lets drop the talk about vaccinations, it really is not the point of my thread. Lets keep the subject on the philosophy of libertarianism and how it compares and contrasts with modern liberal philosophy and modern conservative thought.
This time. You do realize that if everyone waited until it was certain that this was next Spanish Flu, it would be too late?
They are closely related; both the antivaxers and the libertarians are basically faith based sociopaths; they deny all facts and logic that disagree with their fantasy. They know what they know, don’t care about the actual facts, and don’t care who their philosophy hurts. They both define “freedom” as “screw you”; they both have no concern for the general welfare.
Well, I don’t think anybodies time was wasted in debating these issues. At least, I hope not. But if you think anybody on this thread has really “schooled” me and showed how what I believe is wrong in a persuasive, intellectual manner, you obviously haven’t been paying attention. Did you actually look at any of the links I posted about Austrian School economics? They are certainly not crackpot, conspiracy websites. In fact, I don’t know exactly what “conspiracy” websites you are even talking about! I think it demonstrates close-mindedness to write off any websites or scholarly works as “crackpot” simply because they disagree with what you have read.
As far as vaccinations, I am opposed to “mandatory” vaccinations, but not necessarily vaccinations themselves. So, lets drop this topic. Its not even remotely a high priority for our nation in this time.
As far as your assertion that all “serious” economists disregard the Austrian school views on monetary policy, why were the Austrian economist right in predicting this current economic crisis? They have been vindicated by history? Have you considered the notion that perhaps several decades ago economic thought went in the wrong direction? Perhaps we have forgotten many important ideas of the classical economists? I mean, since the Great Depression, we have embraced Keynesian theories and they have delivered the economic crisis that we have, to say nothing of the debt, the militarism around the world, and constant attacks on liberty. Bad policies get institutionalized all the time. I doubt that if you really study Austrian economics, including the modern adherents such as Peter Schiff and Ron Paul, and compare them to modern Keynesians such as Krugman, you would find that the Austrian theories are superior.
Second, you act like I haven’t read mainstream economists. I have. It was Keynes who claimed the deficits don’t matter! He said “in the end we are all dead”! Actually, we are not all dead, HE is dead. We are all alive to pick up the pieces from the meltdown which was the consequence of his faulty economic ideas. You will soon see that the stimulus is not driving a recovery. It will lead to a greater and deeper crisis. I think when historians deal with this period of time it will be established that this crisis was characterized by the final debunking of Keynesian, great depression era theories in favor of superior ideas based on economic liberty.
By the way, I know that many on this thread probably don’t care for Ron Paul, but I suggest you read his book “End The Fed”, and see how Austrian theory relates to this current crisis. You would also see how right he was and how wrong Greenspan and Bernanke were/are.
I do appreciate the discussion, though, even if we don’t see eye to eye on everything. I think if we have this debate regarding the economics or the foreign policy of today, rather than just accepting the “establishment” consensus we will end up with better government and more liberty at the end of the day.
Trust me on this. Dopers of any history here are very well aquainted with the Austrian School of Economics. It has been brought to our attention. Yes.
Wow, pretty depressing diagnosis, huh? I am actually fairly sympathetic to your views. I am tending to think more along the lines of just preparing for things to be very bad for a while. I do think we are facing problems we never have before. I am a lot younger than you, so I guess I’m just naturally more optimistic and perhaps less cynical.
I don’t think you are being melodramatic at all. Its important to be self sufficient and live among people you can trust. If we have a massive food shortage, we will need to rely on local farming, and increasingly grow food for yourself. What if our entire financial system collapses (I mean more than it has already) and our currency collapses? Then we will transition to barter and trade and local “currencies” will prevail. It will be chaotic, to be sure, but we can survive and make it through. Many won’t those who take proactive measures will. The key is to not be reliant on “the grid”. Try to be self sufficient.
Sure. The point I was making was that we shouldn’t be attacking any groups that are being screwed by the system. This would be a distraction and deflect anger from the people that really deserve it.
Absolutely. You said it perfectly. I don’t criticize anybody for voting for Obama after the disastrous Bush administration. I DO criticize those who STILL think Obama represents change. I challenge you to find one significant policy that Bush started that Obama repealed. The war in Iraq has continued. We have sent more troops to Afghanistan. Guantanamo is still open. Warantless wiretapping still occurs. Obama reauthorized the Patriot Act. The list goes on and on. Personally I voted for Ralph Nader. He is definitely not a libertarian, but I agree with much of what he says.
Right. I agree.
I think that it is wrong to think that Obama is anything more than a standard issue Chicago politician. “At least he’s trying” is not an acceptable excuse any longer. He’s a Corporatist of the first order. We need to stop pretending. His health care reform is not “coming down hard on the Insurance companies”, rather the opposite. If you were a businessman wouldn’t you want a law to be passed requiring people to purchase your product? Of course you would. The reason the health insurance stock rose after the passage of health “reform” is that the health insurance companies wrote the bill. It’s good for business. They will be making a lot more money now. He will not ever come down with real financial regulatory reform. His biggest campaign contributer was Goldman Sachs. He is not going to really take on these powerful banks. Not now, not ever. And he’s not going to end the overseas wars either.
The danger is the idea that we should just let Obama do what he wants and see how it pans out later. We really don’t have the time. We need to be doing the right things NOW. The consequences of pursuing the wrong policies now will be catastrophic. The sooner Obama’s base wakes up and stops supporting him (or at least push him to pursue real reform) the better we will be. You don’t have to side with the Republicans to be opposed to Obama.
This is where economics need to be understood in relation to health care. Why do you see national health care as the perfect system? All health care systems in the industrialized world have significant flaws and are a major drain on the budget. We absolutely cannot afford any type of universal health care. I also don’t think people have a right to medical care. I believe in liberty, so I think nobody can have a right to “stuff”. Because then you have to violate somebody else’s rights by forceably taking it (money, services) to redistribute the wealth to somebody else. It is a flawed idea that this is the way to be “altruistic” and humanitarian. Its easy to be generous with other peoples money or resources, its harder to actually put it on the line, donate you own time and effort to help people who need it.
As far as the “Teabaggers” are concerned, I think you are painting with a very broad brush. There are many many people who are upset and have different concerns. Some are very ignorant and some are quite intelligent and know exactly whats going on. I have many conservative relatives and they are all highly intelligent and have valid concerns. Have you actually talked to any of these people? I know the media always shows the person holding the sign of Obama as Hitler or some other inflammatory rhetoric, and I think it obscures the more reasonable concerns out there.
More regulation will not help. We need true reform of our entire banking system. We don’t need the fox guarding the hen house, as has been the case for a few decades. I think the difference is you are talking about little tweaks to the current system and I am talking about sweeping reform. To deal with corporations and contractors, we need a full audit of the Federal Reserve leading to ending the Federal Reserve. We might even consider following the Constitution once again! What a crazy idea.
In other words, property rights trump human rights; people are expendable, but money matters. The standard, sociopathic claim of the libertarian. Somehow, depriving people of money is horrible, but condemning them to suffering and death is just peachy.
You say it’s easy to be generous with other peoples “stuff”? Well, I note that you are being quite cavalier with peoples lives.
I appreciate the compliment. I am glad that you did post, its great to see somebody here who isn’t buying what Obama is selling at the moment. I’m 25, actually. I started paying close attention to politics sometime in late 2006, early 2007, at the height of Bush’s second term failures. I learned a little more and realized just how much trouble we are in. I am definitely preparing for hard times ahead, but I haven’t ruled out a political solution to some of our problems if people get pissed off enough and change the political landscape in a positive way.
Great advice. I have been thinking along similar lines. I’ve been looking to be independent of the “grid”, looking into solar power, and basically preparing for different possible scenarios that could take place.
You know, I don’t think for a minute that my ideas for reform are going to be taken seriously and implemented before the collapse. But, if everything does collapse, including the currency, we will be forced to pick up the pieces and people will be very open to new ideas of governance. For example, if the government fails and bankruptcy sets in and every apocalyptic thing you or I think could happen does come to pass, then I think people will retreat into local communities and we will have a very Federalist type of system again. Then people will be FORCED to be self reliant for the first time in many years. Then people will be very open to the idea of liberty and personal rights and going back and reinstating the principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and having a government that again honors and respects these documents. Believe me, after a collapse of the currency and government failure and bankruptcy, nobody is going to be calling for universal healthcare run by the Federal Government. People will once again be relying on themselves and their local communities to take care of people. So, I am looking towards the future. The next sixty years of my life will be pretty interesting, no doubt!
More likely, we’d be looking at warlordism and slavery. Then again, that’s what libertarianism actually imposed on the real world looks like anyway. “Self reliance” is just a noble way of saying “an easy victim with no one to stand by him”.
More likely, the vast majority in such a circumstance would be dead or slaves. They wouldn’t be looking for health care from the guy whipping or raping them, it’s true.
Property rights ARE human rights. Why is it that liberals see the government as the only way to pursue humanitarian goals? And why aren’t you donating your time and effort to help people who need it? If we had a libertarian society with much lower taxes, a less intrusive federal government, and more medical freedom, there would be many fewer people suffering from lack of medical care. There would be dramatically more charity hospitals and health care costs would be so low that nearly everybody could afford medical care. Look, we’ve been doing it your way for forty to fifty years now, and look at the shape of medical care. Why not try it my way, for a change? The federal government simply isn’t able to take care of everybody and solve all our problems. Look at the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, No Child Left Behind, the wars overseas to spread “democracy” around the world. Not one of them has been a success. The evidence is overwhelming that the policies you advocate are failing. Yet, you won’t be willing to try a libertarian society based on peace and individual liberty?
You know, I find it astounding that you think the way you do. You have so little faith in human beings. You really think the only reason people are not murderous bastards who will rape and enslave everybody they can is because the Federal Government won’t let them? Again, the proper role of government is to protect everybodies equal rights and prevent anybody from committing aggression against anybody else. I have stated this multiple times already, yet it hasn’t registered in your brain yet. Therefore, in a libertarian society, there would be no slavery, no corporate abuse, pollution, or other violations of civil rights.
Liberals like to say that people suck, so we need the government “to keep them in line” or to keep society together. In reality, government is merely people with massive amounts of power. And power corrupts. We didn’t get rid of slavery or allowed women to vote because government passed a law (they DID pass a law). The underlying reason was because people evolved to the point where they would not tolerate treating any groups as second hand citizens any longer. So, any positive change in society comes as a bottom up phenomenon. Its not because we had wise overlords forcing civility on us “barbarians”. So, no if the government disappeared tomorrow, I don’t think we would see the return of slavery in the states. A very small number of isolated cases would show up, but they would be scorned and made a social pariah, as they should be. If the people suck, then there is no hope. The governments job, as I have said, is to keep the peace and keep everybody free. Anything beyond that necessitates an attack on liberty.
Regardless of what you think, the system you defend is coming apart at the seams. There is no way to maintain it. Why don’t you think about the suffering caused by the Federal Government, inflicted on the American people? The Patriot Act, taking over 40% of a persons income each year, giving us piss poor education of our youngsters, locking up medical marijuana patients you are very sick, invading our privacy, treating us like animals at the airports, sending my generation off to fight in fraudulent wars overseas for bogus reasons, and then failing to adequately take care of those with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after they come home.
You are like an abused child who continually looks to the offending “parent” (the Federal government) to shelter and protect them, even though it only leads to more cycles of abuse and molestation. After all the Federal Government has done to us, the idea of looking to them for the solution to our problems displays the extremes of cognitive dissonance.
I mean really, liberty is not that scary of a concept. I encourage you to shake off the emotional scars left by the abusive “parent” and try liberty for a change.
Nonsense. Property isn’t life, it isn’t freedom, it isn’t all sorts of things that fall under the umbrella of human rights.
Garbage. Government stepped in because that doesn’t happen. Your way was tried for literally thousands of years.
There would if anything be a reduction in charity, while the libertarians laughed and gloated at the dying. Libertarianism is about greed and selfishness, and a society based on greed and selfishness isn’t going to be charitable.
Because we haven’t been “trying it my way”. And because your way would result in a lot of dead people.
I don’t advocate most of those in the first place. And the “war on poverty” has been more of a success than a failure, except in recent time where the Right has hacked away at it. You want to bring back the good old days of famines.
And I never said that the federal government could solve all our problems; it’s just that there are some problems that it is better at solving.
Libertarianism is about greed and malice and arrogance; it is the new feudalism. It is NOT about freedom.
Government in general, and yes. History shows it.
The weak government you want wouldn’t be able to do any of that.
Yes, that IS why. A law, and an army to enforce it.
All right wing behavior. It’s the right wing that is the problem, not government. And our taxes are quite low, by the way.
The end of all justice, all freedom, and civilization in general is scary; and that is what libertarianism would result in whether you admit or even believe it or not. It is one of the most evil, crazy belief systems in existence. It is very like Communism; a philosophy based on a delusional view of the world, pushed by people who aren’t interested in the facts or in how much suffering trying to force the world to act the way they want will cause.
jrodefeld
Again, imho, a waste of time. When any corporate sponsored asshole who professes Jesus and takes an anti-gay, anti-abortion stance is guaranteed 30% of the vote, the chances for change are slim.
As for a number of your present political views, I suggest you to take a look at my OP The USA After You’ve Been King For A Day?. Pure fancy, of course, but I think it to be a good exercise in learning compassion. The people who showed up for it were largely “liberals” expressing their ideas about what a good govt would look like. Conservative/libertarian voices were singularly absent. I don’t doubt that, if cornered, they would say that they don’t have time for such silliness. But it would interesting to see what kind of govt/social system they (and you) would put in place if there were a good chance that the shoe were going to be on the other foot.
IIRC, this was George III’s and Caesar’s political position.
I’m suggesting that if a group relatively isolated (rural) communities realized that they had 20 yrs to get their shit together, put aside their their differences (property boundaries for a start) and worked together to establish a sustainable communal system of agriculture, communication and transportation, they would be in pretty good shape.
I do agree, however, that this is unlikely to happen on any widespread basis. In my own area, there are 1000’s of sunny well watered acres now devoted to cattle. The ranchers gather in a little bakery (lots of sugar in all their wares) which serves dishwater coffee in small styrofoam cups for 75c along with powdered creamer packets. In the window is a sign reading, “Who is John Galt?”. Enough said?
My idea is, if the above said ranchers were to get on board and while we still have gasoline to do it, turn the present pasturage to organic agriculture and start raising domestic farm animals (including a small herd of beef … I like the occasional prime rib) we’d be on our way to creating the local bread basket. I would encourage the local communities to establish large local greenhouses and backyard vegetable gardens and hen houses along with community blacksmith shops with large stores of iron/steel stock. If I were younger and more ambitious, I’d get into buggy whips.
Of course, no matter how many batteries you store, eventually they will pass into history. But, what if we were to take advantage of what’s available now and will be over the next 20 years? Solar panels and water heating systems on every home? A local solar powered wifi net server? A local wireless network? A netbook and cellphone in every home? I would say that, by the time the last battery dies, a truly sustainable community-run biosystem will have emerged.
I’ll get around to talking to those ranchers one of these days. :dubious:
Ridiculous. First, all that gadgetry needs factories to make, not hand tools. And second, if most of the world population is dying of starvation you can expect to be looted and killed off, or enslaved. We know what a collapse looks like, and it isn’t the rural utopia you are fantasizing about; it’s Somalia or worse.
WTF is it about “the next 20 years” you don’t get? During that time, you communally buy the “gadgetry” and create a local hi-tech infrastructure. When the batteries finally go, a functioning 18th century community of interest will left in place. And they will know from experience that Capitalism is bullshit.
As far as your Mad Max scenario goes, I really have no idea. I agree that those unprepared for the transition, especially urban and suburbanites, are in for some nasty shit. How my “rural utopia” would insulate itself from the world collapse is an open question. On the day the grid goes down, dynamite all highways leading in? Keep on hand a well-armed and trained militia?