OMG! Ron Paul wants to bring back feudalism!!!

[Timshel]

Supposedly, without the alphabet soup of agencies we would fall into feudalism. What a silly argument. You'd expect ib1 to call "slippery slope" except this not an argument against more government and there aint much of a slope here, it's just a giant illogical leap.

Are we supposed to believe that these agencies brought an end to feudalism? They did not. Feudalism had ended long before them. In fact, feudalism came to an end largely because of classical liberal or libertarian ideals, not statism.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Feudalism naturally and inevitably gives way to the nation-state. Whether that nation-state embraces the merchantilist rhetoric -- "classical liberalism" -- or some other philosophical justification is largely immaterial.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's mercantilism and classical liberalism was developed as a response to that philosophy.

 

[Timshel]

Feudalism naturally and inevitably gives way to the nation-state. Whether that nation-state embraces the merchantilist rhetoric -- "classical liberalism" -- or some other philosophical justification is largely immaterial.

What in the hell are you talking about? Classical liberalism opposed mercantilism. Am I just misunderstanding your sentence structure?

 

[OrnotBitwise]

It's mercantilism and classical liberalism was developed as a response to that philosophy.

Gosh, you don't suppose I might misspell it deliberately, do you?

 

[OrnotBitwise]

What in the hell are you talking about? Classical liberalism opposed mercantilism. Am I just misunderstanding your sentence structure?

Classical liberalism claimed to oppose mercantilism. A shuffling of the deck chairs only, however, from a functional perspective.

 

[Timshel]

Classical liberalism claimed to oppose mercantilism. A shuffling of the deck chairs only, however, from a functional perspective.

No, it strongly and agressively opposed it. The works of Smith, Ricardo and Say were all aimed at the mercantilist. And they are still are today, as the current system, ushered in by the progressives, socialists (or whatever you prefer to call them), is little more than neo-mercantilism.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Since I'm playing fast and loose -- deliberately, though with little deliberation -- with distinctions of economic theory, philosophy and social systems and, since I'm not likely to have much time today, let's cut to the chase.

"Classical liberalism" and "statism" (sic) are simply slightly different philosophical justifications for very slightly different forms of government within a nation-state. Classical liberalism has no meaning or validity outside of a nation-state, so portraying its adherents as somehow non-statist is rather silly.

 

[Litmus]

Since I'm playing fast and loose -- deliberately, though with little deliberation -- with distinctions of economic theory, philosophy and social systems and, since I'm not likely to have much time today, let's cut to the chase.

"Classical liberalism" and "statism" (sic) are simply slightly different philosophical justifications for very slightly different forms of government within a nation-state. Classical liberalism has no meaning or validity outside of a nation-state, so portraying its adherents as somehow non-statist is rather silly.

Individual oriented systems can exist without a state, if all individuals choose voluntary to adhere to a code of responsibility and mutual cooperation and respect, and little centralized function or hierarchy. This is the truth the totalitarians hate.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

No, it strongly and agressively opposed it. The works of Smith, Ricardo and Say were all aimed at the mercantilist. And they are still are today, as the current system, ushered in by the progressives, socialists (or whatever you prefer to call them), is little more than neo-mercantilism.

Yeah, and Senator DiFi strongly and aggressively opposes "earmarks" too. She doesn't do anything about them -- other than use them as well as any other Senator -- but she strongly and aggressively opposes them.

Classical liberalism does not address the fundamental problems with mercantilist economic systems. Instead, it just shuffles more deck chairs.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Individual oriented systems can exist without a state, if all individuals choose voluntary to adhere to a code of responsibility and mutual cooperation and respect, and little centralized function or hierarchy. This is the truth the totalitarians hate.

Yeah, and if you click your heels three times and wish real hard you can end up in Kansas.

I'm only interested in systems that work for real human beings. You're welcome to your comic book fantasies.

 

[Litmus]

It's mercantilism and classical liberalism was developed as a response to that philosophy.

mercantilism is a way of serving the nationstate, opening markets procuring resourcs etc. It's not a "response to" nationalism, which isn't "unconditionally bad" by the way. The concept of trade as a "nation destroyer" is a globalist perversion, a superimposition of olam ha ba over rational national trade policy.

 

[Demwit]

We need Feudalism, the little people need the leadership of their betters.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

mercantilism is a way of serving the nationstate, opening markets procuring resourcs etc. It's not a "response to" nationalism, which isn't "unconditionally bad" by the way. The concept of trade as a "nation destroyer" is a globalist perversion, a superimposition of olam ha ba over rational national trade policy.

Yabba dabba doo. I'm still waiting to see how you're going to get two or more human beings to "voluntar[ily] adhere to a code of responsibility and mutual cooperation and respect" without social structures to ensure compliance.

 

[Litmus]

Yabba dabba doo. I'm still waiting to see how you're going to get two or more human beings to "voluntar[ily] adhere to a code of responsibility and mutual cooperation and respect" without social structures to ensure compliance.

You can appeal to their intellect, and explain how cooperation benefits all of them, and treachery and deception erode trust and diminish ability and will to cooperate.

Your argument is cynicism, pure and simple. Notice you're the one arguing for the necessity of a state to "enforce things", not me.

 

[AnglScarlett]

Supposedly, without the alphabet soup of agencies we would fall into feudalism. What a silly argument. You'd expect ib1 to call "slippery slope" except this not an argument against more government and there aint much of a slope here, it's just a giant illogical leap.

Are we supposed to believe that these agencies brought an end to feudalism? They did not. Feudalism had ended long before them. In fact, feudalism came to an end largely because of classical liberal or libertarian ideals, not statism.

Stringy, didn't RJS tell you last week to shut up your mouth about this Ron Paul obsession you have been bitten with? You and your fellow Paul proselytes are making the whole Republican party look like crazies, it is not appreciated? I watched him on the debate this week and I could not believe my eyes, if his eyes pop out of his head anymore, Britt Hume will have to pick them up from the stage? He is unhinged, unzipped, a wacky whacko, and the less said about him being a Republican the better, personally I tell people he is a Demorat?

 

[OrnotBitwise]

You can appeal to their intellect, and explain how cooperation benefits all of them, and honesty and deception erode trust and diminish ability and will to cooperate.

Your argument is cynicism, pure and simple. Notice you're the one arguing for the necessity of a state to "enforce things", not me.

Of course you can do all of that. It might even work . . . for a day or two. At most.

Look, the single most fundamental and unchanging facet of human interaction is that we bug the shit out of each other. We are incredibly diverse, far more so than any other species of ape. And this is a good thing, too: it's a survival trait. Behavioral diversity is like genetic diversity, only better. It's better because social evolution works much faster than biological evolution does. The price of this adaptation, however, is that we never, ever agree entirely on anything.

Human beings living in social groups experience friction and the larger the group, the greater the friction. This is absolute and you will never change it. Any attempt to ignore it is doomed to utter failure: witness strict Marxist Socialism, for example.

There will always be dissenters. Always. And gods bless 'em, too. There will also always be criminals and "socially unacceptable deviants" of various kinds.

You will never get any sizable group of humans to "voluntarily" abide strictly by any code of behavior. Any social system predicated on purely voluntary compliance is futile and a complete waste of time.

 

[Cancel5]

Of course you can do all of that. It might even work . . . for a day or two. At most.

Look, the single most fundamental and unchanging facet of human interaction is that we bug the shit out of each other. We are incredibly diverse, far more so than any other species of ape. And this is a good thing, too: it's a survival trait. Behavioral diversity is like genetic diversity, only better. It's better because social evolution works much faster than biological evolution does. The price of this adaptation, however, is that we never, ever agree entirely on anything.

Human beings living in social groups experience friction and the larger the group, the greater the friction. This is absolute and you will never change it. Any attempt to ignore it is doomed to utter failure: witness strict Marxist Socialism, for example.

There will always be dissenters. Always. And gods bless 'em, too. There will also always be criminals and "socially unacceptable deviants" of various kinds.

You will never get any sizable group of humans to "voluntarily" abide strictly by any code of behavior. Any social system predicated on purely voluntary compliance is futile and a complete waste of time.

Where would we, the US, be without dissenters?

 

[Timshel]

Yeah, and Senator DiFi strongly and aggressively opposes "earmarks" too. She doesn't do anything about them -- other than use them as well as any other Senator -- but she strongly and aggressively opposes them.

Classical liberalism does not address the fundamental problems with mercantilist economic systems. Instead, it just shuffles more deck chairs.

Sure it does. It attempts to remove state protections of favored industries and classes. Because socialist and their intellectual ancestors, the mercantilist, were effective in resisting those reforms does not mean they were not attmepted or did not succeed in many cases and they were most certainly addressed.

Yabba dabba doo. I'm still waiting to see how you're going to get two or more human beings to "voluntar[ily] adhere to a code of responsibility and mutual cooperation and respect" without social structures to ensure compliance.

Who said anything about an absence of a social structure?

 

[Litmus]

Of course you can do all of that. It might even work . . . for a day or two. At most.

Look, the single most fundamental and unchanging facet of human interaction is that we bug the shit out of each other. We are incredibly diverse, far more so than any other species of ape. And this is a good thing, too: it's a survival trait. Behavioral diversity is like genetic diversity, only better. It's better because social evolution works much faster than biological evolution does. The price of this adaptation, however, is that we never, ever agree entirely on anything.

Human beings living in social groups experience friction and the larger the group, the greater the friction. This is absolute and you will never change it.

So then the unified new world order you espouse should be the worst of all possible models.

Any attempt to ignore it is doomed to utter failure: witness strict Marxist Socialism, for example.

There will always be dissenters. Always. And gods bless 'em, too. There will also always be criminals and "socially unacceptable deviants" of various kinds.

You will never get any sizable group of humans to "voluntarily" abide strictly by any code of behavior. Any social system predicated on purely voluntary compliance is futile and a complete waste of time.

Spoken like a true totalitarian scumbag. There is no intellectuality in your post, only negativity and hatred, and a mindless justification for totalitarianism.